TAMARIND TOURS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 9(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1218/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8655 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V JUSTIN
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH MOHAN
• Keywords: Rule of consistency

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P K BANSAL, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1218 /MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 TAMARIND TOURS P LTD 503, ORACLE POINT, 3 GURU NANAK ROAD, OPP BANDRA STATION, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI 400 050 PAN AACCT4974D VS. DCIT 9(3) MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAKESH MOHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V JUSTIN DATE OF HEARING : 31.1 0 .2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 . 11 .2017 O R D E R PER P K BANSAL, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-21, MUMBAI, DATED 19.01.2016, FOR A.Y. 2011- 12 THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HONBLE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF A. O. IN TREATING THE BROCHURE EXPENSES OF ` .15,11,055 AS BOGUS AND DISALLOWING THE SAME. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE SAID EXPENSES B EING GENUINE IN NATURE OUGHT TO BE ALLOWED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF ` 15,11,055 MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. ITA NO.1218/MUM/2016 TAMARIND TOURS PVT LTD. 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAR EFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . WE NOTED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 15,11,055/- TREATING BROCHURE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE BOGUS. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS INFORMED BY DDIT (INV.) THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY CONDUCTED ON ONE SHRI PRAKASH MADIA, ON 26.07.2010, IT WAS ACCEPTED BY HIM THAT HE WAS PROVIDING ACCOMMODA TION BILLS. IT WAS FOUND FROM THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ACCOUNTS HELD BY THE BOGUS ENTITIES MANAGED BY SHRI PRAKASH MADIA THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENTS TO BOGUS ENTITIES AS MENTIONED BELOW: SR. NO ENTITY A.Y DATE AMOUNT IN RS. 1 M/S. DEEP ENTERPRISES 2011-12 12.04.2010 3,62,700 2 M/S. TULSIYANI TRADING PVT. LTD. 2010-11 22.03.20 10 12,87,000 3 M/S. TULSIYANI TRADING PVT. LTD. 2011-12 07.04.20 10 12,75,300 THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN COUNTERED THE ASSESSEE, IT SUBMITTED A COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF TULISYANI TRADING PVT. LTD., AND STATED THAT THE EXPENSES HAS BEEN INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF THE BROCHURE COST. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSES SEE AND, THEREFORE, TREATED THE SAID EXPENSES AS BOGUS AND MADE ADDITION OF ` 15,11,055/- DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR BUT NO ADDITION WAS MADE I N A.Y. 2010-11 IN ITA NO.1218/MUM/2016 TAMARIND TOURS PVT LTD. 3 RESPECT OF THE SUM OF ` .12,87,000/-. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING AS UNDER: - IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ENTITIES FROM WHOM THE BR OCHURE IS CLAIMED TO BE PURCHASED HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE CONFIRMED HAVIN G GIVEN BOGUS BILLS, THE STATEMENT RECORDED AND INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND HAVE NOT BEEN DISPROVED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT IS N OT A TRADER WHO CAN CLAIM THAT IF THE PURCHASES ARC BOGUS, SO MUST BE T HE SALES OF THE SAME ITEMS. THE INVOICES IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED PURC HASES ARE NOT GENUINE AS IS NOTED FROM THE FACT THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE GENUINE PHONE NUMBERS; THEY ARE DATED IN DECEMBER 2009 WHEREAS TH E EXPENSES ARE BOOKED IN AY 2010-11 AND ALSO IN AY 2011-12; THE AM OUNTS BOOKED AS EXPENSES ARE NOT CORRELATED TO THE AMOUNTS MENTIONE D IN THE INVOICES; THE DESCRIPTION OF THE BROCHURES IN THE IMPUGNED FO UR INVOICES ARE IDENTICAL AND DO NOT INDICATE THE EXACT NATURE OF W ORK AS IS SEEN IN INVOICES OF OTHER PARTIES. I HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT THE CLAIM OF PURCHASES OF RS 15,11,055/- FROM TTPL IS BOGUS. TH E DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE NOTED THAT IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THESE EXPENSES DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ALSO AN D THE CHEQUE WAS ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE SAME PARTY M/S. TULSIYANI T RADING PVT. LTD., BUT NO DISALLOWANCE DURING THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BE EN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AVAILABLE AT PAGES 51 TO 62 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, ON W HICH THE LEARNED AR HAS VEHEMENTLY RELIED. SINCE THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THI S YEAR ARE NOT DIFFERENT FROM THE A.Y. 2010-11, WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY DELETE THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. ITA NO.1218/MUM/2016 TAMARIND TOURS PVT LTD. 4 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (PAWAN SINGH) (P K BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT MUMBAI; DATED: 13 TH NOVEMBER, 2017 SA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APP ELL ANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. T HE CIT(A), MUMBAI 4. THE CIT 5. DR, E BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER, #TRUE COPY # ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI