IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH , RAIPUR BEFORE S HRI N.K. BILLAIYA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA NO. 127 / RPR /20 1 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 M/S YAMI ASSOCIATES, YALSCO CARRIER BUILDING, RIDHI SIDHI COLONY, RAJNANDGAON (C.G.) PAN: AAAFY7073P VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER - I , F.C.I. ROAD, NEAR RAIPUR NAKA, RAJNANDGAON (C.G.) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K. JAIN (DR ) DATE OF HEARING: 08 /03 /201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25 / 05 /201 8 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 05.06.2015 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II , RAIPUR , FOR THE A S S ESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 , WHEREBY THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE A CT). 2. T HE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FOLLOW ING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS: - 1. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 20,000/ - OUT OF COMMISSION EXPENSE ACCOUNT. 2 ITA NO. 127 / RPR /2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 10 2. LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 30,000 OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSE ACCOUNT. 3. THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEA RING ON 0 6 .03.2018 , HOWEVER, ON THE REQUEST OF BOTH THE PARTIES THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO THE NEXT DAY. ON 07.03.2018 AGAIN ON THE REQUEST OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 08.03.2018. ON 08.03.2018 W HEN THE CASE WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . EVEN NO APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN VIEW OF THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD AFTER HEARING THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR). 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE. HENCE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL EX - PARTE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE RELEVANT PARAS OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 2. IN THE INSTANT CAS E, RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR RS. 41,120/ - WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 91,120/ - . THE ADDITIONS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME RELATE TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 20,000/ - OUT OF COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS. 46,07,172/ - AND DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 30,000/ - OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSE S OF RS. 3,55,035/ - . THE REASONS FOR DISALLOWANCE ARE NARRATED IN THE O R DER OF ASSESSMENT I.E. NON - AVAILABILITY OF PROPER BILLS AND VOUCHERS, CASH PAYMENTS, ABSENCE OF PROPER EVIDENCE OF SERVICE RENDERED BY THE COMMISSION AGENTS, ETC. 3 ITA NO. 127 / RPR /2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 10 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ONUS OF PROVING NECESSARY FACTS IN ORDER TO CLAIM DEDUCTION IS ON ASSESSEE AND BURDEN IS ON HIM TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENSES WERE LAID OUT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AS HAS BEEN HELD IN PLETHORA OF CASES LIKE CIT VS. KOLKATA AGENC IES LIMITED 19 ITR 191 (SC), LAKSHIMARATAN COTTON MILLS CO. LTD. VS. CIT 73 ITR 634 (SC), ASSAM PESTICIDES & AGRO CHEMICALS VS. CIT (GAU). 227 ITR 846, GOODLAS NEROLAC PAINTS LTD. VS. CIT (BOM) 137 ITR 58. IN CASE EXPENSES ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY PROPER BILLS AND VOUCHERS, REASONABLE ADDITION CAN BE MADE OUT OF PARTIAL DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES, THOUGH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED AND AUDITOR HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE COMMENT AS HELD IN GOODYEAR INDIA LTD. VS. CIT 246 ITR 116, SHRI KHUSHAL PRASAD MANHAR VS. CIT 236 CTR 192, ASSTT CIT VS. AGILITY LOGISTICS P. LTD. (2012) 19 TAXMAN. COM 159/136 ITD 46 (MUM), ACIT VS. NIKO RESOURCES LTD. (2009) 123 TT] (AHD) 310, ETC. THE APPELLANT HAS PAID COMMISSION OF RS. 46,07,172/ - AND INCURRED TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS. 3,5 5,035/ - . THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS PROVING SERVICES RENDERED BY THE COMMISSION AGENTS, TICKETS, CONVEYANCE AND HOTEL BILLS ETC. TOWARDS TRAVELLING EXPENSES WERE NOT PRODUCED, NEITHER BEFORE THE AO NOR BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT SUFFICIEN T OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN AT BOTH THE STAGES AND IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE LEGAL PREPOSITIONS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE REASONABLE ADDITIONS MADE OUT OF SUCH EXPENSES ARE CONFIRMED. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4 ITA NO. 127 / RPR /2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 10 5. W E FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THE CASE AFTER DISCUSSING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND FOLLOWING THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, HIGH COURTS AND THE DECISION OF DIFFERENT BENCHES OF THE ITAT . SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE NECESSARY BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND FURTHER FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE EXPENSES WERE LAID OUT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 2010 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH MAY , 2018 . SD/ - SD/ - ( N.K. BILLAIYA) ( RAM LAL NEGI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RAIPUR, DATED: 25 / 05 / 201 8 ALINDRA, PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , RAIPUR / DR, ITAT, RAIPUR 6. / GUARD FILE . 5 ITA NO. 127 / RPR /2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 10 / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / PS , RAIPUR / ITAT, RAIPUR