The DCIT, Circle-1, Surat V. Neo Structo Construction Ltd., Surat

ITA 1287/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5631 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K M MAHESH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND D. C. AGRAWAL , AM) ITA NO.1287/AHD/2010 A.Y.: 2007-08 THE D. C. I. T., CIRCLE-1, ROOM NO.108, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT VS M/S. NEO STRUCTO CONSTRUCTION LTD., A/1, A/4 NARAYAN PARK, ICHHAPORE P. O., SURAT, PA NO AAACN 7717 N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI K. M. MAHESH, DR RESPONDENT BY NONE (ADJOURNMENT PETITION FILED) O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, SURAT DA TED 22-02-2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, SURAT HAS ERRED IN DELET ING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,97,491/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF POOJA EXPENSES, OFFICE EXPENSES AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT/SEMINAR EXPENSES. 2. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS NOTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED POOJA EXPENSES, OFFICE EXPENSES AND BUSINES S DEVELOPMENT/SEMINAR EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKE D TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES. THE AO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS LIKE BILLS/VOUCHERS IN RES PECT OF THE ABOVE EXPENSES AND ACCORDINGLY HE DISALLOWED 15% OF THE S AID EXPENSES FOR WANT OF VERIFICATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE L EARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS INCLUDING BILLS ALONG WITH BOOKS OF ITA NO.1287/AHD/2010 DICT, CIR-1, SURAT VS M/S. NEO STRUCTO CONSTRUCTION LTD. 2 ACCOUNT AND NO DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT AND VOUCHERS/BILLS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, AD HOC ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT EXPENSES OF PARTICU LAR BILLS AND VOUCHERS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUFFER ANY DEFECT. THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, NOTED THAT PURE AD HOC ADDITION IS UNJUS TIFIED. ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 3. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT WHICH IS REJECTED SEPARATELY. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF H EARING. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND SUBMISSI ONS OF THE LEARNED DR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE DEPARTMENTAL AP PEAL. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW AS TO WHICH OF THE BILLS/VOUCHERS OF THE EXPENDITURE HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE HIM . EVEN, NO QUANTUM OF AMOUNT IS SPECIFIED AS TO HOW WHICH EXPENDITURE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY BILLS/VOUCHERS. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT POINTED OUT AS TO WHICH OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS INADMISSIBLE IN NATURE. IT, THEREFO RE, APPEARS THAT THE AO HAS MADE AD HOC ADDITION OF 15% OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS, THEREFORE, JUSTIFIED IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION. 5. AS A RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9-07-2010 SD/- SD/- (D. C. AGRAWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 9-07-2010 LAKSHMIKANT/- ITA NO.1287/AHD/2010 DICT, CIR-1, SURAT VS M/S. NEO STRUCTO CONSTRUCTION LTD. 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD