Shri C S Basavaraj , Tumkur V. Income TAx Officer Ward-1 , TIptur

ITA 1336/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4282 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2021
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 40A(3); 142(1); 234B; 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH C : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1336 /BANG/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 14 - 15 ) SHRI C.S. BASAVARAJ, S/O SHRI SIRIVALAIAH, PROP . A M LOGISTICS, NEW STREET, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI - 572214 .APPELLANT . PAN AGFPB 6038A VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1, TIPTUR. RESPONDENT. ASSESSEE BY: SMT.SHEETAL BORKAR, ADVOCATE. REVENUE BY: SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR, CIT (D.R) DATE OF HEARING : 10.02 .20 2 1 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 .02 .20 2 1 . O R D E R PER SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, A.M. : THIS APPEA L BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BANGALORE DT.15.03.2018. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISE D THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER IN THE MARINER HE DID. 2. THE LEAR NED CIT (A)_ ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING THE PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING RS. 76,69,279/ - HOLDING THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGED PAID WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT 2 ITA NO. 1336/BANG/2018 THAT THE PAYMENT PAID WERE ALL GENUINE PAYMENT AND THROUGH BANK ACCOUNT ONLY. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (A) FURTHER CIT (A) FURTHER DISALLOWED RS. 43,35,374/ - AS NOT GENUINE EXPENSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELL ANT ALL PAYMENT WERE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND WERE GENUINE EXPENSES. 5. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ALSO DISALLOWED RS. 64,32,009 U/S 40A(3) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT. 6. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ALSO DISALLOWED RS. 50750 UNDER CHAPTE R VI A WITHOUT GIVING APPELLANT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT THE SAME 7. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE DISALLOWANCES/ADDITION AS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ARE ARBITRAR Y, EXCESSIVE AND OUGHT TO BE DELETED IN TOTO. 9. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE FIL ED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITH A PPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 AS FOLLOWS : (I) A COPIES OF LETTER OF CONFORMATION WHOM SO EVER IT MAY CONCERN. (II) A COPY OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES PAID IN A.Y. 2013 - 14. (III) A COPY OF ABSTRACTION OF TRANSPORTATION CHAR GES PAID. (IV)A COPY OF CASH VOUCHERS. (V) A COPY OF DETAILS OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES PID AMOUNTING TO RS.5,60,741. 4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE PROPRIETOR OF AM LOGISTIC ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATIO N AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS.4,99,900. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE, LD. AR AAPPEARED AND FILED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR. THE A.O. AFTER GOING T HROUGH THE DETAILS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT DISALLOWING TRANSPORTATIONCHARGES OF RS.76,69,279 HOLDING THAT TRANSPORTATION CHARGES PAID TO LIKHITH TRANSPORT AS NOT GENUINE . FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED RS.43,35,374 TOWARDS TRANSPORTATION CHARGE S HOLDING 3 ITA NO. 1336/BANG/2018 THAT GENUINENESS OF RECEIPT WAS NOT PROVED AND HE ALSO DISALLOWED RS.64,32,009 U/S. 40A(3) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER HE DISALLOWED RS.50,750 UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE ACT STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRO DUCE THE PROOF AND FURTHER INTEREST LEVIED U/S. 234B & 234C OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS). ON APPEAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT O F HIS CLA IM FOR MAKING PAYMENT S TOWARDS TRANSPORTATION CHARGES EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE HIM. IN THE CASE OF LIK H ITA TRANSPORT, THE ALLEGED PAYEE HAS CLEARLY DENIED HAVING ANY BUSINESS DEALING WITH THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST SUCH FINDING, THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT OFFER ANY EXPLANATION. WITH REGARD TO OTHER ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ABLE TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION, THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,90,37,310. AGAINST THIS ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE PLEADED BEFORE US BY WAY OF AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS STATED EARLIER IN THIS ORDER TO ADMIT THE SAME IN THE INTERE ST OF JUSTICE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NON PRODUCTION OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF BONA FIDE MISTAKE AND NOT DUE TO ANY DELIBERATE OR MAL A FIDE INTENTION. THE ABOVE MENTIONED DOCUMENTS ARE VERY MUCH ESSENTIAL IN ORDER TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS O F THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. SHE PLEADED THAT THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS MAY BE ADMITTED AND THE ISSUE MAY BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY OPPOSED THE ADMISSION OF AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE AND SUBMIT TED THAT IT IS AN AFTER THOUGHT. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E BEFORE US, THE LD. AR EXPLAINED THAT DUE TO NON - GIVING OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE LOWER 4 ITA NO. 1336/BANG/2018 AUTHORITIES, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ABOVE DOCUMENTS BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND IT WAS NOT DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL. WE FOUND GOOD AND SUFFI CIENT REASON TO ADMIT THESE ADDITIONAL EVID E NCES PRODUCED BEFORE US. HOWEVER THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES HAVING BEEN FILED BEFORE US FOR THE FIRST TIME AND THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED, I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THE EN TIRE DISPUTED ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND DECIDE AFRESH. 7. S INCE WE HAVE REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER, WE ARE NOT GOING TO ADJUDICATE THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE AT THIS STAGE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSE E'S APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/ - SD/ - ( SMT. BEENA PILLAI ) ( CHANDRA PO OJARI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 6 .02. 20 2 1 . *REDDY GP COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT (A) 4. PR. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE