Shri Rakeshbhai J. Jadon, Panchmahal V. The ACIT, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra

ITA 137/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6300 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G C DAXINI
• Keywords: Period of limitation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENC H (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 137/AHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) SHRI RAKESHBHAI J. JADON PROP; OF ADVANCE ENGINEERING AT TIMBAGAM, TAL GODHRA, DIST. PANCHMAHAL 388710 V/S ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE, GODHARA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: ADXPJ2204M APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUNIL TALATI, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.C. DAXINI, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 11 -01-201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15-01-2018 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)- IV, BARODA DATED 30.10.2014 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2010 -11. ITA NO. 137/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2010-1 1 2 2. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSES SEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE OF 10% OF LAB OUR CHARGES AND WAGES CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS. 16,46,164/-. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED RS. 1,64,61,640/- AS LABOUR EXPENSES. SINCE THE EXPENSES WERE MAINLY INCURRED IN CASH, THE A.O. PRO POSED TO MAKE A DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF THE EXPENSES. VIDE ORDER SHE ET ENTRY DATED 24.01.2013, THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO THE PROPOSED ADD ITION. ON SUCH CONCESSION, THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS. 16,46,164/-. 4. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) B UT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEING FILED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL CO ULD NOT BRING ANY EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. WHO HAS SPECIFI CALLY MENTIONED THAT THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE AGREED FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF THE LABOUR EXPENSES. 6. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ONCE THE ASSESSEE HIMSEL F AS AGREED FOR THE DISALLOWANCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN HIS GRIEV ANCE. APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15 - 01- 20 18 SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 15/01/2018