Sh. Sunil Chand Bansal, Gwalior V. I.T.O., Ward-2(3), Gwalior

ITA 14/AGR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 1420314 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SHARMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 14/AGRA/2012 ASST. YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI SUNIL CHAND BANSAL, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER , PROP. WELCOME OFFSET PRINTERS, WARD 2(3), GWALI OR. NAYA BAZAR, GWALIOR. (PAN : ACOPB 1585 B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : NONE FOR REVENUE : SHRI A.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 27.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.02.2012 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), GWALIOR DATED 25.10.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08-09, CHALLENGING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,67,318/- OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENS ES. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, CONSIDERED THE DEDUCTIO N OF VARIOUS EXPENSES AND FOUND THAT EITHER THE EXPENSES ARE PERSONAL IN NATU RE OR NO COMPLETE VOUCHERS AND DETAILS THEREOF HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED FOR DISALLOWANCES OUT OF VARIOUS SUCH EXPENSES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ITA NO. 14/AGRA/2012 ASST. YEAR : 2008-09 2 APPEARING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AGREED TO P ART OF THE DISALLOWANCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED DETAILED REASONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ON AGREED BASIS MADE VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES OUT OF SEVERAL EXP ENSES. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE DETAILS OF THE SAME HAVE BEEN NOTED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND RECORD OF THE CASE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEES COUNSE L HAS AGREED TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENS ES AND THE ORDER-SHEET IS ALSO SIGNED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAVING N O OBJECTION FOR THE PROPOSED DISALLOWANCES. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE COMPLETE DETAILS OF EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN MAINTAINED AND THE SAME COULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO V ERIFICATION AND WERE IN PERSONAL NATURE ALSO. 3. THE ASSESSEE WAS SERVED OF THE NOTICE. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. ACCO RDING TO RECORD, EVEN AT EARLIER OCCASION, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST O F THE ASSESSEE. IN THE FAX MESSAGE, IT IS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS NO T POSSIBLE FOR THE COUNSEL TO APPEAR ON THIS DATE OF HEARING. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF T HE CASE, THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT IS REJECTED AND THE APPEAL IS DECIDED O N MERITS. ITA NO. 14/AGRA/2012 ASST. YEAR : 2008-09 3 4. I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSED THE FIND INGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE, WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAS AGREED TO THE ADDITIONS WHIC H ARE NOW CHALLENGED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SIG NED THE ORDER-SHEET BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TERMS OF PROPOSED ADDITIONS OU T OF VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS HA S NOT DISPUTED THE ADDITIONS MADE WITH CONSENT OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JIV ATLAL PURTAPSHI VS CIT, 65 ITR 261 HELD AS UNDER: HELD, THAT THE DEPARTMENT, HAVING AGREED TO DELETE THE AMOUNT FROM THE ASSESSMENT AND HAVING CONCEDED THE DELETION BEF ORE THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CANNOT BE HELD TO BE AGGRIEVED BY THIS PART OF THE ORDER TO ENABLE IT TO FILE AN APPE AL TO THE TRIBUNAL; THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE DELETION OF THE AMOUNT WAS NEITHER COMPETENT NOR CAPABLE OF BEING ENTERTAI NED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 5.1 THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BANTA SINGH KARTAR SINGH VS CIT, 125 ITR 239 OBSERVED: AN ORDER BASED ON AN AGREEMENT CANNOT GIVE RISE TO GRIEVANCES AND THE SAME CANNOT BE AGITATED IN APPEAL. IT WAS HELD: HELD, THAT IT WAS ON THE AGREEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE , WHICH AGREEMENT MENTIONED THE RATE AS WELL AS THE FIGURE, THAT PENALTY HAD BEEN LEVIED. THE ASSESSEE HAD NO RIGHT TO AGITATE T HIS QUESTION IN ITA NO. 14/AGRA/2012 ASST. YEAR : 2008-09 4 APPEAL. THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN NOT GOING INTO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PENALTY WAS IN LAW THE MINIMUM PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER S. 271(1) ( C ) OF THE I. T. ACT,1961. 5.2 THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE RECENT DE CISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS VAMADEVAN BHANU, 330 ITR 559 HELD AS UNDER: ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ON AGREED BASIS ASSESSEE CANNOT APPEAL AGAINST SUCH ORDER INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 6. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT O F THE ABOVE DECISIONS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO APPEAL LIES ON THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AGREED BASIS. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAI NTAINABLE AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29 TH FEBRUARY, 2012 *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY