M/s. Promod Kumar Singh, Panagarh V. ACIT, Circle - 2, Durgapur, Durgapur

ITA 1456/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 62124 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S DUTTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S M SURANA
• Section: 40A(3)

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH B , KOLKATA [ () . .. . . .. . , ,, , , !' ##$ %& ##$ %& ##$ %& ##$ %& ] ]] ] [BEFORE HONBLE SRI C.D.RAO, AM & HONBLE SRI GE ORGE MATHAN, JM] '( '( '( '( /ITA NO.1456/KOL/2011 )&* +,/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 (%. / APPELLANT ) - & - ( 01%. /RESPONDENT) M/S.PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, PANAGARH. -VERSUS- DURGAPUR. (PAN:AQZPS 7755 H) %. 2 3 / FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI S.M.SURANA 01%. 2 3 / FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI P.S.DUTTA 4&5 2 /DATE OF HEARING : 21.06.2012. 6+ 2 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.06.2012. 7 / ORDER . .. . . .. . , PER SHRI C.D.RAO, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DURGAPUR DATED 23.08.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEA L IS RELATING TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.31,34,142/- MADE BY AO U/S 40A(3) OF THE I.T.ACT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT WHILE DO ING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT THE AO HAS ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.31,34,142/- BY OBSERVING THAT ON PERUSAL OF CASH BOOKS AND LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS CONFIRMAT ION FROM M/S RAJLAXMI AUTO FILING STATION, IT IS NOTICED THAT SEVERAL PAYMENTS IN EXC ESS OF RS.20,000/- ON A PARTICULAR DAY WERE MADE IN CASH FOR PURCHASE OF FUEL AND HE ABSTR ACTED THE DETAILS FROM PAGE NOS. 2 TO 4 OF THE ORDER AND FINALLY DISALLOWED THE SAME B Y OBSERVING THAT THESE PAYMENTS MENTIONED IN THE ABOVE CHART VIOLATE THE VERY SPIRI T OF THE LEGISLATION LAID WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3) OF THE IT ACT . AS SUCH NO FORCE EXISTS IN THE 2 ARGUMENT OF THE AR AND THEREFORE CANNOT ACCEPTABLE. AS A RESULT AN AMOUNT OF RS.31,34,142/- I.E. 100% IS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 3.1. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAM E BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SOME OF THE COPIES OF V OUCHERS. ALL THESE IN MY OPINION BEARS OUT THE AOS CONTENTION. NO BILL NUMBERS ARE SEEN TO BE PRESENT. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL BILLS. THUS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT SUBSTANTIAL AND HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT I DO NOT SEE HOW THE ASSESSEES CASE CAN COME UNDER THE EXCE PTIONS PROVIDED IN RULE 6DD. 3.2. AGGRIEVED BY THIS NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSE L FOR ASSESSEE BY REFERRING TO THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AS WELL AS THE BILLS RAISED BY ASSES SEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD NOT PAID SUCH AMOUNTS DIRECTLY TO THE F UEL SELLER. ALL TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE THROUGH DRIVERS OF VEHICLES WHO ARE NOT HIS FI XED AND PERMANENT STAFF AND ACTED AS AGENT FOR SUCH PURCHASE. WHEN COMPARED TO THE TO TAL TRANSACTIONS THE TRANSACTIONS IN A PARTICULAR DAY AS MENTIONED BY THE AO EXCEEDS RS. 20,000/-. HOWEVER, ON THE SAID PARTICULAR DATES THE BILLS ARE MUCH BELOW RS.20,000 /- AND THE PERSONS FOR PAYING TO THE FUEL SUPPLIER ARE DIFFERENT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTAN CES HE IS EXEMPTED UNDER RULE 6DD(K) WHERE THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE. THEREFORE HE R EQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND DIRECT THE AO TO DEL ETE THE ADDITION OF RS.31,34,142/-. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHAL F OF THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 6. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CAREF UL PERUSAL OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE TOTAL PURCHASES MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF THE FUEL AMOUNTING TO RS.70,77,943.99. OUT OF THIS THE ASSES SEE HAS MADE PAYMENT MORE THAN RS.25,000/- ON A PARTICULAR DAY AS STATED BY THE AO AT RS.31,34,142/-. HOWEVER ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE INDIVIDUAL BILLS NO INDIVIDU AL BILL IS IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/-. 3 THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT ON THE DATES MENTIONED BY TH E AO THE PAYMENTS ARE IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/-. HOWEVER TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD NOT PAID SUCH AMOUNTS DIRECTLY TO THE FUEL SELLER. ALL TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE THROUGH DRIVERS OF VEHICLES WHO ARE NOT HIS FIXED AND PERMANENT STAFF AND ACTED AS AGENT FOR SUCH PURCHAS E. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL COVE R UNDER RULE 6DD(K) OF IT RULES. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE REVENUE COULD NOT BRIN G ANY OTHER MATERIAL EXCEPT THAT FROM THE LEDGER COPY THESE PAYMENTS ON PARTICULAR D ATES EXCEED RS.20,000/- WHEN COMPARED TO THE INDIVIDUAL BILLS. IT IS OBSERVED TH AT ALL THE BILLS ARE BELOW RS.20,000/-. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE REVENUE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISION OF RULE 6DD(K) OF IT RULES. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE RE VENUE AUTHORITIES AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES MADE BY AO U/ S 40A(3) OF THE IT ACT. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.06.2012. SD/- SD/- [ .##$ %& , ] [ .., ] [ GEORGE MATHAN ] [ C. D. RAO ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( (( ( ) )) ) DATE: 21.06.2012. R.G.(.P.S.) 7 2 0))8 98+:- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S.PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH, OLD KANKSA ROAD, PANAGARH B AZAR, PANAGARH-713148, WEST BENGAL. 2 THE A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, DURGAPUR. 3. THE CIT- 4. THE CIT(A)-DURGAPUR. 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA 18 0)/ TRUE COPY, 7&4/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES 4