Interlink Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 1599/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6308 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVINDRA KUMAR
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Onus to prove

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI G. D. AGARWAL, VP AND BHAVNESH SAINI , JM) ITA NO.1599/AHD/2008 A. Y.: 2004-05 INTERKILN INDUSTRIES LTD., SANGHAVI CHAMBERS, B/S CANARA BANK, NAVRANGPURA , AHMEDABAD VS THE A. C. I. T., CIRCLE-4, 1 ST FLOOR, NAVJIVAN TRUST BUILDING, B/H GUJARAT VIDYAPITH, OFF ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD PA NO. AAACI 4563 R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR, DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-VI II, AHMEDABAD DATED 28-01-2008, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO M ADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES IN A SUM OF RS .17,952/-. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS PAID TO ONE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SARAD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED COMMISSION AND SALES COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS.2,92,635/- OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE PAID RS.2,7 4,683/- TO CERAMIC ENGINEERING CORPORATION FOR WHICH THE ASSES SEE FURNISHED THE COPY OF AGREEMENT. HOWEVER, AS REGARDS ANIL KUM AR SARAD, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NOR FURNISHED ANY DETAILS OF SALES MADE BY HIM. THE AO, THEREFORE, DI SALLOWED THE ITA NO.1599/AHD/2008 INTERKILN INDUSTRIES LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-4, AHMEDA BAD 2 COMMISSION EXPENSES AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.17,952/ -. THE AO FURTHER MADE ADDITION OF RS.12,45,000/- OUT OF SALE S PROMOTION EXPENSES. THE AO ON PERUSAL OF THE SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID RS.12,00,000/- TO CE RAMIC ENGINEERING CORPORATION, RS.45,000/- TO ANIL KUMAR SARAD AND RS.27,147/- TO VENKATESHWAR MAGNESITE CORPORATION. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPIES OF DEBIT NOTES RAISED BY VENKATESH WAR MAGNESITE CORPORATION BUT DID NOT FURNISH COPIES OF THE DEBIT NOTES RAISED BY ANIL KUMAR SARAD AND CERAMIC ENGINEERING CORPORATION. TH E AO, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHAR GE THE ONUS TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE BUSINESS EXPENSES AND FURT HER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING S ERVICES RENDERED BY THESE PARTIES TO THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE T HE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR AND DID NOT FUR NISH ANY EVIDENCE, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 3. THE RECORD REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SERVED OF NOTICES SEVERAL TIMES THROUGH REGISTERED POST AND WAS ALSO NOTIFIED DATE OF HEARING THROUGH REGISTERED POST. HOWEVER, NONE APPE ARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF THE NOTICES UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FI ND IT TO BE A FIT CASE FOR INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED BOTH THE ADDITIONS AND ALSO CHA LLENGED THE EX- PATE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE MATTER. HOW EVER, NO REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FROM APPEARING BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AT THE APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION AND IN ABSENCE OF AN Y EVIDENCE OR ITA NO.1599/AHD/2008 INTERKILN INDUSTRIES LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-4, AHMEDA BAD 3 MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED IN ANY MANNER. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24-06-2011 SD/- SD/- (G. D. AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 24-06-2011 LAKSHMIKANT/- 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 D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD