NIKHIL GARG, Jaipur V. ITO, Ajmer

ITA 16/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99393 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHENDRA GARGIEY A
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH IH-DS-CALY] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 16/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11. SHRI NIKHIL GARG, PROP. M/S. KANODIA ENTERPRISES, 410/10, AGRASEN NAGAR, AJMER. CUKE VS. THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), AJMER. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACHPG 5343 D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAHENDRA GARGIEYA (ADVOCATE) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 03/11/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 4/11/2015 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) DATED 21.10.2014 BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEA L :- 1. RS. 49,200/- : THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 49,20 0/- MADE BY THE AO BY APPLYING NP RATE OF 3% ON THE CONSIGNMENT SALE W ITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 2. RS. 30,380/-: THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS W ELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE DEPR ECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON TRUCKS BEING USED FOR HIRE PURPOSES . THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 2 ITA NO. 16/JP/2015 A.Y. 2010-11. SHRI NIKHIL GARG VS. ITO, AJMER. 2. THE GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO THE ADDITION MADE IN THE TRADING RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SH OWN ANY PROFIT ON THE CONSIGNMENT SALE OF RS. 16,40,100/-. HE DID NOT AGREE THAT ASSE SSEE WOULD NOT HAVE MADE ANY PROFIT. THEREFORE, HE ESTIMATED THE PROFIT ON THE C ONSIGNMENT SALE @ 3% ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS. 16,40,100/- AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 49,200/-. WHEN THE MATER WENT BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIR MED THE SAME. 3. I HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDER ED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. I NOTED THAT IN THIS CASE THE AO HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ESTIMATED THE PROFIT ON THE CONSIGNMENT SALE OF RS. 16,40,100/- @ 3%. THE LD. D/R BEFORE ME EVEN THOUGH VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO, BUT COULD NOT ADDUCE ANY COGENT MA TERIAL OR EVIDENCE WHICH MAY PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD MAKE PROFIT ON EACH AND EVERY TRANSACTION. EVEN NO EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE MAD E THE PROFIT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS NOT A CASE OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ONCE THE BOOK RESULTS ARE NOT REJECTED, THE BOOK RESULTS ARE BOUND TO BE ACCEPTED . MY AFORESAID VIEW IS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. MAHARAJA SHREE UMED MILLS LTD., 192 ITR 565 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT S INCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAD NOT BEEN REJECTED, A FALL IN G.P WOULD NOT LEAD TO THE INFERENCE THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INFLATED. I, ACCORDINGLY DELETE THE ADDITION. 4. THE GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS GROUND IS THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECI ATION ON THE VEHICLE @ 30%. IT WAS FOUND BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN THE VEHICLE ON HIRE BUT CLAIMED THE 3 ITA NO. 16/JP/2015 A.Y. 2010-11. SHRI NIKHIL GARG VS. ITO, AJMER. HIRE CHARGES IN THE SALE BILLS FROM THE PARTIES. T HEREFORE, HE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 15%. WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE LD. CIT (A), TH E LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE SAME. 5. I HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONS IDERED THE SAME. I NOTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS USED THE VEHICLE FOR TRANSPORTING THE GOODS TO THE PLACE OF THE RETAILERS AND THE TRANSPORTATIO N CHARGES ARE CLAIMED IN THE BILL ITSELF. THUS IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE OF HIRING O F THE VEHICLE TO THE THIRD PARTY. MY AFORESAID VIEW IS DULY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF T HE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BIMAL CHAND JAIN, 322 ITR 346. I, THEREFORE, DISALLOW THE SECOND GROUND BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4/11/2015. SD/- IH-DS-CALY ( P.K. BANSAL ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 4/11/ 2015 DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI NIKHIL GARG, AJMER. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO WARD 2(1), AJMER. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 16/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR