ITO, Ward - 1(3), Hooghly, Hooghly V. Smt. Mahua Mukherjee, Hooghly

ITA 172/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 48265 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K PARAMANIK
• Assessee Lawyers: SHREYA LAYALKA

Judgement Text

, , , , , , ,, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : KOLKATA [ . . . . . .. . , , ! ! ! ! , ] [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, AM & HONBLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM !' !' !' !' / I.T.A. NO. 172/KOL/2011 #$ %& #$ %& #$ %& #$ %&/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 INCOME TAX OFFICER/WARD-1(3) -VS .- SMT. MAHUA MUKHERJEE HOOGHLY. KOLKATA [PAN : AJNPM 5423 D] [ () /APPELLANT] [ *+()/ RESPONDENT] () / FOR THE APPELLANT : , /SHRI A. K. PARAMANIK *+() / FOR THE RESPONDENT : , / SHREYA LAYALKA - /O R D E R [ . . . . . .. . , ] PER S.V. MEHROTRA, AM THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AGAINST ORDER OF CIT(A)- XXXVI, KOLKATA DATED 12.11.2010. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR CAR RIED ON THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN CEMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE CARRIAGE INW ARD VOUCHER DID NOT CONTAIN ANY REVENUE STAMP WHICH WAS REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF RECEIPT OF PAYMEN TS ABOVE RS.500/- FOR PAYMENT MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE OBSERVED THAT THE LEGALITY OF THE CLAIM OF SUCH EXPENSES SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY VOUCHERS MADE IN THE LEGAL M ANNER. HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED RS.16,85,021/- THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM, INTER ALIA, OBSERVING THAT NON-FIXATION OF REVENUE STAMP ON THE PAYMENT VOUCHERS IS VIOLATION OF STAMP ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE INTIMATED THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED ACCORDINGLY. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE GEN UINENESS OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. NON-FIXATION OF REVENUE STAMP ON THE PAYMENT VOUCHER DOES NOT MAKE THE PAYMENT ILLEGAL BUT IT IS ONLY VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF STAMP ACT AND, THEREFORE, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSING [ ITA NO. 172/KOL/2011] 2 OFFICER COULD HAVE INTIMATED THE AUTHORITY CONCERNE D ACCORDINGLY. SINCE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THE SAME WAS ALLOWABLE. WE, ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD . CIT(A). 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMEN T IS DISMISSED. - - - - . . . . / // / .# .# .# .# 0 0 0 0 1 11 1 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07. 07. 2011. SD/- SD/- [ ! , ] [ .. , ] [ MAHAVIR SINGH ] [ S.V. MEHROTRA ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 2 / DATED : 7 TH JULY, 2011. - 3 * 4 54%6 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. /APPELLANT- INCOME TAX OFFICER/WARD-1(3) KHADINA MORE, CHINSURAH, HOOGHLY. 2 *+() / RESPONDENT : SMT. MAHUA MUKHERJEE, M/S. MOU ENTER PRISE, RASHIDPUR, HOOGHLY. 3. -# / CIT(E) 4. -# ( )/ CIT(A) 5. 0 * # / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA [ +4 * / TRUE COPY] -#. / BY ORDER 7 / !8 /DEPUTY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR . [KKC 9: #;8 < /SR.PS]