Shyam Sunder Kedia, Ranchi V. ACIT, Ranchi

ITA 19/RAN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2172 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHOUDHARY ORAON
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: RANCHI SMC BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 17 & 19/RAN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 & 2009-10 SH. SHYAM SUNDER KEDIA THROUGH L/H SUNDER KEDIA, C/O-S.K. PODDAR (ADV.) HARDUTT RAI LANE, UPPER BAZAR, RANCHI VS THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI PAN/GIR NO. : ABQPK6000K (APPELLANT ) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. DEVESH PODDAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SH. CHOUDHARY ORAON, DR DATE OF HEARING 08.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10.03.2016 O R D E R THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST COMMON ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 06.11.2015 PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 1 READS AS UNDER : 1. FOR THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTA INING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO OUT OF JEEP AND HIRE EXPENSES AT 10% OF THE EXPENSE INCURRED. JEEP AND HIRE CHARGES PAID WERE FULLY VER IFIABLE, ALL THE DETAILS WERE FIELD, AS SUCH, LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED I N MERELY REDUCING THE DISALLOWANCE FROM 20% TO 10%. AS A MATTER OF FACT, NO DISALLOWANCE WAS CALLED FOR. 2.1 ON THIS ISSUE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE DI SALLOWANCE OF 20% OUT OF JEEP FIRING EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT NO BILLS AN D VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED. 2 ITA NOS. 17 & 19/RAN/2016 AYS: 2008-09 & 2009-10 UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED WERE FULLY VER IFIABLE AND THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY CHEQUES. LD. CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BILLS SUBMITTED BY THE PAYEE WER E ENCLOSED WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, BUT NO SUCH EVIDENCE WAS FILED. CONSIDE RING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTE D THE ADDITION TO 10%. AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE ITAT. 2.2 UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, I FIND THAT THE AS SESSEE CANNOT CLAIM THE ALLOWANCE OF THE DIRECT EXPENDITURE WITHOUT PRODUCI NG THE REQUIRED BILLS AND VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE CLEARLY GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE NECESSARY VOUCHERS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFOR E THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN THERE IS A CONCURRENT FINDING THAT NO BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFEREN CE. ACCORDINGLY, I UPHOLD THE SAME. 3. THE SECOND GROUND RAISED IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) RELATED TO PROVIDENT FUND DUES, WHICH WERE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE SUBMISSION OF RETURN OF INCOME IN THE SAME FINANCIA L YEAR. 3.1 ON THIS ISSUE THE DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE IRRES PECTIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION OF PF WHICH WERE NOT DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN THE RELEVANT ACTS. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BEFORE THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. IN THIS REG ARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED SEVERAL CASE-LAWS INCLUDING THAT FROM THE HONBLE A PEX COURT. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) IN HIS WISDOM CHOSE NOT TO FOLLOW THESE DECI SIONS. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURTS. LD. CIT(A) HAS CLEARLY ERRED IN NOT FO LLOWING THE JUDICIAL 3 ITA NOS. 17 & 19/RAN/2016 AYS: 2008-09 & 2009-10 PRECEDENTS. ACCORDINGLY, I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE. 4. ANOTHER GROUND RAISED READ AS UNDER: 4. FOR THAT APPELLANTS INCOME WAS LIABLE TO TDS, AS SUCH, LD. AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B. IN ANY CASE, INTEREST CAN ONLY BE CHARGED ON THE RETURNED INCOME AND NOT ON THE AS SESSED INCOME FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JHARKHAND HIG H COURT. 4.1 ON THIS ISSUE, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT I NTEREST HAS TO BE CHARGED ON THE RETURNED INCOME AND NOT ASSESSED INCOME FOLLOWI NG THE DECISION OF HONBLE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT. 4.2 LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT DISPUTE D THIS PROPOSITION. 4.3 ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH MARCH, 2016. SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACC OUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 10 TH MARCH, 2016. RAJESH, SR.PS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) - 5. THE DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. P.S., ITAT, RANCHI