Pushpinder Singh Sidhu, Jalandhar V. The Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

ITA 190/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7742 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL DHAWANLD
• Assessee Lawyers: SUSHIL SHARMA LD
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.190(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:201 3-14 PUSHPINDER SINGH SINDHU C/O M/S PUSHPINDER SINGH SINDHU CONTRACTOR, 7-B, OLD BARADRI, JALANDHAR. PAN:ANRPS-8080L VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-III (3), JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. SUSHIL SHARMA (LD. ADV ) RESPONDENT BY: SH. RAHUL DHAWAN (LD. D.R) DATE OF HEARING: 13.09.2017. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:31.10.2017 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.02.201 7 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), JALANDHAR, FOR ASST. YEAR:2013-14. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. (1.) THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) IS AGAINST T HE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. (2.) CIT APPEAL IS NOT JUSTIFIED WHILE REJECTING APPELLA NT VIEW THAT ADHOC & ESTIMATED ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN DIFFERE NT HEADS I.E. (1) CARRIAGE OF SOIL BY TRACTOR/TIPPER (2) ON ACCOUNT O F JCB & MACHINE RENT (3) ON ACCOUNT OF LABOR & WAGES. WITHOUT GIVIN G ANY DETAIL OF ADDITION & SHORTAGE OF VOUCHER UNDER DIFFERENT HEAD S. (3.) CIT APPEAL IS NOT JUSTIFIED WHILE SAYING THAT T.D.S . HAS BEEN DEDUCTED ON JCB & MACHINE RENT & OTHER VOUCHERS OF LABOUR/WAGES & CARRIAGE OF SOIL ON WHICH TDS HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCT ED LACK ITA NO.190 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEAR :2013-14 2 AUTHENTICITY. CIT APPEAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FAC T THAT TDS IS DEDUCTED ONLY IF IT APPLICABLE ON SUCH EXPENSES. MO REOVER HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON WHY HE DOUBTED AUTHENTICITY OF LAB OUR/WAGES & CARRIAGE OF SOIL VOUCHERS. (4.) CIT APPEAL IS NOT JUSTIFIED WHILE SAYING THAT APPEL LANT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY REASON FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE TERMS OF SURRENDER BEFORE AO. IT IS MENTIONED IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE CIT APPEAL IN POINT NO-5 THAT AO MAIN EMPHAS IS DURING ASSESSMENT WAS ON ISSUE THAT WHOLE OF THE REFUND SH OULD BE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. AO MAKES ADDITION ON POINT THAT AS SESSES REFUND IS PENDING WITH DEPARTMENT & AO DONT WANT TO ISSUE WHOLE OF REFUND SO HE MAKES ADHOC/ESTIMATED ADDITION, & EXEC UTE PRESSURE ON ASSESSEE FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS THE SOLE REASON BEHIND SURRENDER. (5.) CIT APPEAL IN HIS ORDER PARA NO. 4.5 MENTIONED THAT HE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE SUPPORTING VOUCHERS FOR THE WAGES, JCB & MACHINE RENT CHARGES, CARRIAGE OF SOIL CHARGES. HE NOWHERE SUPPORT AO THAT VOUCHERS OF SOME OF ABOVE MENTIONED EXPENSE S ARE UNVOUCHED RATHER HE TAKES PLEA THAT TDS IS DEDUCTED ONLY ON JCB & MACHINE RENT (WHICH IS CLARIFIED THAT TDS IS NOT DE DUCTED AS CONDITION FOR DEDUCTION IS NOT ARISE IN CASE OF LAB OUR /WAGES, CARRIAGE OF SOIL BY TIPPER/TRACTOR) & HIS ANOTHER P LEA IS THAT VOUCHER OF REMAINING EXPENSES LACK AUTHENTICITY (REASON OF DOUBTFUL AUTHENTICITY IS NOT EXPLAINED BY WORTHY CIT). THUS CIT APPEAL CONTRADICT AO VERSION THAT EXPENSES ARE UNVOUCHED. (6.) CIT APPEAL HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT COMPLE TE VOUCHERS OF ALL EXPENSES ARE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM TO PROVE THAT AO HAS MAKE ESTIMATED/ADHOC ADDITION WITHOUT SPECIFY A DDITION AMOUNT AGAINST EACH HEAD OF EXPENSES. I.E. LABOUR/W AGES, CARRIAGE OF SOIL, MACHINE RENT SEPARATELY & WITHOUT PROVIDIN G ANY CALCULATION THAT HOW HE ARRIVES TO RS.19,50,000/- & WITHOUT GIV ING ANY DETAIL & SHORTAGE OF VOUCHERS UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS. (7.) CIT(A) HAS NOWHERE DISAGREE WITH ASSESSEE THAT ALL EXPENSES ARE PROPERLY VOUCHED RATHER HIS EMPHASIS WAS ON THA T WHY ASSESSEE IS NOT COMPLYING WITH THE TERMS OF SURREND ERED MADE BEFORE AO DUE TO THIS WORTHY CIT(A) REJECTED ASSESS EE PLEA TO PROVE HIS POINT. IT IS MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE S URRENDERED BECAUSE OF PRESSURE OF AO AS AO WANTS WITHHELD REFU ND OF ASSESSEE & ASSESSEE HAS NOT ALTERNATIVE OTHER THAN TO PROVE HIS POINT TO HIGHER AUTHORITY. BUT IF HIGHER AUTHORITY WILL NOT GIVE HIM FARE CHANCE TO EXPLAIN HIS POSITION, HE WILL BE DEPRIVED FROM G ETTING JUSTICE. ITA NO.190 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEAR :2013-14 3 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR AND MAINLY INVOLVED IN THE GOVT. CONTRACTS AND HAS FILE D HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.22,95,420/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECT ED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND ACCORDINGLY, STATUTORY NOTI CES HAVE BEEN ISSUED AS IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER THAT DURING THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION OF BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAI MED A SUM OF RS.1,11,23,740/- IN THE P&L ACCOUNT ON ACCOU NT OF CARRIAGE OF SOIL BY TRACTORS, TIPPERS, RS.48,69,324 /- ON ACCOUNT OF JCB & MACHINERY RENT AND RS.6,60,84,748/- ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR AND WAGES. ON EXAMINATION OF THE SAID ACCOUNTS, IT WAS NOTICED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT CERTAIN VOUCHERS PERTAINING TO TRACT ORS, TIPPERS AND WAGES WERE FOUND UN-VOUCHED. WHEN CONFRONT ED, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS.19,50,000 /- FOR TAXATION PURPOSES SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE SURRENDER OF RS.19,50,000/- FOR TAXATION WAS ACCEPTED AND SAME WAS ADDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON FURTHER EXAMINATION OF ACCOUNT, IT WAS SEEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED SUM OF RS.1,50,000/- TO SH. AMIT UPPAL AND ON DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CHARGING OF INTEREST, IT WAS AGREED BY THE ASSESSEE TO WOR K OUT INTEREST @ 12% WHICH COMES TO RS.18,000/- AND THE SAME WA S ADDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEI VED A SUM OF RS.36,864/- AS INTEREST ON REFUND. IT HAS ALSO B EEN ITA NO.190 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEAR :2013-14 4 ADDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE DID N OT DENY THE INVOLVEMENT OF PERSONAL NATURE OF EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF CAR DEPRECIATION, CAR INSURANCE, CONVEYANCE, STAFF WE LFARE, TELEPHONE EXPENSES TOTALING TO RS.6,78,915/- AND ON AG REEMENT 1/5 OF THESE EXPENSES WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.1,35,783/- BE ING ON A PERSONAL NATURE WERE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, T HE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WH O DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE INSTANT APPEAL AND IN SUPPORT OF I TS CASE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED WHILE REJECTING THE APPELLANT VIEW THAT ADHOC AND ESTIMATED ADDITION HAS B EEN MADE IN DIFFERENT HEADS I.E., (I) CARRIAGE OF SOIL BY TRACTORS, TIPPERS (II) ON ACCOUNT OF JCB & MACHINERY RENT (III) ON ACCOUNT OF LABO UR & WAGES. WITHOUT GIVING ANY DETAIL OF ADDITION & SHORTAGE OF VOUCHER UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SAYING TH E TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED ON JCB AND MACHINE RENT AND OTHER VOUCHE RS OF LABOUR/WAGES AND CARRIAGE OF SOIL ON WHICH TDS HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED LACKS AUTHENTICITY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE TDS IS ONLY LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED IF THE SAME IS APPLICABLE ON SUCH EXPENSES, MOREO VER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON AS TO WHY HE DOUB TED AUTHENTICITY OF LABOUR /WAGES & CARRIAGE OF SOIL VOUCHERS. ITA NO.190 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEAR :2013-14 5 FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED WHILE SAYIN G THAT APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY REASON FOR NOT COMP LYING WITH THE TERMS OF SURRENDER BEFORE AO. IT IS MENTIONED IN GROUN DS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE CIT(A) IN POINT NO.5 THAT AO MAIN EMPH ASIS DURING ASSESSMENT WAS ON ISSUE THAT WHOLE OF THE REFUND SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO MAKES ADDITION ON POINT THAT ASSESSE S REFUND IS PENDING WITH DEPARTMENT & AO DONT WANT TO ISSUE WH OLE OF REFUND SO HE MAKES ADHOC/ESTIMATED ADDITION, & EXERTED PRESSURE ON ASSESSEE FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS THE SOLE REASON BEHIND SURRENDER. FURTHER IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT APPEAL IN HI S ORDER PARA NO. 4.5 MENTIONED THAT HE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE SUPP ORTING VOUCHERS FOR THE WAGES, JCB & MACHINE RENT CHARGES, CARRIAGE OF SOIL CHARGES. HE NOWHERE SUPPORT AO THAT VOUCHERS OF SOME OF ABOVE ME NTIONED EXPENSES ARE UNVOUCHED RATHER HE TAKES PLEA THAT TDS IS DEDUCTED ONLY ON JCB & MACHINE RENT (WHICH IS CLARIFIED THAT TD S IS NOT DEDUCTED AS CONDITION FOR DEDUCTION IS NOT ARISE IN CASE OF LABOUR /WAGES, CARRIAGE OF SOIL BY TIPPER/TRACTOR) & HIS ANOTH ER PLEA IS THAT VOUCHER OF REMAINING EXPENSES LACK AUTHENTICITY (REASON O F DOUBTFUL AUTHENTICITY IS NOT EXPLAINED BY WORTHY CIT. THUS, CI T(APPEAL) CONTRADICT AO VERSION THAT EXPENSES ARE UNVOUCHED. FURTHER CIT APPEAL HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT CO MPLETE VOUCHERS OF ALL EXPENSES HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE HIM T O PROVE THAT AO HAS MAKE ESTIMATED/ADHOC ADDITION WITHOUT SPECIFY ADD ITION AMOUNT, AGAINST EACH HEAD OF EXPENSES. I.E. LABOUR/WAG ES, CARRIAGE OF SOIL, MACHINE RENT SEPARATELY & WITHOUT PROVIDING AN Y CALCULATION THAT HOW HE ARRIVES TO RS.19,50,000/- & WITHOUT GIVING ANY DETAIL & SHORTAGE OF VOUCHERS UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS. ITA NO.190 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEAR :2013-14 6 FURTHER, CIT(A) HAS NOWHERE DISAGREE WITH ASSESSEE THAT ALL EXPENSES ARE PROPERLY VOUCHED RATHER HIS EMPHASIS WAS ON THAT WHY ASSESSEE IS NOT COMPLYING WITH THE TERMS OF SURRENDERED MAD E BEFORE AO DUE TO THIS WORTHY CIT(A) REJECTED ASSESSEE PLEA TO PR OVE HIS POINT. IT IS MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE SURRENDERED BECAUSE OF PRESSURE OF AO AS AO WANTED TO WITHHELD REFUND OF ASSESSE E & ASSESSEE HAS NO ALTERNATIVE OTHER THAN TO PROVE HIS POINT TO HIGHER AUTHORITY. BUT IF HIGHER AUTHORITY WILL NOT GIVE HI M FAIR CHANCE TO EXPLAIN HIS POSITION, HE WILL BE DEPRIVED FROM GETTIN G JUSTICE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS IN THE INSTANT APPEAL ALL THE GROUNDS NO.1 TO 7 ARE CONNECTED WITH EACH OTHER AND DIRECTLY INDIRECTLY CONCERNED WITH T HE ADDITION OF RS.9,56,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNVOUCHED EXPENSES. LET US TO PERUSED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO, SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THIS REGARD BY THE APPELLANT AND FIND THAT AN ADDITION OF RS.19,50,000 HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UN-VOUCHED EXPENS ES. DURING THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SUPPORTING VOU CHERS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT CERTAIN EXPENSES PERTAINING TO TRACTORS, TI PPERS AND WAGES WERE FOUND UN- VOUCHED. THE AO CONFRONTED THESE FACTS AND APPELLAN T OFFERED A SUM OF RS.19.50 LACS FOR TAXATION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT NO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WILL BE INITIATED. 4.4. THE APPELLANT HAS IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE P ROCEEDINGS STATED THAT AO HAS MADE AD-HOC ADDITION WITHOUT GIVING DETAILS OF UN-V OUCHED EXPENSES. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO STATED THAT PHOTO COPIES OF LABO UR AND WAGE EXPENSES FOR THE LAST THREE MONTHS WERE FILED WITH THE AO. IN THE CO URSE OF PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, A COPY OF THE WAGE REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 2013 HAS BEEN FILED ON RECORD TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTIONS. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT JCB AND MACHINE RENT CHARGES OF RS.48,69,324/- HAVE BEEN PAID DURING THE YEAR AFTER DEDUCTING ITA NO.190 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEAR :2013-14 7 TAXTHEREON TO DIFFERENT PARTIES. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED COPY OF VOUCHERS FOR PAYMENT OF SOIL CHARGES TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTIONS. 4.5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, I DO NOT FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT AS AN OFFER FOR SURREN DER OF INCOME OF RS.19,50,000/- WAS MADE BEFORE THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE OFFER FOR SURRENDER WAS MADE ON THE GROUND THAT COMPLETE VOUC HERS FOR THE EXPENSES CLAIMED COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE SUPPORTING VOUCHERS FOR THE WAGES, JOB & MACHINE RE NT CHARGES AND SOIL CHARGES AND FIND THAT IT IS ONLY THE EXPENSES OF RS.48,69,3 24/- INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF JOB & MACHINE RENT CHARGES WHICH HAVE BEEN PAID AFTER D EDUCTING TDS THEREON. THE SUPPORTING VOUCHERS FOR THE REMAINING EXPENSES INCU RRED UNDER THE HEAD WAGES AND SOIL CHARGES LACK AUTHENTICITY. THE APPELLANT H AS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY REASON FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE TERMS OF THE SURRENDER M ADE BEFORE THE AO ON THIS ACCOUNT. 4.6. I HAVE REQUISITIONED THE CASE RECORDS FROM T HE AO AND ON EXAMINATION OF THE SAME FIND THAT AFTER EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS AND SUPPORTING VOUCHERS, FOLLOWING NOTE HAS BEEN RECORDED ON 26.02.2016, WHI CH IS COUNTERSIGNED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT:- CERTAIN VOUCHERS PERTAINING TO SOIL CARRIAGE BY TR ACTORS, TIPPERS AND WAGES ARE FOUND UN-VOUCHED. WHEN CONFRO NTED, THE COUNSEL SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS.9,50,000 SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY. FURTHER, AFTER DISCUSSION INTEREST @12% ON RS.1,50, 000 ADVANCE TO SH. AMIT UPPAL DISALLOWED. FURTHER, IT IS NOTICE D THAT ASSES SEE HAS NOT DECLARED INTEREST ON IT REFUND AMOUNTIN G TO RS.36,864/- WHICH IS ALSO ADDED TO THE INCOME RETUR NED. FURTHER, COUNSEL ALSO AGREED FOR DISALLOWANCE OF L/5 TH OF TELEPHONE, STAFF WELFARE, CAR DEPRECIATION, CAR MAINTENANCE, CAR INS URANCE ETC. 4.7 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, I FIND THAT APPELL ANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AS TO WHY THE INCOME OFFERED FOR SURRENDER/TAXATION BEFORE THE AO HAS BEEN APPEALED AGAINST. I FIND THAT NO AP PEAL HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE OTHER ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUNDS STATE D ABOVE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY BEING BROUGHT ON RECOR D BY THE APPELLANT, I HOLD THAT AO WAS JUSTIFIED TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS.19,50,00 0 ON THIS ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, I CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.19,50,000 MADE BY THE AO UNDER THIS HEAD. WE HAVE INDEPENDENTLY APPLIED OUR MIND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS IN THE INSTANT CASE, DURING THE CO URSE OF EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SUPPORTING VOUCHERS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O THAT CERTAIN EXPENSES PERTAINING TO TRACTORS, ITA NO.190 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEAR :2013-14 8 TIPPERS AND WAGES WERE FOUND UN-VOUCHED AND ON CONFRON TATION, THE APPELLANT OFFERED A SUM OF RS.19.50 LACS FOR TAXATION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT NO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WILL BE INITIATE D AND ON THE VOLUNTARILY SURRENDER OF THE APPELLANT, THE SAID AMO UNT WAS SUBJECTED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE SUPPORTING VOUCHERS FOR THE WAGES, JCB AND MACHINE RENT CHARGES AND SOIL CHARGES INDEPENDENTLY AND FOUND T HAT ONLY EXPENSES OF RS.48,69,324/- HAVING BEEN INCURRED ON ACC OUNT OF JCB AND MACHINE RENT CHARGES WHICH HAS BEEN PAID AFTER CONDU CTING TDS THEREON, AND THE REMAINING SUPPORTING VOUCHERS INCURRED UNDER THE HEAD WAGES AND SOIL CHARGES LACKS AUTHENTICITY BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY REASON FOR NONCOMPLYING WITH THE TERMS OF THE SURRENDER MADE BEFORE THE AO ON THIS ACCOUNT AND EVEN O THERWISE, THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO REQUISITIONED THE CASE RECORD FROM THE A O AND AFTER EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SUPPORTING VOUCHERS, PERUSED THE NOTE RECORDED ON 26.02.2016 WHICH WAS COUNTERSIGNED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT TO THE EFFECT THAT VOUCHERS PERTAINI NG TO SOIL CHARGES CARRIAGE BY TRACTORS, TIPPERS AND WAGES ARE FOUND UN-VO UCHED. WHEN CONFRONTED, THE COUNSEL SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS.19,50,000 /- SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY. AFTER DISCUSSION INTEREST @ 12% ON RS.1,5 0,000/- WHICH WAS ADVANCED TO SH. AMIT UPPAL, DISALLOWED. FURTHER IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLINED INTEREST OF IT REFUND AMOUNT ING TO RS.36,864/- WHICH WAS ALSO ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME . FURTHER, ITA NO.190 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEAR :2013-14 9 THE COUNSEL ALSO AGREED FOR DISALLOWANCE OF 1/5 TH OF TELEPHONE, STAFF WELFARE, CAR DEPRECIATION, CAR MAINTENANCE ETC. WE ARE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE CONSENTE D ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ONCE IT WAS VOLUNTARILY AGREED EVEN BY SIGNING ON THE NOTE DATED 26.02.2016 AS REFERRED ABOVE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS INDUCED TO SIGN THE SAID NOTE AND NEVER AGREED TO CO NCEDE TO SURRENDER A SUM OF RS.19,50,000/- SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY. BY FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE THIS FORUM, IT CLEARLY REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UTILIZING THE PRECIOUS TIME OF COURTS AS PER HIS OWN CONVENIENCE AND MADE THE FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION AS LUXURY LITIGATION AND IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION ACTION OF ASSESSEE AMOUNT TO A BUSE OF THE PROCESS OF LAW. ON THE AFORESAID CONSIDERATION AND OBSERVATION, WE DO N OT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE L D. CIT(A) AS THE SAME DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY ILLEGALITY, PERVERSITY AN D IMPROPRIETY, HENCE, THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.10.2017. SD/- SD/- (T. S. KAPOOR) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:31.10.2017. /PK/ PS. ITA NO.190 (ASR)/2017 ASST. YEAR :2013-14 10 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER