Anand Muruga Utharkar, CHENNAI V. ACIT NCW 15(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1920/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5599 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! .#$#%, ' !( BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1920/CHNY/2018 % *% / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI ANAND MURUGA UTHARKAR, NO.69, VGP LAYOUT, 3 RD PART, 2 ND MAIN ROAD, PALLAVAKAM, CHENNAI - 600 041. PAN : AAFPU 0478 D V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE WARD - 15(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. (,-/ APPELLANT) (./,-/ RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : NONE ./,- 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT 2 0 3' / DATE OF HEARING : 28.01.2019 45* 0 3' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.01.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -15, CHENN AI, DATED 26.02.2018 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2 I.T.A. NO.1920/CHNY/18 2. THIS APPEAL WAS INITIALLY POSTED ON 29.10.2018. SHRI A. AROKIA SATHEESH, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, A PPEARED AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 28.01.2019. WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HE ARING ON 28.01.2019, NO ONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE EVEN T HOUGH THE LD.COUNSEL HAS TAKEN NOTE OF DATE OF HEARING BY MAK ING ENDORSEMENT ON ORDER SHEET. THERE MAY BE VARIOUS R EASONS FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WHE N THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 28.01.2019. ONE OF THE REASONS PRESUMABLY THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. WHATEVER IT MAY BE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS E XPECTED TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. THEREFORE, WE HEARD T HE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PROCEEDED TO DISPOS E THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST ISSUE ARIS ES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASE IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THERE WAS INCREASE IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE CURR ENT ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEN COMPARED TO THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. ACCORDING TO 3 I.T.A. NO.1920/CHNY/18 THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THAT HE INTRODUCED CAPITAL BY TAKING UNSECURED LOAN . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE CR EDITORS, CAPACITY OF THE CREDITORS TO ADVANCE MONEY AND GENUINENESS OF T RANSACTION. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEA LS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF 1,45,26,000/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') ON THE GROUND THAT T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE CLAIM OF LOAN FOR INTRODUCING THE CAPITAL. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY MATERIAL TO ESTABLIS H THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AN D GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OP INION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT HE BORROWED UNSECURED LOAN FOR INTRODUCING THE CAPITAL, IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF TH E ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, CREDITWORT HINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. SINC E THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS, THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. 4 I.T.A. NO.1920/CHNY/18 THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SA ME IS CONFIRMED. 5. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DISA LLOWANCE OF EXPENSES FOR NON-PRODUCTION OF BILLS / VOUCHERS. 6. SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF 12,30,48,321/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE BILLS / VOU CHERS FOR THE EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES ON ESTIMATE BASIS A T 30% WHICH COMES TO NEARLY 3,69,14,496/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED NECESSARY BILLS / VOU CHERS, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. WE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE BUS INESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. DURING THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AN EXPENDITURE OF 12,30,48,321/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY BILLS / VOUCHERS . THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT DURING THE YEA R UNDER 5 I.T.A. NO.1920/CHNY/18 CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST / FINA NCIAL CHARGES TO PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, ALLAHABAD BANK AND HDFC BANK. THIS WAS ALSO DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSE SSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED EVEN THE DEPRECIATION. THE CIT(APPEALS) , AFTER CONSIDERING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, FOUND THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY OBLIGATION / ONUS BY SUP PORTING NECESSARY MATERIAL. WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF INTE REST AND DEPRECIATION, THE CIT(APPEALS) DIRECTED THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO VERIFY AND IF IT IS ACTUALLY FOUND CORRECT, IT MAY BE ALLOWED. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND DEPRECIATION ON WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE MACHINERY CAN BE VERY WELL ASCERTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE RESPECTIV E BANKS. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY AND IF IT IS FOUND CORRECT, IT HA S TO BE ALLOWED. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SA ME IS CONFIRMED. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISAL LOWANCE OF CURRENT LIABILITIES. 6 I.T.A. NO.1920/CHNY/18 9. SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME FOR SUBSEQUE NT ASSESSMENT YEARS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE CLA IMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE BUSINESS WAS CLOSED DOWN . THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT WHE THER THE CURRENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS WERE ACTUALLY PA ID OR NOT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, AC CORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISALLO WED THE CURRENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS, WHICH WAS RIGHTLY CONFI RMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). 10. WE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AN D PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS RIG HTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDEN CE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(APPEALS) TO ES TABLISH THAT THE LIABILITIES WERE DISCHARGED DURING THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS R IGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREF ORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 7 I.T.A. NO.1920/CHNY/18 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( !.#$#% ) ( . . . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 31 ST JANUARY, 2019. KRI. 0 .389 :9*3 /COPY TO: 1. ,- /APPELLANT 2. ./,- /RESPONDENT 3. 2 ;3 () /CIT(A)-15, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-6, CHENNAI 5. 9< .3 /DR 6. =% > /GF.