Shri Pankajbhai Vashrambhai Patel, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 8(3), Surat

ITA 1972/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0362 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 29-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRI PRASOON KABRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 1972/AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) SHRI PANKAJBHAI VASHRAMBHAI PATEL 5, LAXMI DARSHAN APARTMENT, MADHAV- DARSHAN SOCIETY, DHABOLI CHAR RASTA, VED ROAD, SURAT-395006 V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 8 (3), SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: ACFPP2680Q APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHRI PRASOON KABRA, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 29 -09-201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-09-2016 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-V, SURAT DATED 08.05.2013 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2009-10. ITA NO. 1972 /AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 2 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING DISALLOWA NCE OF EXPENSES OF RS. 6,99,768/- BEING 25% OF TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 27,99 ,070/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE CIVIL CONTRACT WORK. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF R S. 1,24,381/-. THE RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND ACC ORDINGLY STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E A.O. FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED FOLLOWING EXPENSES- SR. NO. EXPENSES AMOUNTS(RS.) 1 TRANSPORTATION CHARGES 18,69,519/- 2 VEHICLE PETROL & REPAIRING 52,445/- 3 STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES 35,692/- 4 OFFICE EXPENSES 31,082/- 5 TRAVELLING EXPENSES 21,840/- 6 CONVEYANCE EXEPSNES 38,062/- 7 LABOUR & SERVANT TEA & SNACKS 1,14,647/- 8 STATIONARY & PRINTING EXPENSES 27,308/- 9 REPAIRING & MAINTENANCE 5,78,355/- 10 OCTROI EXPENSES 30,120/- TOTAL 27,99,070/- 5. TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE, THE ASSES SEE PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS BILLS AND VOUCHERS WHICH WERE R ANDOMLY CHECKED BY THE A.O. ON VERIFICATION, THE A.O. FOUND THAT SOME OF T HE PAYMENTS TOWARDS THE AFORESAID EXPENDITURE WERE MADE IN CASH AND COMPLET E BILLS/VOUCHERS WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 1972 /AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 3 6. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 25% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS SOME OF THE EXPENDITURE ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY PROPER BILLS AND VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OBJ ECT TO THIS PROPOSAL OF THE A.O. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED OF RS. 6,9 9,768/- BEING 25% OF RS. 27,99,070/-. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE, THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE MAJOR EXPEN DITURE WERE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CARR Y OUT THIS WORK OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT AVAILING SERVICES OF TRANSPORT ERS AND FURTHER SUCH EXPENDITURE HAVE TO BE MADE MAINLY IN CASH, THEREFO RE, NO DISALLOWANCE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF GENERAL REA SONING WITHOUT GIVING CONSIDERATION TO THE NATURE OF WORK AND THE PLACE A T WHICH SUCH WORK IS CARRIED OUT. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS, TH E LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF IT IS MENTIONED THAT WHEN THE DISCREPANCIES WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEES COU NSEL, HE AGREED TO THE DISCREPANCIES FOUND AND ACCEPTED THE PROPOSED DISAL LOWANCE. DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 6,99,768/- MADE BY THE A.O. WAS UPHELD. 8. NO ONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY A PPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. WE DECIDED TO PROCEED EX PARTE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AT LENGTH AND HAVE CAREF ULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT WHEN THE A.O . CONFRONTED THE ITA NO. 1972 /AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 4 ASSESSEE WITH HIS PROPOSED DISALLOWANCE OF 25%, THE LD. COUNSEL ADMITTED AND DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION. WHEN THE MATTER WA S HEARD BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE LD. COUNSEL DID NOT DENY THE ACCEPTANCE MADE AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN ACCEPTE D AND NO OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE D ECLINE TO INTERFERE. 10. APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30 - 09- 2016. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD