M/s SMPL Mahacol JV, Kolkata V. I.T.O Wd - 36(2),kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 2023/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5071 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B K PODDAR

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 2023/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2023 /KOL/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 M/S. SMPL MAHACOL JV,.............................. ..........................APPELLANT 14/1B, EZRA STREET, 9 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 001 [PAN : AABAS 8862 L] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ..................................RESPONDENT WARD-36(2), KOLKATA, 110, SHANTIPALLY, AAYAKAR BHAWAN PURVA, 8 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 107 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI B.K. PODDAR, FCA, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI NILOY BARAN SOM, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : APRIL 08, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : APRIL 15, 2016 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XX, KOLKAT A DATED 18.03.2013 WHEREBY HE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.91,315/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A PARTNERSHI P FIRM, WHICH FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON ON 31.10.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,04,790/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD STAFF WELFA RE, WORKSHOP AND MISCELLANEOUS AMOUNTING TO RS.4,52,466/-, RS.2,64 ,055/- AND RS.1,96,629/- RESPECTIVELY WERE SUPPORTED BY ONLY S ELF-MADE VOUCHERS I.T.A. NO. 2023/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 2 OF 3 WITHOUT ANY BILLS OR OTHER EVIDENCE. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THESE THREE HEADS WER E NOT FULLY VERIFIABLE AND ACCORDINGLY A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.91,315/- BEING 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE SAID THR EE HEADS WAS MADE BY HIM. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING THAT THE SA ME WAS FAIR AND REASONABLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS PRE FERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ALTHOUGH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN ATTEMPT TO CONTEND THAT ALL TH E EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE RELEVANT THREE HEADS INVOLVE D PETTY AMOUNTS SPENT AT DIFFERENT SITES FOR WHICH NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENT S EXCEPT SELF-MADE VOUCHERS WERE AVAILABLE, A PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS O F THE SAID EXPENSES AS FURNISHED ON RECORD SHOWS THAT SOME MAJOR AMOUNTS W ERE ALSO CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE RELEVANT HEADS. FOR EXAMPLE, STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE INVOLVED SUMS OF R S.13,334/-, RS.10,250/- AND RS.13,475/- SPENT ON 29.12.2005, 05 .02.2006 AND 09.02.2006 RESPECTIVELY, BESIDES THE VARIOUS OTHER AMOUNTS INVOLVING PAYMENTS IN THE RANGE OF RS.2,000/- TO RS.8,000/-. THE AMOUNTS IN THE SIMILAR RANGE WERE ALSO CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UND ER THE HEADS MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES AND WORKSHOP EXPENSES. I T, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE SAID THAT ONLY THE PETTY AMOUNTS WERE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE RELEVANT HEADS FOR WHICH NO THIRD PARTY DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF BILLS, ETC. COULD BE MADE AVAILABLE AS SOUG HT TO BE CONTENDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HAVING REGARD TO ALL THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF 1 0% MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIABLE ELEMEN T INVOLVED IN THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD ST AFF WELFARE, WORKSHOP AND MISCELLANEOUS WAS QUITE FAIR AND R EASONABLE AND THE LD. I.T.A. NO. 2023/KOL./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 3 OF 3 CIT(APPEALS) IS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE S AME. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON APRIL 15, 201 6. SD/- SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R KOLKATA, THE 15 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) M/S. SMPL MAHACOL JV, 14/1B, EZRA STREET, 9 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 001 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-36(2), KOLKATA, 110, SHANTIPALLY, AAYAKAR BHAWAN PURVA, 8 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 107 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XX, KOLKA TA (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.