Manas Ranjan Routray, Cuttack V. ITO, Ward-2(3), Cuttack

ITA 218/CTK/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7258 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

2 ITA NO.218/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 12 FROM INDUSIND BANK LTD., SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF THOSE SHOWN IN FORM 26AS. HENCE, THE ADDITION OF R S.63,664/ - NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 3. FOR THAT THE LD CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.28,860/ - ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CREDIT BALA NCE BEING DISALLOWED WITHOUT HAVING ANY BASIS. HENCE, THE ADDITION OF RS.28,860/ - NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 3. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY SPEED POST ON 20.10.16 FIXING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON 9.11.2016 WHEN NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE CASE WAS, THEREFORE, ADJOURNED TO 29.11.2016 BY SENDING ANOTHER NOTICE THROUGH SPEED POST ON 11.11.2016. ON THAT DATE, THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND, THEREFORE, ANOTHER NOTICE FIXING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON 11.1.2017 WAS SENT BY R PAD ON 6.12.2016, WHICH HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 8.12.2016 AS EVIDENCED BY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD OF POST OFFICER PLACED ON RECORD. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING ON 11.1.2017, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND NEITHER ANY ADJOU RNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. HENCE, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD EXPARTE QUA - THE ASSESSEE AND DISPOSED OF AFTER HEARING THE LD D.R. AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. LD CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OF THE GROUNDS AS UNDER: 3. GROUND NO.1 THE AO DURING SCRUTINY FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD SHOWN INCOME FROM DEALING OF EDIBLE OIL RECEIVED RS.2,92,055/ - AS CONTRACT RECEIPTS AS EVIDENCED FROM 26AS. IN THE P & L A/C. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE ABOVE CONTRACT RECEIPTS. WHILE CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THIS INCOME HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT INADVERTENTLY. THE AO STATED THAT UNDERSTATEMENT OF RECEIPT REDUCES THE PROFIT TO THE SAME EXTENT AND AS ALL EXPENSES RELATING TO THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUN T AS CERTIFIED BY THE AUDITOR, THIS UNDERSTATEMENT 4 ITA NO.218/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 12 A) THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IS FULLY VOUCHED AND VERIFIABLE B) THE ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED U/S.44AB OF THE ACT C) THE LD AO HA S NOT POINTED OUT ANY SINGLE ITEM OF DISALLOWANCE NATURE OR UNVERIFIABLE NATURE D) THE APPELLANT HAS ENDEAVOURED TO OBTAIN BILLS, VOUCHERS AND RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THIRD PARTIES. WHERE THE SAME IS NOT POSSIBLE, SUCH AS CONVEYANCE CHARGES PAID TO LOCAL RICKSHAW, EXPENSES IN THE NATURE OF TEA, COFFEE ETC. EVEN SUCH EXPENSES ARE SUPPORTED BY SELF - MADE VOUCHERS E) FURTH ER ALL THE MAJOR EXPENSES ARE PAID BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE F) THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF PERSONAL EXPENDITURE, BEING CERTIFIED BY THE TAX AUDITOR ALSO. THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE EXCESS LIABILITY COMPUTED BY THE AO AND THE DISCREPANCY ARISING THEREOF. THE ACTION OF THE AO IS THEREFORE SUSTAINED. 4. I FULLY AGREE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AS QUOTED ABOVE AND FIND NO GOOD AND JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). HENCE, THE ORDER OF LD CIT( A) IS CONFIRMED AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. . ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 1 /01/2017 IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES. S D/ - ( N.S SAINI) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 11 /01 /2017 B.K.PARIDA, SPS