M/s. Ess Ess Engineering, Surat V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-3, Surat

ITA 2231/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0893 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANTONY PARIATH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2231/AHD/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S. ESS ESS ENGINEERING, 90, SEEMA NAGAR SOCIETY-II, PALANPUR PATIA, RANDER ROAD, SURAT 395 009 PAN : AABFE 6746 Q VS DCIT, CIRCLE-3, SURAT / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI ANTONY PARIATH, SR DR / DATE OF HEARING : 07/07/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19/07/2016 / O R D E R THIS IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, SURAT DATE D 28.05.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, CHALLENGING CONFIRMATION O F FOLLOWING ADDITIONS:- (I) TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES RS.99,060/- (II) TELEPHONE EXPENSES - RS.15,151/- 2. NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. HOWEVER, ON CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON R ECORD AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE SR. DR, IT WAS CONSIDERED APPROP RIATE TO PROCEED WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL EX- PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT ON MERIT. 3. APROPOS BOTH THE GROUNDS LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED TH E ADDITIONS MADE BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: - WITH REGARD TO TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES 2.3 I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE DISCUSSION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE DIS ALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SAME AS IN THE AY 2007-08 AND AY SMC-ITA NO. 2231/AHD/2013 M/S. ESS ESS ENGINEERING VS.DICT AY : 2009-10 2 2008-09; APPEALS FOR WHICH YEARS AGAINST THE SAID A LLOWANCE HAD BEEN DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A). SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS M ADE IN THE AY 2005-06 IN WHICH YEAR ALSO THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT WAS DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A). I ALSO FIND THAT M/S. SHRI GANESH TRAVELLERS WAS ALSO THERE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO AY 2007-08 AND AY 2008-09 AND TRANSP ORTATION EXPENSES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO THEM WERE DISALLOWED F OR THE REASON THAT THE ABOVE PARTIES DID NOT EXIT AT THE ADDRESSES PROVIDE D BY THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) FOR AY 2007-08 VIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 26.10.2010 IN APPEAL NO.CAS/II/320/09-10 AND FOR AY 2008-09 VIDE ORDER NO.CAS/II/281/2011-12 DATED 23.08.2011. IN VI EW OF THE FACT THAT THE VERY REASON FOR WHICH DISALLOWANCE OF TRANSPORTATIO N EXPENSES WAS MADE IN THE AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE DISALLOWANCE OF TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES MADE BY THE AO IS UPHELD. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. WITH REGARD TO TELEPHONE EXPENSES 5.3. I FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT IN AY 200 8-09 THE ISSUE REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES HAS BEEN CONFIRM ED VIDE CIT(A) ORDER NO.CAS/II/281/2010-11 DATED 23.08.2011. AS PERSONAL CALLS IN TELEPHONE EXPENSES CANNOT BE RULED OUT AND AS APPELLANT HAS F AILED TO PROVE THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE EXCLUSIVELY AND WHOLLY FOR BUSINESS, I CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE AND REJECT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 4. LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW AND CONTENDS THAT SIMILAR ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED IN PAST ALSO IN RESPECT OF TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES ON THE FINDING THAT M/S. SHRI GANESH TRAVELLERS WAS A NON-EXISTING ENTITY. BESIDES, ON TELEPHONE E XPENSES, ELEMENTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO PERSONAL CALLS BEING FOR NON-BUSINE SS PURPOSES HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THAT MATTER, THERE IS NO IN FIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WHICH SHOULD BE UPHELD. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUT HORITIES. I FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. SR. DR. THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT CHALLENGED THAT M/S. SHRI GANESH TRAVELLERS WAS IN FACT AN EXISTING ENTI TY. BESIDES, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO DENY EXPENSES OF PERSONAL ELEM ENTS IN TELEPHONE SMC-ITA NO. 2231/AHD/2013 M/S. ESS ESS ENGINEERING VS.DICT AY : 2009-10 3 EXPENSES OF THE PARTNERS. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE FIN DINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE UPHELD AND THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 19 TH JULY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- R.P. TOLANI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD; DATED 19/07/2016 *BIJU T. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD