ACIT, Faridabad V. M/s. Aman Road Transport Pvt Ltd., Faridabad

ITA 2262/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3324 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI KANT GUPTA SENIOR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2262/DEL./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ACIT, CIRCLE II, VS. M/S. AMAN ROAD TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., FARIDABAD. 5D/8A, RAILWAY ROAD, FARIDABAD. (PAN : AAFCA2287B) CO NO.32/DEL/2015 (IN ITA NO.2262/DEL./2014) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) M/S. AMAN ROAD TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., VS. ACIT, CIRCL E II, 5D/8A, RAILWAY ROAD, FARIDABAD. FARIDABAD. (PAN : AAFCA2287B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI RAVI KANT GUPTA, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 01.03.2018 DATE OF ORDER : 09.03.2018 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE AFORESAID APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF CONSOLIDATED ORDER TO AVOID REPETITION OF DISCUSSIO N ITA NO.2262/DEL./2014 CO NO.32/DEL/2015 2 2. THE APPELLANT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE II, NEW DELHI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE REVENUE) BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL, SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.02.2014 PASSED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS), FARIDA BAD QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA T HAT :- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT ON FACT AND IN LAW I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.88,17,498/- WHICH WAS M ADE BY THE AO AFTER TAKING THE RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT ON FACT AND IN LAW I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.88,17,498/- BY NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT RECEIPTS OF RS.1,00,00, 000/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS RECEIVED IN CASH ON 30.09. 2008 WAS NOT RECEIPTS FROM TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS AS ESTABLISHED BY THE AO WITH COGENT REASONS. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT ON FACT AND IN LAW I N NOT DECIDING THE ISSUE OF RECEIPTS OF RS.1,00,00,000/- ON MERITS AS THE AO HAS ESTABLISHED WITH COGENT REASON S THAT THIS RECEIPTS WAS NOT RECEIPTS FROM TRANSPORTA TION BUSINESS. 4. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD SHOWN ALL THE RECEIPTS FIGURIN G IN FORM 26AS AS WELL AS TDS CERTIFICATES. 5. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ERRED IN DIRECTING THAT THE RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS SHOULD BE TAKEN AS PER MERCANTILE SYSTEM ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY ACCEPT ING THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT SOME OF THE RECEIPTS AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES ALREADY STOOD ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE ITA NO.2262/DEL./2014 CO NO.32/DEL/2015 3 PRECEDING YEAR WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN AB LE TO FILE ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN THAT REGARD A ND WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) IN PURSUANCE OF THE SAME WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING ENTIRE ADDITION WITHOUT VERIF YING THE FACTS AND CITING ANY EXAMPLE OF SUCH A RECEIPT THAT STOOD ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. 6. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AO HAS WITH COGENT REASONS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED COMMISSION RECEIPTS OF RS.1,00,00,000/- AND HAS ALSO ESTABLISH ED THAT THIS AMOUNT DID NOT REPRESENT TRANSPORTATION RECEIPTS. 7. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING UPON THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF COMMIS SION INCOME OF RS.1,00,00,000/- ON MERITS SINCE THE AO H AD ESTABLISHED THAT THE RECEIPTS OF RS.1,00,00,000/- S HOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS RECEIVED IN CASH ON 30.09.2008 W AS NOT RECEIPTS FROM TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS. 3. THE OBJECTOR, M/S. AMAN ROAD TRANSPORT PVT. LTD. , BY FILING THE PRESENT CROSS OBJECTIONS CHALLENGED THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER DATED 218.12.2011 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), FARIDABAD DATED 11-1-2012 AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IS CORRECT IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS . 2. THAT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BEFORE ACIT AS WELL AS BEFORE CIT (APPEAL S) THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT JUSTIFYING THE CORRECT NESS OF THE RECEIPTS FROM TRANSPORTATION WORKS SHOWN DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 (AT RS.59757974) AND IN ESTIMATING THE GROSS RECEIPTS F ROM ITA NO.2262/DEL./2014 CO NO.32/DEL/2015 4 TRANSPORTATION WORKS AT RS.68575472/- AGAINST RS.59757974/- SHOWN AND RECONCILED BY THE RESPONDEN T ASSESSEE. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.8817498/-. THE LD. ACI T HAD MADE THE SAID ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DECLARATION OF RECEIPTS. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE A CIT FOR ENTERTAINING THE DOUBT AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM TRANSPORTATION WORD ARE VAGUE, FICTIONAL AND NOTHING BUT CONJECTURES AND SURMISES, ASSUMPTION OF POWER TO ESTIMATE THE GROSS RECEIPTS ON THIS ACCOUNT WAS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 4. THAT THE LD. ACIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TERMING THE RECEIPTS OF RS.1 CRORE DECLARED BY THE RESPONDE NT, AS RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION. 4. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICA TION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : THE ASSESSEE IS INTO THE TRANSPORT BUSINESS. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.88, 17,498/- ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS RECEIPTS TAKEN AS PER TDS CERTIFIC ATES. AO FURTHER MADE ADDITION OF RS.69,370/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED PROCESSING FEES OF RS.40,450/- AND INTEREST OF RS.28,920/- TO M/S. RELIANCE CAPITAL LIMITED BUT WITHOUT DEDUCT ING ANY TAX HENCE DISALLOWED BY THE AO. 5. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF FILING APP EAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENU E HAS COME UP ITA NO.2262/DEL./2014 CO NO.32/DEL/2015 5 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT AP PEAL AND THE ASSESSEE IMPUGNED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED TO PUT IN APPEARANCE DESPITE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE AND CONSEQUENTLY, WE PROCEED ED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD. D R AS WELL AS ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E FOR THE REVENUE TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REGULARLY FO LLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE FACT BEING DUL Y CERTIFIED BY THE AUDITOR OF THE COMPANY, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THA T VIDE LETTER DATED 08.11.2011, ASSESSEE PROVIDED COMPLETE RECONCILIATI ON OF THE WORK DONE AS PER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND AS PER STATEM ENT OF 26AS SUPPORTED WITH NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WHICH HAS BEEN R EJECTED BY THE AO. 9. THE ONLY DISPUTE TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON IS AS TO IN WHICH OF THE YEAR RECEIPTS AS RELIED UPON BY THE AO AS PER T DS CERTIFICATES/ FORM 26AS FOR FRAMING ASSESSMENT WERE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.2262/DEL./2014 CO NO.32/DEL/2015 6 WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND ALL THE RECEIPTS ARE APPEARING IN TD S CERTIFICATES AS WELL AS 26AS STATEMENT AND COMPLETE RECONCILIATION HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO DISCREPANC Y HAS BEEN FOUND, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINAB LE HAVING BEEN MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES. 10. MOREOVER, RECEIPTS AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES CANN OT BE TREATED AS GROSS RECEIPTS PARTICULARLY WHEN THE PRINCIPLE O F ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT FOR TAXES DEDUCTED AT SOURCE HAS BEEN ACCEPT ED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 30.05.2013. 11. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT (A), AFTER DULY TH RASHING THE DOCUMENTS VIZ. RECONCILIATION OF WORK DONE AS PER P ROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WITH RECEIPTS AS PER FORM 26AS WITH BILL, B ILL AMOUNT, DAMAGE, SHORTAGE, OTHERS AND NET PAYMENT FOR AN AMO UNT OF RS.39,03,543/- AND AS REGARDS, RS.6,58,960/- THE AS SESSEE PROVIDED DETAILS INCLUDING HUNDI NO., HUNDI DATE, HUNDI AMOU NT ETC. DULY RECEIVED BY CUSTOMER, NAMELY, ASIAN PAINT LIMITED A ND ALL THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN PERUSED BY THE AO DURING A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BE ING NOT SUSTAINABLE. FINDING NO ILLEGALITY OR PERVERSITY I N THE IMPUGNED ITA NO.2262/DEL./2014 CO NO.32/DEL/2015 7 ORDER, PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREB Y DISMISSED. CONSEQUENTLY, CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED HAVING BEEN BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AS THE ASS ESSEE HAS MERELY REITERATED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED T HE CORRECT ORDER. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 9 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), FARIDABAD. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.