Smt. Gagandeep Kaur, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 24/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5461 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI D.K.SRIVASTAVA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.24 /CHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) SMT.GAGANDEEP KAUR, VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, # 200, SECTOR 20-A, WARD 3 (2), CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: ALUPK3692H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SMT.SARITA KUMARI, DR O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A), DATED 31.8.2010 REL ATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REA D AS UNDER : 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.4 LACS TREATING THE UNSECURED LOAN RAISED FROM SH.PUNEET SINGH TO BE NOT GENUINE WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,98,655/- DISALLOWING THE EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD WAGES IN SPITE OF 2 THE FACT THAT ALL DETAILS WERE PLACED ON RECORD WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3. THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PR ESSED AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINS T THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,98,655/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED RS.17,0 2,410/- ON ACCOUNT OF WAGES PAID DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUISITIONED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ALONGWITH COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE SAID WAGES WERE PAID. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE EVIDENCE REGARDING PAYM ENT OF RS.1,98,655/- AND ALSO THE ADDRESSES OF THE SAID PERSON WERE NOT FILED. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COMPLET E ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE WAGES WERE PAID. THE SAID INFO RMATION WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION . THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS REPORT DATED 27.8.2010 POINTED OUT THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE LIST SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A ), LETTERS WERE ISSUED TO THE PERSONS ON THE ADDRESSES GIVEN BY THE ASSESS EE ON 13.8.2010 AND 23.8.2010. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED TO PRODUC E THE CASH BOOK, LEDGER AND WAGES REGISTER WITH BILLS/VOUCHERS ON 20 ..8.2010 AND 26.8.2010. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COMPLIANCE FROM B OTH THE SIDES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REPORTED THAT THE VERIFICATION OF WAGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TOTALING RS.1,98,655/- COULD NOT BE DONE. IN REJOINDER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE FURNISHED COMPLETE ADDRESS ES OF THE PERSONS ON RECORD AND VOUCHERS, CASH BOOK AND LEDGER WERE CLAI MED TO HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS. 3 THE CIT(A) REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN T HE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATING EVIDENCE AND ALSO NON-APPEARANCE OF H E PERSONS TO WHOM WAGES WERE PAID, CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 ,98,655/-. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID DISAL LOWANCE. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE MADE A REFERENCE TO T HE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE REJOINDER FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, HE FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE ITS STAND. 7. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX ACT, ONUS IS CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH ITS CLAIM WITH EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, OUT OF TOTAL PAYMENT OF WAGES OF RS. 17,02,410/-, COULD NOT FURNISH THE ADDRESSES OF THREE PERSONS TOTALING RS.1,98,655/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CONSIDERED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD FU RNISHED COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF THE SAID PERSONS. HOWEVER, TWO COMMUN ICATION SENT TO THE AFORESAID ADDRESSES OF THE SAID PERSONS TO WHOM WAG ES WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID, WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE SAID PARTIES. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO REQUI SITIONED TO FILE THE VOUCHERS OF WAGES PAID ALONGWITH CASH BOOK AND LEDG ER AND THE ASSESSEE EVEN FAILED TO FURNISH THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. IN THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE UPHOLD THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS LINE OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE WAGES PAID 4 AMOUNTING TO RS.1,98,655/- IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESS EE FURNISHING ANY CORROBORATING EVIDENCE TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K.SRIVASTAVA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 26TH APRIL , 2011 RATI COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH .