Sirmour Truck Operator Union, Sirmour V. ITO, Nahan

ITA 246/CHANDI/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 24621514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAI SHREE SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: HARRY RICKY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 246/CHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SIRMOUR TRUCK OPERATOR UNION, V ITO C/O VARINDER BHATIA, NAHAN, HOUSE NO.81, WARD-4 SIRMOUR (HP). BADRI NAGAR, PAONTA SAHIB,SIRMOUR (HP). PAN: AABSA-1755N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HARRY RICKY RESPONDENT BY : SMT. JAISHREESHARMA DATE OF HEARING : 08.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.11.2011 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2008 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHIMLA IS DEFECTIVE BOTH IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHIMLA IS UNJUSTIFIED IN IGNORING OUR GROUND OF APPEAL REGARDING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT OF BEING A MUTUAL BENEFIT 2 CONCERN. THE LD. AO IS ALSO UNJUSTIFIED IN IGNORING OUR SUBMISSIONS REGARDING THE ASSESSEE UNION BEING A MUTUAL BENEFIT CONCERN. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHIMLA IS UNJUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADHOC ADDITION OF RS.10,000/- MADE BY THE LD. AO REGARDING ELECTION EXPENSES MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES WITHOUT ANY STRONG BASIS. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHIMLA IS UNJUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADHOC ADDITION OF RS.30775/- MADE BY THE LD. AO REGARDING AKHAND PAATH EXPENSES MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES WITHOUT ANY STRONG BASIS. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHIMLA IS UNJUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.22,24,800/- MADE BY THE LD. AO REGARDING MEMBERSHIP FEES MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES WITHOUT ANY STRONG BASIS.. 3. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSID ER AND ADJUDICATE THE GROUND RAISED BEFORE HER ON THE APPL ICABILITY OF THE CONCEPT OF MUTUALITY IN THE PRESENT CASE. H E FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT SUCH A GROUND WAS RAISED BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) VIDE GROUND NO. 1. ACCORDINGLY, HE INDICATE D AND SUGGESTED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FIL E OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE SAME. LD. 'AR' FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO. 5 IS INTER-LINKED WITH GROUND NO.1 AS THE ADJUDICATION ON THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.1 WOULD HAVE DIRECT IMPACT ON THE FATE OF GROUND NO.5. 3 4. LD. 'DR' ON THE OTHER HAND, STATED THAT THIS GRO UND OF APPEAL HAS BEEN DULY DISCUSSED BY THE LD CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FACTS OF THE CASE AND FOUND THAT CIT(A) VIDE PARA 4(II) O F THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 04.11.2008 IN ASSESSEE'S CASE HAS CITED FOUR CASE-LAWS AND DISCUSSED THE APPLICABILIT Y OR OTHERWISE OF THE CONCEPT OF MUTUALITY. FURTHER, FR OM THE PERUSAL OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, IT IS EVIDENT THAT NO SPEAKING ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED WITH A FINDING ON THE ISSUE I N QUESTION. CONSEQUENTLY, WITH A VIEW TO MEET THE EN DS OF JUSTICE, THE ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF CIT(A ) FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION AND PASSING FRESH ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND CASE- LAWS. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO AFFOR D APPROPRIATE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSES SEE BEFORE PASSING SUCH ORDER. 6. IN GROUND NO.3, THE LD. 'AR' CONTENDED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES ON ALLOCATION AMOUNTING TO RS.10,000/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED B Y THE CIT(A) ON SURMISES. LD. 'DR' SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F THE AO AND THE CIT(A). 7. A PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT ORDERS PASSED BY THE L OWER AUTHORITIES REVEALS THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS NOT BEEN MADE ON THE FOUNDATION OF PROPER AND COGENT EVIDENC ES. HENCE, THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4 8. IN GROUND NO.4, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30,775/-, MADE BY THE AO AND CON FIRMED BY THE CIT(A), ON AKHAND PAATH. IT WAS POINTED O UT BY THE LD. 'AR' THAT RELEVANT VOUCHERS AND BILLS WERE FILE D BEFORE THE AO. HOWEVER, THE AO MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGH T ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY SUCH DISALLOWANCE. LD. CIT(A) UPH ELD THE SAID ADDITION. LD. 'DR' SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8(I) WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE C ASE AND THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUND THAT THE IMPUGNED A DDITION HAS BEEN FOR THE SAKE OF ADDITION ONLY, WITHOUT FOU NDATION OF ANY RELEVANT MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD, HENCE THE SAME IS DELETED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED AND GROUND NO. 1 AND 5 RESTORED TO THE FILE OF CIT(A), HENCE, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH NOV.,2011 SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (MEHAR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14 TH NOV.,2011. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH