M/s. Bright Enterprises, P.Ltd, Jalandhar V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Jalandhar

ITA 247/ASR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 24720914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 247 (ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 PAN: AAACB9469K M/S BRIGHT ENTERPRISE(P) LTD., VS. ASSISTANT COMM ISSIONER NEW ADD: MBD HOUSE, OF INCOME TAX, RANG E-IV RAILWAY ROAD, JALANDHAR JALANDHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING: 20.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.01.2014 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.03.2010 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), JA LANDHAR, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,51,299/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALES AND MARKETING EXPEN SES WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND IS CONTESTED. 2 I.T.A. NO. 247 (ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 II. THAT THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED PROPERLY. III. THAT THE LEARNED A.O. WAS BOUND TO APPLY HIS JUDICI AL MIND TO EACH SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND ARRIVE AT THE LEGAL CONCLUSION. IV. THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. V. THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS O F THE CASE FOR WANT OF PROPER ADJUDICATION. VI. ANY OTHER GROUND PRESSED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY CHALL ENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,51,299/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 18.12.2006 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEAR NED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.03.2010. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS WHI LE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT AND IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE, LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DELETED MANY ADDITIONS FOR WHICH THE REVENUE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL BEFORE US. AS PER RECORD, SUM OF RS. 27,22,183/- WAS DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT ON ACCOUNT OF SALES AND MARKETING EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCED THE VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF THESE EXPENSES BUT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF P.V. FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 15,70,884/-, 3 I.T.A. NO. 247 (ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 BUT HAS NOT PRODUCED VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF J.V. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER GIVING THE BENEFIT OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, DISALLOWED THE BALANCE OF RS. 11,51,299/- WHILE COM PLETING THE ASSESSMENT ON 18.12.2006 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E ACT. 4. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, LEARNED FIR ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AFTER CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, UPH ELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 11,51,299/-. NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS A C ASE OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM IN DISPUTE WHICH T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED BEFORE ANY REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS BEFORE US. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY BEN EFIT OF EXPENDITURE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. AS REGARDS TO THE DETAILS OF SALES AND MARKETING EXPENSES AND THE COPIES OF BILLS OF SALES AND MARKETING EXPENSES , WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED IN THE SHAPE OF SMALL PAPER BOOK BEFOR E US, WE ARE OF THE 4 I.T.A. NO. 247 (ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 VIEW THAT THESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY BELOW AND SUFFICIENT RELIEF H AS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE TOTAL CLAIM OF RS. 27,22,183/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALES AND MARKETING EXPENSES WAS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LO SS ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE BUT ON ASKING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TH E ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ONLY VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF P.V. FOR AN AM OUNT OF RS. 15,70,884/- AND NO VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF JV HAS BE EN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AND VOUCHERS AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED TWO TYPES OF ENTRIES IN THE LEDGER A CCOUNT. ONE WAS IN RESPECT OF PV I.E. PURCHASE VOUCHERS AND THE OTHER WAS JV I.E. JOURNAL VOUCHERS. WHILE VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF PV FOR AN AM OUNT OF RS. 15,70,884 WERE PRODUCED AND NO VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF JV COULD BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN VIEW OF THE FORGOING DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF TH E CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY, WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS LEGAL AND AS PER LAW. THEREFORE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED IN THE IMPUGNE D ORDER AND 5 I.T.A. NO. 247 (ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.0 3.2010 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), JALANDHAR. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JANUARY, 2014 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH JANUARY, 2014 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: M/S BRIGHT ENTERPRISE(P) LTD., NEW A DD: MBD HOUSE, RAILWAY ROAD, JALANDHAR 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-IV, JAL ANDHAR 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.