Smt. Sheela Devi Agarwal, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward-30(3), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 251/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7764 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANKAR HALDER JCITSRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH TIWARI
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH SMC KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S, GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.251/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 SMT. SHEELA DEVI AGARWAL, 36/1, DEODAR STREET, KOLKATA-700019 [ PAN NO.AETPA 4363 F ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-30(3), AAYKAR BHAWAN, DAKSHIN 2, GARIAHAT ROAD, SOUTH, KOLKATA-68 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI MANISH TIWARI, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 26-06-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24-07-2019 /O R D E R THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-5, KOLKATAS O RDER DATED 04.12.2018 PASSED IN CASE NO. 201/CIT(A)-5/WARD-30(3)/18-19/KOL. INVOLV ING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . HEAR BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. THE ASSESSEES TWIN FOLDED SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE S PLEADED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL SEEK TO REVERSE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION D ISALLOWING ELECTRICITY CHARGES AND OCTROI PAYMENTS OF 1,11,690 AND 97,031/-; RESPECTIVELY. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT SUM OF THE BASIC FACTS EMERGING FROM THE CASE FILE. THE ASSESSEES CASE QUA THE ABOVE FORMER ISSUE IS THAT THE ELECTRICITY CHARGES HAD BE EN INCURRED FOR CARRYING OUT JOB WORK ITA NO.251/KOL/2019 A.Y. 2006-07 SMT. SHEELA DEVI AGARWAL VS. ITO WD-30(3), K OL. PAGE 2 OF SAREES PRINTING BUSINESS LEADING TO RECEIPT OF 48 LAC. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD HERSELF ADMITTED THAT THE SAID ELECTRICITY BILLS HA D COME IN THE NAME OF M/S ASHIKA SAREES LTD. SHE EXPLAINED THAT THE SAID ENTITY HAD AUTHORIZED M/S SAURABH PRINTS FOR ELECTRICITY BILLS IN ORDER TO RUNNING ITS SAREE PRI NTING BUSINESS. LEARNED COUNSEL THEREAFTER INVITES MY ATTENTION TO THE STATEMENT OF FACTS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN RUNNING HER UNIT AT THE PREMISES IN QUESTION, SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY 20% OF THE TOTAL ELECTRICITY BILLS. IT IS IN THIS BACKDROP OF FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE PRAYS FOR ALLOWING THE ENTIRE ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION CLAIM OF 1,11,610/- WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE INDICATING ANY UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN M/S ASHIKA SAREES LTD. AND HERSELF. THE FACT ALSO REMAINS THAT THE DEPARTM ENT HAD ITSELF ASSESSED THE SAID SAREE PRINTING RECEIPTS AS ASSESSEES BUSINESS INCOME. ME ANING THEREBY THAT THE CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE HAVE ALSO TO BE ALLOWED. I THEREFORE CONCLUDE IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS THAT A LUMP SUM DISALLOWANCE OF 11,690,/- OUT OF 1,11,690/- WOULD BE MEET ENDS OF JUSTICE WITH A RIDER THAT THE SAME SH ALL NOT BE TAKEN AS A PRECEDENT IN ANY EARLIER OR LATTER ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE GET S PART RELIEF OF 1,00,000/- ACCORDINGLY. 3. COMING TO LATTER ISSUE OF OCTROI CHARGES; I FIND THAT THE SAME REASONING PREVAILS HEREIN AS WELL SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE T HE RELEVANT OCTROI CHARGES PAID FOR ENTRY OF THE PRINTED SAREES IN MUMBAI CITY. I NOTIC E HEREIN AS WELL THAT THIS IS NOT THE REVENUES CASE THAT ASSESSEES PRINTED GOODS HAD NO T BEEN SUPPLIED TO MUMBAI OR THAT NO OCTROI IS LEVIED THEREUPON AS HER FACTORY IS STA TED IN THANE. I THEREFORE CONCLUDE QUA THIS LATTER ISSUE AS WELL THAT A LUMP SUM DISALLOW ANCE OF 10,000/- OUT OF 97,031/- WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IN THE VERY TERMS. THE ASSESSEE GETS RELIEF OF 87,031/- ACCORDINGLY. 4. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOV E TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 24 /07/2019 SD/- (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIA L MEMBER KOLKATA, *DKP/SR.PS - 24/07/2019 ITA NO.251/KOL/2019 A.Y. 2006-07 SMT. SHEELA DEVI AGARWAL VS. ITO WD-30(3), K OL. PAGE 3 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-SMT. SHEELA DEVI AGARWAL 36/1, DEODAR ST . KOLKATA-19 2. /RESPONDENT-ITO WD-30(3), AAYKAR BHAWAN DAKSHIN 2, GARIAHAT ROAD, SOUTH, KOLKATA -68 3. ' % / CONCERNED CIT 4. % - / CIT (A) 5. & ))' , ' / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. + / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ ',