Manish Subodhchandra Shah, Ahmedabad V. The ITO, Ward-11(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 2521/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 252120514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D K PARIKH

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD .. , ( .) , ! BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL,VICE PRESIDEN T (AZ) AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 2521/AHD/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) MANISH SUBODHCHANDRA SHAH C/O. POPATLAL AMTHALAL SHAH 6AB, 7 TH FLOOR SUMERU PARK PRABHAT SOCIETY, PALDI AHMEDABAD-380 007 / VS. THE ITO WARD-11(1) AHMEDABAD % & ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ACUPS 1947 A ( %( / APPELLANT ) .. ( )*%( / RESPONDENT ) %(+ / APPELLANT BY : SHRI D.K. PARIKH, AR )*%(,+ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR.DR - ., /& / DATE OF HEARING 03/06/2015 0123 , /& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05/06/2015 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XVI, AHMEDAB AD (CIT(A) IN SHORT) DATED 08/08/2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMEN T YEAR (AY) 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL:- ITA NO.2521/AHD /2011 MANISH SUBODHCHANDRA SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - 1.1. THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 ON 8.8.2011 FOR AY 2008-09 BY CIT(A)- XVI, ABAD, UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,58,10 0 IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NAT URAL JUSTICE. 1.2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPERLY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. 2.1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,58,100, OUT OF FREIGHT EXPENSES. 2.2. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.1,58,100. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UPHE LD BY THE CIT(A) MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,58,100/-. 2.1. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 22/12/2010, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,58,100/- CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF RAILWAY NOR-OCTROI EXPENSES. AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A SSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED B Y THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.2521/AHD /2011 MANISH SUBODHCHANDRA SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE AND C ONFIRMING THE SAME. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONING FOR DISALLOWANCE IS UNJUSTIFIED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND PROCEEDED TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS OF CONJ ECTURES AND SURMISES WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS THAT IN SIMILAR LINE OF BUSINESS, THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E WAS AT HIGHER SIDE, THEREFORE HE PROCEEDED TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE. THE L D.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, T HE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO EXPENDITUR E. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALTHOUGH RECORDED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PR ODUCED VOUCHERS, YET HE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT DOUBTED TH E VOUCHERS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, EVEN NO ENQUIRY IS MADE WITH REGAR D TO THE SUCH VOUCHERS AND THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE PROCEEDED O N THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION WHICH IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW IS NOT JUS TIFIED. THEREFORE WE ITA NO.2521/AHD /2011 MANISH SUBODHCHANDRA SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - HEREBY DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,58,100/-. THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 5 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ( ) ( .) ( G.D. AGARWAL ) ( KUL BHARAT ) VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 5/ 06 /2015 6/..- , .-../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*%( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 789 : / CONCERNED CIT 4. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD 5. ; <)-89 , /893 , 7 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. < => . / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, * ;) //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 3.6.15 (DICTATION-PAD 4+ PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 4.6.15 3. OTHER MEMBER... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.5.6.2015 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 5.6.2015 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER