Jugnu Goel, Haryana V. ACIT, Haryana

ITA 2899/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 289920114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S N BHATIA
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI TANEJA; ROHAN KHARE S
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH D : NEW DELHI) SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND BEFORE SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2899/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SHRI JUGNU GOEL, VS. ACIT, CIRCLE, PROP. STONEHENGE INC., REWARI. 44, NAI ANAJ MANDI, REWARI (HARYANA). (PAN : AEXPG5989B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA AND ROHAN KHARE, ADVOCATES REVENUE BY : SHRI S.N. BHATIA, DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS), ROHTAK DATED 04.04.2011. 2. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSE E WAS ENGAGED IN THE EXPORT OF NATURAL STONES. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 19.09.2008 DISCLOSING INCOME OF RS.1,24,73,120/-. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS :- ADDITION AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 4.1 ABOVE RS.12,37, 881/- ADDITION AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 4.2 ABOVE RS.67,87, 321/- ADDITION AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 4.3 ABOVE RS.13,78, 267/- ADDITION AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 5.1 ABOVE RS. 2,94 ,235/- ITA NO.2899/DEL./2011 2 THE CIT (A) ALLOWED PART RELIEF ON SOME GROUNDS BUT CONFIRMED CERTAIN ADDITION AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), ROHTAK HAS ERRED IN LA W AND AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.12 37881/- ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT PAYMENTS WHILE ALL THE DETAILS A ND BIFURCATION OF PAYMENTS ARE ON RECORD. FURTHER PAYMENTS MADE TO VARIOUS PARTIES ARE ONLY RE-IMBURSEMENT OF AMOUNT PAID TO V ARIOUS TRUCK OWNERS AND OTHER MODES OF PAYMENTS ON THE BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE UPHOLDING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.6787320/- U/S 40(A) BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ROHTAK ARE AGAINST THE LAW AN D FACTS OF THE CASE. FURTHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN N OT CONSIDERING THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS TO VARIOUS AGEN CIES WHICH ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 C. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ROHTAK HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.1290607/- OUT OF RS.13 78267/- WHICH PERTAINS TO EXPENSES INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF I NLAND HAULAGE AS ALL THE SALES ARE MADE OUT OF INDIA. FUR THER HE ALSO ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS SU PPLIED WITH COPIES OF BILLS ETC. ETC. WHICH ARE NOT COVERED WIT H IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, MODI FY, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. FURTHER ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITH PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 3. BEFORE US, WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS .12,37,881/- ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT EXPENSES MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT T HAT NO TDS WAS MADE, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS PAYMENT WAS MADE TO C&F AGENTS, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN VI EW OF THE DECISION OF ITA NO.2899/DEL./2011 3 MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE ACIT VS. M/S. P.P. OVERSEAS IN ITA NO.733/MUM/2010 DATED 18.02.2011. HE ALSO PROVIDED A COPY OF THE ORDER PLACED AT PAGES 105 TO 111 OF THE CASE LAWS COMPILA TION PLACED BEFORE US. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN FACT THE TAX WAS NOT R EQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTION U/S 194C AS THERE WAS NO CONTRACT RELATING TO TRANSPORT ATION AND IN ANY CASE, PAYMENTS MADE TO EACH TRUCK OWNER WAS LESS THAN RS. 20,000/-. HE HAS GIVEN A LIST OF CASE LAWS INCLUDING CIT VS. BHAGWATI STEELS 326 ITR 108 (P&H) COPY PLACED AT PAGES 112 TO 116 OF THE CASE LAWS CO MPILATION, CIT VS. UNITED RICE LAND LTD. 322 ITR 594 (P&H) COPY PLACED AT P AGES 117 TO 120 OF THE CASE LAWS COMPILATION, CIT VS. GREWAL BROTHERS 24 0 CTR 325 (P&H) COPY PLACED AT PAGES 121 TO 123 OF THE CASE LAWS COMPILA TION AND MRS. KAVITA CHUG VS. ITO 134 TTJ 103 (KOL.) COPY PLACED AT PA GES 124 TO 128 OF THE CASE LAWS COMPILATION. FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT THERE WERE REIMBURSEMENTS OF THE EXPENSES, THEREFORE, THE TAX WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW H AVE NOT CONSIDERED THE LEGAL POSITION AND CASE LAWS AVAILABLE ON THIS ISSU E AND VEHEMENTLY PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VIEW THE CASE DE NOVO IN VIEW OF THE CASE LAWS AVAILABLE. LD . DR WAS ALSO NOT HAVING ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION TO THIS PROPOSITION. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT IN TH E INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, IT SHALL BE APPROPRIATE THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED ON ALL THE THREE ITA NO.2899/DEL./2011 4 ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VI EW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTO RE THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUES DE NOVO. THE ASSESSEE SHALL COOPERATE IN FILING THE REQUIRED DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 6 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 6 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), ROHTAK. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.