Mr. Ebrahimkhan Zainulabudeen, Chennai V. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 8(1), Chennai

ITA 291/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9434 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A. SUNDARARAJAN
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Set aside

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! ' # , % #& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.291/CHNY/2019 ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 SHRI EBRAHIMKHAN ZAINULABUDEEN T/A 29, ANNA FRUIT MARKET, KOYAMBEDU, CHENNAI-600 092. PAN : AAHPZ 9205 H V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD (8)(1), CHENNAI-600 034. (,-/ APPELLANT) (./,-/ RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : NONE ./,- 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A. SUNDARARAJAN, ADDL. CIT 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 02.12.2019 45* 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.01.2020 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 9, CHENNA I, DATED 30.11.2018 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 2. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED BY THIS TRIBUNA L BY RPAD. THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES RETURNED THE NOTICE OF HEARI NG WITH THE 2 I.T.A. NO.291/CHNY/19 ENDORSEMENT LEFT. THIS TRIBUNAL HAS NO MACHINERY TO FIND OUT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SERVE THE NOTIC E. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO INTIMATE THE CORRECT ADDRESS BY FILING REVISED FORM 36 WHENEVER THERE IS A CHANGE OF ADDRESS. THERE MAY B E VARIOUS REASONS FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FURNISHING THE CHA NGE OF ADDRESS TO THE REGISTRY. ONE OF THE REASONS, PRESUMABLY, THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL ANY MOR E. HOWEVER, THIS TRIBUNAL IS EXPECTED TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. THEREFORE, WE HEARD LD. DR AND PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. SHRI A. SUNDARARAJAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COOPERATED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT (APP EALS). THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 54,77,075/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS BANK CHARGES, ELECTRICITY, CELLPHONE CHA RGES, RENT, PRINTING AND STATIONERY, ETC. SINCE THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) BY FURNISHING NECESSARY MA TERIAL, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS RI GHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. HAVING HEARD THE LD. DR, WE PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF BOTH TH E AUTHORITIES 3 I.T.A. NO.291/CHNY/19 BELOW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE FOLLOW ING EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE:- 1. BANK CHARGES 7,125 2. ELECTRICITY 36,250 3. CELLPHONE CHARGES 19,658 4. CONVEYANCE 72,025 5. COMMISSION PAID 21,73,893 6. LOADING & UNLOADING CHARGES FOR THE FY 2014-15 9,80,000 7. PRINTING & STATIONERY 9,124 8. RENT PAID 1,80,000 9. GODOWN RENT 5,40,000 10. SALARY 15,000 11. STAFF WELFARE 2,80,000 12. STORE RENT 9,20,000 13. SUNDRY EXPENSES 2,44,000 TOTAL EXPENSES DISALLOWED 54,77,075/- 5. BANK CHARGES, ELECTRICITY AND RENT ARE IN THE NA TURE OF BUSINESS EXPENSES. OTHER EXPENSES LIKE PRINTING AN D STATIONERY, SALARY, COMMISSION AND CONVEYANCE ARE ALSO IN THE N ATURE OF BUSINESS EXPENSES. HOWEVER, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN CALL FOR DETAILS FROM THE BANKS AND OTHER STATUTORY AUTHORIT IES, INCLUDING THE LANDLORD, FOR PAYMENT OF CHARGES OF ELECTRICITY, ET C. SINCE SUCH AN EXERCISE WAS NOT DONE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONS IDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED. HENCE, TH E ORDERS OF BOTH 4 I.T.A. NO.291/CHNY/19 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE MAT ERIAL THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISS UE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 2 ND JANUARY, 2020 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' # ) ( . . . ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 2 ND JANUARY, 2020. KRI. 0 .389 :9*3 /COPY TO: 1. ,- /APPELLANT 2. ./,- /RESPONDENT 3. 2 ;3 () /CIT(A)-9, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT- 4, CHENNAI 5. 9< .3 /DR 6. =) > /GF.