SHRI SUBASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL, Vidisha V. THE ITO, Vidisha

ITA 292/IND/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5826 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: N D PATWA

Judgement Text

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL ITA NO. 292/IND/2015 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, INDORE SHRI B.C. MEENA, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 292/IND/2015 A.Y.2008-09 SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL VIDISHA ::: APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER VIDISHA ::: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI ASHISH GOYAL AND SHRI N.D. PATWA RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 21.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 . 2 . 1.201 6 O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, BHOPAL, DATED 26.2.20 15. SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL ITA NO. 292/IND/2015 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND PROPRIETOR OF M/S PRAKASH CHAND SUBHASH CHAND AGARWAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN GRAINS ON WHOLESALE BASIS. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS ABOUT NOT ALLOWING HAMMALI EXPENSES OF RS.1,96,842/-. 3. THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL FOR WHICH AN AFFIDAVIT WAS SUBMITTED IN WHICH REASONS HAVE BEEN ENUMERATED. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, I CONDONE T HE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 5.2 APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS ALONG WITH ORDER AND RECORDS OF THE A.O. HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED CAREFULLY AND ARE FOUND DEVOID OF MERITS. THERE IS NO DENYING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ACTING AS COMMISSION AGENT ON BEHALF OF M/S SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL ITA NO. 292/IND/2015 3 LAXMI SOLVEX, DEWAS FOR PURCHASE OF GRAINS. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED AT BOTH STAGES OF PROCEEDINGS ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS APPEAL TO GIVE SATISFACTORY JUSTIFICATION AND PURPOSE OF HAMMALI PAYMENTS MADE ON BEHALF OF ITS PRINCIPAL. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 11,02,833/- HAS ALREADY BEEN DEBITED IN THE APPELLANTS P&L A/C AS HAMMALI IN ADDITION TO THE IMPUGNED SUM OF RS.1,96,842/-. THE APPELLANTS RELIANCE ON SAME CASE LAWS AND REASONING ON THIS ISSUE STATING IT TO BE SIMILAR TO CHARGING OF NOTIO NAL INTEREST ARE FOUND MISPLACED. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED ON AN AGRI COMMODITIES AGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN ONE M/S BHASKAR EXXOILS LTD AND M/S SAHU TRADERS IN THIS REGARD. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN HIMSELF AND M/S LAXMI SOLVEX TO JUSTIFY SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL ITA NO. 292/IND/2015 4 AND PROVE THE PAYMENT OF EXCESS HAMMALI OF RS.1,96,842/- MADE BY HIM DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AFTER PERUSAL OF ENTIRE MATERIAL ON RECORD, ADDITION OF RS.1,96,842/- IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 5. DURING THE HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE FACT WHETHER THE ASSES SEE HAS CLAIMED THIS AMOUNT OF HAMMALI EXPENSES FROM LAXMI SOLVEX AS OTHER PAYMENTS OF HAMMALI EXPENSES WERE CLAIMED AND ALLOWED. THE ANSWER OF THE LEARNED AR WAS IN NEGATIVE. FURTHER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE WAS ALSO ASKED WHETHER THE AMOUNT WAS PAID BY CHEQUES, THE ANSWER WAS IN THE NEGATIVE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE ALSO ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER CLAIMED THIS AMOUNT FROM M/S LAXMI SOLVEX. CONSIDERING ALL TH ESE ASPECTS AND THE REASONS RECORDED IN CIT(A)S ORDER, I FIND SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL ITA NO. 292/IND/2015 5 NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LE ARNED CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 2 ND FEB., 2016 SD/- (B.C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 2 ND FEB. 2016