IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 30/AGRA/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-06 SHRI TRIBHUVAN SINGH YADAV, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFIC ER, 46/138, YADAV COLONY, WARD 2(2), AGRA. SATI NAGAR, AGRA. (PAN : AARPY 6530G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI NITIN SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI A.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 31.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.11.2011 ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.10.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-I, AGRA. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BUT AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE IS NOT PRES SING GROUND NO. 1, 3, 4 & 5 AND REQUESTED THAT THESE GROUNDS MAY BE DISMISSED AS NO T PRESSED. HE HAS ALSO ENDORSED THE SAME ON THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL . KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN GROUND NOS. 1, 3, 4 & 5 ARE DISMISSED. 2 3. AS REGARDS TO ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 2, FO R THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 2. BECAUSE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF LEARNED C IT(APPEALS) IN THE ORDER ARE PERVERSE, ARBITRARY, BASELESS AND MISLEADING : (A) AS ON 31.03.2005 THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN SALARI ES OUTSTANDING AND PAYABLE AS UNDER : I) MR. KRISHNA GOPAL RS. 9,000-00 II) MR. RAGHUVEER SINGH RS.16,500-00 III) MR. SHYAM SUNDER TYAGI RS.16,500-00 IV) MR. SUMIT CHAND JAIN RS.16,500-00 ----------------- RS.58,500-00 THUS APPARENTLY THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PAID SALARIES OF THREE MONTHS TO EACH OF HIS FOUR EMPLOYEES. THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR SUCH N ON-PAYMENT HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY HIM EITHER BEFORE THE A.O. OR IN APPEAL. 4. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROU ND NO.2 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING SALARY OUTSTANDING AND PAYABLE TO THE F OLLOWING PERSONS : I) MR. KRISHNA GOPTAL RS. 9,000-00 II) MR. RAGHUVEER SINGH RS.16,500-00 III) MR. SHYAM SUNDER TYAGI RS.16,500-00 IV) MR. SUMIT CHAND JAIN RS.16,500-00 ----------------- RS.58,500-00 THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE. SIMILARLY, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE THE PAYMENT IN DISPUTE TO THE EMPLOYEES AND TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF ASSESS EE HAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS INC URRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY 3 FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE LD. FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER . NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.10.2009. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED PROPERLY. HE ALSO STATED THAT ALL EMPLOYEES, WHICH ARE NOT DISPU TED, HAVE ALSO APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO FILED CONFIRMATION L ETTERS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE REQUES TED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.58,500/- MENTIONED IN GROUND NO. 2 MAY BE DELETE D. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE IMPU GNED ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 7. AFTER HEARING THE BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT RECORD AVAILABLE WITH ME, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS CLAIMED AMOUNT OF RS.58,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALARIES OUTSTANDING AND PAYABLE TO FOUR PERSONS MENTIONED IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH. AFTER PERUSIN G THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTH ORITY ALONG WITH PAPER BOOK FILED 4 BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, I AM OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS ESTABLISHED B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY EV EN BEFORE ME THAT WHICH EVIDENCE THEY HAVE FILED IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM IN DISPUT E. THEREFORE, FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE WELL REASONED ORD ER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. I UPHOLD THE SAM E BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.11.2011. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1 ST NOVEMBER, 2011 *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY