Rameshbhai Parsotambhai Maradiya, Surat V. Income Tax Officer, Ward6(3), Surat

ITA 3118/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7227 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST IMPUGNED PASSED

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3118/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 RAMESHBHAI PARSOTAMBHAI MARADIYA, E/1002, SWASTIK TOWER, NEAR SARTHANA JAKATNAKA, VARACHHA ROAD, SURAT 395 006. [PAN: ATHPM 8703 A] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), SURAT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I, SURAT DATED 02.08.2014 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: I. CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.30,15,000 FOR ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED CASH PAYMENT: (1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ABOVE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (2) THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) DID NOT DEAL WITH THE AFFIDAVIT AND CONFIRMATION FILED BY JAY LEELA LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. TO WHOM THE AFOREMENTIONED CASH PAYMENT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE. ASSESSEE BY SHRI HIREN R. VEPARI CA DEPARTMENT BY SHRI R.P.RASTOGI SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 17.07.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18.07.2019 2 II. CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.7,04,141 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED PAYMENT OF RATE DIFFERENCE: (1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.7,04,141 AS INFLATED EXPENSES PAID TO JAY LEELA LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. (2) THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) DID NOT DEAL WITH THE AFFIDAVIT AND CONFIRMATION FILED BY JAY LEELA LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. III. MISCELLANEOUS: (1) THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT NO INTEREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED U/S.234B RELATING TO ABOVE ADDITION. (2) THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT NO INTEREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED U/S.234C RELATING TO ABOVE ADDITION. (3) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR VARY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND STATED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE MAY BE DECIDED AFTER GOING THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY HIM. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ESPECIALLY ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONG WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH PAPER BOOKS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PAGE NO.1 TO 15 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED LETTER DATED 18.03.2013 TO ITO, WARD-6(3), SURAT AND VARIOUS OTHER DOCUMENTARY SUPPORTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE SAKE OF 3 CONVENIENCE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: DATE:-18/03/2013. TO, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), SURAT. RE: - INCOME-TAX ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2010-11 IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAMESHBHAI P.MARADIYA. PAN: -ATHPM8703A. SUB: - SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER DATED 11/03/2013. MY ABOVE CLIENT IS IN RECEIPT OF YOUR LETTER DATED 11 TH MARCH 2013 ALONG WITH THAT LETTER, YOU HAVE ENCLOSED STATEMENT OF MY BROTHER SHRI SANJAY P.MARADIA RECORDED BY YOU ON 15 TH FEBRUARY 2013.ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE STATEMENT, YOU HAVE ASKED MY CLIENT TO MAKE SUBMISSION. I HAVE ALREADY MADE SUBMISSION DATED 15-01-2013 IN WHICH I HAVE POINTED OUT THAT WHATEVER WAS WRITTEN BY JAYLILA LOGISTICS PVT LTD WITH WHICH MY CLIENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH. YOU HAVE ASKED MY BROTHER TO EXPLAIN THE ACCOUNT OF THAT SHEET. HE HAS SIMPLY REFERRED TO WHAT IS MENTIONED IN THE SHEET. THIS IS NOT DENIED. WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING AND WHICH I REITERATED IS THAT THESE FIGURES WERE WRITTEN BY JAYLILA LOGISTICS PVT LTD IN FACT, I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND HOW MY CLIENTS BROTHER WOULD KNOW ABOUT THE BUSINESS DEALINGS AND AS TO WHO HAS WRITTEN WHAT. HE HAS SIMPLY EXPLAINED WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE SHEET. THIS DOES NOT ALTER THE POSITION MENTIONED BY MY LETTER DATED 15-01-2013 AND AFFIDAVIT MADE. THANKING YOU I REMAIN SD/- (N.I.SHUKLA) ADVOCATE 6. WE HAVE THOROUGHLY GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS REPRODUCED ABOVE AND WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ADDITION OF RS.30,15,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE MENTIONED 4 IN THE ORDER OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS CONFIRMED THIS ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS NARRATED BY THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE, NAMELY SHRI SANJAYBHAI P MARDIYA DURING THE RECORDING OF STATEMENT U/S.131 OF THE ACT. HE CONFIRMED THAT THE ENTRIES OF THE SHEET ARE ACKNOWLEDGED BY THEM AND ACTUALLY EXECUTED. THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALSO RIGHTLY HELD THAT IT CANNOT BE BELIEVED THAT RTGS ENTRIES OF THE SHEET ARE REAL AND EXECUTED BUT CASH ENTRIES OF THE SAME SHEET ARE UNREAL, THE CASH TRANSACTIONS NOT BEING EXECUTED, BALANCES WORKED OUT AT THE END WOULD HAVE DIFFERENT. 7. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.30,15,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE CONFIRM THE SAME BY DECIDING THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.1 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 8. AS REGARDS TO THE ADDITION OF RS.7,04,141/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF RATE DIFFERENCE, AFTER GOING THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK MENTIONED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS INFLATED EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7,04,141/- IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, ADDITION IN DISPUTE IS LEGALLY MADE. THE REVENUE AUTHORITY HAS SEEN FROM THE DETAILS FILLED BY THE 5 ASSESSEE AND AFTER VERIFICATION, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCOUNTED FOR BILLS WHICH HAS HIGHER AMOUNT AS PER HIS OWN WILL. NO GENUINE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ESTABLISHING HIS CLAIM BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.7,04,141/- ON ACCOUNT OF INFLATED EXPENSES. 9. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED ABOVE AS WELL AS THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED IN THE WELL- REASONED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 18-07-2019. SD/- SD/- (O.P. MEENA) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18/07/2019 / GANGADHARA RAO.S COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. PR.CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR / / TRUE COPY / / / / TRUE COPY / / ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, SURAT