Jai Kumar, Delhi V. ITO, ward- 62(1), New Delhi

ITA 3253/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7373 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 142(1); 143(1)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3253/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 JAI KUMAR, C/O SH. SATISH GOYAL,CA E-208, GROUND FLOOR, SHASTRI NAGAR, NEW DELHI 110 085 (PAN: ANFPK0238G) VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 16.2.2018 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-27, NEW DELHI RE LATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- I. BECAUSE THE ACTION IS BEING CHALLENGED ON FACTS AN D IN LAW, FOR CONFIRMING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING RS. 248910/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH PAYMENTS MADE BY ASSESSEE IN EXCESS OF RS. 20000/- U/S. 40A(3) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT. PRAYER FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF AND / OR LEGAL CLAIM ARISING OUT OF THIS APPEAL AND FOR ANY ADDITION, ASSESSEE BY SH. SATISH GOYAL, CA DEPARTMENT BY SH. SL ANURAGI, SR. DR. 2 DELETION, AMENDMENT AND MODIFICATION IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN PROVIDING SURVEY SERVICES OF SITES. IN T HIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.9.2013 DECLARI NG INCOME OF RS. 36,25,332/- BY SHOWING NET PROFIT OF RS. 36,25,332 /- ON GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS. 2,74,09,305/- THEREBY SHOWING NET PROFIT RATE O F 13.26%. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT). SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED F OR SCRUTINY. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSU ED ON 29.9.2014 AND AGAIN NOTICES U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONGWITH DETA ILED QUESTIONNAIRE WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE THERETO, T HE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED THE DETAILS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE ASKED TO PRODUCE ORIGINAL BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS, BILLS, VOUCHERS, MUSTER-ROLLS, WAGE ETC. FOR VERIFICATION AND AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE SAME, THE AO OBSERVED THAT AS PER LEDGER ACCOU NT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CA SH PAYMENT ON VARIOUS HEADS ON VARIOUS OCCASION AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE NO. 3 AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,48,910/- AND O BSERVED THAT THE CASH EXPENSES ABOVE RS. 20,000/- IS DISALLOWABLE U/S. 4 0A(3) OF THE ACT, HENCE, HE ADDED BACK THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,48,910/- I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 47,97,690/- 3 U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 19.2.2016. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.2.2018 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. DURING THE HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE IN FACT FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 20, 000/- AS THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY VARIOUS EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE ON TOUR ON DIFFERENT DATES OF HIS TRAVEL AND ARE BOOKED IN TOT AL FOR A PARTICULAR TOUR THROUGH A PARTICULAR VOUCHER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE DESIRED VOUCHERS WERE S HOWN TO AO FOR HIS VERIFICATION, WHICH HE VERIFIED IN DETAIL. HOWEVER , THE ABOVE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE SO INCURRED AND DEBITED BY A PARTICULA R VOUCHER ON A PARTICULAR DAY, IS A SUM TOTAL OF VARIOUS EXPENDIT URE AS PER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO THAT VOUCHER. HENCE, HE REQU ESTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,48,910/- AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT HE HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIME D THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS FOR INCURRING EXPENSES IN SMALL AMOUNTS, BUT COPIES OF BILLS FILED BY HIM DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS SH OW THAT THE VOUCHER FOR 4 THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN PREPARED BY ASSESSEE OF T HE SUM OF RS.2,48,910/- AND THE PAYMENT ALSO HAS BEEN MADE A CCORDINGLY. IN SUCH SITUATION, WHEN THE EXPENSES INCURRED AND PAYMENTS MADE BY ASSESSEE EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 20,000/- IN EACH CASE, TH E SAME IS DISALLOWABLE U/S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT, HENCE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,48,910/- AND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH DO ES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON MY PART, HENCE, I UPHOLD THE ACTIO N OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND REJECT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 14-01-2019. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE:14/01/2019 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. D R, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES 5