Poonam Agarwal, Hardoi V. Income Tax Officer-3(3), Hardoi

ITA 340/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3960 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 69C

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.340/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.340/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 POONAM AGARWAL PROP. AGARWAL TRADING COMPANY CENTRAL BANK ROAD, RAILWAY GANJ, HARDOI PAN:-AAWPA 3620 Q VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), HARDOI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER P. K. BANSAL, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BAREILLY, DATED 16.03.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2012-13. 2. THE FIRST GROUND IS GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE FOR ANY ADJUDICATION. 3. THE SECOND GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 68,629/- BEING THE ELECTRICITY EXPE NSES ACTUALLY PAID BY THE HUSBAND AND MOTHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE. APPELLANT BY SHRI SANJAY SAXENA, F.C.A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 18.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.10.2016 I.T.A. NO.340/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 2 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ELECTRICI TY EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 24,926/- WERE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEES HUSBAN D WHILE RS. 43,703/- WERE SPENT BY HER MOTHER-IN-LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS MAKING THE ADDITION TOTALLY IGNORING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 69C. SECT ION 69C WOULD APPLY ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE. I T IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE BUT THE E XPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY HER HUSBAND AND MOTHER-IN-LAW, WHO ARE DIFFERENT PERSONS AS COMPARED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, I D ELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 68,629/-. THUS THE GROUND NO. 2 STANDS ALLOWED. 5. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF THE DI SALLOWANCE OF RS. 58,500/- AND RS. 37,500/- OUT OF SUGAR PURCHASE EX PENSES AND KHANDSARI PURCHASE EXPENSES. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. I NOT ED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF THE FREIG HT AND WAGES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF SUGAR FREIGHT AND WAGE S EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF THE KHANDSARI AMOUNTING TO RS. 58,500/- AND RS. 37,500/- RESPECTIVELY MERELY ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THESE EXPENSES THROUGH HANDMADE VOUCHERS AND PAYMENTS WER E MADE IN CASH. IT IS NOT A CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INC URRED EXPENSES IN CASH IN EXCESS OF THE LIMIT AS PRESCRIBED U/S 40A(3). THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT WHICH PROHIBITS THE ASSESSEE TO INCU R THE EXPENDITURE THROUGH HANDMADE VOUCHERS. IF THE EXPENDITURE HAS WHOLLY AN D EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED I.T.A. NO.340/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 3 FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED. THE BASIS OF DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, I N MY OPINION, DOES NOT HAVE ANY LEG TO STAND. I, THEREFORE, DELETE THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS. 96,000/-. THUS, GROUND NO. 3 STANDS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ( ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DURING THE COURS E OF HEARING ). SD/- (P. K. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 19.10.2016 *SHARAD COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGIS TRAR