Amarshiv Construction Pvt. Ltd., Baroda V. The ACIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

ITA 3409/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 72813 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 27-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C BENCH, AHMEDABAD , ! ' #$ #$ #$ #$ %, ' BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER APPEAL(S) BY APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT SL. NO(S) ITA NO(S) ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 3409/AHD/2010 2000-01 AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD. 14, ATUL PARK SOCIETY KARELIGAUG BARODA-390 018 PAN: AACCA 3235E ACIT CIRCL-1(1) BARODA 2. 3410/AHD/2010 2003-04 ASSESSEE REVENUE 3. 3411/AHD/2010 2007-08 ASSESSEE REVENUE ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K.PATEL, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI J.P.JHANGID, SR.D.R. & ' ! / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 27/12/2013 )*+ ' ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/01/2014 , / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : OUT OF THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE, ONE A PPEAL IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY AND REST OF THE TWO APP EALS ARE AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION PERTAINING TO DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS) 2000-01, 2003-04 & 2007-08 AND ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS )-I, BARODA ITA NO.3409, 3410 & 3411/AHD/2010 AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD. BARODA VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 2000-01, 2003-04 & 2007-08 - 2 - (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 01/10/2010, 01/10/2010 & 03/09/2010 RESPECTIVELY. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE ITA NO.3409/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2000-01, WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE: 1. THE LEAREND CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PE NALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF RS.1,10,000/- ON DISALLOWANCE OF F OREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.2,73,793/- INCURRED BY THE COMPANY FOR ITS DIRECTOR SHRI ASHOK M. PATEL. 2. THE APPELLANT COMPANY CRAVES, LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER O R AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS MENTIONED ABOVE. 2.1. AT THE OUTSET, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHR I MEHUL PATEL IN ALL FAIRNESS SUBMITTED THAT PENALTY WAS LEVIED ON DISALLOWANCE O F FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES AND THIS DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN CONFIRMED TILL THE S TAGE OF HONBLE ITAT. HE HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE ORDER OF HONBLE ITAT D BENCH AHMEDABAD RENDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1685/AHD/ 2007 PERTAINING TO THE AY 2000-01, DATED 01/02/2008. WE FIND THAT THE HON BLE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO1685/AHD/2007 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 5. THE NEXT ISSUE IS AS REGARDS TO CONFIRMATION O F DISALLOWANCE OUT OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.2,73,993/-. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENT TO PROVE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES AND NO EX PLANATION WHATEVER IS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS OR ANY PROOF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ADD ED FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN BEFORE US T HE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN HIS SUPPORT. 6. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FAIR LY FEEL THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONF IRMED BY THE CIT(A) BE UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE OF THE A PPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.3409, 3410 & 3411/AHD/2010 AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD. BARODA VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 2000-01, 2003-04 & 2007-08 - 3 - 2.2. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY MATER IAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM FOR EXPENDITURE OF FOREIGN TRAVEL DESPITE HAVING BEEN GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMIT Y IN THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL ARE HEREBY REJECTED. 3. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.3409/ AHD/2010 FOR AY 2000-01 IS DISMISSED. 4. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE ITA NO.3410/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2003-04, WHEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RETENTION MONEY OF RS.30,80,101/- HAD ACCRUED TO THE APPELLAN T COMPANY DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2003-04. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.30,80,101/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF REJEC TION OF THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY FOR DEDUCTION OF RET ENTION MONEY. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,09,715/- BEING VOLUNTARY RETIR EMENT EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.90,000/- BEING COMPENSATION EXPE NSES PAID TO EMPLOYEES. 5. THE APPELLANT COMPANY CRAVES, LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER O R AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS MENTIONED ABOVE. 4.1. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 28/03/2006, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) MADE DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION IN RESPECT OF RETENTION MONEY AMOUNTING TO ITA NO.3409, 3410 & 3411/AHD/2010 AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD. BARODA VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 2000-01, 2003-04 & 2007-08 - 4 - RS.30,80,101/-, PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.22,270/-, VRS EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,09,715/- AND COMPENSATIO N AMOUNTING TO RS.90,000/-. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS PA RTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL, THEREBY THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.22,270/- AND REST OF THE DISALLOWANCES WERE CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 5. GROUND NOS.1 & 2 ARE INTER-CONNECTED. THE LD.C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE I N RESPECT OF RETENTION MONEY. IN ALL FAIRNESS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISS UE HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS BY THE HONBL E ITAT. 5.1. THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS THAT THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1685/AHD/2007 F OR AY 2000- 01(SUPRA), HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSES SEE. IN VIEW OF THIS, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY REJECTED. 7. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISAL LOWANCE OF RS.1,09,715/- BEING VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT EXPENSES C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. ITA NO.3409, 3410 & 3411/AHD/2010 AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD. BARODA VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 2000-01, 2003-04 & 2007-08 - 5 - 7.1. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS SPENT ON THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT. HOWEVER, NO EVI DENCE COULD BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THA T THE AO HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY COULD NOT FURNISH ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. THI S DISALLOWANCE WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). EVEN BEFORE THIS TRIBU NAL ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR ITS CLA IM. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 8. GROUND NO.4 IS AGAINST CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE O F RS.90,000/- BEING COMPENSATION EXPENSES PAID TO EMPLOYEES. 8.1. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID TO ITS EMPLOYEES BY WAY OF COMPENSATION. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE COULD BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY COULD NOT FURNISH ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. THI S DISALLOWANCE WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). EVEN BEFORE THIS TRIBU NAL ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR ITS CLAI M. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALSO REJECTED. ITA NO.3409, 3410 & 3411/AHD/2010 AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD. BARODA VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 2000-01, 2003-04 & 2007-08 - 6 - 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NOD.3410 /AHD/2010 FOR AY 2003-04 IS DISMISSED. 10. LAST, WE TAKE UP THE ITA NO.3411/AHD/2010 FOR A Y 2007-08, WHEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RETENTION MONEY OF RS.70,14,322/- HAD ACCRUED TO THE APPELLAN T COMPANY DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2007-08. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.70,14,322/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF REJEC TION OF THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY FOR DEDUCTION OF RET ENTION MONEY. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT GIVING DIRECT IONS TO EXCLUDE THESE AMOUNTS OFFERED FOR TAX BY THE APPELL ANT COMPANY IN PRECEDING YEAR. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,000/- BEING VOLUNTARY RETIREM ENT EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 5. THE APPELLANT COMPANY CRAVES, LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER O R AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS MENTIONED ABOVE. 10.1. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES (EXCEPT FOR GROUND NO.3) ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ASSESSEE S OWN APPEAL FOR AY 2003-04, I.E. ITA NO.3410/AHD/2010(SUPRA), WE CONF IRM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR THE SAME REASONING STATED IN ASSESSEES OWN APPEAL AND DISMISS ALL OTHER GROUNDS (EXCEPT GROU ND NO.3) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. 10.2. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.3, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN THE CREDIT FO R THE AMOUNT WHICH HAS ITA NO.3409, 3410 & 3411/AHD/2010 AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD. BARODA VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 2000-01, 2003-04 & 2007-08 - 7 - BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE LD.SR.DR HAS NO OBJECTION IF THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FIL E OF AO FOR VERIFICATION. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE IS TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR VERIFICAT ION OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THUS , THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. 12. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEALS IN I TA NOS.3409 & 3410/AHD/2010 FOR AYS 2000-01 & 2003-04 RESPECTIVEL Y ARE DISMISSED, WHEREAS ITA NO.3411/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2007 -08 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( ) ( %) ! ' ' ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 3/ 1 /2014 /.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.3409, 3410 & 3411/AHD/2010 AMARSHIV CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD. BARODA VS. ACIT ASST.YEARS 2000-01, 2003-04 & 2007-08 - 8 - , ' 12 3 2+ , ' 12 3 2+ , ' 12 3 2+ , ' 12 3 2+/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 45 / THE APPELLANT 2. 1645 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $$ 7 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 7() / THE CIT(A)- 5. 2%8 1 , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 89: ;& / GUARD FILE. , , , , / BY ORDER, 62 1 //TRUE COPY// < <<