Shri Hasmukhbhai Mohanlal Shah, Baroda V. The ACIT.,Circle-2(1), Baroda

ITA 3415/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 341520514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 18-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C MATHEWS
• Assessee Lawyers: ASEEM THAKKAR A R
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMADABAD , , , , BEFORE SHRI D.K.TYAGI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND .., SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER !.. , ' # $ # $ # $ # $ ITA NO. 3415/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2005-06 SHRI HASMUKHBHAI MOHANLAL SHAH PROP: SHAH CARRIER, SHAH CHAMBERS, CHHANI, BARODA - 391740 V/S . THE ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BARODA. PAN NO . A L UPS6134L (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) %& ' ( / BY APPELLANT SHRI ASEEM THAKKAR, A.R. )%& ' ( /BY RESPONDENT SHRI K. C. MATHEWS, SR.D.R. *+, ' -' /DATE OF HEARING 18.03.2014 ./0 ' -' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21.03.2014 O R D E R PER : SHRI T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF ASSESSEE WHICH H AS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, BARODA, DATED 19.08.20 10 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST CONF IRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.89,306/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER BEING 2.5% OF THE DIESEL EXPENSES. 2. THE LD. A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOW N TOTAL LOSS OF RS.1,22,336/- AND RS.5,35,186/-. HE GAVE REASONABL E OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT TANKERS ARE VERY ITA NO. 3415/AHD/10 A.Y. 05-06 SHRI HASMUKHBHAI MOHANLAL SHAH VS. ACIT PAGE 2 OLD AND DIESEL EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCREASED SUBSTAN TIALLY, WHICH WAS FOUND CONVINCING TO THE A.O. ON VERIFICATION OF TH E DIESEL EXPENSES, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O. THAT VOUCHERS WERE NOT PROPERL Y MAINTAINED, SOME OF THE VOUCHERS DO NOT INDICATE PROPER SPECIFICATION, SUCH AS, TANKERS NO., DATE AND RECEIPTS OF THE PAYMENT. THEREFORE, DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY D ISALLOWANCE OF 2.5% OF DIESEL EXPENSES SHOULD NOT BE MADE CONSIDERING T HE DEFECTS IN VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT HE HAD OLD TANKERS. THUS, USE OF DIESEL HAD INCREASED. ACCOR DINGLY, THE A.O. MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.89,306/-. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE A SSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED VOUCHERS PROPERLY AND DISALLOWANCE @ 2.5 % IS REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT NO SPECIFIC DEFECT OF PARTICULAR DIESEL VOUCHERS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE A.O. AS WELL AS BY THE CIT(A). HE DISALLOWED THE LUMP SUM FROM THE DIESEL EXPENSES @ 2.5%. HE FURTHER AR GUED THAT ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED, WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. ALONG WITH THE VOUCHERS. THE A.O. HAD FAILED TO SH OW THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURES WERE NOT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. HE RE LIED UPON THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT DECISION IN CASE OF CIT VS. S.S.P. (P.) LTD. ITA NO. 3415/AHD/10 A.Y. 05-06 SHRI HASMUKHBHAI MOHANLAL SHAH VS. ACIT PAGE 3 [2011] 14 TAXMANN.COM 87 (PUNJ. & HAR.) AND REQUESTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. AT THE OUTSET, LD. SR. D.R. SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. A.O. HAD NOT SPECIFICALLY POINTED O UT IN WHICH BILL THE PARTICULARS OF THE TANKERS DATE AND PAYMENTS DETAI LS WERE NOT MENTIONED, HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE MAKING ADDITI ON. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AUDITED. THUS, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN MAKING SUCH TYPES OF ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, WE DEL ETE THE ADDITION. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21.03.2014 SD/- SD/- ( D.K.TYAGI ) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.K.SINHA 1 1 1 1 ' '' ' )-2 )-2 )-2 )-2 320- 320- 320- 320- / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. %& / APPELLANT 2. )%& / RESPONDENT 3. - *7 / CONCERNED CIT 4. *7- / CIT (A) 5. 2; )-+ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. = >? / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ 1 , @/ B , $