ITO, Faridabad V. Sh. Devender Mann, Faridabad

ITA 3459/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0173 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K RAVI RAMACHANDRAN
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN ITA NO. 3459/DEL/09 ASSTT. YR: 2005-06 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. SHRI DEVENDER MANN, WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD.. S/0 SH. KIRORI MAL, PROP. M/S DEVENDER MANN TRANSPORT CO. B-2/118, SECTOR-11, FARIDABAD. PAN/ GIR NO. AIZPM9249C ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SH. K. RAVI RAMA CHANDRAN SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIJAY GUPTA CA O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M : THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 30-6-2009 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5-06. FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING TH E ADDITION OF RS. 17,39,781/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AC COUNT OF CARTAGE OUTWARD PAID TO THE TRANSPORTER DISREGARDIN G THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FILE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING TH E ADDITION OF RS. 4,589,627/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AC COUNT OF PURCHASE OF HSD DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD FAILED TO FILE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. 2 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE O F HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE CONTENDS THAT ASSESSEE IS A TRANSPORTER, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEPLOYING GOODS CARRIAGES OWNED AND HIRED. THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF OUTWARD CARTAGE PAID TO OTHER TRUCK OPERATORS, WHEN ASSESSEE COULD NOT CARRY OUT OWN VEHICLES. EACH PAYMENT IN QUESTION IS BELOW RS. 20,000/-ON WHICH NO TDS IS TO BE MADE. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED FOLLOWING EXPLANATION WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE: THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTING TH E TRACTORS OF ESCORTS LIMITED AND EICHER LIMITED FOR CARRYING TO THEIR DEALERS AT VARIOUS STATIONS AND SOME TIMES THE ASSESSEE DO NOT HAVE THEIR OWN TRUCKS TO COOP US THE REQUIREMENT OF SUPP LIERS HENCE IT MAKES COMPULSORY TO HIRE THE OTHER TRANSPORTERS ON TRIP BASIS. 3.1. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF SECOND GROUND, ASSESS EE GAVE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION: AN AMOUNT OF RS. 459627/- WAS DISALLOWED BY MAKING A COMPARISON WITH ANOTHER TRANSPORTER WHO RUNS THE TE MPO SERVICES IN LOCAL AREA OR NCR AREA. WE WOULD LIKE T O SUBMIT THAT TEMPO AND SMALL TRUCKS HAVE GOOD MILEAGE AS CO MPARED TO HEAVY TRUCKS THAT CARRIES TRACTORS AND OTHER HEAVY MATERIAL. THE LONG ROUTE ALSO AFFECT THE MILEAGE SYSTEMS HENCE CO MPARISON MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY SHOULD NOT BE ACCEP TED AND AMOUNT MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED ON ACTUAL BASIS CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ON THE ESTIMATED CLAIMS. 3.2. LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER CONTENDS THAT ASSESSEE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE REGULARLY MAINTAINED, WHICH ARE DULY AUDITED. COMPL ETE DETAILS ABOUT HIRING 3 OF OTHER GOODS CARRIAGES AND HSD WERE FURNISHED BEF ORE AO. ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 6 OF AOS ORDER IN WHICH THERE IS A CLEAR MENTION THAT EXPENSES VIS A VIS OUTWARD CARTAGES AND HSD WERE DU LY ANALYSED. HOWEVER, AO AT THE END OF THE ORDER HAS HELD THAT EVIDENCE H AS NOT BEEN FILED. IT IS PLEADED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FOUND THE ASSESSEES PL EA AND EVIDENCE TO BE CORRECT AND THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY DELETED . 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED THAT ASSESSEE S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE REGULARLY MAINTAINED AND DULY AUDITED. FROM THE ORD ER OF AO IT DOES NOT EMERGE THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE DETAILS QU A THE GROUNDS WHICH ARE AGITATED BY REVENUE. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN CLEAR FINDING THAT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WERE PRODUCED. BESIDES, HE HAS VERIFIED THESE DETAI LS. WE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHICH IS UPHELD. 5. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15-3-2011. SD/- SD/- ( K.D. RANJAN ) ( R.P. TOLANI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15-3-2011. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR