Parsuram Pradhan, Khurda V. ITO, Khurda Ward, Khurda

ITA 359/CTK/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7223 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 16-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K PRADHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: A K KAMILLA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK SMC BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.359 /CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 2013 PARSURAM PRADHAN,, PROP. M/S. PRADHAN ENTERPRISES, BASELI SAHI, NEAR MACHHA MARKET, KHURDA. VS. ITO, KHURDA WARD, KHURDA PAN/GIR NO. ADZPP 4990 L (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.K.KAMILLA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN, DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 6 /01/ 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 /01/ 2017 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 1, BHUBANESWAR , DATED 19.7.2016 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 2013 . 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMI NG THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,64,068/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISCOUNT GIVEN ON SALE. 2 ITA NO.359/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012 - 2013 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND FROM THE ACCOUNTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN DISCOUNT TO THE EXT ENT OF RS.15,22,556/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE DISCOUNT, LEDGER COPY ETC. WITH SUPPORTING BILLS & VOUCHERS AND ALSO THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE DISCOUNT WAS PAID. FROM THE DETAI LS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE FOUND T HAT THE DISCOUNTS WERE NOT GIVEN IN A UNIFORM MANNER AND VARIED IN DIFFERENT CASES FROM 6% TO 0.30% . FROM VERIFICATION, HE NOTICED THAT THE BUYERS PURCHASING LESS WORTH OF GOODS HAD GOT MORE DISCOUNT THAN THE BUYERS WHO HAD PURCHASED MORE. THE ASSESSEE COU LD NOT EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR THIS VARIATION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER TAKING DUE NOTE OF IRRATIONALLY IN THE QUANTUM OF DISCOUNT, DISALLOWED 1 0% OF THE TOTAL DISCOUNT OF RS. 15,22,256/ - TO TAKE CARE OF THE UNVERIFIABLE PORTION OF THE EXPENSES. . 4. ON APPEAL, LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIALS BEFORE HIM TO SHOW THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HE OBSERVED THAT IN THE W RITTEN SUBMISSION FILED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THERE IS NO AGREEMENT AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. BEFORE ME, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN EVIDENCE FOR THE DISCOUNT ALLOWED, THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF LEDGER ACCOU NT OF THE BUYERS. HENCE, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT FROM THE LEDGER ACCOUNT, THE DETAILS OF 3 ITA NO.359/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012 - 2013 DISCOUNT ALLOWED CAN BE VERIFIED. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) THAT NO DETAILS AND EVIDENCE WERE FILED , IS NOT CORRECT AND HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF DISCOUNT ALLOWED TO THE CUSTOMERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. I FIND THAT BEFORE ME ALSO NO EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF SALES BILLS, CREDIT NOTES ISSUED TO THE PURCHASERS, ETC, COULD BE FILED TO SHOW THAT THE DISCOUNT WAS ALLOWED TO THE CUSTOMERS ON THE BASIS OF SOME BUSINESS POLICY OF THE ASSESSEE. LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER THAT THERE IS NO UNIFORM MANNER OF ALLOWING DISCOUNT AND IT VARIED FROM 6% TO 0.30% AND THAT ON VERIFICATION, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE BUYERS PURCHASING LESS WORTH OF GOODS HAD GOT MORE DISCOUNT THAN THE BUYERS WHO HAD PURCHASED MORE . THEREFO RE, I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) TO INTERFERE, WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 6 / 01/2017 IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES. SD/ - ( N.S SAINI) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 16 /01 /2017 B.K.PARIDA, SPS 4 ITA NO.359/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012 - 2013 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : PARSURAM PRADHAN,, PROP. M/S. PRADHAN ENTERPRISES, BASELI SAHI, NEAR MACHHA MARKET, KHURDA. 2. THE RESPONDENT. ITO, KHURDA WARD, KHURDA 3. THE CIT(A) - 1, BHUBANESWAR. 4. PR. CIT , BHUBANESWAR. 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//