P.L. & Sons Infrastrictire (P) Ltd., Rewari V. ITO, Ward- 2 , Rewari

ITA 3744/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8367 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Section: 143(3); 37(1); 143(1)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3744/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 P.L. & SONS INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD., 555, QUTUBPUR, REWARI-123401 HARYANA (PAN: AAECP9607R) VS. ITO, WARD-2 REWARI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 26.3.2018 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), ROHTAK RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- I) THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE OR DER OF AO HOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES FOR RS. 5,5 0,430/- UNDER THE HEAD LOADING AND UNLOADING EXPENSES. II) THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING T HE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. ASSESSEE BY SH. SURESH ANAND, CA DEPARTMENT BY SH. SL ANURAGI, SR. DR. 2 III) THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) COMPLETELY IGNORED THAT THE IDENTICA L ISSUE WAS ALREADY SETTLED BY WORTHY JURISDICTIONAL COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ROHTAK. IV) THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACT ION OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT OBSERVING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUS TICE. V) THAT THE ERRORS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BEING ARB ITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND ILLEGAL, THE SAME DESERVE TO BE SET A SIDE. VI) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, MODIFY, DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT TH E TIME OF HEARING AND ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJU DICE TO EACH OTHER. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE F ILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 20,38,780/- ON 30.10.2013 AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT). THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS NORMS AS PER THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE CBDT. NOT ICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 03.9.2014. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAM E, THE A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE HEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE. CONSEQUENT UPON CHANGE OF JURISDICTION, AGAIN NOTICE U/S. 142( 1) & 143(2) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED ON 10.4.2015 FIXING THE CASE FOR 21.4.2 015 AND IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PRO CEEDINGS FROM TIME TO 3 TIME AND FILED THE DETAILS ALONGWITH BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED EXPENSES OF RS. 55,04 ,300/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOADING AND UNLOADING EXPENSES. HE OBSERVED THAT THE GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY OF EXPENSE COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, 1/10 TH OF THE THESE EXPENSES I.E. RS. 5,50,430/- ADDED BA CK TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 42,36,880/- U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 11.3.2016. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE A PPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.3. 2018 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. DURING THE HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 42 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED T HE COPY OF EXPENSES VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF LOADING AND UNLOADING EXPENS ES FILED BEFORE AO & LD. CIT(A); COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.5.2017 FILED BE FORE LD. CIT(A); COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.1.2016 FILED BEFORE AO AND LD. CIT( A)S ORDER FOR THE AY 2012-13. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS ALREADY SETTLED BY THE LD. CIT(A), ROHTAK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE I MPUGNED ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT OBSERVING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATUR AL JUSTICE. HENCE, HE REQUESTED TO CANCEL THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER. I FIND THAT AO HAS CLEARLY BROUGHT THAT A PERUSAL OF THE VOUCHERS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM LOADIN G AND UNLOADING EXPENSES OF RS. 55,04,300/- SHOWS THAT THEY WERE U NNUMBERED; SELF MADE VOUCHERS; COMPLETE DETAILS OF PERSONS SUCH AS NAME; ADDRESS WERE NOT AVAILABLE ON THE VOUCHERS; NAMES AND ADDRESSES WERE MISSING AND ONLY A THUMB IMPRESSION WAS THERE; THERE IS NO MENT ION OF THE SITE AND VICHELE NUMBERS ON THE VOUCHERS. IT IS A CASE WHE RE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE EXPENSES HAV E BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THIS DISALLOWANCE HAS RIGHTLY BEEN MADE BY THE AO AS THE EXPENDITURE COUL D NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED AS REQUIRED U/S. 37(1) OF THE ACT. TH EREFORE, LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE, WHICH S EEMS TO BE QUITE REASONABLE, HENCE, THE SAME DOES NOT NEED ANY INTER FERENCE ON MY PART, THEREFORE, I UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND REJECT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 01-01-2019. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE:01/01/2019 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. D R, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES 5