Sh. Munish Kumar Bansal Contractor, Bathinda V. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bathinda

ITA 390/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68160 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 390(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAN: AAKFM5866E SH. MUNISH KUMAR BANSAL VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER O F CONTRACTOR 19358, ST. NO. 4 INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1 BIBIWALA ROAD, BATHINDA BATHINDA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 02.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10.09.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BATHINDA, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-0 8. 2) THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 24.10.2007 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 17,90,557/-, WHICH WAS PROCESSED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHOR T THE ACT) ON 2 I.T.A. NO. 390(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 01.01.2009. LATER ON, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED STATUTORY NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THESE NOTICES, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND FILED H IS WRITTEN EXPLANATION. ASSESSEE FIRM IS DOING BUSINESS OF SUB CONTRACTORSH IP AND MAINTAINING ITS ACCOUNTS AS CASH BOOK, LEDGER AND JOURNAL IN TH E COMPUTERIZED FORM AND ITS ACCOUNTS HAVE DULY BEEN AUDITED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TOTAL RECEI PTS FROM CONTRACT AT RS. 4,49,53,066/- WHICH, AFTER RECONCILIATION, ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOTAL OF THE FIGURES REFLECTED IN THE TDS CERTIFICA TES. SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133-A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSIN ESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 07.03.2007 AND THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO COVER THE CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES NOTICED BY THE SURVEY TEAM, VOLUNTARI LY OFFERED TO DISCLOSE AN ADDITION INCOME OF RS. 10 LACS OVER AND ABOVE TH E NORMAL BOOK PROFITS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LACS HAS DULY BEEN SHOWN BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE P&L ACCOUNT IN THE RETURN UNDER CONSIDERATION/ASSES SMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED CERTAIN EXPENSES TO THE CONTRA CT AND P&L ACCOUNT PARTICULARLY THE HUGE EXPENSES WERE DEBITED AT RS. 2,39,83,690/- AND RS. 1,15,63,480/- UNDER THE HEADS LABOUR & WAGES AND OIL & LUBRICANTS 3 I.T.A. NO. 390(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT AL MOST ALL THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH. TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECTNES S OF NET PROFIT AND GENUINENESS TO THESE EXPENSES, ASSESSEE WAS REQUEST ED TO PRODUCE BILLS AND VOUCHERS RELATING TO THE EXPENSES BUT THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS RELATING TO THE EXPENSES AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD LABOUR & WAGES A ND ONLY PRODUCED MUSTER ROLL OF ONLY TWO MONTHS I.E. FOR JULY AND SE PTEMBER, 2006. IN THE ABSENCE OF BILLS/VOUCHERS PERTAINING TO THE EXPENSE S DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD LABOUR & WAGES, THE EXPENDITURE SO DEBITED CO ULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO COMPLETE VERIFICATION OF THE GENUINENE SS OF THESE EXPENSES, COULD NOT BE AUTHENTICATED. IT IS SEEN THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN DEBITED IN CASH FOR WHICH NO SUPPORTING BILLS/VOUCH ERS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE DEBITED AT RS. 2,39,83,960/- UNDER THE HEAD LABOUR & WAGES COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED TO BE TRUE AND ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCT ION. KEEPING IN MIND THE NATURE OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 11,99,198/- BEING ONLY 5% OF THE EXPENDITURE SO DEBITED, WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE HER ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.12.2009 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 4 I.T.A. NO. 390(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 3) AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO VI DE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF 2.5 % AND GIVEN PARTLY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. STILL BEING AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4) AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS WRON GLY RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF 2.5% OF EXPENSES AGAINST THE DISALL OWANCE OF 5% OF EXPENSES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN THOUGH THAT NO SPECIFIC DISCREPANCIES WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WH ILE MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 5%. 5) ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDE R PASSED BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 6) WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US. AFTER PERUSING THE IMPUGNED ORDE R, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED COGENT AND RELIA BLE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM. THU S, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR FURTHER RELIEF AS CLAIMED BY HIM. WE A RE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIG HTLY RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF 2.5% OF EXPENSES ON LABOUR AND WAG ES OUT OF THE 5% 5 I.T.A. NO. 390(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN SUFFICIENT RELIEF BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AFTER D ULY CONSIDERING THE SURRENDER OF RS. 10 LAKHS WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. 7) KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS, WE FI ND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), BAT HINDA, WHICH DOES NOT WARRANT ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMI SS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28 .03.2013 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), BATHINDA. 8) IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 10 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SH. MUNISH KUMAR BANSAL CONTRACTOR 19 358, ST. NO. 4, BIBIWALA ROAD, BATHINDA 2. THE ACIT, CIRCLE I, BATHINDA 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., ASR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.