The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad V. M.S. Khurana Engg. Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 396/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56972 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JASBIR S CHOUHAN
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, A BENCH . .. . . .. . , !'# !'# !'# !'#, , , , $ $ $ $ . .. .% %% % . .. .&'( &'( &'( &'(, , , , %) * %) * %) * %) * % # % # % # % # BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.396/AHD/2010 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2004-2005] DCIT, CIR.4 AHMEDABAD. /VS. M.S.KHURANA ENGINEERING LTD. B-2 & 4, ANKUR COMMERCIAL CENTRE NARANPURA, AHMEDABAD. PAN : AABCM 4514 F ( (( (,- ,- ,- ,- / APPELLANT) ( (( (./,- ./,- ./,- ./,- / RESPONDENT) * 0 1 %/ REVENUE BY : SHRI JASBIR S. CHOUHAN 34 0 1 %/ ASSESSEE BY : NONE 5 0 46)/ DATE OF HEARING : 19 TH DECEMBER, 2011 7&8 0 46)/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05-01-2012 %9 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y.2004-2005 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, AHMEDABAD. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED FOR THE AS SESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS BEING DIS POSED OF ON MERIT EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UNDER: 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RES TRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS.25,000/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION MAD E AT RS.1 LAKH EACH MADE OUT OF STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES AND TRAVELI NG EXPENSES. ITA NO.396/AHD/2010 -2- 4. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS F AILED TO FURNISH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR THE EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES. HE REFE RRED TO PARA-2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVE NUE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNE D DR AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FI ND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT SPECIFIC I TEM FOR DISALLOWANCE OF STAFF WELFARE AND TRAVELING EXPENSES. THE CIT(A) H AS FURTHER RECORDED THAT SIMILAR ADDITIONS MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS HA VE EITHER BEEN DELETED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS OF THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THAT THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING I TS TOTAL INCOME. IN THESE FACTS, THE CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOW ANCE TO RS.25,000/- OUT OF STAFF WELFARE AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES. IN THE F ACTS OF CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE SIMILAR ADDITIONS MADE IN THE E ARLIER YEARS HAVE EITHER BEEN DELETED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED IN THE APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CERTAIN SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE ALSO, THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE HEAD STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES TO RS.25,000/-, AND ACCORDINGL Y GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UNDER: 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DEL ETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,15,295/- OUT OF DIESEL EXPENSE S AND RS.1,73,115/- OUT OF TRUCK MAINTENANCE CHARGES BEIN G UNVERIFIABLE. ITA NO.396/AHD/2010 -3- 7. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS D IESEL EXPENSES AND TRUCK MAINTENANCE CHARGES FOR WHICH IT COULD NOT PR ODUCE SUPPORTING VOUCHERS. HE REFERRED TO PARA 3 AND 4 OF THE ASSES SMENT ORDER IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNE D DR AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FI ND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIF IC ITEMS OF EXPENSES FOR DISALLOWANCE OF DIESEL AND OIL EXPENSES AND ALS O TRUCK MAINTENANCE EXPENSES. THE CIT(A) HAS FURTHER RECORDED THAT IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS, THE TOTAL DIESEL PURCHASED IN CASH AMOUNTED TO RS.8 2,616/- ONLY AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ACCOUNTED FOR SALE OF TYRES, EMPTY BAGS ETC. IN ITS ACCOUNT BOOKS. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THERE WA S NO CASE FOR DISALLOWANCE OUT OF DIESEL & OIL EXPENSES AND TRUCK MAINTENANCE EXPENSES AND ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. THE GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UNDER: 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIR ECTING THE AO TO ALLOW THE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,29,063/- 10. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT PRIOR PERIOD EXPE NSES AMOUNTING TO RS.2.29 LAKHS COULD NOT BE HELD AS ALLOWABLE DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. HE REFERRED TO PARA -5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN S UPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARN ED DR AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FI ND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT THE AO HAS TAXED THE PRIOR PERIOD INC OME OF RS.39,044/- AND THEREFORE THE AO WAS EXPECTED TO ALLOW THE DEDU CTION OF THE EXPENSES ITA NO.396/AHD/2010 -4- IN CASE WHERE THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN MATURED FOR PA YMENT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING A BUSINESS AS GOING CONCERN AND SOMETIMES BILLS OF CERTAIN SITES WERE RECEIVED LATE AND CERTAIN ACCOUNTS WERE SETTLED AFTER CLOSE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THI S EXPENSE PERTAINED TO THE BUSINESS AND THE SAME HAS TO BE ALLOWED IN A G OING CONCERN IN CASE THE SAME ARE CRYSTALISED DURING THE SAME YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THESE FACTS COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED ON BEHALF OF THE RE VENUE BEFORE US. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TH ERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN ALLOWING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENS ES AMOUNTING TO RS.2.29 LAKHS AND ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.3 OF THE RE VENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( . .. .% %% % . .. .&'( &'( &'( &'( /A.K. GARODIA) %) * /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !'# !'# !'# !'# /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD