Ilanthalir, CHENNAI V. ACIT, Trichy

ITA 403/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8102 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: A V SRIRAMAN
• Keywords: Tangible material
• Section: 143(3); 12AA; 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , & BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.403/MDS/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) M/S. ILANTHALIR, BISHOP HOUSE, CONVENT ROAD, CANTONMENT, TRICHY-620 001. VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I(2), TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. PAN:AAATI1481K ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. A.V.SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 3 RD FEBRUARY, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS), TIRUCHIRAPALLI DATED 09.09.2014 IN ITA NO.164/12-13 CIT(A)- TRY., PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE IN ITS APPEAL IS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED BY SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE CL AIMED BY 2 ITA NO.403/MDS/2015 THE ASSESSEE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LAND TO THE TUNE OF ` 9,74,928/- 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS CONS TITUTED ON 02.12.1999 AND REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA O F THE ACT WAS GRANTED ON 31.01.2000. THE ASSESSEE TRUST FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON 21.12.2010 DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING EXEM PTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS/MAT ERIALS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. ON A PERUSAL, IT WAS NOTIC ED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST H AD INVESTED ` 13,04,288/- IN LAND. WHEN ASKED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY , THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED DOCUMENTS WHICH SHOWED THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS ONLY FOR A SUM OF ` 3,29,360/-. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.9,74,928/- WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESS EE TO HAVE BEEN EXPENDED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED CERTAIN VOUCHERS TO JUSTIFY ITS C LAIM BUT ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED 3 ITA NO.403/MDS/2015 THAT THE VOUCHERS WERE NOT GENUINE AND THE SAME WER E FABRICATED. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R DISALLOWED THE EXPENSE OF RS 9,74,928/-. 4. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN HE OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- FOR THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.9,74,928/- THE APP ELLANT FURNISHED BILLS FOR RS.8,03,230/- AND NO PROOF WAS SUBMITTED FOR THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.1,71,698/- . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANALYZED THE BILLS PRODUCED FOR RS.8,03,230/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED CERTA IN DEFECTS IN THE VOUCHERS ISSUED BY PITHA EARTHMOVERS AND MADURA STEEL SYNDICATES. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS NOTICED VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES ON THE ABOVE VOUCHERS SUCH AS SOME OF THEM DO NOT HAVE DATES AND SIGNATURES AN D LABOUR BILLS ALSO NOT PROPERLY VOUCHED, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS FABRICATED THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWE D AN AMOUNT OF RS.9,74,928/-. SINCE THE APPELLANT TRUST IS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY ACTIVITY THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE WI THOUT PROPER VOUCHERS HAS BEEN DISALLOWED TO THE TUNE OF RS.9,74,928/-. ON VERIFYING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AS W ELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS A FACT THAT THE APPELLA NT FAILED TO PROVE THE CLAIM OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWA RDS LAND DEVELOPMENT AT SIRUMALAI. EVEN THOUGH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT HAS FURN ISHED A LETTER FROM M/S. ARUL MATHA CONSTRUCTION STATING THAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT WORK HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED TO THE ABO VE CONCERN FOR LAND LEVELING, LAYING OF ROADS AND OTHE R WORKS WITH THE HELP OF M/S.PITHA EARTHMOVERS FOR WHICH TH E ABOVE CONCERN SUBMITTED THE BILLS. HOWEVER, ON VERI FYING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT, I DO NOT FIND ANY RATIONALE IN FILING A LETTER FROM ARUL MATHA CO NSTRUCTION FOR THE WORK UNDERTAKEN BY M/S.PITHA EARTHERMOVERS. OVER AND ABOVE, THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN THE ARGU MENTS 4 ITA NO.403/MDS/2015 PUT FORWARD BY THE APPELLANT AND FACTUAL VERIFICATI ON MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BILLS/VOUCHERS FURN ISHED BEFORE HER WHO HAS SPECIFICAILLY POINTED OUT BILL-W ISE VARIOUS DEFECTS AND MOST OF THE VOUCHERS ARE NOT PR OPERTY LEGIBLE AND HENCE THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT ARE REJECTED CONFIR MING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. 5. BEFORE US THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GENUINELY INCURRED THE EXPENSES TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND AND TH EREFORE IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS APPLICATION OF THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ARGU ED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF REVENUE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PER USED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS CATEGORICALLY POINTED OUT DISCREPANCIES IN THE VOUCHERS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPENSES INCU RRED TO THE TUNE OF RS.8,03,230/-. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE COULD NEITHER SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN ED THE DISCREPANCIES BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS). BEFORE US ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COME OUT WITH A NY 5 ITA NO.403/MDS/2015 TANGIBLE MATERIALS TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM. IN THESE C IRCUMSTANCE, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER OPTION BUT TO CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE HEREBY HOLD THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD FEBRUARY, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 3 RD FEBRUARY, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF .