Indian Geotechnical Services, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4084/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1187 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B K ANAND
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 37

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4084/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES, VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-62 (1) C-91, G.F. SHIVALIK, MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 017 (PAN: AAAF12029M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. B.K. ANAND, CA. REVENUE BY : SH. AMIT KATOCH, SR. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 17.5.2016 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-20, NEW DELHI PERTAININ G TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEADS SITE EXPENSES (RS. 5.00 LAKHS) AND CONSUMABLE (RS. 3.00 LAKHS). 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,18,279/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT BEING THE DIFFERENCE AS PER THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE AMOUNTS ON WHICH TDS HAD BEEN DEDUCTED BY THE PARTIES AS PER FORM 26AS, THE AUTHENTICITY OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD NO ACCESS. 3. THAT THE ORDERS OF THE LD. AUTHORITIES BELOW BEING CONTRARY THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE APPEAL BE ALLOWED. 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 20.9.2012 DECLARING INCOME AT RS. 51,98,8 20/- AND LATER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT) WAS ISSU ED ON 6.8.2013. AGAIN NOTICES U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONGWITH DETAILED Q UESTIONNAIRE WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, TH E AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FILED THE D ETAILS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 5.3.2015 TO CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCES ON THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME A ND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE LETTER DATED 5.3.20 15 AND 9.3.2015 AND THE RELIES OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE A O BUT NOT ACCEPTED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE THE COPY OF LEDGER A/C OF THE PARTIES AND ALSO THE TDS DEDUCTED AND CLAIMED WAS N OT CLARIFIED WITH DOCUMENTARY PROOF. HENCE, THE AO ADDED THE DIFFEREN CE OF RS. 3,18,279/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME . AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT DUE TO NON-PRODUCTION OF VOUCHERS, HE MADE THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIAB LE PURCHASES TO COVER UP ANY POSSIBLE LEAKAGE OF REVENUE ON DISALLOWANCE OUT OF SITE EXPENSES AND ALSO MADE ADHOC ADDITION OF RS. 3 LAKHS ON ACC OUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF CONSUMABLES ON THE SAME REASON AND ALSO MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS BY ASSESSING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 79,6 0,220/- U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 16.3.2015. AGGRIEVED WIT H ABOVE DISALLOWANCES THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VI DE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.5.2016 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT 3 CONFIRMED SOME OF THE ADDITIONS. AGAINST THE IMPU GNED ORDER DATED 17.5.2016, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. DURING THE HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEADS SITE EXPENSES (RS. 5.00 LAKHS) AND CONSUMABLE (RS. 3.00 LAKHS). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) ALSO WRONGLY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,18,279/- U/S. 68 O F THE ACT BEING THE DIFFERENCE AS PER THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE AMOUNTS ON WHICH TDS HAD BEEN DEDUCTED BY THE PARTIES AS PER F ORM 26AS, THE AUTHENTICITY OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD NO ACCESS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE FILED A SMALL PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1-51 I.E COPY OF LETTER TO CIT(A) WITH ENCLOSURES I.E. COPY OF BALA NCE SHEET AND ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2012; COPY OF LEDGER ACCO UNT AND BILL RAISED ON PRATIBA INDUSTRIES; COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT AND BIL LS RAISED ON PRATIBA CFRG VENTURE; COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF L&T ECCD DIVISIO N AND BILLS RAISED AND COPY OF FORM 26AS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 -13 AND ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AB AND HARYANA IN THE CASE OF CIT, FARIDABAD VS. SSP (P) LTD. IN ITA NO. 535 OF 2010 DATED 20.7.2011. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND STATED THAT THEY HAVE PASSED WELL REASO NED ORDERS, WHICH DO NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE AND NEEDS TO BE UPHELD. 4 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND TH E CASE LAW CITED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS DISALLOWAN CE OF SITE EXPENSES AND CONSUMABLES ARE CONCERNED, IT IS NOTED THAT SOME OF THE VOUCHERS IN CLAIM OF THE EXPENDITURES WERE MISSING. HOWEVER, AS PER S ECTION 37 OF THE ACT, THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED WHEN THE EXPENDITURE IS IN CURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS / PROFESSIO N. THE PRIMARY ONUS OF PROVING SUCH EXPENSE ARE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUS IVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE SOME OF THE BILLS/ VOUCHERS WERE NOT PRODUCED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING A FR ACTION OF THESE EXPENDITURES FOR WANT OF PROPER VERIFICATION. HENC E, THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE ON DISTINGU ISHED FACTS. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT AO HAS ONLY DISALLOWED RS. 5 LAC S OUT OF RS. 2.10 CRORE CLAIMED AS SITE EXPENSES AND RS. 3 LAKHS OUT OF RS. 1.24 CRORE CLAIMED AS EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF CONSUMABLES, HENCE, THE AMOU NT OF DISALLOWANCES ARE QUITE JUSTIFIED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS ON THESE COUNTS, WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. CI T(A) ON THESE ADDITIONS AND ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE STAND DISMISSED. 5.1 AS REGARDS ADDITION OF RS. 3,18,279/- U/S. 68 O F THE ACT IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THIS ADDITION RELATES TO DI FFERENCES IN THE RECEIPTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE RECEIPTS SHOWN IN FORM 26AS IN MAINLY 5 ON ACCOUNT OF MOBILIZATION ADVANCE WHICH IS TAKEN INTO RECEIPTS AS AND WHEN SETTLED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED A NY SUCH DETAILS. IN ABSENCE OF PROPER RECONCILIATION, THE AO WAS JUSTIF IED IN MAKING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE AS COMPARED TO TH E FORM 26AS. ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DID NOT INTERF ERE IN THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AND UPHELD HIS ACTION BY DISMISSING THE ISSUE RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ACTION O F THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE, ON OUR PART, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. CI T(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND REJECT THE GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20-03-2019. SD/- SD/- [L.P. SAHU] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 20/03/2019 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. D R, ITAT BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES