Sh. Nathram Yadav Civil Contractor, Tikamgarh V. A.C.I.T., Circle-I, Gwalior

ITA 41/AGR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76550 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANURADHA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJENDRA SHARMA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 41/AGRA/ 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 NATHURAM YADAV CIVIL CONTRACTOR VS. A.C.I.T., VIII KUNWARPURA POST DHILLA CIRCLE-I, GWALIOR. DISTT. TIKAMGARH (M.P.) (PAN AAKPY 1829 R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJENDR A SHARMA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. ANURADHA, J R. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 28.04.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.04.2014 ORDER PER PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS C HALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), GWALIOR IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER S ECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 008-09. 2. THE SHORT ISSUE THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO ADJUDICA TE IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER OR NOT LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE D ISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,00,000/-. THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 1 9.12.2013 WAS PASSED U/S 250 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, AND THE R ELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2008-09. ITA NO.41/AGRA/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 2 3. THE ISSUE IN APPEAL LIES IN A VERY NARROW COMPAS S OF MATERIAL FACTS. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE CONSTRUCTION WORK. DURIN G THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,05,000/- BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS:- 4. ASSESSEE PRODUCED BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR PERUSA L. THESE WERE EXAMINED ON TEST CHECK BASIS. DISCREPANCIES WERE FO UND DUE TO IMPROPER NATURE OF THESE BILLS AND VOUCHERS. SO FOL LOWING EXPENSES ARE DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK IN THE RETURNED INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. HEAD OF EXPENSE AMOUNT DEBITED IN P&L A/C AMOUNT DISALLOWED IN RS. MISC. EXPENSES 99,96,813/- 3,00,000/- WAGES EXP. 3,96,12,392/- 5,00,000/- STAFF WELFARE EXP 2,14,000/- 50,000/- DEPRECIATION 10,42,948/- 75,000/- TRAVELLING EXP. 2,34,650/- 80,000/- TOTAL 10,05,000/- (RS.10,05,000/-) 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT COMPLETE SUCCESS. LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE IN PRINCIPLE, BUT REDUCED THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE TO RS.5,00,000/-. IN HIS BRIEF OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER, BE OBSERVED A S FOLLOWS:- 3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THE FACT S DISCUSSED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, I AM OF THE CONSIDERE D VIEW THAT SOME DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EXPENSES DISCUSSED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE BY THE A.O. HOWEVER, THE DISALLOWANCE ITA NO.41/AGRA/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 3 MADE BY THE A.O. APPEARS TO BE ON HIGHER SIDE. IT W OULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE IF THE DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO RS. 5 LACS. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO RS.5 LACS AND APP ELLANTS GETS RELIEF OF RS.5,05,000/-. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE PARTIAL R ELIEF SO GRANTED, AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF APPLIC ABLE LEGAL POSITION. 7 WE FIND THAT NO SPECIFIC DEFECTS ARE POINTED OUT IN THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES FOR EXPENSES, BY THE AO OR EVEN BY THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY OBSERVED ABOUT IMPROPER NATURE OF BILLS AND VOUCHE RS BUT SUCH SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS CANNOT BE REASON ENOUGH, WITHOUT AN YTHING ELSE, TO DISALLOW THE EXPENSES. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, AND BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED DISAL LOWANCE. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 8 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.04.2014) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (PRAMOD KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOU NTANT MEMBER DATE: 29 TH APRIL, 2014 PBN/* ITA NO.41/AGRA/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY