PRITAM SINGH GABEL, JANJGIR-CHAMPA (C.G.) V. DY.. C.I.T. CIRCLE-2(1), BILASPUR(CG)

ITA 43/BIL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0200 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A JIT KUMAR LASKA
• Assessee Lawyers: G S AGRAWAL

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 43/RPR/2015. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. (S.M.C.) I.T.A. NO.43/RPR/2015. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12. PRITAM SINGH GABEL, DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, SAKTI. VS. CIRCLE - 2(1), BILASPUR. PAN AGIPG1118M. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.S. AGRAWAL. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A JIT KUMAR LASKA. DATE OF HEARING : 20 - 10 - 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 ST NOV.2016. O R D E R. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), BILASPUR DATED 28 - 11 - 2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14. TH E GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER : 1. THAT THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, RANGE - 2(1), BILASPUR ERRED IN ADDING RS.654852/ - TOWARDS SALARY PAID TO LADIES. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT SHOWS SALARY EXPENSES OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS RS.654852/ - THE SAME HAS BEEN DISALLOWED AND ADDED IN HIS FIRMS INCOME 3. THAT ADDITION OF RS.654852/ - TOWARDS SALARY PAID TO HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS THE RS.654852/ - MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE IS A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN AND IS ENGAGED IN PURC HASE AND SALE OF TRACTORS. THE ONLY ADDITION MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME IS DISALLOWANCE OF ALARY OF RS.1,39,982/ - TO PDMINI GAVEL, RS.1,37,972/ - TO UMA GAVEL, RS.1,41,172/ - TO LOMA GAVEL, RS.1,17,863/ - TO SUBHADRA GAVEL AND 2 ITA NO. 43/RPR/2015. RS.1,17,863/ - TO FUL BAI GAVEL. THE AO ASKED THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH DETAILS REGARDING THEIR EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION AND NATURE OF WORK DONE BY THEM. FROM THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT THE AO NOTICED THAT QUALIFICATION OF ALL OF THEM DO NOT SUPPORT THE NATURE OF WORK CLAIMED TO HA VE BEEN DONE BY THEM. ALSO IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO THAT THEY ARE NORMALLY SILENT WORKERS BUT SOME TIME THEY SUPPORT THE APPELLANT IN BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. THE AO HELD THAT THE BURDEN PLACED UPON THE APPELLANT IS NEITHER DISCHARGED BY SUCH EXPLANATION NOR IT IS LAW THAT ANY AND EVERY NARRATION BY HIM MUST BE ACCEPTED, MORE SO, AS PER THE GENERAL CUSTOM OF THE COMMUNITY TO WHICH THE APPELLANT BELONGS, FEMALE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WORK OUTSIDE. FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE AO D ISALLOWED SALARY OF RS.5,54,852/ - PAID TO FEMALE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY AND ADDED IT BACK TO THE RETURNED INCOME. 3. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), ASSESSEES COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN AUDI TED U/S 44AB OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARLIER PAID COMMISSION TO THESE PERSONS WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT CONVINCED. HE AFFIRMED THE AOS ORDER. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. I FIND THAT THE AO HAS MADE A PRESUMPTION THAT AS PER THE GENERAL CUSTOM OF THE COMMUNITY TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE BELONGS, FEMALE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WORK OUTSIDE. I FIND THAT THIS PRESUMPTION IS DEVOID OF ANY COGENCY AND CANNOT BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION BE A BASIS FOR DISALLOWING SALARIES PAID TO THE FEMALE MEMBERS. THIS IS MORE SO WHEN IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS , SALES COMMISSI ON WAS PAID TO THESE PERSONS AND WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE DISALLOWANCE 3 ITA NO. 43/RPR/2015. OF SALARY PAID TO THE FEMALE MEMBERS IS TOTALLY UNSUSTAINABLE. HENCE I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DE LETE THE ADDITION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF NOV., 2016. SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DATED: 21 ST NOV., 2016. COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. PRITAM SINGH GABEL,, PROP. PREETAM TRACTORS, BARADWAR ROAD, SAKTI, DIST. JANJGIR CHAMPA C.G. 2. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), BILASPUR. 3. C.I.T., BILASPUR 4. CIT(APPEALS), BILASPUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, RAIPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WAKOD E.