Sigma Vibracoustic India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. JCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4359/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52618 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S MOHANTHY
• Assessee Lawyers: BALJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4359/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SIGMA VIBRACOUSTIC INDIA PVT. LTD., JCIT, R-561, SHANKER ROAD, VS. RANGE 8, NEW RAJINDER NAGAR, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN : AABCS7623P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : BALJIT SING H, CA RESPONDENT BY : S. MOHANTHY, D R ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS D IRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) DATED 10 TH AUGUST, 2010, FOR A.Y. 2006-07. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,28,227/- ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE. 2. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ON THE BASIS OF CONJECTURE AND SURMISE. 3. THE CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW. ITA NO. 4359/D/2010 2 4. WE PRAY THAT THE ADDITION BE DELETED. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF ANTI-VIBRATION MOUNTS FOR AUTO MOBILES. IT FIELD ITS RETURN OF INCOME AT RS. 5,75 ,10,210/- ON 20.11.2006 AND HAS BEEN ASSESSED VIDE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.11.2009 AT AN INCOME OF R S. 5,78,05,157/- IN WHICH AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,88,227/ - IS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE. THIS ISSUE H AS BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE AO AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, WHEREIN THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 57,64,546/- ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIR A ND MAINTENANCE PLANT AND MACHINERY UNDER THE HEAD MANUFACTURING AND OPERATING EXPENSES VIDE SCHEDUL E 17 OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQU IRED TO EXPLAIN AND SUBMIT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCH EXPENDITURE. ON VERIFICATION OF DETAILS FURNISHED IN THE SHAPE OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND MENTIONED THAT BILLS TO T HE EXTENT OF RS. 2,88,227/- WERE NOT PRODUCED. IN ABSENCE OF AN Y PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE HE MA DE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,88,227/-. THE ADDITION WAS A GITATED IN AN APPEAL FILED BEFORE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THE ITA NO. 4359/D/2010 3 DETAILS BEFORE LD. CIT(A). FROM SUCH DETAILS THE C IT(A) NOTICED THAT THE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED WITH RESPECT TO AN AMOUNT OF RS. 55,98,096.40/- AND THUS, THE DETAILS FOR RS. 1, 66,450/- WAS NOT SUBMITTED. HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THOSE DETAILS, WHICH WERE FILED AND SUCH FACT IS RECORDED IN PARA 2.7 OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) STATING IN HIS ORDER T HAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 1,66,450/ - AND, THEREFORE, HE HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A O. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED, HENCE IN APPEAL. 3. AFTER NARRATING THE FACTS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY L D. AR THAT THE COMPLETE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT( A) AS WELL AS AO AND THE DISCREPANCY AS POINTED OUT BY LD. CIT (A) WAS ALSO RECONCILED. HE SUBMITTED THAT TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE ARE LISTED O UT AT PAGE 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN UNDER THE HEAD MANUFA CTURING COST IN SCHEDULE 17 THE TOTAL OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IS STATED AT RS. 57,64,546/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT BREAK UP OF THE SAID AMOUNT IS MENTIONED AT PAGE 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK, W HICH IS A SUM OF RS. 55,98,096.40/- ON THE REPAIRS AND MAINTE NANCE OF MACHINERY AND RS. 1,66,449.17/- IS ON THE REPAIR AN D MAINTENANCE OF THE MOULDS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE D ETAILS OF ITA NO. 4359/D/2010 4 BOTH THESE AMOUNTS WERE ALSO SUBMITTED, COPY OF WHI CH IS PLACED AT PAGES 16 & 59 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THUS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO DEFECT WHATSOEVER WAS POINTED OUT IN ANY OF THE VOUCHERS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE , NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR AND LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY UPHELD THE ADDITION. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF AO AND CIT(A) PLEADED THAT ADDITION HAS RIGHTLY BEEN S USTAINED AND THE ORDER OF CIT(A) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. PERUSAL OF DETAILS OF EXPENSES REVEAL THAT ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING DETAIL ED ACCOUNTS AND VOUCHERS FOR EACH OF THE EXPENDITURE I NCURRED BY IT ON REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE. NO DEFECTS WHATSOEVE R WERE POINTED OUT EITHER BY THE AO OR CIT(A) IN THE VOUCH ERS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. WITHOUT POINTING OUT A NY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN SPECIFIC VOUCHER, SUCH ADDITION COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE ADDITION AND T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 4359/D/2010 5 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH AUGUST, 2011. SD/- SD/- (G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA) (I.P. BANSAL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL M EMBER DATED: 26 TH AUGUST, 2011. *KAVITA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR