Kamini Metalliks Private Limited, Medak V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 44/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7074 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2019
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M NARMADA
• Keywords: Assessment record

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 44/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 M/S. KAMINI METTALIKS PRIVATE LIMITED, HATNOORA MANDAL, MEDAK [PAN: AACCK9324N] VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR JAIN, AR FOR REVENUE : SMT. M.NARMADA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 16-10-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18-10-2019 O R D E R PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, A.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-2, HYDERABAD, DATED 11-10-2017. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THE DISALLOWANCE OF 10% MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. RS.5,04,644/- ON ESTIMATION BASIS, OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF RS.50,46,442/-. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE SUM OF RS.50,46,442/- UNDER THE HEAD MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE S ITA NO. 44/HYD/2018 :- 2 -: RELATING TO STAFF WELFARE, VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINTENANC E, DIRECTORS TRAVELLING, OFFICE MAINTENANCE AND TRAVELLI NG EXPENSES ETC. THE AO CALLED FOR THE COMPLETE DETAILS SU CH AS BILLS AND VOUCHERS ETC., TO SUPPORT THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED SOME BILLS BUT NOT FU RNISHED THE COMPLETE INFORMATION. FROM THE BILLS PRODUCED, THE AO FOUND THAT THE SAME WERE SELF-MADE VOUCHERS AND SOME O F THE EXPENSES WERE PERSONAL IN NATURE. THEREFORE, AFTER DISCUSSING WITH THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO MADE THE DISALLOWAN CE OF 10% OF EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.5,04,644/- ON ESTIMATIO N BASIS. THE ASSESSEES AR ALSO AGREED FOR THE DISALLO WANCE EXPENDITURE. 4. AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) DID NOT FIND M ERIT IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED FOR THE DISALLOWANCE, MADE BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 5. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, LD.AR ARGUED THAT THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE ON ADHOC BASIS WITH OUT CONSIDERING THE COMPLETE DETAILS AND REQUESTED TO RESTR ICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO 5% OF EXPENDITURE AS HELD IN THE EARL IER YEARS. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED FOR THE REDUCTION IN DISALLOWANCE AND BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THA T ITA NO. 44/HYD/2018 :- 3 -: LD.AR HAD AGREED FOR THE ADDITION. HENCE, SHE ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO CASE FOR ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AND THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. I N THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE COMPLETE DETAILS AND VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED SOME SE LF-MADE VOUCHERS FROM WHICH THE AO FOUND THAT THE PERSONAL EXP ENSES WERE ALSO DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT. HAVING FAILED TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS AND THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES, THE LD. AR AGREED FOR THE ADDITION. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN ALL FAIRNESS, ASSESSEE OUGHT NOT TO HAVE AGITATED THE SAM E IN APPEAL. INSTEAD, THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE PRODUCED TH E COMPLETE DETAILS AND PROVED EXPENSES. IN THE INSTANT CAS E, WE OBSERVE FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO THAT THE ASSESSEE FA ILED TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS AND PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENDITURE, HENCE AGREED FOR DISALLOWANCE OF EXPEN DITURE ON ESTIMATION BASIS. THIS BEING THE CASE, WE FIND NO MER IT IN THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH OCTOBER, 2019 SD/- SD/- (V. DURGA RAO) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER HYDERABAD, DATED: 18-10-2019 TNMM ITA NO. 44/HYD/2018 :- 4 -: COPY TO : 1. M/S.KAMINI METALLIKS PRIVATE LIMITED, SY.NO.372, CHANDAPUR VILLAGE, HATNOORA MANDAL, MEDAK. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8( 1), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(APPEALS)-2, HYDERABAD. 4. THE PR.CIT-2, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.