Mukesh C.Multani, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(3), Surat

ITA 4506/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0131 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-08-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND D.C. AGRAWAL, AM) ITA NO.4506/AHD/2007 A. Y.: 2004-05 SHRI MUKESH C. MULANI, 16, ASHWIN NAGAR SOCIETY -2, VARACHHA ROAD, SURAT VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9 (3), SURAT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE SURAT PA NO. ADLPP 9698 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI BHUVNESH KULSHRESTHA, DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-V, SURAT DA TED 25-10-2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.80,397 OUT OF WAGES PAID. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE FOLLOWING ADDITION S: A: RS.1293/- OUT OF FACTORY EXPENSES B: RS.2551 OUT OF VEHICLE EXPENSES C: RS.2,374 OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES. YOUR PETITIONER PRAYS THAT ALL OTHER RELIEF(S) AND REBATES AS MAY BE ALLOWABLE TO IT UNDER THE THEN EXISTING PROV ISIONS OF THE ACT BE ALLOWED TO IT. YOUR PETITIONER CHALLENGES ALL THE ADDITIONS, DISAL LOWANCES AND THE LEVY OF INTERESTS UNDER VARIOUS SECTIONS AN D PRAYS THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY IT BE ACCEPTED. ITA NOS. 4506/AHD/2007 SHRI MUKESH C. MULANI VS ITO 9 (3), SURAT 2 2. NOTICE OF DATE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSE SSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST. SAME IS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE A/D CARD DULY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HO WEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL DESPITE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE. THE APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, HE ARD IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSED THE FIN DINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS DERIVING INCOME FROM DIAMOND LABOUR JOB WORK AND INCOME FROM COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED AN AMOUNT OF RS.40,19,830/- TOWARDS FACTORY KARIGAR WAGES EXPENSES. THE ASSESSE E WAS ASKED TO FURNISH FULL DETAILS OF THESE EXPENSES CONTAINING N AME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE EMPLOYEES AND THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM AND WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BILLS/VOUCHERS ETC. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE MUSTER ROLL OR PRESE NCE CARD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH MONTHLY SALARY REGISTER WAS PREPARED. FURT HER, THE SALARY REGISTER DID NOT CONTAIN THE COMPLETE ADDRESS OF TH E RECIPIENTS, NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY EACH EMPLOYEE ETC. PAYMENTS WE RE MADE MOSTLY IN CASH FOR WHICH COMPLETE VOUCHERS WERE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE VERIFICATION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL EXPENDITURE, THE AO REASONABLE DISALLOWED 2% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.80,397/-. AS REGARDS FACTORY EXPENSES, NO DETAIL S AND BILL WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. PAYMENTS WERE MOSTLY MADE I N CASH. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER VERIFICATION 10% OF THE EX PENDITURE WAS DISALLOWED IN A SUM OF RS.1,293/-. SIMILARLY, FOR V EHICLE EXPENSES AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES, THE AO NOTED THAT PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH AND THEIR PERSONAL USER OF THE VEHICLE AND TEL EPHONE CANNOT BE DENIED AND FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INABILITY TO FURNISH FURTHER ITA NOS. 4506/AHD/2007 SHRI MUKESH C. MULANI VS ITO 9 (3), SURAT 3 DETAILS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO WITH REGARD T O THE TELEPHONE EXPENSES. 20% OF THE EXPENSES WAS DISALLOWED IN A S UM OF RS.2,551/- AND RS.2,372/-. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD CONFIRMED THE ABOVE ADDITIONS. 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT COMPLE TE VERIFICATION OF THE WAGES WAS NOT POSSIBLE AND HAS GIVEN SPECIFIC REASO NS FOR MAKING THE ADDITIONS. SAME IS THE POSITION WITH REGARD TO OTHE R SMALL DISALLOWANCES ON WHICH THE AO NOTED THAT EXPENSES WERE MOSTLY MAD E IN CASH AND VERIFICATION IS NOT POSSIBLE OF THE GENUINE EXPENDI TURE. THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO REBUT THE FINDINGS FOR THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE, THEREFO RE, DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ALL ADDITIONS ARE CONFIRMED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. LEVY OF INTEREST IS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19-08-2010 SD/- SD/- (D. C. AGRAWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 19-08-2010 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD