Smt Geeta Davi Bindal, V. The ACIT 5 (1),

ITA 466/IND/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2770 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-04-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MITRA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.466/IND/2008 A.YS. 2005-06 SMT. GEETADEVI BINDAL INDORE PAN AEKPB-7308A APPELLANT VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5(1), INDORE RESPONDENT ITA NO.457/IND/2008 A.YS. 2005-06 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5(1), INDORE APPELLANT VS SMT. GEETADEVI BINDAL INDORE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY BANSAL, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI P.K. MITRA, SR. DR O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JM 2 THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 6.8.2008. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE GROUND THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELET ING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OUT OF TOTAL DISALLOWANCE MADE ON AC COUNT OF INTEREST PAID TO OTHERS AMOUNTING TO RS. 22,27,310/- AND THE ADDITION OF RS.25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES ON TH E REASON THAT PROPER BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSE E WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE CONFIRMING OF THE ADDIT ION OF RS.15,42,321/- OUT OF INTEREST BY REDUCING FROM INT EREST PAID TO OTHERS ON THE REASON THAT THERE WAS A BUSINESS REQUIREMENT FO R ADVANCING THE FUNDS, CONFIRMATION OF RS.24,788/- BEING 10% OF TOT AL EXPENDITURE ON TELEPHONE, CONFIRMATION OF RS.1,02,404/-, BEING 15% OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED FOR VEHICLE UPKEEP, RS. 4,73,939/- FOR MAIN TENANCE AND RS. 2,08,756/- ON DEPRECIATION OF VEHICLES. 2. DURING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS WE HAVE HEARD SH RI VIJAY BANSAL, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI P.K. MITRA, LEARNED SENIOR DR. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE APPRECIATED IN THE REQUIRED MANNER AND CERTAIN DETAILS WERE ALS O NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE REACHING TO A PARTICULAR CONCLUSION. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT NECESSARY DETAILS WERE VERY MUCH FILED 3 BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SENIOR DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SHRI P.K. MITRA THOUGH DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BUT FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING PART OF THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID TO OTHERS AND THE ADDITION OF RS.25,0 00/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES FOR WHICH NO PROPER BILL AND VO UCHER WAS NOT PRODUCED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN REPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EVEN IN A POSITION NOW TO PRODUCE THE NECESSARY DETAILS. 3. ON CONSIDERATION OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND T HAT THE LEARNED SENIOR DR ASSERTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NO T FILE THE NECESSARY DETAILS. HOWEVER, THERE IS A FINDING IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER THAT NECESSARY DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WH ICH CAN BE SUBSTANTIATED IN THE OPENING PARA OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN DULY MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS I.E. CASH BOOK, LEDG ER, GENERAL VOUCHER FOR EXPENSES AND THE SAME WERE TEST CHECKED. THERE IS A FURTHER MENTION THAT ALL DESIRED INFORMATION WAS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WERE TEST CHECKED AND THE CAS E WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. INSPITE OF FILING OF NECESSARY DETAILS, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER CHOSE TO DIS ALLOW THE EXPENSES 4 UNDER VARIOUS HEADS ON THE ISSUE OF STAFF WELFARE E XPENSES IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT PROPER VOUCHERS ARE NOT MAINTAINED. LIKEWISE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALLOW ED SOME OF THE EXPENSES AND DISALLOWED THE REMAINING. IN VIEW OF T HESE FACTS AND THE ASSERTION MADE BY THE LEARNED RESPECTIVE COUNSELS, WE REMAND BOTH THESE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING TH E ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO A T LIBERTY TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE, IF ANY, TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. FINALLY, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF L EARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 24 TH JUNE, 2010. (V.K. GUPTA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUNE 24, 2010 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, G UARD FILE *DBN/