Mohini Singh, Allahabad V. ACIT, Allahabad

ITA 489/ALLD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 48920714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAVEEN GODBOLE
• Keywords: Rule of consistency

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 489 / ALLD/201 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 8 - 09 MOHINI GUPTA VS. ACIT, RANGE - I, ALLAHABAD. 8 - C, SHIVRAM DAS GULATI MARG, ALLAHABAD . PAN: ACJPG 9181B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAVEEN GODBOLE, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI A.K. SINGH , DR. DATE OF HEARING: 06 .08.2015 ORDER PER : P.K. BANSAL , A CCOUNTANT MEMB ER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) , ALLAHABAD DATED 23 .0 8 .2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 . 2. GROUNDS NO.1, 7 AND 8 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT RAISE ANY ADJUDICATION. 3. GROUNDS NO.2 AND 3 RELATES TO T HE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.62,109/ - OUT OF THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES. THE FACTS RELATE TO THIS ADDITION ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF 2 ASSESSMENT NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,42,739/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.62,109/ - RELATED TO THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE , SHRI D.U. GUPTA. THE ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR OF A FIRM M/S. A.B. ELECTRO MACHINES. 4. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) CONFIRM THE DISALLOW ANCE. 5. HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND CAREFUL LY CONSIDER THE SAME. LEARNED A R BEFORE ME CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A LADY HER HUSBAND , SHRI D.U. GUPTA , WENT ALONG WITH HER TO FOREIGN TOUR, THEREFORE, THE SAID EXPENSES OF RS.62,109/ - HAS BEEN INC URRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. LEARNED AR EVEN DRAWN OUR ATTENTION THAT IN THE EARLIER YEAR EXPENSES HAS DULY BEEN ALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE FIRM DEALS IN MANUFACTURE AND SUPPLIERS IN ENGINEERING GOODS AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPORT SALES ALSO THERE FORE FOREIGN VISIT WAS REQUIRED. 6. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, BEFORE ME RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BUT DID NOT DENY THAT THE SIMILAR EXPENSES HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 3 7. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY WILL BE CLEARLY APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE AND ACCORDINGLY I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.62,109/ - . 6. GROUNDS NO.4 AND 5 RELATE TO ADDITION OF RS.56,766/ - U/S.40(A)(IA) OUT OF INTEREST PAID TO SHRI NISHIT DAYAL. 7. THE FACTS RELATE TO THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID THE INTEREST TO SHRI NISHIT DAYAL BUT HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS U/S.40(A)(IA) AS THE INCOME OF SHRI NISHIT DAYAL W AS BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT AND THERE WAS NO INTEREST REMAINS UNPAID OR PAYABLE AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2008. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSION, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VICTOR SHIPP ING SERVICES PVT. LTD., 357 ITR 642 (ALLD.) THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) CAN BE MADE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT REMAINS PAYABLE AS ON THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING PERIOD. WE NOTED AL T HOUGH THE DECISIONS OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT , KOLKATA HIGH COURT WHICH HAVE TAKEN A CONTRARY VIEW SINCE JURISDICTI ON OF THE AFORESAID ASSESSEE FAL LS WITHIN THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT 4 THEREFORE I AM BOUND TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. I ALSO MENTION THAT THE SLP AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH CO URT HAS ALREADY BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT. IN VIEW OF THE BINDING PRECEDENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT I ALLOW GROUNDS NO.4 AND 5 AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.56,766/ - . 9. GROUNDS NO.6 AND 7 RELATES TO THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,693/ - . 10. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.44,735/ - AND RS.5,958/ - UNDER THE HEAD LABOUR AND WAGES AND REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE TO BUILDING RESPECTIVELY. ALL THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT DULY SUPPORTED BY PROPER BILLS AND PRO OF OF THE PAYMENT S ; THEREFORE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOW ED 1/10 OF THESE EXPENSES. 11. WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE. 12. HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND CAREFULL Y CONSIDER THE SAME ALONG WITH TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. I NOTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT 5 FURNISH ALL THE BILLS AND THE VOUCHERS EVEN THE DETAILS OF THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT FILED SO THAT IT CAN BE VERIFIED WHETHER THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN GENUINELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED 1/10 OF THESE EXPENSES ON ESTIMATE BASIS. IN MY OPINION, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ON THE HIGHE R SIDE, I THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDUCE THE DISALLOWANCE TO 5% OF THESE EXPENSES. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 / 08 / 2015 SD/ - ( P.K. BANSAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 31 / 8 /201 5 PRABHAT KUMAR KESARWANI, SR.P.S. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR