SHRI ARJUN SINGH , KOTA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, KOTA

ITA 558/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4683 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KARNI DAN
• Assessee Lawyers: D D AGARWAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,B JAIPUR JH JESK LH0 KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH. C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PA L RAO, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 558/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI ARJUN SINGH S/O SHRI TARA SINGH, BEHIND KOHLI MEDICAL STORE KESHAVPURA, KOTA. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD-1(2) KOTA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AFRPS 7075 K VIHYKFKHZ@ A PPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.D. AGARWAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI KARNI DAN (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 07/02/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:13/02/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2018 OF LD. CIT(A), KOTA FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2013-14. THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPE AL IS AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) KOTA DELETE THE ADDITION 1515527/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 2331590/- BALANCE ADDITION OF RS. 816063 REQUIRED TO BE DELET ED. ITA NO. 558/JP/2018 SHRI ARJUN SINGH VS. ITO 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DECLARED BUSIN ESS INCOME OF RS. 13,18,370/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 09.09. 2013. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) O N 22.03.2016 HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF VARIOUS EXPENDITURE TO THE EXT ENT TO 10% & 20% RESPECTIVELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T FILED ANY REPLY NOR ANY BILLS OR VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. ON A PPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO TO 5% O F THE VARIOUS EXPENDITURE BY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT FILED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFI ED WHEN ALL THE EXPENDITURES WERE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN THE FINDIN G THAT THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE IS EXCESSIVE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECORDED THE EXPENDITURE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WAS NOT DISTURBED BY THE AO AND THEREFORE, THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT WARRANTED. HE H AS THUS CONTENDED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN COMPLETE DETAILS O F THE EXPENDITURE WHICH ALSO MENTIONS THE BILL/CHEQUE NUMBER THEN, DI SALLOWANCE IS UNREASONABLE AND HIGHLY ARBITRARY. THUS, HE HAS PLE ADED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD . CIT(A) MAY BE DELETED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM BY PRO DUCING ANY SUPPORTING VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENDITURE B OOKED IN THE PROFIT ITA NO. 558/JP/2018 SHRI ARJUN SINGH VS. ITO 3 AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS VERY REASONABLE IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE AT 5%. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS MADE VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES FOR WANT OF SUPPORTING EVIDEN CE OR ANY EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DETAILS OF T HE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- FOOJ.KH ESA 'KQ} VK; :I;S 13]18]370@& TKSM+K X;K %&FOOSP UKIJKUR 1 CYKLVHAX ESVSFJ;Y [KPZ 1,00,000 2 BOULDER CRUSHING [KPZ 2,53,419 3 MHTY [KPZ O EWY; L 5,98,909 4 HIRE CHARGES 1,72,781 5 INTEREST [KPZ 2,40,072 6 ESL [KPZZ 21,508 7 POLLUTION CLEARANCE [KPZ 16,800 8 FDJK;K [KPZ 17,600 9 FJIS;J O ESUVHUSUL [KPZ 3,27,310 10 OSRU [KPZ 3,18,623 11 VSFYQKSU O EKSCKBZY [KPZ 5,500 12 SUNDRY [KPZ 30,000 13 TRANSPORTATION [KPZ 45,259 14 ;K=K [KPZ 6,700 15 V;WC O VK;J [KPZ 98,600 16 OKGU FJIS;J O ESUVHUSUL [KPZ 46,000 ITA NO. 558/JP/2018 SHRI ARJUN SINGH VS. ITO 4 17 /KKJK 14, DS RGR VEKU; C;KT [KPZ 32,509 23]31]590@& FU/KKZFJR VK; 36]49]960@& VFKOK 36]49]960 SOME OF THESE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF THE CLAIM AND IN SOME OTHER CASES IS 20%. WE NOTE THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE AO BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE H AS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DESIRED INFORMATION, DOCUMENTS AND COPIES OF TH E ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED 50 % OF THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO THEREBY SUSTAIN THE RE MAINING 50% OUT OF TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 23,31,590/-. THE LD. C IT(A) HAS DELETED 50% DISALLOWANCE EXCEPT THE DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 3 2,509/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE U/S 14A OF THE ACT WHICH WA S SUSTAINED IN FALL BY THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF FA ILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE A S THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE RELEVANT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCE. EVEN NO EXPLANATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AU THORITIES BELOW, THEREFORE, WE DO FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN TH E IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHEN THE DISALLOWANCE WAS RESTRICTED ONL Y TO 5% OF THE VARIOUS CLAIMS. 6. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO U/S 14A OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE THE LD. CIT(A) H AS MADE A CATEGORICAL OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT M ADE ANY SPECIFIC SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE THE AO. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY FACTS OR MATERIAL BROUG HT ON RECORD BY THE ITA NO. 558/JP/2018 SHRI ARJUN SINGH VS. ITO 5 ASSESSE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE U/S 14A OF THE ACT WAS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO N OT FIND ANY REASONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY THE LD. CIT (A). IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/02/2019. SD/- SD/- JESK LH0 KEKZ FOT; IKY JKO (RAMESH. C. SHARMA) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 13/02/2019. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI ARJUN SINGH, KOTA. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-1(2), KOTA. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 558/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR