DCIT, BHILWARA V. Shri Banna Lal Jat, BHILWARA

ITA 62/JODH/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 59578 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R H GOHEL
• Assessee Lawyers: U C JAIN; MANISHA MAHESHWARI
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

1 ITA 62-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH JODHPUR. ( BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA ) ITA NO. 62/JODH/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07. THE DCIT, CIRCLE, VS. SHRI BANNA LAL JAT, BHILWARA. BHOPAPURA, JAHAZPUR, DIST. BHILWARA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI R.H. GOHEL ASSESSEE BY : SHRI UC JAIN & MS MANISHA MAHESHWARI DATE OF HEARING : 22.03.2012. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.3..2012. ORDER DATED : 23/03/2012. PER R.K. GUPTA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. FIRST ISSUE IS AGAINST DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4,52921/- DISALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON DUMPERS. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR. DURING THE Y EAR TOTAL INCOME WAS SHOWN AT RS. 97,32,696/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 4,08,558 /- HAS BEEN DECLARED. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED FOUR DUMPERS IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2006 AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVED THAT DUMPERS WERE REG ISTERED WITH THE RTO ONLY 3.4.2006. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT SOME TEMPORARY NUMBERS OF DUMPE RS WERE GIVEN BUT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FILED TO PROVE THAT THESE TEMPORARY NU MBERS WERE ISSUED BY RTO. 2 THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH USE OF DUMPERS DURING THE YEAR. ACCORDINGLY HE DISALLOWED THE DEP RECIATION CLAIMED. 3.1. DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED BEFORE LD. CIT (A) ALONG WITH PURCHASE INVOICE, INSURANCE COMPANYS CERTIFICATE WHICH WAS EFFECT FR OM 24.2.2006, TEMPORARY REGISTRATION NUMBER ALLOTTED AND BILLS FOR PURCHASE OF DIESEL. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS. THE LD. CIT (A) FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS DULY ESTABLISHED THAT DUMPERS WERE USE D IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, HE ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY WITH THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A). ALL THE DETAILS RELATING TO PURCHASE OF DUMPERS ARE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. INSURANCE CERTIFICATE ARE PLACED, TEMPORARY REGISTRATION NUMBER WHICH WAS DATED 25.2.2006 ARE ON RECORD. RE CEIPT OF REGISTRATION CHARGES IS ALSO PLACED IN THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN IN WR ITING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ALL THE BILLS ARE PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION SHOWING PUR CHASE OF DIESELS. THE GOODS WERE ALSO TRANSPORTED. THEREFORE, FROM THESE FACTS, IT IS AM PLY PROVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THESE DUMPERS WERE PURCHASED IN THE EARLIER YE AR AND THEY WERE PUT TO USE ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTI FIED IN ALLOWING THE GROUND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS CONF IRMED. 5. SECOND ISSUE IS AGAINST DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,02,140/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 6. DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND PRODUCE WERE FI LED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED, THERE FORE, HE DISALLOWED 25% OF 3 AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LD. CIT (A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THA T IN EARLIER ALSO SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE WHICH WAS DELETED BY HIS PREDECESSOR AND N O SECOND APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, HE DELETED THE ADDIT ION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND LD. CIT (A), WE FIND NO INFIRMITY WITH THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A). SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN EARLIER YEAR WHICH WAS DELETED BY LD. CIT (A) AND NO SECOND APPE AL WAS PREFERRED. THEREFORE, WE SEE NO UNREASONABLENESS IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). A CCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 8. GROUND NO. 3 IS AGAINST DELETING THE DISALLOWANC E OF RS. 1,91,554/- OUT OF TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES. 9. ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS. 38,31,080/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH CASH VOUCHERS PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, HE MADE DISALL OWANCE OF RS. 1,91,554/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE PAYMENTS ARE MADE TO TRACTOR, TRUCK OWNERS FOR WHICH VOUCHERS WERE PREPARED BY ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TRUCK/ TRACTOR OWNERS HAVE NO PRINTED BILLS OF THEIR OWN HENCE PAYMENTS WERE MADE ON THE VOUCHERS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE OF 5% ON ADHOC BASIS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED . THE LD. CIT (A) WAS SATISFIED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. HUGE INCOME HAS BE EN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE ON ADHOC BASIS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT WAS ALSO NOTED BY LD. CIT (A) THAT THERE IS NO INCREASE IN THE EXPENSES AS COMPARED TO EARLI ER YEAR. TRADING RESULTS ARE ALSO BETTER. ACCORDINGLY HE DELETED THE ADDITION. 4 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER AND LD. CIT (A), AGAIN WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A). FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A) ARE FINDING OF FACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM HIS FINDI NG ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. 11. GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 ARE AGAINST DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS. 35,000/- AND RS. 18,000/- DISALLOWED BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST, TREATING THE ADVANCE FOR OTHER THAN BUSINESS PURPOSES. 12. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT (A) THAT ASSESS EE HAS ADVANCED INTEREST FREE LOANS OF RS. 5,00,000/- TO M/S. PINK LINE SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS GIVEN WITHOUT INTEREST DUE TO BUSINESS ACCOMMOD ATION ONLY. HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED. HE DISALLOWED A SUM OF R S. 35,000/- BY CHARGING THE INTEREST ON THIS AMOUNT. SIMILARLY A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 18,00 0/- WAS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED BOTH THESE ADDITIONS BY OBS ERVING THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ADVANCES OUT OF LOAN TAKEN ON INTEREST. NO NEXUS HAS BEEN PROVED, THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCES MAD E WITHOUT ANY REASON. ACCORDINGLY, HE DELETED THE ADDITION. 13. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER AND LD. CIT (A) WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS GIV EN A FINDING OF FACT. ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM HIS FINDING ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISM ISSED. 15. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 .3.2012. SD/- SD/- ( SANJAY ARORA ) ( R.K. GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JODHPUR, 5 COPY FORWARDED TO :- THE DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA. SHRI BANNA LAL JAT, BHILWARA. THE CIT (A) THE CIT THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 62/JODH/2010) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JODHPUR.