AJMER MINERALS & GRINDING CORPORATION, Ajmer V. ITO, Ajmer

ITA 643/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 64323114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHIR SOGANI

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES SMC, JAIPUR JH IH-DS-CALY] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 643/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S AJMER MINERALS & GRINDING CORPORATION, 502, PATHAR FACTORY, FOYSAGAR ROAD, AJMER CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), AJMER. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AABFA 8904 A VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SOGANI (ADV) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 04/11/2015 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/11/2015 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/08/2014 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A), AJMER FOR A.Y. 2006-07. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATE TO LEVIED OF P ENALTY U/S 271B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). ITA 643/JP/2014_ M/S AJMER MINERALS & GRINDING CORP. VS ITO 2 2. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE TOTAL REC EIPT/GROSS TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WERE RS. 43,72,252/- DETAILED AS UNDER:- I) TRADING A/C SALES AS PER TRADING A/C FOR 01/04/05 TO 08/06/05 RS. 3,47,162/- SALES AS PER TRADING A/C FOR 09/06/05 TO 31/03/06 RS. 17,89,717/- RS. 21,36,879/- II) TRANSPORTATION A/C TRANSPORTATION RECEIPT FOR 01/04/05 TO 08/06/05 RS. 4,08,477/- TRANSPORTATION RECEIPTS FOR 09/06/05 TO 31/03/06 RS. 18,26,896/- RS. 22,35,373/- TOTAL SALES/TRANSFER/RECEIPTS RS. 43,72,252/- HE, THEREFORE, TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOUL D MUST HAVE GOT HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED AS REQUIRED U/S 44AB AND THEREFORE , AFTER GIVING THE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R LEVIED THE PENALTY @ % ON RS. 43,72,252/- AMOUNTING TO RS. 21,860/-. 3. WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE SAME ALONGWITH ORDERS OF THE TAX AUT HORITIES BELOW. I NOTED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN AN EXPLAN ATION THAT THE ASSESSEE ITA 643/JP/2014_ M/S AJMER MINERALS & GRINDING CORP. VS ITO 3 FIRM ARRANGED THE TRUCK FOR SUPPLY OF GOODS TO M/S BHEL AND WHATEVER PAYMENTS ARE RECEIVED FROM BHEL TOWARDS THE TRANSPOR TATION. THE SAME ARE REIMBURSED TO THE TRUCK OWNERS AFTER DEDUCTING T HE COMMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE ASSESSEE WENT ON TO EARN ONLY COMM ISSION, WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS HIS INCOME. IT IS ONLY COMMISSION, WHICH SHOULD FORM PART OF THE TURNOVER. THE ASSESSEE RELIE D IN THIS REGARD ON CIRCULAR NO. 452 DATED 17/03/1986 AS WELL AS THE DEC ISION OF ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS BINDRA RAM BANSI LAL 90 TTJ 747. 4.1 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF AMRITSAR BE NCH OF ITAT, I NOTED THAT THE AMRITSAR BENCH HAS HELD THAT WHATEVER FREIG HT IS CHARGED FROM THESE PARTIES BY THE ASSESSEE IS PAID TO THE INDIVI DUAL OWNERS WHO ACTUALLY CARRIED THE GOODS. THE ASSESSEES POSITION IS SIMILA R TO THAT OF KUCHHA ARHATIA AND THE TURNOVER IS ONLY THE COMMISSION REC EIVED FROM THE TRUCK OWNERS AND SUPPLIER OF GOODS. IN MY OPINION, SO FAR THE TRANSPORTATION RECEIPT IS CONCERNED, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS D ULY COVERED BY THE SAID DECISION OF THE AMRITSAR BENCH, NO CONTRARY DECISIO N WAS BROUGHT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. EVEN IF, THERE IS A CONTRARY DECISION IN ANY CASE, THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE COORDINATE B ENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS A RE ASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT GETTING ITS ACCOUNT AUDITED. I ACCORDINGLY, SET ASI DE THE ORDER OF THE LD ITA 643/JP/2014_ M/S AJMER MINERALS & GRINDING CORP. VS ITO 4 CIT(A) AND DELETE THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER U/S 271B OF THE ACT. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/11/2015. SD/- IH-DS-CALY (P.K. BANSAL) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 05 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- M/S AJMER MINERALS & GRINDING CORPORA TION, AJMER. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 1(1), AJMER. 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. 643/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR