Pravendra Singh, New Delhi V. DCIT Circle-62(1), New Delhi

ITA 6656/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3989 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 143(3); 143(2)

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 6656/DEL/2019 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-I, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA NO. 6656/DEL/2019 A.Y. : 2016-17 SH. PRAVENDRA SINGH A-47, JAGRATI APPTT. SAINIK VIHAR, PITAMPURA NEW DELHI - 110034 (PAN: BDZPS5560E) VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 62(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.06.2019 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-20, NEW DELHI IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2016-17 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS WRONG, UNJUST AND HAS ASSESSEE BY SH. B.L. MITTAL, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY SH . R.K. GUPTA, SR. DR. ITA NO. 6656/DEL/2019 2 ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/- DISALLOWED OUT OF JOB CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND WHICH IS BASED PURELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES, PARTICULARLY, WHEN THERE IS A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE SAME HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE APPELLANT ASSEESEE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FI LED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 24.11.2016 DECLAR ING INCOME OF RS. 22,23,540/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELE CTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS. NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE I .T. ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED ON 17.8.2017 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. ON THE CHANGE OF AO, AGAIN NOTICE U/S. 14 2(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 24. 8.2018, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY DETAIL ON THIS DA TE. SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FR OM TIME TO TIME AND IN COMPLIANCE OF THE SAME, THE AR OF THE A SSESSEE APPEARED AND FILED THE REQUISITE EVIDENCES FOR SUBS TANTIATING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO FILED BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS WHICH WERE CHECKED BY THE AO AND THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE ITA NO. 6656/DEL/2019 3 WAS ALSO DISCUSSED BY THE AO WITH THE AR OF THE ASS ESSEE. AFTER EXAMINING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED J OB WORK CHARGES OF RS. 75,73,090/- AND ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THIS JOB WORK EXPENSES. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, BUT AS DESIRED BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED T HE PARTY- WISE DETAILS OF JOB WORK DONE AND THE AO DISALLOWED RS. 5 LACS OUT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AS RS. 75,73,090/- AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHO VIDE I TS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.6.2019 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF TDS OF RS. 1,9 0,372/- AND DIRECTED THE AO TO GIVE THE CREDIT OF TDS AMOUN T OF RS. 1,90,372/- TO THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ASSESSEE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO. 6656/DEL/2019 4 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR OF M/S S.P. CONSTR UCTION AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. THE I NCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 WAS FILED O N 24.11.2016 DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 22,23,540/- . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY BY I SSUING THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT AND AFTER EXAMINING T HE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE A O MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS OUT OF THE JOB WORK AND ALSO DISALLOWED TDS OF RS. 1,90,372/-. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 75,73,090/- ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS TYPE OF JOB WOR K CHARGES PAID DURING THE UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR EXECUTION O F THE WORK FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AND THE DETAILS OF THE SAME H AS ALSO BEEN GIVEN TO THE AO WHICH THE AO HAS NARRATED IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEES AR FURTHER STATED THAT ALL T HE MAJOR PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH CHEQUES AND THE INCOME T AX WAS DULY DEDUCTED FROM THE SAID PAYMENTS AND ALSO ASSES SEE ALSO FURNISHED ALL THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO WHICH WAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED BY THE AO AND HE WRONGLY DISAL LOWED THE PAYMENT OF RS. 5 LACS ALONGWITH TDS AMOUNT OF RS. 1,90 ,372/-. ITA NO. 6656/DEL/2019 5 BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF TDS OF RS. 1,90,372/- AND UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE ON JOB WORK CHARGES PAID TO THE VARIOUS PARTIES, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS FILED ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE HAS ALSO DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWA RDS THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO AS WE LL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT IN VIEW OF THE EVIDEN CES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE OF JOB W ORK ON WHICH THE TDS HAS ALSO BEEN DEDUCTED, THE REVENUE AU THORITIES WRONGLY MADE THE ADDITION AND HENCE, REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE MAY BE DELETED BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE PARTY-WISE DETAILS OF JOB WORK DONE AND THE BAS IS ON WHICH PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND SHOWED HIS INABILITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE AUTHO RITIES HAVE RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE AND REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESEE MAY BE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 6656/DEL/2019 6 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE O RDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ESPECIALLY THE DI SCUSSION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 7 5,73,090/-. IN SUPPORT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE AND LIST OF NAME WITH AMOUNT OF PAYMENT, MODE OF PA YMENT AND DETAILS OF TDS DEDUCTED. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE VERY MUCH IMPOR TANT ON THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERL Y APPRECIATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE A RE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE CO MPLETE EVIDENCES OF EXPENSES AND THE LIST OF NAMES WITH AM OUNT OF PAYMENT, MODE OF PAYMENT AND DETAIL OF TDS DEDUCTED FOR WHICH LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF CREDIT OF TDS OF RS. 1,90,372/- AND WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT MAJOR PAYMEN TS HAVE BEEN MADE BY CHEQUES AND TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED. THER EFORE, IN OUR VIEW, PROPER APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCES HAS N OT BEEN DONE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WHICH IS VERY MUCH IMPORTANT AND IN OUR VIEW THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONTRADICT THE SAME. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SU FFICIENT EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE ITA NO. 6656/DEL/2019 7 ESPECIALLY ON THE EXPENDITURE IN DISPUTE AND THE TD S DEDUCTED WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORIT IES, HENCE, THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE HAS WRONGLY BEEN MADE IN TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH DESERVE TO BE DELETED. ACCORDIN GLY, WE DELETE THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE BY ALLOWING THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED ON 03.11.2020. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI