Raj Construction, Ranchi V. ITO, Ranchi

ITA 69/RAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0341 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAUDHARY ORAON
• Assessee Lawyers: V K JALAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: CIRCUIT BENCH : RANCHI [BEFORE HONBLE S/SHRI N. S. SAINI, AM AND GEORGE M ATHAN, JM] ITA NO.69/RAN/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 RAJ CONSTRUCTION, C/O. VINAY KUMAR JAIN, 48, CART SARAI ROAD, UPPER BAZAR, RANCHI, JHARKHAND 834 001 PAN: AAFFR3907G VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -4, RANCHI, ANNEXE BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, RANCHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI V. K. JALAN, FCA RESPONDENT BY SHRI CHAUDHARY ORAON, DR DATE OF HEARING: 03-11-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03-11-2015 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), RANCHI, JHARKHAND IN APPEAL NO.364 /RAN/OTH/11-12 DATED 06-02-2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. SHRI V. K. JALAN, FCA REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE AND SHRI CHAUDHARY ORAON, LEARNED DR REPRESENTED ON BEH ALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THE IN T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE AO HAD DISALLOWED VARIOUS EXPENDITUR ES NAMELY TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES AT 10%, SITE DEVELOPMENT EX PENSES AT 5% ITA NO. 69/R/2015 (AY: 2009-10) 2 AND TRAVELING EXPENSES AT 10%. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT PUJA EXPENSES HAVE ALSO BEEN DISALLOWED. IT WAS A SUBMIS SION THAT THE DISALLOWANCES ARE AD-HOC DISALLOWANCES. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE EXPENDITURES HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THA T VOUCHERS AND BILLS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH SUPPORT ITS CLAIM H AVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT ALL THE DETAILS HAD BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE LEARNED CIT (A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERU SAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE AO HAS RECORDED THA T THE AUDIT REPORT, BANK ACCOUNT, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, VOUCHERS AN D OTHER DETAILS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED AND TEST-CHECKED. IT IS AFTER TH IS FINDING THAT THE AO DISALLOWED VARIOUS EXPENDITURES BY HOLDING THAT THE SAME WERE NOT FULLY VOUCHED AND VERIFIABLE. IF ANY SPECIFIC EXPEN DITURE IS NOT VOUCHED OR IS NOT ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE, IT IS THAT EXPENDI TURE THAT IS DISALLOWABLE BUT NOT ON AD-HOC BASIS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE A CCOUNTS WHICH CALL FOR ANY ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE. IN ANY CASE, ESTIMA TED DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IS NOT PERMISSIBLE WHEN BOOKS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE AO AND C ONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) STANDS DELETED. ITA NO. 69/R/2015 (AY: 2009-10) 3 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE CLOSE OF HEARING ON 03 - 11 - 2015. SD/- SD/- ( N .S. SAINI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (GEORGE MATHAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 03-11-2015 L LL LK DEKA/SR.PS K DEKA/SR.PS K DEKA/SR.PS K DEKA/SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) - 5. THE DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT S ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 03.11.15 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 03.11.15 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 03.11.15 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 03 .11.15 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 03.11.15 S R.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03.11.15 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK ` 03 .11.15 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER