M/s Sirohi Detective & Security Agency Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITo, New Delhi

ITA 70/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3860 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 9 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 29-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST IMPUGNED DATED PASSED
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.:- 70/DEL /2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 M/S. SIROHI DETECTIVE & SECURITY AGENCY PVT. LTD. E-174, (LGF) AMAR COLONY, LAJPAT NAGAR IV NEW DELHI. PAN AAACS4006P VS. ITO WARD 8(4) NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 8.10.2009, PASSED BY LD. CIT( A) XI NEW DELHI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 147/143(3) FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ASS ESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ASSESSEE BY: SHRI K. SAMPATH ADVOCATE SHRI V. RAJAKUMAR, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 25/10/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25/10/2017 ITA NO. 70/DEL/2010 SIROHI DETECT IVE & SECURITY AGENCY PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 2 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN : (I) INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT AND THEREBY COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS. 25,08,840/-. THE ACTION IS MOST ARBITRARY, ERRO NEOUS AND UNLAWFUL AND MUST BE QUASHED WITH DIRECTIONS FO R VACATING THE ADDITION: (II) DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS. 3,76,280/- ON ACCOUNT OF VEHICLE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES, REJECTING THE EVID ENCE AND COGENT REASONS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, UNSUSTAINABLE AND MUST BE QUASHED WIT H DIRECTIONS FOR VACATING THE ADDITION. 2. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND WHICH HAS BEEN ARGUED BEFO RE US RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,76,280/- ON ACCOUNT OF VEHICLE REPAIR. THE ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING SECURITY SERVICES AND HAS CLA IMED A SUM OF RS. 3,76,280/- UNDER THE HEAD VEHICLE REPAIR AND MAINTEN ANCE EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE DETAILS INCLUDING BILLS AND VOUCHERS; HOWEVER THE SAME COULD NOT BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO AND ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O . DISALLOWED THE WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT. 3. BEFORE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CO PY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF VEHICLE AND MAINTENANCE WERE SUBMITTED BEFO RE THE AO BUT BILLS AND VOUCHERS COULD NOT BE SUBMITTED. ON THE NATURE OF EXPENSES IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SUPERVISORS OF THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY WERE USING THEIR OWN VEHICLES TO VISIT VARIOUS STATIONS AS A ND WHEN REQUIRED TO DISTRIBUTE THE SALARIES AFTER VERIFYING THE ATTENDANC E OF THE SECURITY ITA NO. 70/DEL/2010 SIROHI DETECT IVE & SECURITY AGENCY PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 3 GUARDS DEPLOYED AT VARIOUS SITES. ASSESSEE COMPANY WA S REIMBURSING THEIR VEHICLE / REPAIRING AND MAINTENANCE COST WHICH H AS BEEN DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. ENTIRE BILLS AND VOUCHER S WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) ALONGWITH THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A. HOWEVER LD. C IT (A) REJECTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. 4. BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL, SHRI K. SAMPAT SU BMITTED THAT NOW THE ENTIRE BILLS AND VOUCHERS HAVE BEEN PLACED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH APPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 FOR ADMISSION O F ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE AN D ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCES, AND POINTED OUT THOSE DETAILS OF EACH AND EVERY EXPENS E HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WHICH HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED. THEREFORE, IN TH E INTEREST OF JUSTICE THIS MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF A.O. TO EXAMINE THE SAME. 4. LD. DR TOO DOES NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 5. AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, WE FIND TH AT BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY FILED THE ENTIRE EVID ENCES RELATING TO VEHICLE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE BUT ALSO EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF ITA NO. 70/DEL/2010 SIROHI DETECT IVE & SECURITY AGENCY PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 4 EXPENSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS. SINCE THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES HAVE NOT BEEN ADMITTED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THEREFORE, SAME HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE US UNDER RULE 29. ACCORDINGLY, AS PRAYED BEFORE US, WE ARE REMANDING THE WHOLE MAT TER TO THE FILE OF AO WHO SHALL EXAMINE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND AFT ER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, WILL DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REMANDED BAC K TO THE FILE OF A.O. AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/10/2017. SD/- SD/- ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 31 /10/2017 VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI