Premdeep Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi V. ITO, Ranchi

ITA 71/RAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0338 (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
• Section: 143(3)

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.71/RAN/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PREMDEEP DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS PVT. LTD., C/O. SHRI VINAY KUMAR JALAN, 48, CART SARAI ROAD, UPPER BAZAR, RANCHI 834 001 PAN:AACCP3150F VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (3), 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.360 /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 ASSE SSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN CON FIRMING THE ITA NO. 71/R/2015 (AY: 2009-10) 2 DISALLOWANCE OF 30% OF THE EXPENSES DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALL RELEVANT DETAILS AS HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE AO IN PARA 4 OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT AGAIN IN PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER RECORDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE DETAIL S HE PROCEEDED TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED THE CASH BOO K, BANK BOOK AND OTHER ACCOUNTS FOR ALL THE EXPENSES AND HAD SUBSEQU ENTLY DISALLOWED 30% OF THE EXPENSES ON AD-HOC BASIS. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE SAME. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE LEARNED CIT (A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ADMITT EDLY, THE AO HAS RECORDED THAT VIDE LETTER DATED 24-11-2011; THE ASSESSEE HAD SPECIFICALLY SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH BOOK, BANK BOO K AND OTHER ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS. HOWEVER, THE AO HAD SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE NEXT LINE TAKEN THE STAND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY CASH BOOK AND BANK BO OK NOR ANY BILLS/VOUCHERS AND DISALLOWED 30% OF THE EXPENSES A S NOT VERIFIABLE. IF, THE AO TAKES THE STAND THAT NONE OF THE BOOKS H AS BEEN PRODUCED, THEN, IT IS SURPRISING THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND HE HAS DISALLOWED 30% OF THE EXPENSES. IF, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED, THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE AO TO LIMIT THE DISALLOWANCE AT 30% IN ANY CASE. IN PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO RECOGNIZES THAT THE BANK S TATEMENT HAS BEEN PRODUCED AND THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNTS HAS BEEN PRODUCED AND VARIOUS OTHER DETAILS AND PAPERS/DOCUMENTS HAVE BEE N VERIFIED AND TEST-CHECKED. ONCE, THE AO ACCEPTS THAT THE DETAILS HAD BEEN PRODUCED ITA NO. 71/R/2015 (AY: 2009-10) 3 IN PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THEN HOW, HE HAS MADE THE STATEMENT IN PARA 4 IS UNCONVINCING. IN ANY CASE, T HE DETAILS HAVING BEEN PRODUCED, DISALLOWANCE CAN ONLY BE MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF THE DEFECTS IN THE ACCOUNT OR IF ANY SPECIFIC EXPEN DITURE HAS NOT BEEN PROVED, A D-HOC DISALLOWANCE IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE AO AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS UNSUSTAINABLE A ND HENCE, DELETED. 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 ITA NO. 71/R/2015 (AY: 2009-10) 4 ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFTS ARE ENCLOSED IN THE F ILE 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 SR.P S 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