ITO, Sangrur V. M/s Sukhdev Singh HTC, Sunam

ITA 72/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8967 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTALDR
• Assessee Lawyers: B B BANSAL
• Section: 40A(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 72/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE ITO, VS SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH HTC, SUNAM, DHANAULA, H.O. SUNAM. (H.Q. SANGRUR). PAN: ABLFS1449R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL,DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.B.BANSAL DATE OF HEARING : 22.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.11.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) PATIALA DATED 30.11.2 015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 40A( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS BY PROVING THAT CASH PAYMENTS EX CEEDING RS.20,000/- HAD NOT BEEN MADE IN VIOLATION OF THE S AID SECTION. 2. IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 40A( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS FAILED TO FILE DATE WISE DETAILS OF NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF TH E TRUCK OWNERS 2 TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE, WITHOUT WHICH T HE OWNERSHIP OF MORE THAN ONE TRUCK BY A PARTICULAR PE RSON CANNOT BE RULED OUT AND SECTION 40A(3) APPLIES TO PAYMENTS TO A PERSON. 3. IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 40(A )(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS BY PROVING THAT CASH P AYMENTS EXCEEDING RS.50,000/- HAD NOT BEEN MADE IN VIOLATIO N OF THE SAID SECTION. 4. IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE DATE WISE DETAILS O F NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE TRUCK OWNERS TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE, WITHOUT WHICH THE OWNERSHIP OF MORE THAN ONE TRUCK BY A PARTICULAR PERSON CANNOT BE RULED OUT AND SECTION 1 94C APPLIES TO PAYMENTS TO A PERSON. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A LAB OUR & TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TRANSPORTAT ION EXPENSES AT RS. 77,32,750/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS HIRED A NUMBER OF TRUCKS ON VARIOUS DATES AND MADE PAYMENT TO THEM IN CASH. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS HIRED 5814 TRUCKS AND MADE PAYMENTS TO THEM. THE TRUCK UNION, DHANAULA OWNS ONLY 441 TRUCKS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBS ERVED THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE THAT 5814 DIFFERENT TRUCK OWNERS WERE AVAILABLE AT A SMALL PLACE LIKE DHANAUL A. AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE TH E DATE- WISE DETAILS OF NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY FILED THE DETAILS OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, AMOUNT THROU GH COMPUTER GENERATED LETTER AND ONLY SOME OF THE 3 REGISTERED NUMBERS HAD BEEN FILED. THEREFORE, DISBELIEVING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE EXPENSES OF RS. 77,32,750/- UNDER SECTION 40A(3) AS WELL AS BY INVO KING SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION MAINLY BECAUSE NO DETAILS REGARDING OWNERSHIP OF THESE TRUCKS HAD BEE N SUBMITTED. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, ITAT, DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE OF SAME ASSESSEE IN ITA 1261/2012 HAD ADJUDICATED SIMILAR MATTER AND DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENT APPEAL. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF DIVISION BENCH OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ALLOWED THEE GROUNDS OF APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN ITA 1261/2012 DATED 21.08.2015. COPY OF THE ORDER IS PLACED ON R ECORD AND GIVEN TO LD. DR. THE LD. DR ALSO CONTENDED THA T ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSES SEE FOR PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN WHICH ON IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, REVENUES APPEAL HAS B EEN DISMISSED, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL. NO INFIRMITY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN ALLOWING APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL, THUS, HAS NO MERIT AND SAME IS , ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SA INI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22 ND NOVEMBER,2016. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD