Shri Shankarlal Shrikishan Chachan, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-11(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 729/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6104 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHOR GOYAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 729/AHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) SHANKARLAL SHRIKISHAN CHACHAN 95, HIRABHAI MARKET, D B ROAD AHMEDABAD-380022 V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 11 (4), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: ABVPC2016Q APPELLANT BY : SHRI KISHOR GOYAL, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESH MEENA, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 09 -02-201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14-02-2018 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)- XVI, AHMEDABAD DATED 16.12.2013 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2008-09. ITA NO. 729- AHD-2014 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 2 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF JOB CHARGES RS. 6,26,617/- MADE U/S . 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT R.W.S. 194C. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN TH E FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION, DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF JOB CHARGES E XPENSES AND INTEREST EXPENSES U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE MATTER TRAV ELLED UP TO THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2770/AHD/2011 VIDE ORDER DA TED 30.03.2012 RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILES OF THE A.O. TO ENABLE THE A SSESSEE TO MAKE PROPER REPRESENTATION AND THE A.O. WAS DIRECTED TO FRAME D E NOVO ASSESSMENT WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL RELEVANT D OCUMENTS BEFORE THE A.O. 4. PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, FRESH O PPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNIS H NECESSARY DETAILS FOR VERIFICATION. 5. ON RECEIVING NO PLAUSIBLE REPLY, THE A.O. ONCE AGAI N MADE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 6. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) B UT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 7. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMEN TLY SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCO COLA BEVERAGES P. LTD . 293 ITR 226. 8. AFTER GIVING A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE FACT S OF THE CASE IN HAND, WE FIND THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF ITA NO. 729- AHD-2014 . A.Y. 2008-0 9 3 HINDUSTAN COCO COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. DO NOT APPL Y INASMUCH AS THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT RECOVERY ONCE A GAIN CANNOT BE MADE FROM THE DEDUCTOR WHERE THE DEDUCTEE INCLUDED THE I NCOME ON WHICH TAX WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN NOT DEDUCTED AND THE DEDUCTEE HAS INCLUDED THE INCOME IN ITS TAXABLE INCOME AND PAID TAXES THEREOF. 9. IN THE CASE IN HAND IN SPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITI ES, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO BRING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE DEDUCTEES H AVE PAID THE TAXES ON THE INCOME ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX A T SOURCE. NEITHER IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION NOR IN THE SECOND ROUND BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE COULD FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 10. APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14- 02- 20 18 SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY A CCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 14/02/2018 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER