SEVEN BROS, MUMBAI V. ITO 18(3)(3),

ITA 7621/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0189 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N HEMALATHA
• Keywords: Onus to prove
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.7621/M/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. SEVEN BROS, 651, MADHAVRAJ GULLY, MULJI JETHA MARKET, ZAVERI BAZAR, MUMBAI-401 002 PAN: AAAFS3194D VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-18(3)(3), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MISS N. HEMALATHA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 31.07.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.08.2017 O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2016 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2012-13. 2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM WHICH FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2012-13 O N 28.09.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,48,179/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE C ASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S.143(2) AND 142(1) WERE ISSUED AND SE RVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF CLOTH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO) AT PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT TO M/S. ATLAS WORLD TRAVELS PVT. LTD. AND M/S. ATLAS EXCHANGE BUREAU PVT. LTD. ON VA RIOUS DATES AGGREGATING TO RS.2,00,096/-. WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE DETAILS, THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ONE OF THE PARTNERS, MR. AJAY M. SHAH VISITED CHINA FOR BU SINESS TOUR AND THAT THE ITA NO.7621/M/2016 M/S. SEVEN BROS 2 ASSESSEE HAS GOT BUSINESS OUT OF THIS TRIP IN THE N EXT FINANCIAL YEAR. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY KIND OF TRADE WITH ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY EITHER DURING THE YEAR OR IN THE NEXT YEAR. MOREOVER, NO PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION AND COGENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES HAVE B EEN FURNISHED IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.2,00,096/- CANNOT BE ALLOWED AND MADE AN ADDITION OF THIS AMOUNT. 3. MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL AS UNDER: 6.3. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL HAVE BEEN CONSID ERED AND I DO NOT FIND SUFFICIENT FORCE IN THE SAME. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE ONLY EVIDENCE THEY HAVE ARE SELF MADE VOUCHERS. APPARENTLY, THE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED IN CASH. WHAT EVER BE THE NATURE OF EXPENSES, THE ONUS IS ON THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THA T IT HAD BEEN INCURRED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. IN THIS CA SE, OTHER THAN REITERATING THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR BUSINESS, NO OTHER EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AP PELLANT EITHER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR AT THE TIME O F APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF RAMANAND SAGAR VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 256 ITR 134 (BOM) HAS LAID DOW N THAT 'THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN SOLELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINES S.' 6.3.2. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OF 10%OF THE EXPENDITURE FROM CONVEYANCE AND MOTOR CAR IS CO NFIRMED. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 4. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. NO CON TRARY EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED BEFORE ME. THEREFORE, I ENDORSE THE ACTIO N OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.08.2017. SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMB ER MUMBAI, DATED: 24.08.2017. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. ITA NO.7621/M/2016 M/S. SEVEN BROS 3 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.