ITO, Rohtak V. Sh. Bharat Bhushan, Rohtak

ITA 803/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 53173 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUSHA KHURANA
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 194C; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH A DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI I. P. BANSAL, JM & SHRI K. D. RANJAN, AM I. T. APPEAL NO. 803 (DEL) OF 2011. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SHRI BHARAT BHUSHAN , W A R D : 1, VS. S/O. SHRI DALIP CHANDER, R O H T A K. PROP. M/S. BHARAT INDUST RIES, HISAR ROAD, R O H T A K. P A N / G I R NO. AEU PB 4817 Q. ( APPELLANT ) ( R ESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : N O N E; DEPARTMENT BY : MS. ANUSHA KHURANA, SR. D. R. ; O R D E R. PER K. D. RANJAN, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08 ARISES OUT OF ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS), ROHTAK. WHEN CASE CAME UP FOR H EARING NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HAVING REGARDS TO THE ISSUES INVOLVED, TH E APPEAL IS DECIDED ON MERITS AFTER HEARING LD SR. D.R. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,28,486/-, WITHOUT OBTAINING ANY AUTHENTIC DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCE FROM THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY EVID ENCE REGARDING GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND IDENTIFY AND CREDITWORTHINESS O F THE PERSONS FROM WHOM UNSECURED LOANS HAVE BEEN RAISED. THEREFORE, THE A SSESSEE HAD NOT DISCHARGED HIS ONUS; 2 I. T. APPEAL NO. 803 (DEL) OF 2011. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WEL L AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,07,301/- BECAUSE THE LD. CIT (A) HAD NOT GOT CONDUCTED NECESSARY VERIFICATION FROM THE CONCERNED PARTIES R EGARDING RECEIPTS OF TOTAL AMOUNTS AND ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT AUTHENTIC EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED COPIES OF ACCOUNTS J UST TO AVOID NECESSARY VERIFICATION BUT THE SAME HAVE BEEN FURNISHED TO TH E LD. CIT (A), WHICH WERE NOT GOT VERIFIED BY THE LD. CIT (A). THUS, ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTERD WITHOUT NECESSARY VERIFICATION; 3. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WEL L AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.46,086/- AS THE ADDITION WAS MAD E IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS OF HOUSE-HOLD EXPENSES SUCH AS ELECTRICITY, EDUCATI ONAL, CEREMONY, CLOTHING, KITCHEN, ETC. THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE SAID ADD ITION WITHOUT OBTAINING THESE DETAILS OF EXPENSES AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO DEL ETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,28,486/-. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DERIVE D INCOME FROM JOB WORK OF M/S. LAKSHMI PRECISION SCREWS LTD., M/S. ZEN FASTNERS ETC. DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.4,28,486/- FROM NINE CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT PROOF/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE CASH CREDITORS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE SAME, THE AO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,2 8,486/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT ALL THE LOANS WERE OLD LOANS. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF BALANCE SHEET FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006-07 IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION. HE ALSO FURNISHED CONFIRMATION OF THE SAID LOANS APPEARING AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2006. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT EVEN IF THE ASSESSING OF FICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH CREDITORS, HE COULD NOT HAVE MADE ADDITION IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS THOSE WERE ALL OLD LOANS. THE LD. CIT (A) ON THE BASIS OF SUB MISSIONS MADE AND ON THE APPRECIATION OF FACTS HELD THAT NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007-08 SINCE ALL THE LOANS WERE OLD. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDIT ION. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. SR. DR. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. SR. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDITS WERE 3 I. T. APPEAL NO. 803 (DEL) OF 2011. OLD. SINCE THE CASH CREDITS WERE APPEARING AS ON 3 1 ST MARCH, 2006, ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, W E DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) DELETING THE ADDITI ON. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,07,301/-. THE FACTS OF THE CASE RELATING TO THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED JOB WORK EXPENSES OF RS.22,64,135/-. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED, THE AO NOTED THAT PARTY-WISE DETAILS ALONG WITH ACCOUNT COPIES WERE FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF RS.10,5 6,834/- WHEREAS DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF BALANCE JOB WORK EXPENSES OF RS.12,07,30 1/-. THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO LIABILITY AND TDS IN TERMS OF SECTION 194C IN RESPE CT OF RS.10,56,834/-. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINING EXPENDITURE, IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAIL S THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40( A)(IA) READ WITH SECTION 194C. THE AO, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS.12,07,301/-. 7. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL WITH THE AO TO CONCLUDE THAT COMPLIANCE WITH TDS PROVISIONS WAS NO T MADE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THE COPY OF ACCOUNTS OF THE REMAINING PERSONS. THE TOTAL PAYMENT IN EACH CASE DID NOT EXCEED RS.50 ,000/- IN A YEAR AND FURTHER EACH PAYMENT AT A TIME DID NOT EXCEED RS.20,000/-. THEREFORE, PROV ISIONS OF TDS UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT WERE NOT ATTRACTED. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FIL ED COPIES OF PARTIES ACCOUNT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION. 8. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ON EXAMINATION OF ACCOUNT COPIES FILED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, NOTED THAT EACH PAYMENT DID NOT EXCEED RS .20,000/- AND THE CONSOLIDATED PAYMENT IN THE YEAR DID NOT EXCEED RS.50,000/- FOR 29 PARTIES TO WHOM ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENT OF RS.12,07,301/- TOWARDS JOB WORK EXPENSES. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS), THEREFORE, HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) READ WITH SECTION 1 94C WERE NOT ATTRACTED. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 4 I. T. APPEAL NO. 803 (DEL) OF 2011. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. SR. DR. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. SR. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) THAT PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 194C READ WITH SECTION 40(A)(IA) WERE NOT APPLICABLE. THEREFORE, IN OUR C ONSIDERED OPINION, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. 10. THE LAST ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO DEL ETING THE ADDITION OF RS.46,086/- MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS OF HOUSE-HOLD EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN HOUSE-HOLD EXPENSES OF RS.73,914/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED MO NTHLY EXPENSES OF RS.10,000/- AND MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.46,086/-. ON APPEAL, IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN HOUSE-HOLD EXPENSES OF RS.62,500/-. THEREFOR E, THE TOTAL EXPENSES WERE AT RS.1,36,414/- [RS.62,500+ RS.73,914/-]. SINCE THE HOUSE HOLD EXP ENSES OF THE FAMILY AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE WERE MORE THAN RS.1,20,000/-, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE SHO ULD HAVE BEEN RS.1,20,000/- AT THE RATE OF RS.10,000/- PER MONTH. HOWEVER, THE HOUSE HOLD EXP ENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE WERE AT RS.1,34,414/-. SINCE HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES I NCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE WERE MORE THAN RS.1,20,000/- WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMIT Y IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) DELETING THE ADDITION. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- [ I. P. BANSAL ] [ K. D. RANJAN ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2011 . * MEHTA * 5 I. T. APPEAL NO. 803 (DEL) OF 2011. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT, 4. CIT (APPEALS), 5. SR. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT.