TRANSMODAL SERVICES P. LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

ITA 8118/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2107 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 30-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PREMANAND J
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BE NCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I .T.A. NO. 8118/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 M/S. TRANSMODAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., 2A, STADIUM HOUSE, 82, VEER NARIMAN ROAD, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. THE DCIT, RANGE-2(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCT 3530C ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: SHRI VIJAY MEHTA / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PREMANAND J. / DATE OF HEARING :30.09.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :07.10.2015 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-6, MUMBAI DATED 7.10.2011 PERTAININ G TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AMOUN TING TO RS. 2,86,675/- BEING 20% OF TOTAL TRAVELLING AND CONVE YANCE EXPENSES ON AD-HOC BASIS. ITA. NO.8118/M/2011 2 3. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATIO N, DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT AND MAN POWER SUPPLY SERVICES. RETURN FOR THE YEAR WAS ELECTRONICALLY FILED ON 31.10.2007 DECLARING NI L INCOME. THE RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND ACC ORDINGLY STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE A SSESSEE. WHILE SCRUTINIZING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND GOING THROUGH THE SCHEDULE-15 FORMING PART OF THE ACCOUNTS, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED EXPENSES OF RS. 14,33,381/- UNDER THE SUB-H EAD TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE. ACCORDING TO THE AO, MOST OF THE E XPENSES ARE SUPPORTED BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS MAKING THE VERIFICA TION DIFFICULT. THE AO ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED 20% OF THE SAME AND M ADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,86,676/-. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHE MENTLY SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE FACTUAL MATRIX, THE AO HAS MADE A N ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF 20% WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIF IC ENTRY/FIGURE WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM WAS NOT FOUND SUPPORTED BY A NY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. REFERRING TO VARIOUS DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION, IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT EVERY PAYMENT IS SUPPORTED BY RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CE WHICH HAS BEEN COMPLETELY IGNORED BY THE AO. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO FURNISHED A CHART SHOWING CLAIM OF EXPENSES IN A.Y. 2006-07, 2 007-08 & 2008- 09. THE LD. COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT IN A.Y. 2006- 07, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND TH E REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN A.Y. 2008-0 9. THE AO HAS MADE NO ADDITION WHILE MAKING THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT IS ITA. NO.8118/M/2011 3 THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE IMPUGNED DISALL OWANCES DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SU PPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT T HE AO HAS SIMPLY DISALLOWED 20% WITHOUT BRINGING ON SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED CLAI M OF EXPENSES. THE AO HAS MADE A VERY GENERAL REMARK THAT THE EXPE NSES ARE SUPPORTED BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS. THE FACTUAL MATRI X AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR IS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASS ESSMENT YEAR. NO DOUBT EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS TO BE TREATED AS A SEPARATE UNIT AND RES-JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO TAX PROCEEDINGS. HO WEVER, AT THE SAME TIME, THE LEAST THAT IS ACCEPTED FROM THE AO IS TO BE CONSISTENT IN HIS APPROACH. WHEN THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND THE LAW HAS NOT CHANGED, A DIFFERENT VIEW IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. 8. CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY, WE DO NOT FIN D ANY MERIT IN THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. WE, THEREFORE SET ASI DE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDI TION. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH OCTOBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) $% /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; ( DATED : 7TH OCTOBER, 2015 . % . ./ RJ , SR. PS ITA. NO.8118/M/2011 4 !' #' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ) / CIT 5. *+, %%-. , -.! , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ,/0 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, * % //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI