ITO, CHENNAI V. Ashrithaa Impex Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 817/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90552 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: J K REDDY

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . ! , ' # $ [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] I.T.A.NO.817/MDS/2015 & C.O.NO.50/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CORPORATE WARD 1(1) CHENNAI VS. M/S ASHRITHAA IMPEX PVT. LTD NO. 41 A/1 SWASTHI APARTMENTS SUBRAMANIAM STREET ABHIRAMAPURAM CHENNAI 600 018 [PAN AAHCA 4170 H] ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT/CROSS OBEJCTOR) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.K. REDDY, FCA / DATE OF HEARING : 25 - 0 6 - 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03 - 0 7 - 2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, CHENNAI, DATED 29.12.2014 A ND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. ITA NO.817/15 CO NO.50/15 :- 2 -: 2. SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR ENGAGE D IN CONSTRUCTION. M/S ANDHRA PRADESH RAJEEV SWAGRUHA CORPORATION LTD. AWARDED CONTRACT TO M/S AMR CONSTRUCTIONS LTD, HYDERABAD. IN TURN, M/S AMR CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. GAVE WORK ON SUB-CONTRACT BA SIS TO THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF ` 2,91,50,405/- TOWARDS MATERIALS CONSUMED. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, COULD NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 2,91,50,405/-. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED RECONCILIATION STATEMENT TO WARDS THE MATERIALS SUPPLIED BY M/S AMR CONSTRUCTIONS LTD ALONGWITH LED GER EXTRACTS, COPIES OF THE STOCK REGISTER, BILLS AND VOUCHERS ET C. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER EXAMINING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD FOU ND THAT THE BILLS FOR 1.12.2008 TO 28.2.2009 AND 1.3.2009 TO 31.3.2009 AM OUNTING TO ` 57,98,675/- PERTAIN TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09. ACCO RDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPENDITURE TO THE E XTENT OF ` 1,70,69,615/-. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT EVEN THOUGH THE MATERIAL WAS SUPPLIED DURING T HE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE BI LLS WERE RAISED ITA NO.817/15 CO NO.50/15 :- 3 -: ONLY ON 10.4.2009 PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 010-11. ON THAT BASIS, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE INVOICES SA ID TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI J.K.REDDY, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS F OR THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. HOWEVER, DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ALL THE RUNNING BILLS, INVOICES, DETAI LS OF MATERIALS SUPPLIED, LEDGER EXTRACTS, COPIES OF THE STOCK REGI STER ETC. BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) IN FACT CALLED FOR THE REMAND R EPORT ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. IN THE REMAND REPORT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPENDITU RE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,70,69,615/-. ONLY IN RESPECT OF ` 57,98,675/-, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT IT RELATES TO FINANCIAL YEAR 200 8-09, RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE CLARIFIED BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE MATERIALS WERE SUPPLIED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 BUT THE BILLS WERE RAISED ONLY ON 10.4.2009 WHICH FALLS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE AR HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF THE INVOICES BEFORE HIM. W HAT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) IS RUNNING BILLS, VOUCHERS, LEDGE R EXTRACT, COPIES OF ITA NO.817/15 CO NO.50/15 :- 4 -: STOCK REGISTER AND ALL THE DOCUMENTS WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS ALSO SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTE D THAT THE BILLS ARE RUNNING BILLS AND MERELY BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAS USE D THE WORD INVOICES, THE REVENUE FILED THE APPEAL SAYING TH AT THERE IS VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. IN FACT, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF RULE 4 6A AND THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE DISPUTE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF ` 57,98,678/-. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IN RELATION TO MATERIALS SUPPLIED DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE BILLS WERE RAIS ED ON 10.4.2009. THE DEPARTMENT CONTENDS THAT THE INVOICES WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A) ONLY, THEREFORE, THERE WAS VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. FROM T HE ORDER OF CIT(A) IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED RUNNING BILLS, INVOICES, LEDGER EXTRACT, COPIES OF STOCK REGISTER, VOUCHERS ETC. BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) ASKED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S AMR CONST RUCTIONS LTD AND SUBMIT A REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO EXAMINED ALL THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FILED HIS REMA ND REPORT. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED ALL THE ITA NO.817/15 CO NO.50/15 :- 5 -: BILLS, VOUCHERS INCLUDING THE MATERIAL SUPPLIED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 FOR WHICH THE BILLS WERE RAISED ON 10.4.200 9. MERELY BECAUSE THE CIT(A) USED THE WORD INVOICES INSTEAD OF BIL LS, THE REVENUE FILED THIS APPEAL CLAIMING THAT THERE WAS VIOLATION OF RU LE 46A. IN FACT, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. IN RESPECT OF THE MATERIALS SUPPLIED DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE BILLS WERE RAIS ED ONLY ON 10.4.2009, THEREFORE, THE LIABILITY FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT ARISES ONLY ON 10.4.2009 I.E DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. H ENCE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. TH IS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHOR ITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION ONLY TO SUPPORT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). IN VIEW OF OUR ORDER IN T HE REVENUES APPEAL, THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INF RUCTUOUS. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03 RD OF JULY, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER !' / CHENNAI #$% / DATED: 03 RD JULY, 2015 RD ITA NO.817/15 CO NO.50/15 :- 6 -: &$'() *) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. && +, / CIT(A) 5. )-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. && + / CIT 6. .01 / GF