Smt. Noor Zehra, Bangalore V. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 857/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 85721114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNDER RAJAN
• Section: 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH C BEFORE SMT. P MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.857/BAN G/2011 (ASST. YEAR - 2007-08) SMT. NOOR ZEHRA, NO.22, RAHMATH MANZIL, MAIGANDADEVA, MUDALIAR ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005. . APPELLANT PAN NO.AABPZ 6315 N. VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI NARENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUNDER RAJAN, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 30-08-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14-09-2012 O R D E R PER P MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2007-08. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - (APPEALS) I AT BANGAL ORE DATED ITA NO.857/B/11 2 22.07.2011. THE APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMEN T COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF OCEAN FREIGHT CHARGES DISALLOWED. THOUGH THE ASSES SEE HAS RAISED SIX GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE SOLE ISSUE IS AS MENTIONED A BOVE AND ALSO THE CHARGEABILITY OF THE INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT. 3. AS THE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST U/S 234B IS CON SEQUENTIAL TO THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THIS GROUND IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO GIVE CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF, IF ANY, TO THE ASSES SEE. 4. COMING TO THE MAIN GROUND OF APPEAL, THE BRIEF F ACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF EXPORT OF THE GRANITE STONE. SHE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007-08 ON 31.10.2007 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.11,75,788 /-. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS IN CURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.64,51,079/- AS OCEAN FREIGHT. TH E ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE NECESSARY DETAILS ALONG WITH T HE VOUCHERS TO ITA NO.857/B/11 3 SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED SOME OF THE VOUCHERS BUT FAILED TO FURNISH THE VOUCHERS TO THE TUNE OF R S.12,56,781/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ADDED THIS AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND COMPUTED TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEF ORE THE CIT(A) GIVING ALL THE DETAILS RELATING TO THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.12,56,781/-. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE SAME, THE CIT (A) HAS OBSERVED THAT AS REGARDS THE CLAIMS OF EXPENSES, CONCERNED I NVOICES DO NOT CONTAIN INVOICE NUMBER. HE OBSERVED THAT THESE INVO ICES WERE NOT PRODUCED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED AT A MUCH LATER STAGE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE FACT THAT THEY DO NOT BEAR ANY INVOICE NUMBER CREATES A DOUBT AS TO WHETHER THE GOODS MENTIONED THEREIN WERE ACTUALLY RECEIVED OR W AS IT A MERE PLOY TO INFLATE PURCHASES TO REDUCE PROFITS THEREBY. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THERE WERE HUGE GAPS BETWEEN THE DATES OF THE INVOICE AND DATES OF ACCOUNTING IN ASSESSEES BOOKS WHICH SPEAKS LOUD LY OF MANIPULATION OF ACCOUNTING ENTRIES. HE, THEREFORE, RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.3,85,130.47/- AND GAVE RELIEF OF RS. 8,71,651/-. 6. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEF ORE US. ITA NO.857/B/11 4 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHILE REI TERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SUBMI TTED THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BAN KING CHANNELS AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE DOUBTED AT THIS STAGE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT GAP BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE INVOICE AND THE ACCOUNTING DATE WAS ONLY 15 DAYS WHICH CANNOT BE SAID TO BE TO O LARGE TO IMPLY MANIPULATION OF ACCOUNTING ENTRIES. THEREFORE, HE P RAYED THAT THE CLAIM UNDER THESE INVOICES SHOULD ALSO BE ALLOWED. 8. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING CONSIDE RED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ALL THE DETAILS RELATING TO THE EXPENDITUR E CLAIMED. IT WAS ONLY AT THE APPELLATE STAGE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE DETAILS BUT COULD NOT FILE THE DETAILS RELATING TO TWO INVOICES. THE ASSESSEE HAD DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPIES OF THE INVOICES PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THESE INVOICES ARE FOR RS.3,85,130.47/- AND COPIES OF THE OCEAN FREIGHT C HARGES HAVE NO ITA NO.857/B/11 5 INVOICE NUMBER. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS AN EXPENDI TURE, THE BURDEN IS ON HER TO PROVE THAT SUCH AN EXPENDITURE HAS BEE N INCURRED BY HER. EVEN IF THE INVOICES DO NOT BEAR THE INVOICE NUMBER , THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE PRODUCED SOME OTHER INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE MATERIAL WAS RECEIVED THROUGH THE SAID INVOICES AND THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEES BUSINE SS. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE RELIABLE EVIDENCE, WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE IS BOUND TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE FIND ING OF THE CIT(A), WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME . 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH SEPT, 2012. SD/- SD/- (JASON P BOAZ) (MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VMS. BANGALORE DATED : 14/09/2012 COPY TO : ITA NO.857/B/11 6 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETA RY, ITAT, BANGALORE.