Mr Prem Chand Singh, Bokaro V. ACIT CIR-3, Bokaro

ITA 9/RAN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9676 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MONDAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NITIN PASARI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.09 /RAN/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 2013 MR PREM CHAND SINGH, BARI CO - OPERATIVE COLONY, BOKARO, JHARKHAND VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, BOKARO PAN/GIR NO. AIOPS 7509 J (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI NITIN PASARI, ADV REVENUE BY : SHRI P.K.MONDAL, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 28 /05 / 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 /05/ 2018 O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - HAZARIBAG DATED 4.11.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. FOR THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5,00,000/ - FROM LABOUR AND WAGES ACCOUNT WAS UNCALLED FOR, WHEN UNDISPUTEDLY, THERE IS NO ALLEGATION WITH REGARD TO NON PRODUCTION OF EV IDENCE OF SAID PAYMENT THAT TOO 2 ITA NO.09/RAN/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 2013 WHEN THE ENTIRE VOUCHER WERE PRODUCED BUT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE SAME TO BE NOT VERIFIABLE. 2. FOR THAT THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF C.CESS, WHEN WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE PAYMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT, THE DISALLOWANCE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE REASO NABLE WHEN THE SAID DEDUCTION WAS VERIFIABLE .ALL THE MORE ONLY BECAUSE THE SOME EXPENSES HAD NOT BEEN CLAIMED IN THE EARLIER FINANCIAL YEAR CANNOT BE THE REASON FOR DISALLOWANCE / DEDUCTION OF THE EXPENSES. 3. FOR THAT THE ADDITION OF 50% OF BONUS PAID T O WORKERS/ STAFF IS UNREASONABLE IN AS MUCH AS UNDISPUTEDLY THE SAME WAS VERIFIABLE AND WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOUBT, 50% DISALLOWANCE IS BAD IN LAW. 4. FOR THAT DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION TOWARDS JST/OST/WCT IS UNREASONABLE, SINCE THE APPELLANT BEING A WORKS CONTRACTOR THE PAYMENT RECEIVED ARE AFTER THE DEDUCTION AND IN ANY EVENTUALITY OR ANY DOUBT , THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN EASILY BE ENQUIRED INTO AND/ OR VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTEE I.E., SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY DIVISION. 5. FOR THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES IS ABSOLUTELY UNREASONABLE TO THE TUNE OF 50% WHEN UNDISPUTEDLY THE PAYMENT HAVE BEEN MADE TO IDENTIFIABLE PERSONS AND AN INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY COULD HAVE EASILY UNEARTHED THE FACTUM OF PAYME NT, OVER AND ABOVE BEING CONSISTENT IN EXPENSES AGAINST THE PAST PERIOD, THAT AT 133%. 6. FOR THAT OTHERWISE ALSO THE ORDER AND JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IS BINDING ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED APPELLATE AUTHORITY , THAT TOO. 7. FOR THAT ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS TOWARDS THE BUSINESS. EXPENSES WHOLLY AND FULLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED WHEN THE EXPENSES SO INCURRED ARE NOT DOUBTED OR DISPUTED AND WHEN THERE IS NO ALLEGATION OF NON PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCES. 8. FOR THAT OTHER AND FURTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL SHALL BE CANVASSED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3 ) OF THE AC ON 16.1.2015, INTER ALIA, MAKING THE 3 ITA NO.09/RAN/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 2013 FOLLOWING ADDITIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DETAILS/PROOFS FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM: I) TRANSPORTATION CHARGES OF RS.3,64,198/ - II) DEPRECIATION OF RS. 53,096/ - III) JST /OST/WCT OF RS.4,52,905/ - IV) BONUS OF RS.88,650/ - V) C.CESS OF RS.18,716/ - VI) LABOUR & WAGES OF RS.5,00,000/ - . 4. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE US, LD A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALL THE DETAILS/PROOF IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. HE PRAYED THAT IF AN OPPORTUNITY IS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE CAN PRODUCE ALL THE DETAILS AND PROOF BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LD D.R. DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD A.R. OF THE A SSESSEE. 6. IN VIEW OF THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE STATEMENT OF LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT BAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING ALL THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION, IN ORDER TO RENDER SUBSTANTIAL JUS TICE TO THE ASSESSEE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SET THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO 4 ITA NO.09/RAN/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 2013 DIRECTED TO FURNISH ALL THE DETAILS AND PROOF AS AND WHEN REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER AFRESH. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PROVIDED REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 0 /05 /201 8 S D / - S D / - (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (N.S SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER RANCHI; DATED 3 0 /05 /201 8 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PS, ITAT, CAMP AT RANCHI 1. THE APPELLANT : MR PREM CHAND SINGH, BARI CO - OPERATIVE COLONY, BOKARO, JHARKHAND 2. THE RES PONDENT: ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, BOKARO 3. THE CIT(A), HAZARIBAG 4. PR. CIT , HAZARIBAG 5. DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//