M/s. AGR Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., , Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

ITA 905/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2407 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Onus to prove
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A. NO. 905/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. AGR AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.......................................................................................APPELLANT [PAN: AABCB 0537 F] VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA..............................................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SH. SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT, SR. DR, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : MARCH 5 TH , 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : MARCH 18 TH , 2020 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, KOLKATA [CIT(A) FOR SHORT] DATED 28.02.2019 U/S 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT FOR SHORT) FOR AY 2014-15. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE ISSUE OF NOTICE BY RPAD. THE NOTICE DESPATCHED WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARK LEFT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DISPOSE OFF THE CASE EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. 3. HEARD THE LD. DR. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DESPITE NUMEROUS OPPORTUNITIES. THERE ALSO THE NOTICE WAS RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH COMMENT MOVED. 5. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DEMONSTRATES THAT THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION IS NOT FULLY SUPPORTED BY PROPER BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND HENCE AN AD HOC DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE UNDER THE HEAD SALE PROMOTION EXPENSES AND OFFICE EXPENSES. THE ONLY PLEADING BEFORE US IS THAT, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE AUDITED AND HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE IS BAD IN LAW. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE ITS CLAIMS OF 2 I.T.A. NO. 905/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. AGR AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. EXPENDITURE WITH EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO. THIS IS NOT DONE. SO WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO. 6. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) CALLS FOR NO INFERENCE. THE DISALLOWANCE IS JUSTIFIED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. KOLKATA, THE 18 TH MARCH, 2020. SD/- SD/- [ABY T. VARKEY] [J. SUDHAKAR REDDY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 18.03.2020 BIDHAN COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. AGR AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., 1 ST FLOOR, 3A, GARSTIN PALACE, KOLKATA-700 001. 2. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA. 3. CIT(A)-4, KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES