ITO WD 2(4), Ranchi V. M/s Minerals and Minerals Ltd, Lohardaga

ITA 93/RAN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9659 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MONDAL J
• Assessee Lawyers: S K GAUR; AMITAVA CHAKR
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; TDS
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 93 / RAN / 2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), 1 ST FLOOR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING {ANNEX), MAIN ROAD, RANCHI V/S . M/S MINERALS AND MINERALS LTD., HINDALCO COMPLEX, COURT ROAD, LOHARDANGA-835302 [ PAN NO. AADCM 1957 G ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI P.K. MONDAL, JCIT-DR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI S.K. GAUR ADVOCATE & SHRI AMITAVA CHAKRABORTY, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING 08-01-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15-02-2019 / O R D E R PER BENCH:- THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 CHALLENGES CORRECTNESS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS)-RANCHIS ORDER DATED 27.02.2017 PASSED IN CASE NO.13/RAN/OTH/15-16 REVERSING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION DISALLOWING THE TAXPAYERS RAISING EXPENDITURE CLAIMED OF RS.1,26,03,833/- IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON 10.03.2015, INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED 2. IT TRANSPIRED AT THE OUTSET DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE IMPUGNED RAISING EXPENSES IN THE NA TURE OF A PROVISION BASED ITA NO.93/RAN/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 ITO WD-2(4), RAN VS. M/S MINERALS & MINERAL S LTD. PAG E 2 ON ESTIMATION OF LIABILITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER D ISALLOWED AS AN INSTANCE OF CONTINGENT LIABILITY. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL. IN PLACED ON RECORD CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DURING LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDI NGS. LEARNED CIT(A) SOUGHT A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS CRUCIAL REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO BE FILED ON 31.0 1.2017 MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEES IMPUGNED PROVISION WAS VERY WELL JUS TIFIABLE. THE CIT(A)S ORDER IN PARA 5.2 HAS EXTRACTED THE ABOVE REMAND RE PORT AS FOLLOWS:- [5.2] THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT (DULY ENDORSED BY THE JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, RAN CHI) VIDE HIS LETTER F.NO.ITO- 2(4)/RNC/REMAND REPORT/2015-16/5390 DATED 31.01.201 7. THE REMAND REPORT OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS EXTRACTED BELOW:- AS PER YOUR DIRECTION A LETTER BEARING F.NO.IXTO-2 (4)//RNC/REMAND REPORT/2015- 16/4866 DATED 29 TH DECEMBER, 2016 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 13 TH JANUARY, 2017. NOBODY APPEARED FOR HEARING ON 13.0 1.2017 AGAINST A LETTER BEARING F.NO.ITO-2(4)/RNC/REMAND REPORT/20 15-16/5789 DATED 16.01.2017 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 23.01.2017. ON 23.01.2017 SRI AMITAVA CHAKRABORTY, FINANCE HEAD OF M/S MINERALS AND MINERALS, LOHARDAGA APPEARED AND REQUESTED FOR ADJO URNMENT OF CASE FOR 30.01.2017. ACCORDINGLY THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 30.01.2017. ON 30.01.2017, SRI S.K. GAUR, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA TIVE APPEARED. HE FURNISHED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE O F THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND EVIDE NCES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIM OF EXPENSES OUTSTANDING AMOUNTING TO RS.2,33,729/- AND RS.1,23,70,104/-. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING SRI S.K. GAUR SUBMITTED THE COPY OF BILLS ALONG WITH LEDGER AND ALSO THE DEBIT NOTES RELATING TO EXPENSES OUTSTANDING. ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE OUTSTANDING EXPENSES WERE ON ACCOUNT OF MINES RAISING AND TRANSPORTING EXPENSES, THE DETAILS FOR WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- NAME OF THE PARTY BILL DATE PERIOD AMOUNT PATHARI VIIKASH UDYAMI SAMUH 28.03.2012 10.11.2011 TO 01.01.2012 2,57,803/- INCLUDING SERVICE TAX OF RS.24,074/- M/S BALAJI ASSOCIATES 13.04.2016 01.03.2012 TO 31.03.2012 RS.1,55,43,448.69 THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT ALTHOUGH THE WORK WAS DONE DU RING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 BUT THE BILLS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES ONLY ON 28.03.2012 AND 13.04.2012 RESPECTIVELY BY M/S PATHARI VIKASH UDYAMI SAMUH AND M/S BALAJI ASSOCIATES (COPY OF BILLS ENCLOSED). THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS MAINTAI NING ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN MERCANTILE SYSTEMS OF ACCOUNTING. THE WORK DONE DUR ING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 BUT THE EXPENSES PAID ONLY IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR-20 12-13. AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS MAINTAINING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE REFORE, ALTHOUGH THE PAYMENT WAS MADE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 BUT IT WAS B OOKED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR-2011-12, M/S HINDALOC INDUSTRIES LIMITED PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,33,792/- TO M/S PATH ARI VIKASH UDYAMI SAMUH ON 10.04.2012 AND RS.1,23,70,104/- TO M/S BALAJI ASSOC IATES ON 24.04.2012 WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE DEBIT NOTE OF M/S HINDALCO INDUSTR IES LTD., FURNISHING BY THE ITA NO.93/RAN/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 ITO WD-2(4), RAN VS. M/S MINERALS & MINERAL S LTD. PAG E 3 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E COURSE OF HEARING. TDS HAS ALSO BEEN DEDUCTED U/S.194C IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE NAMED PARTIES. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE OUTSTANDING EXPENSES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE JUSTIFIABLE. THIS IS WHAT HAS MADE THE CIT(A) TO DELETE THE IMPU GNED DISALLOWANCE / ADDITION OF THE LIABILITY PROVISION. 3. MR. MONDAL VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NEITHER LIABILIT Y BASED ON ANY SYSTEMATIC COMPUTATION OR ON ANY CONTRACTUAL / OBLIGATION. WE FIND NO MERIT IN REVENUES INSTANT ARGUMENTS SINCE ASSESSING OFFICERS REMAND REPORTS DISCUSSION ITSELF MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE IMPUGNED LIABILITY PROVISION CLAIM IS VERY MUCH JUSTIFIABLE. HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN (2018) 96 TAXMANN.COM 486 (MAD) SMT. B JAYALAKSHMIS VS. ACIT HOLDS IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE REVENUES APPEAL IN SUCH A CASE OF ASSESSING OFFICE RS ACCEPTING THE IMPUGNED CLAIM IN REMAND REPORT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE . WE THEREFORE REJECT REVENUES INSTANT SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND AS WELL A S MAIN APPEAL FOR THIS PRECISE REASON ALONE. 4. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE S 34(3) OF THE ITAT RULES BY PUTTING ON NOTICE BOARD ON 15/02/2019 SD/- SD/- ( ) ('# ) (DR. A.L. SAINI) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) RANCHI, *DKP SR.P.S $- 15 / 02 /2019 RANCHI / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-ITO WARD- WARD-2(4), 1 ST FLOOR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING (ANNEXE) MAIN ROAD, RANCHI 2. /RESPONDENT-M/S MINERALS & MINERALS LTD., HINDALACO COMPLEX, COURT RD. LOHARDAGA-835302 3. 0 3 / CONCERNED CIT RANCHI 4. 3- / CIT (A) RANCHI 6. 8 / GUARD FILE. 5. < ##0, 0, / DR, ITAT, RANCHI BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR.PS, ITAT, RANCHI