M/s Behari Lal Steel Co., Mandi Gobindgarh V. DCIT, Mandi Gobindgarh

ITA 966/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8364 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 03-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV DATTA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 40A(3); 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 966/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S BEHARI LAL STEEL CO., VS THE DCIT, OLD CENTRAL BANK STREET, CIRCLE, NEAR MAIN CHOWK, MANDI GOBINDGARH. MANDI GOBINDGARH. PAN: AAFFB5788B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJIV DATTA,CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 03.01.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.01.2017 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) MEERUT CAMP AT PATIALA DA TED 13.07.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,23,928/- UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT PAYMENTS OF R S. 20,000/- HAVE BEEN MADE TO SAME TRANSPORTER ON ACCO UNT OF FREIGHT IN A SINGLE DAY WHICH WAS IN VIOLATION OF P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. SOME PAYMENTS ARE MAD E ABOVE RS. 35,000/- AFTER AMENDMENT IN SECTION 40A(3). DE TAILS ARE NOTED IN ORDER. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY PLAUSIBLE REPLY BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, THE AMOU NT OF RS. 6,23,928/- WAS DISALLOWED. 2 3. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) T HAT IN FACT, NO PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR THE PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE EXCEEDING THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT ON THE S AME DAY. THE PAYMENTS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER TRUCK DRIV ER FOR THE TRANSPORTATION TO THE SAME DRIVER HAVE BEEN CLU BBED TOGETHER TO DISALLOW THE PAYMENT. THE INDIVIDUAL P AYMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES RELATE TO DIFFERENT TRUCKS W ITH DIFFERENT BILLS BUT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE ON BEHALF OF ONE PERSON TO OTHER TRUCK DRIVER WHO HAS COLLECT ED HIS OWN PAYMENT ALSO FOR THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PR OVIDED BY HIM. THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILS OF SUCH PAYMENT S ALONGWITH TRUCK NUMBERS AND COPIES OF THE TRANSPORT ATION BILLS AND BILITIES TO SHOW THAT PAYMENT DID NOT EXC EED THE PRESCRIBED AMOUNT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, N OTED THAT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT ONE DRIVER HAS TAKEN MONEY ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER. THEREFORE, ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM OF THE VIEW MATTER REQUIRES RE-CONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED DETAILS OF FREIGHT PAID TO SHOW THAT THOUGH P AYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO ONE PERSON BUT TRUCK NUMBERS ARE DIFFERENT. IT MAY SHOW THAT THERE IS SOME SUBSTANC E IN THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONE TRUCK IS HIRED FOR A PARTICULAR DAY BUT PAYMENT IS MADE TO ANOTHER DRIVE R ON BEHALF OF OTHER DRIVER. HOWEVER, NO SUCH AUTHORIZA TION WAS 3 FILED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, FILED DETA ILS OF THE TRUCK NUMBERS AND COPIES OF THE TRANSPORTATION BILL S WITH BILITY ETC. WHICH MAY SUPPORT EXPLANATION OF THE AS SESSEE. THEREFORE, THE MATTER REQUIRES RE-CONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFO RE, REQUIRED TO PRODUCE SOME MATERIAL BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT ONE DRIVER HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED TO CO LLECT PAYMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE OTHERS. THE ASSESSEE MAY ALSO FURNISH EVIDENCE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUPPOR T OF THE ABOVE EXPLANATION. 5. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, I SET ASIDE THE ORDE RS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THE MATTER IN ISSUE T O THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE TH IS ISSUE BY GIVING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 11 TH JANUARY,2017. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH