Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RAMESH. C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 558/JP/2018
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh jes’k lh0 ’kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH. C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 558/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Shri Arjun Singh The ITO, S/o Shri Tara Singh, Vs. Ward-1(2) Behind Kohli Medical Store Keshavpura, Kota. Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFRPS 7075 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri D.D. Agarwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Karni Dan (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 07/02/2019 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement:13/02/2019 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.03.2018 of ld. CIT(A), Kota for the assessment year 2013-14. The solitary ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is as under:-
“1. The order of the learned commissioner (Appeals) Kota delete the addition 1515527/- out of total addition of Rs. 2331590/- balance addition of Rs. 816063 required to be deleted.”
Shri Arjun Singh vs. ITO
The assessee is an individual and declared business income of Rs. 13,18,370/- in the return of income filed on 09.09.2013. The Assessing Officer while completed the assessment U/s 143(3) on 22.03.2016 has made disallowance of various expenditure to the extent to 10% & 20% respectively on the ground that the assessee has not filed any reply nor any bills or vouchers in support of the claim. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has restricted disallowances made by the AO to 5% of the various expenditure by considering the fact that the assessee has not filed any supporting evidence.
Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is not justified when all the expenditures were incurred by the assessee for the purpose of business of the assessee and the AO has not given the finding that the claim of expenditure is excessive. Further, the assessee has recorded the expenditure in the books of accounts which was not disturbed by the AO and therefore, the ad hoc disallowances made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is not warranted. He has thus contended that when the assessee has given complete details of the expenditure which also mentions the bill/cheque number then, disallowance is unreasonable and highly arbitrary. Thus, he has pleaded that the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) may be deleted.
On the other hand, ld. DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus to substantiate the claim by producing any supporting vouchers in respect of the expenditure booked in the profit 2 Shri Arjun Singh vs. ITO and loss account. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) is very reasonable in restricting the disallowance at 5%.
We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. We note that the Assessing Officer has made various disallowances for want of supporting evidence or any explanation filed by the assessee. The details of the disallowance made by the AO are reproduced as under:-
fooj.kh esa 'kq} vk; :i;s 13]18]370@& tksM+k x;k %&foospukijkUr 1 CykLVhax esVsfj;y [kpZ 1,00,000 2 Boulder Crushing [kpZ 2,53,419 3 Mhty [kpZ o ewY; ãl 5,98,909 4 Hire Charges 1,72,781 5 Interest [kpZ 2,40,072 6 esl [kpZ 21,508 7 Pollution Clearance 16,800 [kpZ 8 fdjk;k [kpZ 17,600 9 fjis;j o esUVhusUl [kpZ 3,27,310 10 osru [kpZ 3,18,623 11 VsfyQksu o eksckbZy [kpZ 5,500 12 Sundry [kpZ 30,000 13 Transportation [kpZ 45,259 14 ;k=k [kpZ 6,700 15 V;wc o Vk;j [kpZ 98,600 16 okgu fjis;j o esUVhusUl [kpZ 46,000 Shri Arjun Singh vs. ITO 17 /kkjk 14, ds rgr vekU; 23]31]590@& 32,509 C;kt [kpZ fu/kkZfjr vk; 36]49]960@& vFkok 36]49]960 Some of these disallowances made by the assessee to the extent of 10% of the claim and in some other cases is 20%. We note that though the assessee has challenged the order of the AO before the ld. CIT(A), however, even before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has failed to produce the desired information, documents and copies of the accounts of the parties. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted 50% of the disallowances made by the AO thereby sustain the remaining 50% out of total disallowance of Rs. 23,31,590/-. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted 50% disallowance except the disallowances of Rs. 32,509/- on account of interest expenditure U/s 14A of the Act which was sustained in fall by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, it is a clear case of failure on the part of the assessee to substantiate the claim of expenditure as the assessee has not produced the relevant supporting documentary evidence. Even no explanation was filed by the assessee before the authorities below, therefore, we do find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) when the disallowance was restricted only to 5% of the various claims.
As regards the disallowances made by the AO U/s 14A of the Act on account of interest expenditure the ld. CIT(A) has made a categorical observation that the assessee has not made any specific submissions in respect of the disallowance made the AO. Therefore, in the absence of any contrary facts or material brought on record by the Shri Arjun Singh vs. ITO assesse the disallowance made by the AO on account of interest expenditure U/s 14A of the act was sustained by the ld. CIT(A). In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order by the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13/02/2019.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼ jes’k lh0 “kekZ ½ ¼fot; iky jko½ (Ramesh. C. Sharma) (Vijay Pal Rao) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 13/02/2019. *Santosh. आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Arjun Singh, Kota. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(2), Kota. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 558/JP/2018} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत