LAL CHAND AGARWAL,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

The assessee’s first substantive ground raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action disallowing purchases of Rs.22,00,000/- in coal trading and transport contract work business. It is noticed from Page 2 of the relevant assessment order dated 28.03.2013 that the Assessing Officer disallowed the impugned sum on account of assessee’s failure in filing the

I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. Both the learned representatives reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned purchases disallowance. The assessee has also placed on record a detailed paper book running to 131 pages. The fact however remains that neither this taxpayer has been able to prove all of his purchases by filing the relevant supportive evidence nor the learned lower authorities have drawn any comparison of those coal purchases expenditure in preceding and succeeding assessment years. I therefore deem it appropriate that a lumpsum disallowance of Rs.3,00,000/- out of the impugned disallowance of Rs.22,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent in any other assessment years. This first substantive ground is partly accepted in above terms.

Ld. Counsel submits that this assessee does not wish to press for his second substantive ground seeking to delete VAT penalty disallowance of Rs.48,000/- keeping in view the smallness of the amount involved.

Lastly comes ad hoc disallowance of various miscellaneous and salary expenses amounting to Rs.5,26,759/-. Suffice to say, I notice herein as well that neither the lower authorities have drawn any comparative chart relating to similar head in preceding and succeeding assessment years nor the assessee has been able to prove the same by way of sufficient supportive evidence. I therefore deem it appropriate to restrict the impugned disallowance to a lumpsum amount of Rs.50,000/- with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent in any other assessment year. Necessary computation to follow as per law.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.