Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI
Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE & DR. B. R. R. KUMAR
ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 18/09/2017 passed by CIT(A)- 18, New Delhi for assessment year 2013-14.
2. The grounds of appeal
are as under:-
1. That the orders passed by the Assessing Officer on 19.02.2016 and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) were perverse to the law and to the facts of the case, because of disallowing of following expenses on lump sum basis without the support of any material either collected or placed upon records, having any nexus thereto, confirming either to the extent of its disallowance the expenditure was never incurred or were not having any relation to the income earned:- a. Purchases - Rs.3,00,000/- b. Wages & Salary -Rs.2,00,000/- c. Other Expenses -Rs.27,103/-
2. That the disallowance of expenses on lump sum basis are further wrong because no opportunity if any was ever afforded prior presuming to be its disallowance thereof on lump sum basis. Besides this, no material if any was ever confronted forming any basis or nexus to the extent of its disallowance thereof.
3. That the addition of interest of Rs. 2,36,597/- further made in the income of the appellant is entirely based upon the mere presumption and guesswork of the Assessing Officer, as the officer was not having any material or ever confronted to the appellant, that the appellant has factually received an interest of Rs. 3,43,669/- on the refunds received during the year, though the appellant has declared the interest received on the refund of Rs. 1,07,072/- on the basis of documentary evidences.
4. That the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and further upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) are unconstitutional, as having no locus standi under the law because the books of accounts, bills / vouchers / muster rolls, wages sheets etc. have been verified and examined by the Assessing Officer and no discrepancy if any has ever been found or noticed there from prior to proceed the Assessment proceedings, which the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate while adjudicating the appeal.
5. That the orders passed are further illegal because no opportunity if any was ever afforded prior to disallow certain expenses incurred and claimed on lump sum basis, sue moto, at the time of passing the orders only without the support of any material having nexus to its disallowance thereof.
6. That the additions made on lump sum basis were further not legal under the law and to the facts of the case, because the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the additions made on the identical grounds have already been deleted by the ITAT in the appellant’s own case for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
7. That charging of interest u/s 234B of the Act, is further against the law and to the facts of the case, as being contrary to the additions made in the declared income.
8. That the appellant assails his right to amend, alter, change any grounds of appeal at any time even during the course of hearing of the instant appeal.
PRAYER:
It is, therefore, prayed: 1. That illegal and impugned additions made of Rs. 7,63,700/- in the declared income, may please be deleted / quashed.
That charging of interest u/s 234B of the Act, may please be quashed / deleted being consequential to the additions made and relief claimed there from.
That any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may please be deems fit and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of this case.
3. The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of civil construction under the name and style of M/s Rama Contractors. Return of income was filed on 20/09/2013 declaring income of Rs. 44,04,700/-. During the year under consideration the assessee has shown net profit of Rs.45,97,828/- on gross receipt of Rs. 14,86,04,990/- thereby declaring of net profit 3.09%. The Assessing Officer made addition on account of difference in gross receipt amounting to Rs. 25,40,955/- disallowance out of material purchases expenses amounting to Rs. 3 lac, disallowance out of wages and salary amounting to Rs. 2 lac and disallowance out of other expenses amounting to Rs.27,103/- as well as addition on account of 244A on account of interest allowed amounting to Rs. 2,36,597/-.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.3 is not pressed. As regards the purchase, wages and salary and other expenses, the issues are identical to the Assessment Year 2011-12 and the Tribunal in vide order dated 28/12/2016 deleted the said additions in assessee’s own case. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that the additions be deleted.
The Ld. DR submitted that purchase, wages and salary as well as other expenses has been properly determine by the Assessing Officer and the order relied by the Ld. AR cannot be applied in the present assessment year as each assessment year is a separate assessment year and the factual aspects are different.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the Tribunal’s decision in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2011-12, Ground No. 2 is related to unverifiable purchases. In the present case, the assessee was asked to reconcile the difference in respect of receipts amounting to Rs. 25,40,955/- by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Merely maintaining the books of accounts and not giving a plausible explanation regarding the purchases, the same cannot be stated that it is identical to the earlier Assessment Year 2011-12. This issues are a factual centric and purchases may be different in each year. The matter is not identical to that of Assessment Year 2011-12 in context of each Assessment Year is a different Assessment Year and to prove that these are estimated additions has to be determined after the proper perusal of the evidence before the Assessing Officer. Before the CIT(A), the assessee has submitted that books of account, purchase bills, wages/salary registers were produced but was not examined properly by the Assessing Officer as per the contention of the Ld. AR. The assessee has not filed any paper book before us as to show which documents were before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for taking proper cognizance of all the records related to books of accounts, purchase bills, wages/salary registers etc. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.
In result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 29th Day of June, 2021.