Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI
Before: SHRI N.S.SAINI & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
1 ITA No.131/Ran/2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.131/Ran/2016 A.Y. : 2012-2013 Sri Sachidanand Prasad, vs The Principal CIT, 161, Thana No.745, Central, Patna Balijhoran, Nowamundi, West Singhbum-711102 PAN No. : ABWPP 8560 D Respondent (Appellant) .
Assessee by : Shri S.K.Poddar & Devesh Poddar, Adv. Revenue by :Shri D.K.Sutariya, CIT(A), JSR Date of Hearing : 23.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of
CIT(Central), Patna, dated 04.03.2016, for the assessment year 2012-
2013.
The substantive ground of appeal raised by the assessee is against
the order passed by the CIT u/s.263 of the Act.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income
electronically on 11.09.2012 declaring total income at Rs.10,32,120/-. The
case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The AO completed the
assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 28.03.2014 determining total
2 ITA No.131/Ran/2016 income at Rs.11,84,160/- and made addition of Rs.1,52,036/- as 5% of the
total expenditure on account of repair and maintenance.
Subsequently, the CIT having powers vested u/s.263 of the Act
called for the records of the assessment proceedings and after
examination the CIT found the order passed by the AO is erroneous and
prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, therefore, show cause notice was
issued to the assessee under the provisions of section 263 of the Act and
the CIT found that the AO had not examined/investigated the various
expenses claimed in the profit and loss account and also the AO has not
examined the applicability of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on payment of
transportation/hire charges. Therefore, the CIT held that the order passed
by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and
directed the AO to do denovo assessment and passed order u/s.263 of the
Act dated 04.03.2016.
Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee argued that the order of the
CIT u/s.263 of the Act is bad in law and does not satisfy the twin condition,
since the expenditure debited by the assessee as transportation/hire
charges in the profit and loss accounts against which the payment were
made to transporter has also shown their income in their income tax return,
therefore assessment order cannot be considered as erroneous and
prayed for allowing the appeal.
Ld. DR relied on the order of CIT.
3 ITA No.131/Ran/2016 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on
record. Prima facie the ld. AR’s contention is that the AO has made
enquiries and based on material information assessment was completed.
The CIT observed that the assessee is in the business of
transportation/hiring of vehicles and has debited substantial amount in the
profit and loss account under the head transportation /hire charges,
therefore, the CIT observed that failure on the part of AO to apply section
40(a)(ia) of the Act has made the assessment order both erroneous and
prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Before us the ld. AR could not
controvert the finding of the CIT that the order passed by the AO is
erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We are in agreement
with the order passed by the CIT. Our view is supported with relying on the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DENIEL MERCHANTS
P. LTD. & ANR. Vs. ITO, SLP(C) No(s). 23976/2017, dated 29.11.2017,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under :- “Delay condoned. In all these cases, we find that the Commissioner of Income Tax had passed an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with the observations that the Assessing Officer did not make any proper inquiry while making the assessment and accepting the explanation of the assessee(s) insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned. On that basis the Commissioner of Income Tax had, after setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer, simply directed the Assessing Officer to carry thorough and detailed inquiry. It is this order which is upheld by the High Court. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.”
4 ITA No.131/Ran/2016 8. We considering the facts and circumstances of the case and relying
on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, found that the CIT has dealt on
the disputed issue and considered the judicial decision and passed a
reasoned order. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the order
of the CIT and we upheld the same and dismissed the ground of appeal of
the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25/05 /2018
Sd/- Sd/- (N.S.SAINI) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated 25/05/2018 Prakash Kumar Mishra , Sr. Ps Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant – 2. The Respondent – 3. The CIT(A) concerned 4. CIT , concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// SR.PS, ITAT, RANCHI