Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI S. S. GODARA & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
ORDER
PER S. S. GODARA, JM:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad’s order dated 02.01.2018 passed in case no. ABD/CIT(A)-1/285/2016-17, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It had also not appeared on 24.11.2021, 03.02.2022, 11.07.2022, 12.07.2022 and 21.07.2022 as well. The assessee is proceeded ex- parte therefore.
The assessee raises twin substantive grounds in the instant appeal as follows :-
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs.1,87,76,443/- being alleged excess claim of harvesting and transport actual charges incurred by your appellant society, the entire action is arbitrary and is in violation of CBDT circular no.6/2007 dated 11/10/2007.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the above addition by relying on the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. SatpadaTapi SSK 326 ITR 42, the facts of the case do not have any connection whatsoever with the issue raised before CIT(A), being harvesting and the transport charges disallowed by Learned Assessing Officer and therefore the action of confirming the arbitrary addition of Rs.1,87,76,443/- is incorrect and deserves to be deleted in its entirety.”
Mr. Jasnani vehemently argued that both the learned lower authorities have rightly disallowed/added the impugned excess claim of harvesting and actual transport charges amounting of Rs.1,87,76,443/- during the course of assessment dated 27.12.2016 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing sole issue of disallowance of alleged excess harvesting and actual transport charges. Suffice to say, there is hardly any dispute in light of the Assessing Officer’s detailed discussion in para 4 that he had gone by assessee’s resolution specifying the impugned charges at the rate of Rs.384.06/MT. He therefore worked out the assessee’s claim to Rs.2,11,93,630/- only and treated the impugned balance sum as excess payment.
We find no merit in the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance in principle as it has failed to prove the impugned sum as incurred in light of the approved rates in the Board’s resolution. The fact also remains that keeping in mind the assessee’s business