Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SRI VIKAS AWASTHY
आदेश / O R D E R
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-40, Mumbai [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 14.01.2019 for the Assessment year 2013-14,
Shri Anil Thakrar, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has made disallowance in respect of three sundry creditors namely RRK & Associates, Suraj Transport and Steel & Wood without appreciating the facts on record.
2.1 In respect of RRK and Associates, the learned AR submitted that it is a firm of accountant of the assessee. The retainership fee is paid by the assessee every year to the accountant and provision for the same amount is created for the next year. Therefore, the same amount is shown in Sundry Creditors every year. The learned AR referred to the bank statement at Page 13 of the Paper Book. The learned AR pointed that on 11.05.2013 ₹15,000/- was paid to Rahul, the accountant of the assessee. The learned AR further submitted that the accountant represents the assessee before various tax authorities and even in the present case, he appeared before the CIT(A).
2.2 In respect of Suraj Transport, the learned AR pointed that litigation is pending due to which the amount is outstanding. The learned AR in support of his contention referred to photo copy of an affidavit filed before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a Summary Suit No. 2463 of 2009 filed by the assessee against Zenith Fire Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. The learned AR pointed that in affidavit it has been categorically stated that the defendant as alleged to have made payment of ₹2 lacs to Suraj Transport, the assessee is disputing the 2.3 In respect of steel and wood, the learned AR submitted that the amounts were paid to the party on 28.08.2013. This fact is evident from bank statement at page 14 of the paper book. The learned AR prayed for reversing the findings of CIT(A) and allowing the assessee’s claim.
Per contra, Shri Saurabh Rai, representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The learned Departmental Representative asserted that the documents on which the AR has placed reliance were never produced before the authorities below. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has categorically observed that the assessee has failed to file satisfactory reply and even before CIT(A) no documents were produced. The bank statement at page 13 and 14 of the paper book and the affidavit in the suit at pages 6 to 12 of the paper book are additional evidences. The additional evidences filed by the assessee should not be accepted at this late stage.
Controverting the submissions made on behalf of the Department, the learned AR submitted that the ledger accounts were furnished before the authorities below. The assessee had also pointed before the CIT(A) that the litigation is pending in respect of Suraj
Both sides heard, orders of the lower authorities perused. The only issue raised in present appeal by the assessee is in respect of disallowance of three sundry creditors amounting to ₹2,44,634/-. The contention of the assessee is that the amounts in respect of sundry creditors RRK & Associates and Steel and Wood have been paid in subsequent financial years. So far as, third creditor Suraj Transport is concerned, the amount is still under litigation, hence, the same is reflected under Sundry Creditors. The party RRK and Associates is stated to be the accountant of the assessee. The assessee has filed a bank statement from Bank of Baroda, Veena Nagar Branch. A perusal of the same shows that payment of ₹15,000/- has been made to Rahul on 11.05.2013. Similarly, in respect of Steel and Wood, the bank statement reflects that the payments have been made on 28.02.2013. Hence, no disallowance in respect of above is warranted.
Admittedly, the bank statements were never produced before the Assessing Officer or before CIT(A). Hence, it is an additional evidence filed by the assessee. Though the assessee had filed ledger accounts before the Assessing Officer but that does not conclusively prove that the Creditors have been discharged at later point of time. After examining the facts of the case, the additional evidences furnished by assessee are accepted.