What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found discrepancies in the sales tax challans submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a thorough examination of the challans.

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing sales tax paid by the assessee as an expenditure. The Assessing Officer had disallowed it for lack of evidence, but the CIT(A) allowed it based on sales tax challans.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether sales tax paid by the assessee was an allowable expenditure. This hinged on the genuineness and proper examination of the sales tax challans.

ACIT vs Rajkamal Marine Breeding Farms | ITAT Visakhapatnam 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE

For Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal– CIT DR

Hearing: 22/02/2018

PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER

These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam, each dated 28/08/2017 for the Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2. The only issue involved in these appeals is whether sales-tax paid by the assessee is allowable expenditure or not. (M/s. Rajkamal Marine Breeding Farms)

The case of the Assessing Officer is that assessee has not filed any evidence in respect of sales-tax payment.

On appeal, ld. CIT(A) after verifying the sales-tax challan for the Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12 directed the to delete the addition.

On being aggrieved, revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal.

Ld. Departmental Representative has strongly supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer. None appeared on behalf of the assessee.

We have considered the orders of the authorities below and find that the only issue involved in these appeal is, sales tax payment made by the assessee is an allowable claim or not. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee has not filed any details, therefore he rejected the claim made by the assessee. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed sales tax challans. The ld. CIT(A) has considered the same and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. However, we find that for both the assessment years i.e. Assessment Year 2010-11 & 2011-12, the assessee has filed the same challan i.e. challan No.33445, dated 30/03/2011 for payment of Rs. 44,059/- and by considering the same, ld. CIT(A) has directed to delete the (M/s. Rajkamal Marine Breeding Farms)

addition of Rs.28,347/- for the Assessment Year 2010-11; and directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1,98,000/- for Assessment Year 2011-12. We find that there is a discrepancy in challans filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and the additions are directed to be deleted. In view of the above, in our opinion, the sales tax challans filed by the assessee have to be examined & decided scrupulously. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine the sales tax challans filed for both the assessment years and take a view in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to file the challans before the Assessing Officer.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in open Court on this 07th day of March, 2018. Dated : 07th March, 2018. vr/- (M/s. Rajkamal Marine Breeding Farms)

Copy to:

The Assessee - M/s. Rajkamal Marine Breeding Farms, D.No.10-12-6/2, Rajkamal Towers, Rednam Gardens, Ram Nagar, Visakhapatnam.

The Revenue – ACIT, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam.

The Pr.CIT(Central), Visakhapatnam.

The CIT(A)-3, Visakhapatnam.

The D.R.

Guard file. By order

(VUKKEM RAMBABU) Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Visakhapatnam.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. RAJKAMAL MARINE BREEDING FARMS, VISAKHAPATNAM

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments