M/S. A.K. INDUSTRIES ,HOWRAH vs ACIT, CIRCLE - 46, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

आदेश /O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata’s order dated 28.02.2018 passed in case No.95/CIT(A)-14/Cir-46/2013-14 involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Case called twice. None appearance at assessee’s behest despite the fact that registry has already issued an RPAD notice dated 4/5.12.2018 the assessee accordingly proceeded ex parte. I take up its instant appeal on merits. 2. The assessee’s first substantive ground pleads that both the lower authorities have made in confirming addition of ₹54,587/- in respect of motor car expenses citing personal use. Learned Departmental Representative strongly argues during the course of hearing that the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) have rightly invoked the M/s A.K. Industries vs. ACIT, Cir-46,Kol. Page 2 impugned disallowance @ 20% of total sum amounting to ₹1,74,219/-. I find at the outset that neither the Assessing Officer nor CIT(A) have quoted any justifiable reason or drawn any comparison qua the instant deduction claimed in preceding or succeeding assessment years. The fact remains that assessee has failed to indicate any pin-point use of his motor car(s) in question for business purposes only. I therefore deem it appropriate in these facts and circumstances that a lump sum disallowance of ₹20,000/- then the impugned sum of ₹54,587/- would be just and proper with a rider that same shall not be treated as a precedent in any preceding or succeeding assessment year. The assessee gets part relief to the extent of ₹74,587/- with respect to it first substantive ground.

Next comes assessee’s second substantive ground seeking to delete foreign tour expense of ₹94,413/-. Its case throughout has been that one of its partner Mr. Ayan Mallick visited Germany to procure some machinery items which had to be purchased in near future. I find from the case file that the assessee has not placed on record even the relevant details of machinery inspected in Germany. The CIT(A) had afforded ample opportunity to the assessee whilst restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer for remand proceedings. It again failed to prove allowability of the impugned expenditure. I therefore find no reason to interfere with this second ad hoc disallowance of foreign travel disallowance. The assessee fails in its instant substantive grievance as well.

Lastly comes addition of ₹6,11,895/- as contractual amount received from Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitrn Nigam. The CIT(A) has confirmed the Assessing Officer’s action as under:- “Ground 5 This ground relates to addition of Rs.6,11,895 as contractual amount received from Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. The AO noted during assessment proceedings that the appellant has not shown any such income in its return of income whereas receipt of equivalent sum has been reflected inform 26A. in the remand report it is further submitted that during the relevant year the appellant made a total sale to UHBVN of an amount of Rs.1,81,99,136 including freight charges of Rs.6,05,406. During the appellate proceedings the appellant has not Commission up with any proof as to how the receipt mentioned in form 26A has been accounted for in its books and has been taken into account in arriving at its total income. it is also noteworthy that the same has not been explained during the assessment proceedings as well. It I also not explained s to what contract gave rise to the total contract

M/S. A.K. INDUSTRIES ,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 46, KOLKATA , KOLKATA