PHOOL SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv Sh. Ashish Chadha, CA Revenue by: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06/04/2017 Date of pronouncement 11/04/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.

Page 2 of 9 4. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also gone through the reasons of delay in filing of the appeal. The assessee has given the cogent reason that the order of the ld CIT(A) was inadvertently placed by the office assistant and was traced at the time of finalizing the accounts only. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramnath Sao Vs. Gobardhan Sao AIR 2002 SCC 1201 has held that pedantic and hyper-technical approach should not be taken to defeat the valuable right of the parties to have the decision on merit. No one benefits by causing delay against his own cause or against his own interest. According to us the application for condonation is bona fide and there is sufficient cause shown for the delay. In view of this we allow the application for condonation of delay of the assessee and admit the appeal to be decided on merit. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 5.

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.26,57,303/- made by AO on account of purchases made from Suresh Hyp. Enterprises. (ii) That the above addition has been confirmed despite the assessee bringing all material evidences and explanation on record to prove the genuineness of the expenditure incurred during the year. 3(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of AO in making addition of an amount of Rs.25,38,995/- on account of purchases from Suresh Enterprises. (ii) That the addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed explanation and evidences brought on record by the assessee. 4(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs.91,847/7 made by the AO by invoking the provision of Section 14A of the Act. (ii) That the disallowance has been confirmed despite the fact that the assessee has not earned any tax free income during the year. 5(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the action of the AO in disallowing a sum of Rs.53,007/- being 10% of the total expenditure incurred on telephone. (ii) That the above said disallowance has been confirmed despite the fact that the disallowance made by the AO is adhoc and arbitrary, Page 3 of 9 (iii) That the expenses having been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs.53,007/- on account of telephone expenses. 6 (i) on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the action of the AO in disallowing a sum of Rs.47,537/- being 10% of the total expenditure incurred on vehicle running and maintenance. (ii) That the above said disallowance has been confirmed despite the fact that the disallowance made by the AO is adhoc and arbitrary. (iii) That the expenses having been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs.47,537/- on account of vehicle running and maintenance. 7(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the action of the AO in disallowing a sum of Rs.31,898/- being 10% of the depreciation on vehicles. (ii) That the above said disallowance has been confirmed despite the fact that the disallowance made by the AO is adhoc and arbitrary. (iii) That the expenses having been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs.31,898/- on account of depreciation on vehicles, (iv) That the disallowance of the depreciation on account of personal use is otherwise untenable in law. 8(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the action of the AO in disallowing a sum of Rs.19,225/- being 10% of the total expenditure incurred on business promotion. (ii) That the above said disallowance has been confirmed despite the fact that the disallowance made by the AO is adhoc and arbitrary. (iii) That the expenses having been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs.19,225/- on account of business promotion expenses, (iv) That the disallowance made by the AO is otherwise unsustainable in the absence of any instance being pointed out that the expenditure being personal in nature. 9(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the action of the AO in disallowing a sum of Rs.75,885/- being 10% of the total expenditure incurred on conveyance. (ii) That the above said disallowance has been confirmed despite the fact that the disallowance made by the AO is adhoc and arbitrary.

Page 4 of 9 (iii) That the expenses having been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs.75,885/- on account of conveyance expenses, (iv) That the above disallowance of conveyance expenses incurred during the course of business and by the staff is untenable particularly in the absence of specific instance being pointed out that the expenditure being in personal nature. 10(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the action of the AO in disallowing a sum of Rs.55,000/- being 10% of the total expenditure incurred on, on site expenses. (ii) That the above said disallowance has been confirmed despite the fact that the disallowance made by the AO is adhoc and arbitrary. (iii) That the expenses having been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the disallowance of Rs.55,000/- on account of on site expenses, (iv) That the onsite expenses being incurred during the course of business the AO was not justified in making allegation of personal expenses in this regard.”

is general in nature and therefore same is dismissed.

8. The second ground of appeal is with respect to the addition of Rs. 2657303/- on account of purchases made from Suresh HYP Enterprises amounting to Rs. 3192806/- for the reason that the 133(6) enquiry letter sent to that party came back un served because of incorrect address. The assessee produced copy of account, income tax return and bank statement of the party. On verification of the bank statement ld Assessing Officer found that whenever the cheque is credited in that bank account, cash is immediately withdrawn. The AO was further of the view that account is opened by depositing Rs. 1000 and closing balance is also meager. Therefore, the ld Page 5 of 9 Assessing Officer issued letters u/s 133(6) from the bankers of the party who provided incomplete details. The introducer of the account was found to be assessee. Further, the summons issued u/s 131 was not complied. On appeal , The ld CIT(A) after obtaining the remand report sustained the addition on the same grounds.

9. The ld AR submitted that assessee has submitted the copy of ledger account, income tax return, bank statement, and confirmation of those parties. He further submitted that the party is a regular supplier for many years and in the past the assessment have been made in case of the assessee u/s 143(3) of the Act and purchases and payments have been accepted from these parties. In view of this the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) is not correct. He further submitted that as the supplier is assessed to tax and further the payments have been made through banking channels after deduction of tax at source the disallowance could not be made.

10. The ld DR vehemently supported the orders of lower authorities and submitted that as the assessee is the introducer of the bank account of the supplier and as the enquires made u/s 133(6) and summons issued u/s 131 of the Act are not complied with, the addition is rightly made.

11. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The assessee is regularly purchasing material from the above party and in the past the assessment u/s 143(3) were made in case of the assessee wherein purchases from these parties are accepted. The purchases are made from the party through account payee cheques and the proper adequate bills supporting purchases were submitted. The assessee has submitted the confirmed copy of the account from the books of the supplier and also stated that he is assessed to income tax with ITO Ward 25/4 New Delhi. Further regarding the address supplied by the assessee on which notices u/s 133(6) remained unserved, assessee supplied the same address which is alos shown in the income tax return of the supplier. Non compaliance of summons u/s 131 by the suppliers cannot be the concern of the assessee. It is not the case of the revenue that assessee was asked to produce the supplier. in fact purchases material have been used at various sites. The material for Bill No. 1 was issued at Jaipur Site and similarly, bills with other material have gone to Mathura, Page 6 of 9 Karuli, Rajgarh, Udaipur and other sites. As the suppliers are separately assessed to tax the issue of the low balance is required to be addressed by them and it cannot be a reason for disallowance of the purchases from that party, as many times purchases are also made from bank borrowers. Furthermore, merely the assessee being the introducer for opening the bank account also do not support the contention of the AO , unless there is some connivance of the assessee is proved in withdrawal of cash from the bank accounts . To verify this ld AO could have obtained these instruments from the bank which he has failed to do. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has verified the books of accounts, bills, vouchers, master rolls, bed sheet and logbooks and on such verification, no defect in the books of the assessee was pointed out. The Assessing Officer made the whole addition by pointing out certain lacunas in the bank account of the suppliers of the assessee, which cannot be permitted. Merely because 133(6) notices issued to the party returned un-served though it was the same address, which was supplied by supplier while filing its income tax return, no fault can be put on the shoulder of assessee. Further, the ld CIT(A) confirmed the finding of the ld Assessing Officer without giving any reason but merely reiterating the findings of the Assessing Officer. In view of this the addition made by the ld Assessing Officer of Rs.2657303/- from Suresh HYP Enterprises cannot be sustained and hence, deleted. In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

12. Ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is against confirmation of addition of Rs. 2538995/- on account of purchases on Suresh HUP Enterprises. The assessee has debited purchase of Rs. 2073117/- and labour charges of Rs. 465878/- from this party. During the year the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 953564/- after deduction of tax and the Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 3031479/- which includes opening balance too. The facts relating to this disallowance are identical to the issue decided by us in ground No. 2 of the appeal to which both the parties agreed. In view out decision in ground No. 2 of the appeal wherein on identical facts and circumstances we have deleted the disallowance or addition on account of purchases from Suresh HYP Enterprises we also direct the ld Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of Rs. 3031479/- on account of purchases from M/s Suresh HYP Page 7 of 9 Enterprises. In the result ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. S 13. Ground No. 4 of the appeal of the assessee is against disallowance of Rs. 91847/- u/s 14A of the Act. It was submitted that the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. The fact is also verifiable from page no. 2 and 3 of the computation of total income wherein the ld DR could not point out any exempt income. From the profit and loss account of the assessee also it is evident that assessee has not claimed any income under exemption. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd Vs. Cit 378 ITR 33 wherein, it has been held that no disallowance can be made where no exemption is claimed. Therefore, in view of the above decision we direct AO to delete the disallowance of Rs. 91847/- u/s 14A of the Act. In the result ground, No. 4 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

14. Ground No. 5 to 10 of the appeal of the assessee are against disallowance of following expenditure on adhoc basis: S. Nature of expenses Percentage Amount of No. disallowance Telephone expenses 10 53007/- 1. Vehicle running and 10 47537/- 2. maintenance Depreciation on vehicles 10 31898/- 3. Business promotion 10 19225 4. Expenditure on 10 75885/- 5. conveyance On site expenses 10 55000/- 6.