Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
per month. In view of this backdrop of the case, the Assessing Officer was
of the opinion that there is a contradiction between the particulars in
Form No.16A and the terms and condition of the agreement. Therefore,
he disallowed Rs.2,61,516/-.
On appeal, the CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing
Officer.. In the remand report, the Assessing Officer has intimated that
the assessee has correctly made the expenditure and pleaded to allow the
expenditure.
The CIT(A) did not satisfy himself with the remand report furnished
by the Assessing Officer as the basic reason for allowing the expenditure
was not explained. He observed that as per agreement, Sri Mandal was to
provide liaisoning services. Therefore, he confirmed the disallowance of
Rs.2,61,515/- made by the Assessing Officer.
Ld A.R. submitted that the expenditure was genuine and the same
should be allowed.
Contra, ld D.R. supported the order of the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower
authorities and materials available on record. We find that there is
9 ITA No . 278/CT K/ 2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 08- 200 9 contradiction in the claim made by the assessee. On one hand, in Form
No.16A issued to contractor, namely Sri Suprabhat Mandal, it is
mentioned that TDS u/s.194C has been made on erection and contract
payment and on the other hand, in the agreement, it is mentioned that
Sri Mandal has rendered service as liasoning agent of the assessee.
Before us also, ld A.R. of the assessee could not explain the reason of
discrepancies shown in Form No.16A and agreement. Therefore, we
uphold the order of the CIT(A) and ground of appeal of the assessee is
dismissed.
The last issue relates to disallowance of Rs.4,95,450/- on account of
other expenses.
The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer found that
the assessee had claimed Rs.22,45,117/- under the head “other
expenses” as under:
Seminar Exp. Rs.4,04,488 2. Petrol & Fuel Exp. Rs 4,89,739 3 Postage & Registration Rs,2,20,377 4. Printing & Stationery Rs.2,75,382 5. Repair & Maintenance Rs. 2,27,772 6. Repair & Maintenance (For computers) Rs. 2,37,778 7. Carriage outward Rs.2,17,273 8. Fees & subscription(foreign magazine) Rs. 83,285 9. Misc. exp. Rs. 89,023 Total : Rs.22,45,117
The Assessing Officer required the assessee to produce the supporting
evidence in support of these expenses. Since the assessee could not
produce any evidence, the Assessing Officer disallowed 20% of the
10 ITA No . 278/CT K/ 2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 08- 200 9 expenses claimed in respect of the above-mentioned heads of expenses,
which comes to Rs.4,49,023/-.
On appeal, the CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing
Officer. In the remand report, the Assessing Officer submitted that since
most of the payments have been made in cash on the basis of self-made
vouchers, the estimation of disallowance is proper. However, the CIT(A)
reduced the disallowance to 10% of the total expenditure on the ground
that estimation is on higher side.
Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.
We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials
available on record and orders of lower authorities. In the instant case,
the Assessing Officer estimated 20% of the expenditure on the ground
that payments are made in cash by self made vouchers and no supporting
evidences were produced by the assessee. The CIT(A) restricted the
disallowance to 10% to meet the ends of justice. Before us, ld A.R. could
not produce any good reason to further restrict the disallowance or to
take any contrary view. Therefore, we concur with the findings of the
CIT(A) and reject this ground of appeal of the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 14 /12/2017. Sd/- sd/- (N.S Saini) (Pavan Kumar Gadale) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER Cuttack; Dated 14 /12/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS
11 ITA No . 278/CT K/ 2016 Asse ssment Year : 20 08- 200 9 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : M/s. Rajesh & Co. 1st floor, Parmar Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela 2. The Respondent. ITO, Ward-2, Rourkela 3. The CIT(A)- Sambalpur 4. Pr.CIT- Sambalpur 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER,
SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack