DCIT, C-7, LUDHIANA vs. M/S R.B. KNIT EXPORTS, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 825/CHANDI/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 December 2018AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), noting that the disallowance was restricted and that similar disallowances in subsequent years were also limited. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed a significant portion of fabrication charges paid in cash by the assessee, citing the assessee's failure to produce a majority of the payees for verification. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 25,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of fabrication charges paid in cash was justified, and if so, to what extent, considering the assessee's partial success before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH

For Appellant: Shri. Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Kanika Gupta, Shri. Aditya Kumar
For Respondent: Smt. Renu Amitabh
Hearing: 25/10/2018Pronounced: 18/12/2018

आदेश/Order

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M:

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ludhiana dt. 05/03/2018.

2.

In the present appeal Revenue has raised the following grounds:

i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was justified in holding the disallowance of fabrication charges made by the Assessing Officer as not proper and restricting the same to Rs. 25,00,000/- against the disallowance made of Rs. 3,73,97,584/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee could not discharge of its onus before the Assessing Officer by justifying the genuineness these expenses and establishing the identity of the persons to whom the expenses claimed to have been paid in cash. ii) That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before it is finally disposed off.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs. 24,49,940/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and export, sale of Hosiery and also earning fabrication commission.

4.

During the assessment proceedings enquiries were conducted regarding the payments of fabrication charges on which no TDS was deducted. This pertains to 1048 parties to whom payments have been made below Rs. 75,000/-. Based on the report of the inspector about non traceability of such addresses given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has asked the assessee to produce persons for verification. The assessee could produce only 57 persons only out of the 1048 persons who have received payments on account of fabrication charges. Consequently the Assessing Officer has disallowed Rs. 3,73,97,580/- out of Rs. 9,84,58,970/- of such expenses out of the fabrication charges wherein amounts have been paid in cash and are below Rs. 75,000/-.

5.

Aggrieved the Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has upheld an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- out of the disallowance of Rs. 3,73,97,580/- made by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue came in appeal before us against the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

6.

Before us it was submitted that the G.P. Rate is increased to 35.20% from 31.12% from the earlier years. Further the Assessing Officer has disallowed Rs. 10,00,000/- in the subsequent A.Y. 2014-15 and Rs. 20,00,000/- for the A.Y. 2015- 16. The similar matter has been dealt in detail in the assessee’s own case in ITA NO. 265 to 267/CHD/2017 wherein the disallowances confirmed by the CIT(A) have been upheld in toto. Hence, keeping the same rationale in the absence of any change of perceptible facts, and disallowance made by the Revenue itself in the subsequent years, we hereby decline to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

7.

As a result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court. Sd/- Sd/-

संजय गग� डा. बी.आर.आर, कुमार, (SANJAY GARG ) ( DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member AG Date: 18/12/2018

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant , 2 The Respondent , 3. CIT, 4. The CIT(A), 5. DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH, 6. Guard File

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →