Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD & SHRI, MANISH BORAD
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XI, Ahmedabad, dated 27/02/2012 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09, on the following grounds: i. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of case by deleting the addition of Rs.12,80,640/- on account of suppressed income.
ITA No.960/Ahd/2012 The ACIT vs. M/s Raj carrying Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2008-09 - 2 - ii. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of case by deleting the addition of Rs.13,81,000/- on account of agency commission expenses. iii. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of case by deleting the addition of Rs.19,41,100/- on account of diesel expenses. iv. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of case by deleting the addition of Rs.31,18,634/- on account of disallowance of Hamali expenses. v. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of case by deleting the addition of Rs.40,36,711/- on account of the delivery and collection expenses. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the materials on record are as under:- As per ITS data, the assessee has received transportation income of Rs.1,76,31,897/-. Against the same, the assessee has shown Rs.1,63,43,007/- and the balance of Rs.12,80,640/- was not shown out of the income shown in the ITS data. Therefore, the following notice was issued: "The gross amount of Rs.12,80,640/- data found as per the department and not claimed in the return of income. Your honour will note that the TDS deductor has wrongly quoted our PAN during the deposits. We do not have any such transactions with the company nor any TDS certificates are issued by such parties to the company and neither any credits claimed by us.”
The arguments advanced by the assessee were considered but not found acceptable to the AO. Hence, he added Rs.12,80,640/- to the total income treating the same as suppressed income.
ITA No.960/Ahd/2012 The ACIT vs. M/s Raj carrying Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2008-09 - 3 - Delivery and collection expenses:- The company has claimed Delivery and collection expenses of Rs.80,73,422/- during the year against Rs.73,35,538/- claimed in the preceding year. The assessee was required to justify the reason for such increase in the expenses in comparison to last year. It may be mentioned here that the assessee was asked vide show cause notice dated 01.12.2010 that why appropriate disallowance out of Delivery and collection expenses claimed should not be disallowed. In reply there to, the assessee vide its letter dtd. 06.12.2010 made a routine/casual reply, which was not found to be satisfactory. Assessee company submitted copies of self made door delivery statement only, without complete name, address or Identity proof, to whom such payment made. Further, the assessee has not filed supporting vouchers duly signed by recipient to substantiate its claim. Considering the same a sum of Rs.40,36,711/- is disallowed being 50% of Rs.80,73,422/- total Delivery and collection expenses and added to the total income of the assessee company for want of supporting evidence. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act 1961 are also separately initiated for concealment/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Hamali Expenses:- The company has claimed Hamali expenses Rs. 62,37,268/- during the year against Rs.55,63,200/- claimed in the preceding year. The assessee was required to justify the reason for such increase in the expenses in comparison to last year. It may be mentioned here that the
ITA No.960/Ahd/2012 The ACIT vs. M/s Raj carrying Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2008-09 - 4 - assessee was asked vide show cause notice dated 01.12.2010 that why the Hamali expenses claimed should not be disallowed. In reply there to, the assessee vide its letter dtd. 06.12.2010 made a routine/casual reply, which was not found to be satisfactory. In some of the vouchers prepared by the assessee, signature/thump impression has been taken without name, address etc. of the recipient. The payments made are also in cash. Thus, the genuineness of the transaction could not be proved. Considering the same a sum of Rs.31,18,634/- is disallowed being 50% of Rs.62,37,268/- total Hamali expenses and added to the total income of tje assessee company for want of supporting evidence. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act 1961 are also separately initiated for concealment/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Truck diesel expenses:- The assessee company has claimed truck diesel expenses Rs.77,64,401/- during the year. The assessee was required to justify the expenses claimed. It may be mentioned here that the assessee was asked vide show cause notice dated 01.12.2010 that why appropriate disallowance out of Truck Diesel expenses claimed should not be disallowed. In reply there to, the assessee vide its letter dt. 06.12.2010 made a routine/casual reply, which was not found to be satisfactory. The assessee company has not maintained the truck wise log book from which it can be ascertained that how many K M each truck run for each trip and on that basis consumption ratio of diesel expenses could be worked out. Considering the same a sum of Rs.19,41,100/- is disallowed
ITA No.960/Ahd/2012 The ACIT vs. M/s Raj carrying Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2008-09 - 5 - being 25% Rs.77,64,401/- total truck diesel expenses and added to the total income of the assessee company for want of supporting evidence. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act 1961 are also separately initiated for concealment/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Agency and booking Commission:- The assessee company has claimed agency & booking commission expenses Rs.69,08,625/- during the year against Rs.50,39,645/- claimed in preceding year. The assessee was required to justify reason for such abnormal increases in the expenses in comparison to last year. It may be mentioned here that the assessee was asked vide show cause notice dated 01.12.2010 that why appropriate disallowance out of agency booking expenses claimed should not be disallowed. In reply there to, the assessee vide its letter dtd. 06.12.2010 made a routine/casual reply, which was not found to be satisfactory. It is also seen that, during the year under consideration, the total income from operation is increased by 13% whereas agency & booking commission expenses are increased 37%. Considering the above and the facts of the case, a sum of Rs.13,81,725/- is disallowed being 20% of Rs.69,08,625/- of agency booking expenses and added to the total income of the assessee company for want of supporting evidence. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act 1961 are also separately initiated for concealment/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
ITA No.960/Ahd/2012 The ACIT vs. M/s Raj carrying Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2008-09 - 6 - 4. Total income of the Assessee Rs.1,30,75,600/- was computed as under: Rs. Rs. Total income as per return 8,70,470 Add: Additions/disallowances as discussed: 1. Suppressed income as per para 3.1 12,80,640 2. Out of major exp. as per para 4.1 to 4.4 1,04,78,170 3. 40(a)(ia) as per para 6 4,46,320 1,22,05,130 Total income 1,30,75,600 i.e. 1,30,75,600
Against the said order, assessee preferred first statutory appeal, which was allowed by the ld. CIT(A).
Now department’s appeal is before us.
We have gone through the relevant record and impugned order. So far as addition of Rs.12,80,640/- is concerned. AO has stated that contentions of the appellant were not acceptable only on the ground that it has not been able to substantiate it’s claim of wrong quoting of PAN by the deductors. Only on this ground the information as given in ITS date has been considered as correct and addition of Rs.12,80,640/- has come to be made. In our opinion the approach of the AO is not reasonable by the thrusting the burden on the appellant company to reconcile the receipt with the ITS data without pointing out any specific party whose receipts has been included in the books of accounts. It is apparent that the appellant company would not be in a position of obtain confirmation of
ITA No.960/Ahd/2012 The ACIT vs. M/s Raj carrying Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2008-09 - 7 - such parties with whom it is no privity of contract. In support of the contention, ld AR submitted a Circular of CBDT Instruction No.11/2013 [F.No.275/03/2013-IT(B)] in this regard CBDT has issued following instructions: 1. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its judgement in the case 'Court On its Own Motion v. UOI and Ors’ (W.P.) (C) 2659/2012 & W.P. (C) 5443/2012, dated 14-3-2013) has issued seven mandamuses for necessary action by Income-tax Department, one of which is regarding the issue of 'Unmatched Challans’ reflected in Form 26AS where the report by the deductor in the TDS statement are not found available in the OLTAS database resulting in TDS mismatch. 2. The unmatched challans belong to two categories of TDS statements, viz. — i. Statements pertaining to FY 2011-12 and earlier which have been processed by jurisdictional TDS Assessing Officers [hereinafter AOs(TDS)] ii. Statements pertaining to FY 2012-13 onwards, now processed by CPC(TDS)
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court (reference: para 42 of the order), has directed that "...with regard to unverified TDS under the heading 'U' in Form 26AS for verification and correcting unmatched challans within a time period, which should be fixed by the Board keeping in mind the date of filing of return and processing of return by the assessing officer.." 4. In view of the above direction of the Hon'ble High Court, it has been decided by the Board that the CPC(TDS)/AOs(TDS) shall immediately issue letters to the deductors, in whose case TDS challans are unmatched, with a view to verify and correct these challans. If necessary, the deductors may be asked to file correction statements, as per the procedure laid down and necessary follow up action be taken. The task should be completed by 31st December, 2013 for FY 2012-13 in the case of CPC(TDS) and FYs 2011-12 & earlier in case of AOs (TDS).
ITA No.960/Ahd/2012 The ACIT vs. M/s Raj carrying Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2008-09 - 8 -
In view of the CBDT Circular Instructions, we dismiss this ground of the department.
So far as deleting the addition of Rs.13,81,000/- on account of agency and commission expenses are concerned. As per the AO appellant company had claimed the agency and booking commission expenses Rs.69,08,625/- as against Rs.50,39,645/- in the immediately preceding year. A show cause notice was issued and reply was filed by the assessee company but ld. AO found reply of the assessee company as routine and carefully in nature. We have gone through the record and noticed that the assessee company has filed following documents in support of its contention. a. Name, address, location and PAN No. of the agents, b. Copy of agreement entered into with them, c. Details of services rendered, d. Commission paid, e. Details of TDS deducted and deposited with the copy of the certificate, f. Copy of the ledger account.
In our considered opinion, assessee has given reasonable and detailed reply therefore we dismiss this ground of appeal.
So far as deleting the addition of Rs.19,41,100/- on account of diesel expenses are concerned. During the assessment proceedings the AO has asked to assessee to justify this claim. In response to that assessee company had filed its reply. However, the submission of the
ITA No.960/Ahd/2012 The ACIT vs. M/s Raj carrying Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2008-09 - 9 - assessee was not found satisfactory by the AO as the same is routine and casual. In support of the contention assessee stated that diesel expenses are reimbursed on production of bills by the drivers. It was also contended that since there being month wise diesel expenses were also furnished by the assessee. In our considered opinion when assessee has filed bills of diesel, no doubt can be made. The AO has completely overlooked a fact that during the year under consideration the truck diesel expenses have reduced from Rs.81.24 lacks to Rs.77.64 lacs in spite of the increased turnover. Therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed.
So far as deleing the addition of Rs.31,18,634/- on account of disallowance of Hamali expenses are concerned. During the assessment proceeding the assessee was required to justify these expenses. In response to this, Assessee had given detailed reply. However, reply of the assessee has found routine and casual. AR stated that they have explained the nature of Hamali expenses in detail. It was also pointed out that the basis of Hamali paid as per the market quotation fixed by the transportation association and the circular was also put on record. In our considered opinion assessee has given plausible explanation therefore we dismiss this ground of department.
So far as deleting the addition of Rs.40,36,711/- on account of the delivery and collection expenses are concerned. During the assessment proceedings AO had required the assessee to justify these expenses. In response to the show-cause, assessee has filed detailed reply. It is seen
ITA No.960/Ahd/2012 The ACIT vs. M/s Raj carrying Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2008-09 - 10 - that adjudicate disallowance of Rs.40,36,711/- against delivery and collection charges were made by the AO. On the other hand assessee company has submitted copy of self made delivery statement and not specific defect was brought on record by the assessing officer. Since assessing officer could not found specific defects in delivery and collection expenses. So disallowance of Rs.40,36,711/- is not justifiable. Therefore, we dismiss this ground of the appeal.
In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 23/11/2017
Sd/- Sd/- Ekuh’k cksjM Ekuh’k cksjM Ekuh’k cksjM Ekuh’k cksjM egkohj izlkn egkohj izlkn egkohj izlkn egkohj izlkn ¼ys[kk lnL;½ ¼U;kf;d lnL;½ ¼ys[kk lnL;½ ¼U;kf;d lnL;½ ¼ys[kk lnL;½ ¼U;kf;d lnL;½ ¼ys[kk lnL;½ ¼U;kf;d lnL;½ ( MANISH BORAD ) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad; Dated 23/11/2017 Priti Yadav, Sr.PS. आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-XI, Ahmedabad. 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad