BOINA VASUDEVARAO & SONS,SRIKAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SRIKAKULAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 139/VIZ/2024Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 May 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce supporting vouchers or evidence for the claimed expenses before the revenue authorities or the Tribunal. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) was found to be justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a kirana provisions wholesale business, filed its return of income for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses totaling Rs. 17,20,095/- on account of freight, loading/unloading, and salaries/wages.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of expenses is justified in the absence of supporting documentary evidence provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM ‘SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Hearing: 07.05.2024Pronounced: 31.05.2024

अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date of Hearing : 07.05.2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member :

1.

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Addl./JCIT(A)-12, Mumbai in DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1060696754(1) dated 09.02.2024, arising out of order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 30.12.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18.

Boina Vasudevarao & Sons, Srikakulam

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm deriving income from wholesale business of kirana (provisions) filed the return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 22.10.2017, admitting total income of Rs.2,89,200/- . The return filed by the assessee was taken up for scrutiny by issue of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, calling for specific information. After verification of the information submitted by the assessee, assessment in the case of the assessee was completed by disallowing the expenditure of Rs.17,20,095/- as under :

Particulars of Percentage of Amount disallowed expenditure Disallowance (Rs.) Freight charges 25% 12,77,446 Loading & unloading 25% 3,02,849 charges 1,39,800 Salaries & Wages 30% Total Disallowance 17,20,095/- 3. On appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal :

1.

The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.

Boina Vasudevarao & Sons, Srikakulam

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.17,20,095 made by the assessing officer by disallowing the following expenses on adhoc basis : i. 25% of Freight charges Rs.12,77,446 ii. 25% loading and unloading charges Rs.3,02,849 iii. 30% of salaries and wages Rs.1,39,800 3. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing. 5. At the outset, the Ld.AR reiterated the submissions made before the Ld.CIT(A) as filed in the paper book and submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.17,20,095/- . He therefore, pleaded to quash the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee.

6.

Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee has not produced vouchers in support of it’s claim either during the proceedings before the Ld.AO or the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, the revenue authorities are justified in making the disallowance. The Ld.DR, therefore, pleaded to uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

7.

I have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and the orders of the authorities below. In the instant case, it is observed that the assessee failed to produce vouchers before the revenue authorities and no evidence was filed even before me in support of it’s

Boina Vasudevarao & Sons, Srikakulam claim. When the assessee files appeal before the authorities, the onus is on the assessee to prove it’s claim with supporting material evidences. In the absence of the same, I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the Ld.AO and the Ld.CIT(A), hence, needs no interference.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31st May, 2024.

Sd/- (दुव्वूरु आर.एल रेड्डी) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 31.05.2024 L.Rama, SPS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. ननधधाऩरती/ The Assessee– M/s Boina Vasudevarao & sons, D.No.13-06, Market Street, Narsannapeta, Srikakulam 2. रधजस्व/The Revenue – The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Palakonda Road, Srikakulam 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam 4. नवभधगीय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपीलीय अनधकरण, नवशधखधपटणम / DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 5..गधर्ा फ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →