Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Per ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, AM:
In this appeal filed by the assessee, it is aggrieved on the disallowance of a sum of Rs.3,56,422/- by the Assessing Officer (AO) which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
Assessee running wine shops, had filed his return for the impugned assessment year declaring income of Rs.24,20,330/-. During the course of assessment proceeding, ld. AO noted that freight and hamali charges of Rs.5,72,512/-
Shri M.R.Pasalkar. Page 2 of 4 claimed were supported only by self-made vouchers, which were not verifiable. When put on notice, assessee stated that such claim included vehicle rent which was not separately shown. The AO found that in the preceding year expenditure of vehicle rent was Rs.2,16,090/-. He, therefore, allowed a like amount from the total sum of Rs.5,72,512/- and made a disallowance of the balance Rs.3,56,422/-. AO has also mentioned that Authorized Representative of the assessee agreed for this addition.
Assessee, thereafter, moved in appeal before the CIT(A). As per the assessee, its turnover had increased to Rs.4,54,82,699/- for AY 2009-10 against Rs.3,66,61,121/- for AY 2008-09. It was also submitted that its accounts were subject to tax audit under section 44AB of the Act and claims were supported by vouchers. However, the ld.CIT(A) did not accept the arguments of the assessee citing the following reasons:
i. Assessee could not justify the steep increase in freight and hamali charges; ii. Increase in turnover was margin iii. The addition was agreed before the AO.
Now before us, ld AR submitted that chart which read as under:
Sl. Asst.Year Turnover Freight Vehicle Total % Disallowance No. & Hamali + Rent Charges 1 2006-07 1,81,01,319 1,05,246 + 2,15,200 3,20,446 1.77 Nil 2 2007-08 2,43,40,661 1,39,220 + 2,12,375 3,51,595 1.44 Nil 3 2008-09 3,66,61,121 1,68,217 + 2,16,090 3,84,307 1.04 Nil 4 2009-10 4,54,82,699 5,72,512 + - 5,72,512 1.26 Nil
Shri M.R.Pasalkar. Page 3 of 4 As per the ld. AR, in none of the earlier years or later years any disallowance of similar nature was made. According to him, the chart mentioned above would clearly show that there was no steep increase in the claim. Per contra, ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. What we find is that assessee’s representative had accepted the disallowance before the AO. Only self vouchers were there in support of the claim. Assessee’s contention that the claim included vehicle rent was accepted and part of the amount equal to the vehicle rent claimed in the preceding year was allowed. Return for earlier years were only subject to processing under section 143(1) and not scrutinized. Hence, we cannot say the claim of expenditure was scrutinized and allowed in earlier years. Rule of consistency will apply only if similar fact- situation is there and not otherwise. Conducting a tax audit will not exonerate an assessee from its duty to substantiate its claim as per the return. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the disallowance was rightly done. No interference is required.