NABAKISHORE DASH,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. ITO, PARADEEP

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-

Cuttack, dated 28.11.2013, for the assessment year 2008-09.

requires no separate adjudication by me.

the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer making

adhoc disallowance of Rs.20,000/- on estimate basis towards fuel

expenditure.

2 ITA No. 56/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09

authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the

Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed expenses of

Rs.80,134/- towards purchase of fuel. The Assessing Officer observed that

the assessee only produced a list showing the fuel purchases on different

dates, which did not indicate the details of quantity of fuel purchased and

the concerns from where purchases were made on different dates. He

noted that the assessee is a wholesale distributor of pharmaceuticals and

the gross turnover was Rs.1,21,74,018/-. The assessee possesses motor-

cycle/car, etc, which may not have been used by the assessee for the

business of the assessee. Since, the assessee could not produce the bills

and vouchers of fuel, the Assessing Officer, therefore, disallowed fuel

expenses of Rs.20,000/- out of the total claim of Rs.80,134/-.

assessee is that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making adhoc

disallowance of Rs.20,000/- out of fuel expenses of Rs.80,134/- claimed by

the assessee.

opposed the submission of the ld Authorised Representative of the assessee

and argued that the assessee failed to produce bills and vouchers for

3 ITA No. 56/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09

purchase of fuel and, therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing

Officer was fully justified.

opinion, the assessee was required by the Assessing Officer to produce bills

and vouchers for purchase of fuel. The assessee failed to produce the

same. When asked by the Bench whether the bills could be produced by

the assessee before the Tribunal, the Authorised Representative of the

assessee expressed his inability to do so. In the absence of bills for

purchase of fuel, in my considered opinion, the disallowance made by the

Assessing officer was justified. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the order of

the CIT(A), which is hereby confirmed and the ground of appeal of the

assessee is dismissed.

the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.40,710/- towards

payment of freight charges.

authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the

Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed Rs.3,19,110/-

towards payment of freight charges. He observed that the assessee could

not produce any evidence in support of freight charges of Rs.40,710/-. In

absence of evidence, he disallowed Rs.40,710/-.

4 ITA No. 56/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09

that adhoc disallowance was not justified by the Assessing Officer and the

CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer.

opposed the submission of ld A.R. of the assessee and submitted that the

disallowance was made in absence of any evidence for making payments.

disallowance of Rs.40,710/- out of freight charges was made in absence of

any evidence for payment. On a query by the Bench, whether evidence

for the payments could be produced before the Tribunal, ld A.R. expressed

his inability to do so. In view of above, I find that the disallowance made

by the Assessing Officer is fully justified and there is no error in the order

of the CIT(A) in confirming the same. Hence, I confirm the order of the

CIT(A) and dismiss the ground of appeal of the assessee.

“For that the alleged addition on account of sundry creditors amounting to Rs.2,30,331/- by the AO without giving the assessee a chance of cross-examination to the person concern and failure of the CIT(A) to seek a remand report to this effect even though remand report was sought on account of other head of addition is illegal and arbitrary and complete denial of natural justice.” 16. At the time of hearing, ld Authorised Representative of the assessee

did not press this ground of appeal and, therefore, same is dismissed as

not pressed.

5 ITA No. 56/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09

the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,18,500/- u/s.68 of the

Act.

authorities and materials available on record. The Assessing Officer

observed that the assessee has received unsecured loan of Rs.8,19,500/-

from his father Shri Natabar Dash in cash. On oath, Shri Natabar Dash,

father of the assessee admitted the fact of advancing Rs.8,19,500/- in cash

by drawing from his bank account. On verification of bank account, the

Assessing Officer found that there was withdrawal of Rs.4,20,500/- on

17.12.2007, 30,000/- on 31.7.2007, Rs.76,000/- on 14.11.2007 and

Rs.62,000/- on 1.12.2007 and that rest of the withdrawals made during

the period under consideration were very nominal and considered the same

towards personal expenses of Shri Natabar Dash. Thus, the Assessing

Officer found that the father of the assessee could explain the source of

loan of Rs.5,88,500/- by withdrawing from his bank account. He, therefore,

confirmed the balance amount of addition of Rs.2,31,000/- under section

68 of the Act as not explained

of Rs.2,59,500/- from Smt. Ashalata Acharya, mother of the assessee, who

is a retired teacher. She admitted on oath of having advancing

Rs.2,59,500/- in cash from her bank account. On a perusal of bank

6 ITA No. 56/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09

statement, the Assessing Officer found that she had withdrawn Rs.50,000/-

on 22.6.2007, Rs.27,000/- on 18.7.2007, Rs.1,00,000/- on 16.11.2007

and Rs.30,000/- on 31.3.2008 aggregating to Rs.2,07,000/-. He observed

that during the whole year, the total withdrawal from bank account by Smt.

Acharya was Rs.2,24,000/- against which she claimed of advancing

Rs.2,59,500/-. Therefore, he considered the loan of Rs.2,07,000/- as

explained an made addition of Rs.52,500/- u/s.68 of the Act.

Rs.66,000/- from Bapuji Maiti in cash, who is a retail trader. The loan

creditor admitted on oath of advancing the money withdrawing from his

cash credit account. On examination of the bank account, the Assessing

Officer found that Shri Maiti had not drawn any amount in cash of

Rs.66,000/- from his bank. The amounts were withdrawn by cheques for

specific purposes and hence, he treated the loan of Rs.66,000/- as not

genuine and added the same to the income of the assessee.

to have received Rs.1,29,000/- from Shri Rama Chandra Das, a retired

teacher who was uncle of the assessee. Shri Ram Chandra Das admitted

that he had advanced Rs.1,29,000/- from his bank account . On verification

of the said bank account, the Assessing Officer found that total withdrawal

during the whole period was Rs.85,100/- which was much less than the

amounts said to have been advanced to the assessee. Moreover, he found

7 ITA No. 56/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09

that drawals of Rs.85,000/- constitutes nominal amounts drawn on

different dates of the whole period and considered the same to be for

personal expenses of Shri Ram Chandra Das. Hence, the Assessing Officer

considered the same to be not genuine and made the addition u/s.68 of

the Act.

from Shri Asish Kumar Mohapatra, who is working as a medicine

representative. Shri Mohapatra filed an affidavit alongwith his bank

account. On verification of the bank account, it was found that the total

withdrawal during the whole period was only Rs.38,965/-. The Assessing

Officer, therefore, held that the medicine representative is required by

profession to move from one place to another to develop the sale of the

medicines of the company for which is working. So, he held that the

withdrawal of Rs.38,965/- after meeting his personal expenses, was not

sufficient to advance Rs.40,000/- to the assessee. Hence, he considered

the same as not genuine and added u/s.68 of the Act.

of the Act to the total income of the assessee.

on the ground that the Assessing Officer had made sufficient efforts to go

into the details of the case to find out the genuineness, creditworthiness

and identity of each of the loan creditors carefully. Therefore, the CIT(A)

8 ITA No. 56/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09

upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in adding Rs.5,18,500/- u/s.68

of the Act for the above five loan creditors .

the submissions made before the lower authorities.

orders of lower authorities.

five persons was made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the

creditworthiness of the loan creditors could not be proved by the assessee.

Before me, ld A.R. could not bring any material on record to controvert the

findings of the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) that the loan creditors

did not have creditworthiness to advance the amount to the assessee. In

absence of the same, I find no good reason to interfere with the order of

the CIT(A), which is hereby confirmed and the ground of appeal of the

assessee is dismissed.

the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,50,000/- made by the

Assessing Officer under the head “loans from 25 persons”.

authorities and materials available on record. The Assessing Officer

observed that the assessee has claimed to have received loan of

9 ITA No. 56/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09

Rs.10,000/- each from 27 persons amounting to Rs.2,70,000/-. The

assessee was required to file confirmations in support of advancement of

loan. The assessee did not file any confirmation letters from loan creditors.

Therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,70,000/- u/s.68 of

the Act considering the loan to be non-genuine.

received loan from 27 persons of Rs.10,000/- each. The assessee could

produce four persons for verification by the Assessing Officer regarding

payment of Rs.10,000/- each in cash. One person confirmed having

advancing Rs.10,000/- in Financial Year 2007-08, which was adjusted in in

the financial year 2007-08 against purchase. Two persons stated that they

had advanced Rs.10,000/- each during the financial year 2007-08 and

same amount were adjusted against purchase in the financial year 2008-

2011-12 and same was adjusted against purchase of medicines in the year

2011-12.. Therefore, the CIT(A) concluded that the veracity of the clam of

receipt of Rs.2,70,000/- as advance in the year 2007-08 has boiled down

to two persons advancing Rs.10,000/- only. Therefore, he confirmed the

addition of Rs.2,50,000/- out of total addition of Rs.2,70,000/- made by

the Assessing Officer.

submissions made before the lower authorities.

10 ITA No. 56/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09

each from 27 persons. The assessee failed to produce any confirmation

letters from the loan creditors. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added

Rs.2,70,000/- u/s.68 of the Act for considering the loan being not genuine.

examination of the four persons, he found that two persons had advanced

loan of Rs.10,000/- each during the financial year 2007-08. Therefore, he

allowed credit of Rs.20,000/- and confirmed the balance addition of

Rs.2,50,000/-.

controvert the findings of the CIT(A). In absence of the same, I find no

good and justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A), which

is hereby confirmed and ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15/03/2017 in the presence of parties. Sd/- (N.S Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Cuttack; Dated 15/03/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS

11 ITA No. 56/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant :Naba Kishore Dash,Iswarpur, Po: Balikuda, Dist: Jagatsinghpur 2. The Respondent. ITO, Ward-1, Paradeep 3. The CIT(A) Cuttack 4. Pr.CIT, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy//

SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack