Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal
आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15, arises from order of the CIT(A)-1, Rajkot dated 01-08-2018, in Appeal No. CIT(A)-I/Rjt/0456/2016- 17, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.
Page No 2 M/s. Vasudev Minerals vs. Dy. CIT
The assessee has taken the following ground of appeal:-
“1. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Rajkot erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in disallowing transportation expenses amounting to Rs. 3,08,000/- claimed by the appellant.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Greet, Kapachi and other metals. During the course of assessment, the AO noticed that one of the transportation bills for a sum of ₹ 3,08,000/- from Mr. D. H. Jadeja was dated 31-05-2014 and accordingly the same pertained to financial year 2014- 15 and hence could not be allowed during the impugned assessment year (AY 2014-15). The assessee appeared before the AO and gave various details in connection with the transaction and also submitted that notice under section 133(6) has been served on Mr. D. H. Jadeja who has confirmed/confessed that the transportation work was carried for the assessee during the impugned assessment year. Mr. D H Jadeja had lost the original bill, and on assessee’s demand when Mr. D H Jadeja given duplicate bill, he inadvertently filled incorrect date which fell outside the assessment year under consideration. The AO rejected the assessee’s submission and disallowed the transportation expenses to the extent of ₹ 3,08,000/-. The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations:
Page No 3 M/s. Vasudev Minerals vs. Dy. CIT
“7. I have carefully considered the submission of the appellant and perused facts of the case in A.O's order.
I find that the disputed addition has been made on the ground that bill of transport expenses of R. 30,8,000/- produced by assessee during assessment proceedings was dated 31/05/2A14 i.e. relevant to AY 2015-16. Accordingly the AO held that the said transport expenses are not allowable against income of AY 2004-05. The assessee has contended that it was a duplicate bill issued by Divyarajsingh Harpalsinh jadeja on request of assessee during assessment proceedings, since, the assessee had misplaced the original bill. In this duplicate bill Divyarajsingh Harpalsinh jadeja erroneously mentioned date to the 31.05.2014. The assessee has reiterated his submission during appellate proceedings. The assessee has contended that Divyarajsingh Harpalsinh jadeja has transported goods of the assessee only during AY 2014-15 and there was no further business with him.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case I find that the assessee himself had produced the said bills during assessment proceedings. Even though the assessee has contended that there was an error in the bill, no corrected bill or the confirmation if mistake by Divyarajsingh Harpalsinh jadeja has been furnished by the assessee. Therefore no credence can be given to the corrected bill or the confirmation if mistake by Divyarajsingh Harpalsinh jadeja has been furnished by the assessee. Therefore no credence can be given to the corrected bill or the confirmation if mistake by Divyarajsinh Harpalsinh jadeja has been furnished by the assessee. Therefore no credence can be given to the contention of the assessee when the bill on the strength of which the expense has been claimed bears date of a different Financial Year. In my considered opinion the action of AO calls for no inference. The addition is sustained. Grounds of appeal are rejected.”
Page No 4 M/s. Vasudev Minerals vs. Dy. CIT
Before us the counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before Ld. CIT(A) in appeal proceedings. The Ld. Departmental Representative placed reliance on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. Assessing Officer. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We note that the only issue in dispute is regarding disallowance of transportation expenses claimed by the assessee amounting to ₹ 3,08,000/-in assessment year 2014-15. We note that during the course of assessment proceedings, the ledger account of Mr. D. H. Jadeja for transportation services provided to the assessee for the impugned assessment year, from the assessee’s books was submitted. The contra account of M/s Vasudev Mineral Company i.e. the assessee from the transportation service provider Mr. D. H. Jadeja was also submitted confirming the transaction with the assessee. Though we note that the duplicate bill submitted carried a date pertaining to the subsequent assessment year (AY 2015-16) however both the assessee as well as the transportation service provider (Mr. D. H. Jadeja) have confirmed that there was no transaction of transportation service between both the parties in the subsequent assessment year i.e. AY 2015-16 except payment by cheque made in the subsequent year, for services provided in the impugned year under consideration. We also note that the AO had issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to the transportation service provider Mr. D. H. Jadeja in connection with transaction between the assessee and himself, and in his reply to the notice under section 133(6) of the Act, he confirmed that he had provided transportation service to the assessee during assessment year 2014-15 to the tune of ₹ 3,08,000/- and payment of said bills were received by account payee cheque in the subsequent assessment year 2015-16. Mr. Jadeja also Page No 5 M/s. Vasudev Minerals vs. Dy. CIT submitted statement of total income in acknowledgement of income tax return filed for assessment year 2014-15 and also filed balance sheet for the year ending 31st March, 2014 showing a sum of ₹ 3,08,000/-receivable from the assessee. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the assessee has been able to establish that he availed transportation services amounting to ₹ 3,08,000/- from Mr. D.H. Jadeja during the impugned year under consideration. Accordingly, considering the above facts, we are hereby allowing the assessee’s appeal.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is being allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 01-07-2022