Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Paschim Medinipur v. ITO, WD-2(1), Midnapore, Midnapore

ITA 1287/KOL/2014 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2014 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 128723514 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AEYPA6693R
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 1287/KOL/2014
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Paschim Medinipur
Respondent ITO, WD-2(1), Midnapore, Midnapore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 26-11-2014
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 06-06-2014
Judgment Text
I.T.A. NO . 1 28 7 / KOL ./201 4 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 20 10 PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA SMC BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1 28 7 / KOL / 20 1 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 20 10 SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL ........... ..................... . .. .. .APP ELL ANT PROP. NARSINGH TRADERS NTE 58 CHANDINI CHOWK KHARAGPUR - 721 301 PASCHIM MIDNAPORE [PAN : A EYPA 6693 R ] - VS. - INCOME TAX OFFICER ............................. ....... ... . RESPONDENT WARD - 2 ( 1) MIDNAPORE SAHOO BHAWAN KSHUDIRAM NAGAR MIDNAPORE - 721 101 MID NAPORE (WEST) APPEARANCES BY: SHRI GAUTAM GHOSH ADVOCATE FOR THE ASSESSEE SMT. RANU BISWAS J CIT SR. D.R. FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : NOVEMBER 2 6 2 01 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 2 6 201 4 O R D E R PER GEORGE MAT HAN : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - XXXV I KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 329 / CIT(A) - XXXV I/KOL ./WARD - 2(1) MID/2011 - 12 DATED 2 8 . 0 3 .201 4 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 . 2 . SHRI GAUTAM GHOSH ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. RANU BISWAS JCIT SR. D.R. REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A .R. THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS DOING THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN FOOD ITEMS. I T WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THREE MAIN ADDITIONS HAD BEEN MADE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT I.T.A. NO . 1 28 7 / KOL ./201 4 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 20 10 PAGE 2 OF 4 REPRESENTING DIFFERENCE ON ACCOUNT OF PART Y ACCOUNTS TO AN EXTENT OF RS.76 185/ - ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF FREIGHT AT RS.50 000/ - AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW DRAWINGS AT RS.72 000/ - . LD. A.R. DREW ATTENTION TO VARIOUS PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK TO SUBMIT THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PART Y ACCOUNTS W AS NEEDED FOR RE CONCILIA TION . IT WAS HOWEVER SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS WERE NOT PRODUCED IN THE CO URSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING BUT THE SAME WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR RE - ADJUDICATION. 4. IN REPLY LD. SR. D.R. VEHE MENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS). 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT WAS PRODUCED ONLY BEFORE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) AND EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IT WAS MENTIONED THAT FURTHER EXAMINATION IS REQUIRED THE ISSUES IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PARTY ACCOUNTS ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE - ADJUDICAT ION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PRODUCE ALL SUCH EVIDENCES AS ARE REQUIRED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. IN REGARD TO SECOND ISSUE REPRESENTING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF FR EIGHT CHARGES LD. A.R. HAS DRAWN ATTENTION TO THE GENERAL LEDGER IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORT CHARGES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE SAME ON AN AD HOC BASIS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT TOTAL OF THE FREIGHT CHARGES PAID WAS RS.13 24 174/ - . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT FREIGHT CHARGES HAD BEEN PAID FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PULSES SUGAR PADDY AND WHEAT PRODUCTS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ALL THE EXPENSES WERE FULLY VOUCHED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. I.T.A. NO . 1 28 7 / KOL ./201 4 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 20 10 PAGE 3 OF 4 6. IN REPLY LD. SR. D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS). 7. I HAVE CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISAL LOWED THE FREIGHT CHARGES ON AD HOC BASIS ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPENSES WERE NOT FULLY VOUCHED AND IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE BILLS AND VOUCHERS AN AD HOC DISALLOWANCE IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL VERIFY THE FREIGHT CHARGES PAID AND IF ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IS FOUND IN RESPECT OF ANY SPECIFIC VOUCHER DISALLOWANCE IS TO BE MADE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THAT VOUCHER AND NOT AN AD HOC DISALLOWANCE. 8. IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE O F ADDITION REPRESENTING THE LOW DRAWINGS IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT MADE AN ESTIMATED ADDITION WITHOUT FINDING ANY SPECIFIC REASON FOR MAKING THE ADDITION. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ADD ITION MAY BE DELETED. 9. IN REPLY LD. SR. D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS). 10. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN AN Y REASON FOR ESTIMATING THE ASSESSEE S MONTHLY EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENT AT RS.8 000/ - . HE ONLY MENTIONED PREVAILING MARKET RATE AS WELL AS STAND ARD OF LIVING OF THE ASSESSEE. WHAT IS SPECIFIC ISSUE ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASONED TO BELIEVE THAT RS.8 000/ - PER MONTH WOULD BE REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COMING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITION REPRESENTING THE LOW DRAWINGS AS MADE I.T.A. NO . 1 28 7 / KOL ./201 4 AS SESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 20 10 PAGE 4 OF 4 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) STANDS DELETED. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 6 TH NOV EMBER 2014. SD/ - GEORGE MATHAN ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA THE 2 6 TH D AY OF NOVE MBER 201 4 COPIES TO : (1) SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL PROP. NARSINGH TRADERS NTE 58 CHANDINI CHOWK KHARAGPUR - 721 301 PASCHIM MIDNAPORE (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(1) MIDNAPORE SAHOO BHAWAN KSHUDIRAM NAGAR MIDNAPORE - 721 101 MIDNAPORE (WEST) (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( 6 ) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S .