M/s. L.G. Chaudhary,, Ahmedabad v. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-9,, Ahmedabad

ITA 244/AHD/2015 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2017 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 24420514 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN AACFL5043J
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 244/AHD/2015
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant M/s. L.G. Chaudhary,, Ahmedabad
Respondent The Dy.CIT.,Circle-9,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 30-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 15-06-2017
Next Hearing Date 15-06-2017
First Hearing Date 15-06-2017
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 02-02-2015
Judgment Text
- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.244/AHD/2015 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2011-12 M/S. L.G. CHAUDHARY 6/64 GOKUL APARTMENTS NR.PARASNAGAR SOLA ROAD NARANPURA AHMEDABAD 380013. PAN : AACFL 5043 J VS. DCIT CIR.9 AHMEDABAD. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI URVASHI SHODHAN REVENUE BY : SHRI PRASOON KABRA SR.DR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 16/11/2017 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/11/2017 %& / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSTT.YEAR 2012-12 AROSE AGAINST LD.CIT(A)-10S AHMEDABAD ORDER DATED 4.12.2014 PAS SED IN CASE NO.CIT(A)-10/DCIT CIR-9/10/14-15 UPHOLDING ASSESSIN G OFFICERS ACTION INTERALIA DISALLOWING BAD DEBT CLAIM OF RS.10 LAKHS IN CASE OF M/S.JALARAM CONSTRUCTION INTEREST OF RS.45 902/- TRANSPORT EXPENDITURE OF RS.75 000/- AND CARTING AND LABOUR E XPENSES DISALLOWANCE AT THE RATE OF 1% COME TO RS.7 96 08 5 20/- ON ADHOC ITA NO.244 /AHD/2015 2 BASIS; RESPECTIVELY MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DA TED 7.2.2014 IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. WE COME TO ABOVE FIRST ISSUE OF BAD DEBT DISALLO WANCE OF RS.10LAKHS. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE COUNSEL REFERS TO BOTH LOWER AUTHORITIES RESPECTIVE ORDERS INDICATING THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD BY MISTAKE TRANSFERRED AN AMOUNT OF RS.10 LAKHS BY WAY OF RTGS. HER CASE IS THAT IT WAS IN THE NATURE OF TRADE ADVA NCES IN ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS ALLOWABLE AS BAD DEBTS. WE HOWE VER NOTICE FROM ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS LOWER APPELLATE ORDER TH AT THERE IS NO SUCH TRADE RELATION OR EVIDENCE PUT FORTH BY ASSESS EES BEHEST THROUGHOUT. HE HAS FURTHER NOT EVEN PRODUCED BEFOR E US RELEVANT RTGS INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED TO THE BANK. WE THEREFORE FIND NO MERIT IN LD.COUNSELS ARGUMENT PLACING RELIANCE ON HONBL E APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF CASE 323 ITR 397 (SC) IN CONTEND ING THAT IMPUGNED AMOUNT IS ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTION. WE FU RTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEES INSTANT CLAIM ALSO DOES NO T FULFILL RELEVANT MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF HAVING TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSME NT YEARS. THIS FIRST SUBSTANTIAL GROUND STANDS REJECTED. 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THIS STAGE RA ISED AN ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT AT ASSESSEES BEHEST THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS.10 LAKHS IS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS LOSS UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE ACT BEING A TRANSACTION INCIDENTAL TO HIS BUSINESS. WE NOTICED HEREINABOVE AS WELL THAT THERE IS NOT EVEN SINGLE D OCUMENT FILED FROM ASSESSEES SIDE DEMONSTRATING ANY BUSINESS REL ATION WITH THE ABOVE PAYEE M/S.JALARAM CONSTRUCTION CO. THE LD.CO UNSEL IS VERY ITA NO.244 /AHD/2015 3 FAIR IN EXPRESSING HER INABILITY BEFORE US TO THIS EFFECT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. WE THEREFORE REJECT HER ALTERNA TIVE ARGUMENT AS WELL RAISED IN VIEW OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURTS JUDGMENT REPORTED IN (1988) 136 ITR 825 (GUJ) CIT VS. ABDUL RAZAK & CO. ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE IN PRODUCING NECE SSARY DETAILS. THIS ALTERNATIVE PLEA ALSO FAILS ACCORDINGLY. 4. ASSESSEES NEXT SUBSTANTIAL GROUND SEEKS TO DELE TE SECTION 40(A)(IA) DISALLOWANCE OF RS.45 902/- ON ACCOUNT OF HIS FAILURE IN DEDUCTING TDS THEREUPON. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE CASE FILE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBJECTED THE ABOVE INTEREST P AYMENT TO TDS DEDUCTION NOR HE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVE BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT PAYEE IN QUESTION ASSESSED QUA THE SAME SO AS TO TAKE BENEFIT OF SECTION 40(A)(IA). SECOND PROVISO STIPULATING NON- APPLICATION OF IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE IN DEDUCTING TDS ON THE SPECIFIED PAYMENTS IN CASE AN ASSESSEE PROVES TO BE NOT AN ASSESSEE-IN-DEFAULT UNDER SECTI ON 201 OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) HAS DULY TAKEN NOTE OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY SUCH EVIDENCE IN LOWER A PPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. WE ACCORDING CONFIRM THE IMPUGNED DIS ALLOWANCE SO AS REJECT ASSESSEES INSTANT PLEA. 5. NEXT LIMB OF THIS SUBSTANTIAL GROUND RAISED AT A SSESSEES BEHEST ASSAILS CORRECTNESS OF BOTH LOWER AUTHORITY S ACTION IN DISALLOWING TRANSPORT EXPENSES OF RS.75 000/- ON AC COUNT OF NON- DEDUCTION OF TDS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE AS SESSEE HAVING NOT DEDUCTED TDS UPON THE ABOVE PAYMENT. WE HOWEVE R NOTICE THAT THESE TWO PAYMENTS I.E. RS.50 000/- EXHIBITING TWO INSTANCES OF RS.23 700/- AND RS.26 300/- PERTAINING TO M/S.DI AMOND ITA NO.244 /AHD/2015 4 TRANSPORT AND SHRI SHAMBHUBHAI INVOLVING AMOUNT OF RS.25 000/- DID NOT SATISFY THRESHOLD LIMIT OF RS.75 000/- UNDE R SECTION 194C(5) PROVISO AS APPLICABLE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE THEREFORE REJECT LD.DRS ARGUMENT SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. THE SAME IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE ASSESEES INSTANT SECOND SUBSTANTIAL GROUND IS ACCE PTED IN PART. 6. THIS LEAVES US WITH ASSESSEES LAST GRIEVANCE SE EKING TO DELETE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7 96 520/- MADE BY BOTH L OWER AUTHORITIES AT THE RATE OF 1% OF HIS CARTING AND LA BOUR EXPENSES ON ADHOC BASIS. IT EMERGES FROM CASE FILE THAT AO AS WELL AS CIT(A) OPTED THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 20 08-09 INVOKING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE AT THE RATE OF 1%. CASE FILE REVEALS THAT CIT(A) HIMSELF HAS RESTRICTED THE VERY DISALLO WANCE TO LUMPSUM AMOUNT OF RS.2.00 LAKHS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. HIS ORDER TO THIS EFFECT DATED 28.12.2012 FORMS PAR T OF THE CASE FILE. WE THEREFORE RESTRICT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWA NCE TO RS.2.00 LAKHS ONLY INSTEAD OF THAT MADE AT THE RATE OF 1% O F THE TOTAL AMOUNT BY FOLLOWING CONSISTENCY. INSTANT SUBSTANTI AL GROUND IS TAKEN AS PARTLY ACCEPTED. THUS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30 TH NOVEMBER 2017. SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S.GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/11/2017