Smt. Surinder Kaur, Ludhiana v. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 596/CHANDI/2011 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 59621514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN HJULY2011P
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 596/CHANDI/2011
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Surinder Kaur, Ludhiana
Respondent ITO, Ludhiana
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-07-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 27-05-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH CHA NDIGARH BEFORE SHRI D K SRIVASTAVA AM AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWL A JM ITA NO. 596/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SMT.SURINDER KAUR V ITO WARD 1(3) PROP. M/S SUKHMANI PACKERS LUDHIANA E-384-B PHASE VI FOCAL POINT LUDHIANA. PAN: AJUPK-7933M ASSESSEE BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI N.K.SAINI ORDER D K SRIVASTAVA: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 14.03.201 1. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNM ENT WAS RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND TH AT CERTAIN INFORMATION WERE YET TO BE PROCURED. PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TIME OF TWO MONTHS TO PREPARE HER CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS AS TO WHAT INFORMA TION SHE WAS YET TO COMPILE EVEN AFTER HAVING TIME OF TWO MONTHS TO PREPARE HER CASE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED AND THE MATTER WAS HEARD EX- PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. GROUND NO.1 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-II HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FAI LED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ORDER WAS ANNOUNCED ON THE DATE WHEN THE CITY WAS UNDER CURFEW AND THE ASSESSEE BEI NG A LADY COULD NOT APPEAR ON THE DATE. THE RELEVANT FACTS RE GARDING THE SAME WERE ALSO PRODUCED. HENCE THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. THE AFORESAID GROUND WAS NEITHER TAKEN BEFORE TH E CIT(A) NOR ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF THE AFORESAID GROUND A S ADDITIONAL ITA596/CHD/2011 SURINDER KAUR LUDHIANA 2 GROUND BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IN THIS VIEW OF THE M ATTER GROUND NO.1 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. GROUND NO.2 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : 2.THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-II HAS IGNORED THE FACTS THA T ALL THE NECESSARY INFORMATION REGARDING EXPENSES DEBITED TO P/L A/C HAD ALSO BEEN PROVIDED DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT (AS PER THE BODY OF ORDER OF THE AO) AND WAS WRONG TO THE EXTENT IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO 25% OF TH E EXPENSES DEBITED TO P/L A/C AND NOT FULLY ALLOWING THE SAME. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN PARA 8 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER AS UNDER : 8. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ABOVESAID WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANTS COUNSEL AND ALSO PERUSED T HE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER APPEAL. THE AO HAS DISALLOWE D 40% OF EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.1 28 650/- FOR WANT OF PRO PER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND NON-PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THOUGH THE APPELLANTS COUNSEL HAS ARGUED THAT COPI ES OF EXPENSES DEBITED TO THE P/L A/C HAD ALREADY BEEN FI LED WITH THE AO AND THE AO VIDE ORDERSHEET ENTRY PAGE NO.4 PARA D( READS AS THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED ON 25.11.20 09 WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SUPPORTING VOUCHERS) AND HAD T EST CHECKED THE SAME ON THAT DATE. THE COUNSEL ALSO PLA CED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF K.K.STEELS (INDIA) P.LTD. V ACIT ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH REPORTED IN (2000) 66 TTJ (ASR) 48 I N WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT ASSESSMENT OF INCOME HAS TO BE FAIR A ND REASONABLE AND SHOULD NOT VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE-AO HAS TO TAKE NOTE OF TOTALITY OF ALL RELE VANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF EARLIER AND SUBS EQUENT YEARS. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE 40% DISALLOWANC E OF THE EXPENSES IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE AS THE AO BOTH IN HIS A SSESSMENT ORDER AND COUNTER COMMENTS NOT SUBMITTED ANY BASE F OR MAKING SUCH DISALLOWANCE. THEREFORE IT WILL BE FAIR AND J USTIFIABLE TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE AT 25% OF THE TOTAL EXPEN SES. THIS GROUND OF THE APPELLANT IS PARTLY ALLOWED ADDITION OF RS.80 406/- IS CONFIRMED AND APPELLANT GETS RELIEF AMOUNTING TO RS.48224/-. ITA596/CHD/2011 SURINDER KAUR LUDHIANA 3 7. IT IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE AO INSPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNIT IES GIVEN BY THE AO. ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED. THE AO THEREFORE DISALLOWED EXPENSES @ 4 0% WHICH ON APPEAL HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 25% BY THE CIT(A). IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING THE GENUI NENESS OF THE EXPENSES IN THE TOTALITY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) D ISALLOWING 25% OF TOTAL EXPENSES CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNREASONABLE OR ILLOGICAL. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER HIS ORDER IN THIS BEHALF IS CON FIRMED AND GROUND NO.2 IS DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO.3 (WRONGLY NUMBERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS 4): 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-II HAS ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTI NG THE STOCK DETAILS BEING PROVIDED DURING THE HEARING OF THE AP PEAL BY IGNORING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 46A OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT. 9. PERUSAL OF PARA 9.2 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSE D BY THE CIT(A) SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED BEFORE HIM FOR ADMISSION OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NE ITHER REJECTED NOR ADMITTED THE AFORESAID REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. RUL E 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES REQUIRES HIM TO DISPOSE OF THE REQ UEST MADE BY AN ASSESSEE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY OR DER IN WRITING. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE PRESCRIPTION OF RULE 46A. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN THIS BEHALF IS THE REFORE SET ASIDE. HE IS DIRECTED TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE APPLICATION SEEK ING ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF R ULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER HIS CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER AS CONTAINED IN PARA 10.1 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER IS ALSO SET ASIDE. THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH T HE DIRECTION TO DISPOSE OF THE ISSUE UNDER APPEAL AS ALSO CONSEQUEN TIAL ISSUES ARISING THERE-FROM AFRESH IN CONFORMITY WITH LAW. REASONABL E OPPORTUNITY OF ITA596/CHD/2011 SURINDER KAUR LUDHIANA 4 HEARING SHALL BE GIVEN TO BOTH THE PARTIES. GROUND NO.3 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSES. 10. APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29 TH JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (D K SRIV ASTAVA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29 TH JULY 2011 POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE D.R INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT CHANDIGARH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH .