The ITO 1 (2), v. Shri Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, Dewas

ITA 98/IND/2009 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 9822714 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN ABNPA3673R
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITA 98/IND/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant The ITO 1 (2),
Respondent Shri Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, Dewas
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 04-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 04-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 03-05-2010
Next Hearing Date 03-05-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 27-03-2009
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.98/IND/2009 A.Y. 2004-05 ITO WARD-1(2) UJJAIN APPELLANT VS MAHENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL 23 TILAK MARG KHATEGAON DISTT. DEWAS (MP) (PAN ABNPA 3673 R) RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.N. UNNI CA O R D E R PER BENCH THIS APPEAL IS BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-UJJAIN DATED 2.12.2008 WHEREIN THE FIRST GR OUND RAISED IS THAT WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.13 14 745/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERSTATED EARTH WORK RECEIPTS DETECTED DURING AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL THE ARGUMENTS ADV ANCED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS IN SUPPORT TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R WHEREAS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDE R. WE HAVE HEARD 2 THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH THE SIDES AND CON SIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THEM. 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSI NESS OF CONTRACTORSHIP OF EARTH WORK OF ROADS DECLARED TAX ABLE INCOME OF RS.17 71 110/-. DURING THE YEAR THE GROSS RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER P & L ACCOUNT COMES TO RS.8 00 91 825/- THE M AJOR PART OF WHICH IS CONSISTING OF EARTH WORK OF RECEIPTS AMOUNTING TO R S.7 79 66 940/-. AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE THE TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR EARTH W ORK WERE RS.7 92 81 685/- HOWEVER THE SAME WERE DISCLOSED AT RS.7 79 66 940/- . THE ASSESSEE VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 16.10. 2006 CLAIMED THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF RECEIPTS AN D WRONG ENTRIES WERE MADE DUE TO WHICH THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.13 14 745/- OCCURRED WHICH WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE ENCLOSED THE COPY OF THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNT S FOR VERIFICATION: I) EARTH WORK RECEIVED (N.N.SITE) ACCOUNT II) EARTH WORK RECEIVED (DEWAS) ACCOUNT III) M/S. ASHOKA BUILDCON LTD. IV) M/S. D.N. SUNADERMURTI V) M/S. HANSRAJ CHATURBHUJ JAIN BADI WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE RECO NCILIATION BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHEREIN IT WAS FOUND THAT A GENUINE MISTAKE WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS POINTED OUT TO THE 3 ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO AS THE NET PROFIT IS NOT EFF ECTED CONSEQUENTLY THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT IS UPHELD. 4. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IS WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 42 82 6/- OUT OF DIESEL EXPENSES WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HE ARD TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REV ENUE IS IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED A SUM OF RS.3 90 19 258/- AS MACHINERY RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES IN ITS P & L ACCOUNT AND FURTHER A SUM OF RS.4 12 994/- WAS SHOWN AS DIESEL ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER D ATED 24.11.2006 SUBMITTED ITS POSITION AS DETAILED AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOUBTED THE CLAIM OF DIESEL EXPEN SES AS A HUGE AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN DEBITED ON ACCOUNT OF RUNNI NG AND MAINTENANCE OF MACHINERY AND VEHICLES. HOWEVER THE RE IS A FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED ON LY THAT AMOUNT OF DIESEL WHICH WAS USED IN MACHINERY AND REMAINING AM OUNT WAS CREDITED IN P & L ACCOUNT. THE DIESEL ACCOUNT WHICH WAS IN THE EXPENSES ACCOUNT WAS DULY EXPLAINED. THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT IS THE DIFFERENCE ALLOCATED TO SHORTAGE SPOILAGE AND EVAPORATION. TH E COPY OF THE DIESEL ACCOUNT WAS DULY FILED AS PER WHICH THE TOTAL PURCH ASE OF DIESEL AMOUNTED TO RS.2.66 CRORES THEREFORE THERE IS A P OSSIBILITY OF 4 EVAPORATION ETC. WHICH IS NOT UNUSUAL CONSEQUENTLY KEEPING IN VIEW THE PURCHASE OF HUGE QUANTITY OF DIESEL SUCH AN ADDITI ON CANNOT BE SAID TO BE JUSTIFIED CONSEQUENTLY THERE IS NO INFIRMITY O N THE IMPUGNED ISSUE ALSO. FINALLY APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS HAVING NO MERIT HENCE DISMISSED. 5. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 4TH MAY 2010. SD SD (V.K. GUPTA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MAY 4 TH 2010 COPY TO: APPELLANT RESPONDENT CIT CIT(A) DR G UARD FILE !VYAS!