VSK Projects Private Ltd.,, Hyderabad v. ITO, Ward 3(2), Hyderabad

MA 36/HYD/2016 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 3622524 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AABCV6109R
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number MA 36/HYD/2016
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant VSK Projects Private Ltd.,, Hyderabad
Respondent ITO, Ward 3(2), Hyderabad
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 30-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 30-09-2016
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 19-04-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.36/HYD/2016 ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO.986/HYD/2013 - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 VSK PROJECTS P. LTD. HYDERABAD. PAN AABCV6109R VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 (2) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. T. RAMA MURTHY FOR REVENUE : MR. K.J. RAO DATE OF HEARING : 22.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.09.2016 ORDER PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI J.M. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE ALLEGED MISTAKES APPARENT F ROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 20.05.2015. 2. IN THE M.A. IT IS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF STONE CRUSHING ACTIVITI ES AND IN THE PROCESS HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE TOWARDS CRUSHER MAIN TENANCE LUBRICANTS AND TIPPER MAINTENANCE DURING THE YEAR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED UNDER THE ABOVE HEADS IS SUPPORTED BY PRINTED BILLS OF VARIOUS SUPPLIERS OF C OMPONENTS/ CONSUMABLES THAT ARE ACCOUNTED UNDER THE SAID HEADS OF EXPENDITURE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARBITRARILY DISALL OWED 10% OF SUCH EXPENDITURE WITHOUT RECOURSE TO THE RELEVANT BILLS /VOUCHERS 2 MA.NO.36/H/2016 IN ITA.NO.986/H/2013 VSK PROJECTS P. LTD. HYDERABAD. AND OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ON THE GROUND THAT THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED FO R SUCH DISALLOWANCE OR ADDITION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE SAME HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT DOES NOT HAVE RIGHT OF APPEA L ON AGREED ADDITIONS. 3. IN THIS M.A. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AS SESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT FOR REDRESSAL AND TH E ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 20.05.2015 HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) BUT RETAINED THE PERCENTAGE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE PROCEED INGS BEFORE THE ITAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN ATTEMPT TO PLACE C OPIES OF THE BILLS/VOUCHERS ETC. BUT THE BENCH DIRECTED THE ASSE SSEE TO FURNISH A DETAILED STATEMENT CLEARLY BIFURCATING THE AMO UNT TO THE EXTENT FOR WHICH IT IS ALLEGED THAT NO BILLS/VOUCHERS A ND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ARE AVAILABLE AND THE AMOUNT THAT NEEDS TO BE DISALLOWED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS BR OUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ITAT THAT ARBITRARY DISALLOWANCE I S NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HA S NEVER AUTHORISED HIS REPRESENTATIVE TO ADMIT FOR THE DISALLOWAN CE. HE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HO NBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BALASUBRAHMANYAM VS. ITO 50 ITD 513 WHICH HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE ITAT BUT THE ITAT HAS DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BY UPHOLDING THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PERCENTAGE ADDITION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO BE UPHELD. ACCORDING TO THE L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) T HAT ASSESSEE DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT OF APPEAL ON AGREED ADDITIONS IS A STATEMENT WHICH CANNOT BE UPHELD AND THEREFORE THERE IS A MISTAK E 3 MA.NO.36/H/2016 IN ITA.NO.986/H/2013 VSK PROJECTS P. LTD. HYDERABAD. APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN UPHO LDING THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A). FURTHER THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4360 & 4361 AND B ATCH OF CIVIL APPEALS IN THE CASE OF HIMALAYAN COOPERATIVE GR OUP HOUSING SOCIETY VS. BALWAN SINGH. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE M.A. WHILE THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS CALLED FOR THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES IN TH E ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER SHEET ENTRI ES HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED FOR THE ADDITION. 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF ITAT IS THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS RAISED A GROUND BEFORE ITAT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AGREED FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF THE EXPENDITURE BUT THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) HAVE ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DI SALLOWANCE THOUGH ASSESSEE HAS ALL THE SUPPORTING BILLS AND VOU CHERS AND HAS NEVER AUTHORISED HIS REPRESENTATIVE TO AGREE FOR AN Y DISALLOWANCE OR ADDITIONS. WE FIND FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND CALLED FOR THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD OF THE AS SESSEE AND AFTER PERUSAL OF THE SAME FOUND THAT ON 07.12.2011 THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE VOUCHERS/BILLS FOR TH E EXPENDITURE ARE SELF-MADE VOUCHERS AND ALSO SUFFERED FROM VARIOUS OTHER DEFICIENCIES AND THAT ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE DEFICIENCIES AND 4 MA.NO.36/H/2016 IN ITA.NO.986/H/2013 VSK PROJECTS P. LTD. HYDERABAD. THEREFORE THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAD AGREED FOR 10% DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE. FURTHER AS SEEN FROM THE AVERMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE M.A. THE ASSESSE E WAS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE STATEMENT OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS WH ICH ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FI LE ANY SUCH STATEMENT BEFORE THE ITAT. ON PERUSAL OF THE ITAT FOL DER ALSO WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK CONSIST ING OF 71 PAGES WITH THE FOLLOWING INDEX : SL. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NOS. 1 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS 1 TO 20 2 ENCLOSURES 21 TO 25 3 APPEAL APPLICATION BEFORE ITAT COPY OF ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER 26 TO 45 4 APPEAL APPLICATION BEFORE CIT(A) 46 TO 52 5 SUBMISSIONS BEFORE CIT(A) 53 TO 59 6 COPY OF ITR 60 TO 62 7 LEDGER EXTRACTS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CONTAINING FINANCE CHARGES 63 TO 71 8 BILLS VOUCHERS LEDGER EXTRACT ALONG WITH ANALYSIS FOR BILLS LOOSE FILE 5.1. THOUGH ITEM NO.8 STATES THAT BILLS AND VOUCHERS LEDGER EXTRACTS ALONG WITH ANALYSIS FOR BILLS ARE FILE D IN THE FORM OF LOOSE FILE NO SUCH DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE ITAT. THEREFORE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE ITAT TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THAT ITS CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE IS SUPPORTED BY RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. IN VI EW OF THE SAME WE FIND THAT THE ITAT HAS CONSIDERED THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ALSO THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES IN THE AS SESSMENT RECORD TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE SUFFI CIENT MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE AND THE REFORE HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF THE EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON MUCH LESS ANY MISTAKE 5 MA.NO.36/H/2016 IN ITA.NO.986/H/2013 VSK PROJECTS P. LTD. HYDERABAD. APPARENT FROM RECORD FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER O F THIS TRIBUNAL. 6. IN THE RESULT M.A. OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.09.2016. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 VBP/- COPY TO 1. VSK PROJECTS P. LTD. PLOT NO.43 ROAD NO.71 JUBIL EE HILLS HYDERABAD. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2) HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A)-IV HYDERABAD. 4. CIT-III HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE