9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plied to Ruchi Soya Industries. We hereby clarify that the assessee shall not be entitled to any deduction on account of brokerage, commission, telephone expenses, employees expenses or any other expenses whatsoever against the income so calculated by the ld Assessing Officer. The assessing officer is further directed to give the benefit of any payment made by the assessee (one during the proof of payment) to the truck owners who have supplied the trucks to M/s Ruchi Soya. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 507/JP/2013, ITA No. 452/JP/2013 - - - Dated:- 4-7-2016 - SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM For The Assessee : Shri G.C. Jain (Adv) For The Revenue : Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT) ORDER PER: LALIET KUMAR, J.M. These are the cross appeals, one by the assessee and another by the revenue arise against the order dated 25/02/2013 passed by the ld CIT(A), Kota wherein the effective grounds of assessee as well as revenue s appeals are reproduced as under:- Grounds of assessee s appeal:- 1.1 The very action taken u/s 147 r/w 148 is bad in law without jurisdiction and being void ab-initio, the same may kindly be quashed. Consequently the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tails of transportation receipt during the year alongwith evidence and copy of account, details of bank account alongwith copy of ledger and bank statement, details of source of income and details of expenses more than ₹ 5000/- shown in the P L account. The AR of the assessee appeared before the ld Assessing Officer and filed power of attorney, written submissions, books of account, cash book and ledger. The ld Assessing Officer further observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee has shown gross receipt of ₹ 2,62,56,057/- in his P L account but on verifying the TDS certificates submitted alongwith the return and form 26AS generated from the systems, it was found that gross receipt of the assessee comes at ₹ 2,88,65,763/- for the year under consideration. The details of the parties from whom the transportation receipts of ₹ 26,09,706/- were not found to be shown, which has been reproduced by the ld Assessing Officer on page 2 and 3 of the assessment order. The assessee has filed reply before the ld Assessing Officer. After considering the assessee s reply and after examining the books of accounts consisting of cash book and ledger, complet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A. Y. 2008-09 but due to clerical mistake the TDS certificates were wrongly attached with the return of income for A. Y. 2009-10. The AR of the assessee has also filed copy of accounts of the 258 parties, form which transportation receipts were not found to be included in the return of income for the A. Y. 2009-10(as perform 26AS) and stated that the assessee has included the transportation receipt from these parties in total transportation receipt for the year under consideration. I have carefully considered the submission of the assessee but not found convincing/justified for the following reasons; (i) The submission of the assessee is an afterthought and without any basis, merely filing of copy of account of transportation receipt does not prove that that the assessee has claimed transportation receipt in A. Y. 2008-09 2009-10. (ii) There is no supporting documentary evidences were produced by the assessee which proved that the submission of the assessee is correct. (iii) The assessee has stated that by clerical mistake TDS certificates pertains to A. Y. 2008-09 were attached with return of income for A. Y. 2009-10 is not correct. If it is correct, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es related to the balance were not claimed by assessee. Apparently the assessee [with a view to reduce it s income] did not disclose a single large amount from Ruchi Soya. Accordingly addition of ₹ 11,72,124/- is confirmed, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete balance addition of ₹ 14,37,582/-. 4. Now both are in appeals before us. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee maintained regular computerized Books of accounts in the nature of cash book and ledger and the same were duly audited by the Chartered Accounted as per his report dated 29-9-2009. The assessee has maintained all the vouchers of the expenditure incurred during the course of business carried on. While submitting the return for the assessment year 2009-10 due to inadvertent mistake of the office TDS certificates relevant to the asst, year 2008-09 were also enclosed with the return for assessment year 2009-10.These certificates involved an aggregate amount of ₹ 1554400/- as detailed below and the balance was duly accounted for in the books relevant to assessment year 2009- 10. The assessee also submitted complete list of receipts as shown in accounts books at & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , difference of ₹ 1172218/- was noticed in the a/c of Ruchi Soya Ltd. for which our submission before the Id. CIT(A) was that only the profit should be added but he did not accept our contention and confirmed the addition of ₹ 1172418/- which is not justified. The assessee does not own any of the vehicle of his own. He arranges the Trucks from the Truck Union and the market. Therefore, the transportation receipts directly go to the owners of the Trucks and not to the assessee and the assessee only receives commission ranging between 300/- to 500/- and after incurring expenditure the net profit was only 1.45% of the receipts. The assessee has been showing receipts only with a view of cross check so as to claim TDS credit because the TDS certificates are in his name. Therefore, there was no question of suppression of receipts/ unexplained receipts. It is therefore, prayed that only the profit element of 1.45% may kindly be taxed and the balance be deleted. He further relied on the following case laws:- (i) CIT v/s President Industries (158) CTR 372 (Guj. 2002) - (ii) CIT v/s Balchand Ajit Kumar, (186 CTR 419 ) (2004) (M.P.) (iii) Manmohan Sodani v/s CIT 304 ITR 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer is directed to calculate the receipt of the assessee @ ₹ 500/- per builty for the trucks supplied to Ruchi Soya Industries. We hereby clarify that the assessee shall not be entitled to any deduction on account of brokerage, commission, telephone expenses, employees expenses or any other expenses whatsoever against the income so calculated by the ld Assessing Officer. The assessing officer is further directed to give the benefit of any payment made by the assessee (one during the proof of payment) to the truck owners who have supplied the trucks to M/s Ruchi Soya. Accordingly, we partly allow the appeal of the assessee. ITA No. 452/JP/2013 The ld Assessing Officer has issued a rectification order on 21/4/2015 whereby rectification was made and computation of income has been derived to the amount of ₹ 14,76,400/- while doing so the Assessing Officer has given the benefit of the receipt for the assessment year 2008- 09. The present assessment order is for the assessment year 2009-10 wherein the income receipt in the assessment year 2008-09 has been included in the income of the assessee for the present year. Since the rectification of the earlier year for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
