9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id documents/papers have not been filed. There is nothing to show and establish that the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal are perverse and factually incorrect. No substantial question of law - ITA 1014/2018 - - - Dated:- 17-9-2018 - MR. SANJIV KHANNA AND MR. CHANDER SHEKHAR JJ. Appellant Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Advocate. Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aniket D. Aggarwal, Advocate. SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL) Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) against the order dated 23rd March, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) in the case of Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was unable to produce the balance confirmation/balance vendors for verification, the expenditure pertaining to whom amounts to ₹ 3,83,51,701. In the absence of any supporting documents and taking the complaint as the basis, for the balance expenditure of ₹ 3,83,51,701, I deem it proper to treat 50% of ₹ 3,83,51,701 i.e. ₹ 1,91,75,850 as ingenuine and accordingly disallow the same. I have also gone through the invoices pertaining to the vendors who were produced on oath. On careful examination of the invoices and other details for the vendors produced, I find that the expenditure pertaining to the vendors Chandra Singh Contractor of ₹ 2,36,00,765 and National Sanitation of ₹ 19,93,220 are capital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vendors books vide submission dated March 22, 2013: Singh Construction Company Chetan Singh Ghelot Siddhi Rajpal Sharma Sugan Chand 3.3 Out of the total expenditure incurred on Repair maintenance account, the Ld AO held that since the Appellant was unable to produce the balance vendors (other than the vendors mentioned above) for verification of 50% of the expenditure amounting to ₹ 3,83,51,70 i.e. ₹ 1,91,75,850 is to be treated as ingenuine and accordingly disallowed the same. 3.4 During the course of the assessment proceeding, the Appellant has furnished all the details sought by Ld. AO and Appellant also produced the major vendors before the Ld. AO substantiate the expenditure i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant in succeeding assessment years AY 200607, AY 2007-08 and AY 2009-10 wherein similar addition made by the Ld. AO was deleted by the CIT(A). It is pertinent to note that no appeal has been filed by the revenue before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2007-08 and thus the order of the Hon'ble CIT(A) became final. xxxx 3.9 In the instant case, The Ld. AO had disallowed the 50% of the expenditure by saying that the Appellant was unable to produce the supporting documents (other than the vendors mentioned in point 2.5 and 2.6 above) and treated the expenditure as ingenuine in nature. The Ld. AO simply ignored and failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant had duly submitted various details relating to the subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was also made to the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal for assessment years 2006-07 and 200910, in which similar and ad-hoc the disallowance was deleted. It was observed that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not right in making disallowance of 5% on the ground of mere suspicion. 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue accepts that the Revenue had preferred ITA Nos.1184/2017, 1185/2017 and 1188/2017 against similar deletions made by the Tribunal for the earlier years, which have been dismissed, though these orders primarily deal with the question whether the expenditure incurred on repair and maintenance was revenue or capital expenditure. 7. The finding of the Tribunal deleting disallowance of 50% by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
