TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g suspicious or doubtful in the version of these persons. That is why the order of the First Appellate Authority was upheld. It did not suffer from any legal infirmity. Tribunal did not agree with the Assessing Officer but with the First Appellate Authority because there was overwhelming documentary evidence on record to support the conclusion of the First Appellate Authority. - Decided against revenue Addition towards transportation charges - CIT-A deleted addition confirmed by ITAT - Held that:- Tribunal did not rest its conclusions only on the finding that the Assessing Officer has not carried out a complete exercise. The Tribunal perused the material produced on record. It agreed that there is a proof of actual performance of transportation work, lifting of waste, payment of Tax deducted at Source, full addresses and confirmation of accounts with Permanent Account Number. Even the mode of payment is by account payee cheques. If there was further doubt about the transactions, the Assessing Officer was free to make inquiries with the Regional Transport Office. Tribunal agreed with the First Appellate Authority in holding that mere nonattendance or mere non service without anyt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer wrongly disallowed the genuine expenditure merely on the basis of unserved notices ignoring the decisive factors like actual performance of transportation work, lifting of waste, proper TDS payment through Account Payee Cheque, proper addresses and confirmation of account with Permanent Account Number. There were gross receipts from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The 12 parties, whose details were set out in the proceedings before the First Appellate Authority, together with other material, therefore, enabled him to conclude that the transportation expenditure had to be allowed. 6. Mr. Malhotra would submit that the Tribunal has rendered a cryptic finding and without application of mind to the fact that the vehicles and the parties who have been engaged on such contract basis have no nexus, nor it could be established. It is in these circumstances that the Assessing Officer rightly concluded that these payments do not appear to be genuine. Such finding should not have been interfered with by the First Appellate Authority and it's order to that effect should not have been maintained by the Tribunal. 7. Equally, Mr. Malhotra would submit that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to undertake such huge loan transactions and due to various discrepancies in the papers produced before him, he has reached the above conclusion. He has reached the conclusion that the parties are not capable of giving such loans. 12. What we find is that such order of the Assessing Officer was challenged in the Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted arguments of the assessee's representative in paragraph 16 of his order. 13. Equally, he perused the record before the Assessing Officer. In paragraph 17, the First Appellate Authority held that the Assessing Officer has merely doubted the veracity of the bank accounts of the creditors without corroborating his findings and without further substantiating his reasoning. The Assessing Officer has simply presumed that the genuineness of the transaction has not been proved. The First Appellate Authority took up for consideration the issue and party-wise. In the first instance, he took up the case of M/s. Mukti Exports. It found that the Assessing Officer's finding is not correct because the loan amount is generated from the business activities and duly reflec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly appeared before the Assessing Officer, but had also admitted of giving loan. There was nothing suspicious or doubtful in the version of these persons. That is why the order of the First Appellate Authority was upheld. It did not suffer from any legal infirmity. 16. We also agree with the Tribunal, and particularly when it proceeded to analyze the transactions and the issue in an overall manner. It did not agree with the Assessing Officer but with the First Appellate Authority because there was overwhelming documentary evidence on record to support the conclusion of the First Appellate Authority. 17. Hence, the second question proposed by the Revenue cannot be termed as a substantial question of law. 18. The first question is proposed by the Revenue because the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), according to the Revenue, erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,31,39,030/made by the Assessing Officer towards transportation charges. The argument was that this deletion has been made without appreciating the fact that the notices under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act were returned back unserved. The assessee failed to produce any of the persons before the Assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er doubt about the transactions, the Assessing Officer was free to make inquiries with the Regional Transport Office. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal agreed with the First Appellate Authority. It did not agree with the observation so also the finding of the Assessing Officer that the notices could not be served or the parties did not remain present and that was a relevant factor. However, the Tribunal agreed with the First Appellate Authority in holding that mere nonattendance or mere non service without anything more could not be reason enough to sustain the addition. It is in these circumstances, that the First Appellate Authority has rightly stepped in according to the Tribunal. When the nature of the exercise undertaken by both the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal is as above, then we do not see any perversity in their conclusions, nor can we agree with Mr. Malhotra that there is substantial question of law arising from this deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer. We do not see any error of law apparent on the face of record. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the Appeal. It is dismissed. No costs. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
