9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der was originated from the order of the ld. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Srinagar, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act date of order 06.11.2019. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds which are as follows: "1. That the worthy CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the adhoc addition of Rs. 9,53,484/-made by Ld A.O which is 20% of travelling expenses amounting to Rs. 42,70,275/-. The CIT (A) failed to consider this aspect that in original assessment order framed u/s 143(3) dated 27.03.2015, the Ld A.O has already made an adhoc disallowance of 10% of expenses for want of vouchers on expenses. It is change of opinion and worthy CIT (A) is not lawful in his action in confirming the addition in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,275/- in relation to the turnover 73.29 crore. In relation to the other years the claim was higher in this year. For clarity of factual aspect we are reproducing the appeal order para 4 as below: "4.0. The affirmations of the AO in the assessment order for the additions made as detailed of this order are as under: "During the course of the assessment proceedings and the perusal of the material available on record, It was found that the assessee in its profit and loss account for the year ending 31.03.2012 has debited the expenditure under head 'Travelling Allowance' to the tune of Rs.42,70,275/-. In respect of this claim, the assessee has taken plea of floods of September 2014 and stated in its reply that the records of their b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discussed by the ld. CIT(A) and the total disallowance of 20% on travelling expenses was upheld which is worked out amount of Rs.9,53,484/-. 6. The ld. Sr. DR argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) in page no. 6 which is extracted below: "The assessee firm failed to produce the books of accounts and could not substantiate the claim of these expenditures amounting to Rs. 3695996/- by producing any supporting documentary evidence in this regard, the version/explanation of the counsel of the assessee could not be accepted as such, that he could not furnish the proper documentary evidence in support of these expenditures due to floods of September 2014. In absence of proper bills and vouchers and in order to plug the leakage of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... And Ors. dated 17 December 1997 in (1999) 236 CTR SC 34, 1999 236 ITR 34 (SC) is gone through. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under: "We have only to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. We are of the view that the court cannot strike down the reopening of the case in the facts of this case. It will be open to the assessee to prove that the assumption of facts made in the notice was erroneous. The assessee may also prove that no new facts opinion on the merits of the case. The questions of fact and law are left open to be investigated and decided b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
