Shri. M.R. Pasalkar , Jamkhandi vs Assessee

Shri M.R.Pasalkar, Rameshwar Colony, Jamakhandi. ... Appellant

Vs.

Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Bijapur Range, Bijapur. ... Respondent PAN: ADHPP0906A

Appellant by: Shri Ashok A.Kulkarni, Advocate. Respondent by: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT.

Date of hearing : 09-03-2015. Date of pronouncement: 20-03-2015.

Per ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, AM:

In this appeal filed by the assessee, it is aggrieved on

the disallowance of a sum of Rs.3,56,422/- by the Assessing

Officer (AO) which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

2. Assessee running wine shops, had filed his return for

the impugned assessment year declaring income of

Rs.24,20,330/-. During the course of assessment proceeding, ld.

AO noted that freight and hamali charges of Rs.5,72,512/- ITA No.646/Bang/2014

Shri M.R.Pasalkar.

Page 2 of 4 claimed were supported only by self-made vouchers, which were

not verifiable. When put on notice, assessee stated that such

claim included vehicle rent which was not separately shown. The

AO found that in the preceding year expenditure of vehicle rent

was Rs.2,16,090/-. He, therefore, allowed a like amount from the

total sum of Rs.5,72,512/- and made a disallowance of the

balance Rs.3,56,422/-. AO has also mentioned that Authorized

Representative of the assessee agreed for this addition.

3. Assessee, thereafter, moved in appeal before the

CIT(A). As per the assessee, its turnover had increased to

Rs.4,54,82,699/- for AY 2009-10 against Rs.3,66,61,121/- for AY

2008-09. It was also submitted that its accounts were subject to

tax audit under section 44AB of the Act and claims were

supported by vouchers. However, the ld.CIT(A) did not accept

the arguments of the assessee citing the following reasons:

i. Assessee could not justify the steep increase in freight and hamali charges;

ii. Increase in turnover was margin

iii. The addition was agreed before the AO.

4. Now before us, ld AR submitted that chart which read

as under:

Sl. Asst.Year Turnover Freight Vehicle Total % Disallowance No. & Hamali + Rent Charges 1 2006-07 1,81,01,319 1,05,246 + 2,15,200 3,20,446 1.77 Nil 2 2007-08 2,43,40,661 1,39,220 + 2,12,375 3,51,595 1.44 Nil 3 2008-09 3,66,61,121 1,68,217 + 2,16,090 3,84,307 1.04 Nil 4 2009-10 4,54,82,699 5,72,512 + - 5,72,512 1.26 Nil ITA No.646/Bang/2014 Shri M.R.Pasalkar.

Page 3 of 4 As per the ld. AR, in none of the earlier years or later years any

disallowance of similar nature was made. According to him, the

chart mentioned above would clearly show that there was no

steep increase in the claim. Per contra, ld. DR supported the

orders of the lower authorities.

5. We have perused the orders and heard the rival

contentions. What we find is that assessee's representative had

accepted the disallowance before the AO. Only self vouchers

were there in support of the claim. Assessee's contention that

the claim included vehicle rent was accepted and part of the

amount equal to the vehicle rent claimed in the preceding year

was allowed. Return for earlier years were only subject to

processing under section 143(1) and not scrutinized. Hence, we

cannot say the claim of expenditure was scrutinized and allowed

in earlier years. Rule of consistency will apply only if similar fact-

situation is there and not otherwise. Conducting a tax audit will

not exonerate an assessee from its duty to substantiate its claim

as per the return. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion

that the disallowance was rightly done. No interference is

required.

6. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on 20th March, 2015.

sd/- sd/- (N.V.Vasudevan) (Abraham P.Jeorge) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER eksrinivasulu ITA No.646/Bang/2014 Shri M.R.Pasalkar. Page 4 of 4

Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order

Assistant Registrar Income-tax Appellate tribunal Bangalore