In Income Tax Appeal v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nagpur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1298/2017 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3/2014.Ballabhdas Udhaodas Mohata Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directionsand Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARIAND A.D. UPADHYE, JJ DATE:MARCH 09, 2018 Heard Shri Saket Bhattad, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri A. Parchure, learned Counsel for non-applicant. 2.Submission is, Vouchers which bringon record expenditure incurred by the applicant/ appellant could not have been ignored onlybecause accounts were not maintained or werenot audited. Submission is, for these errors/omissions, at the most penalty under Section271A or 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could have been inflicted. 3.It is urged that for earning incomefrom technical consultancy, certain expenditure isessential and must be presumed. Our attentionis also invited to provisions of Section 44ADA,added by 2017 Amendment, to show that thisfact is also now statutorily recognized. 4.Non-applicant however, submits thatthere is no pleading on record to show that such expenses were necessary to support the income. 5.We have looked into the relevantprovisions while disposing of the Income TaxAppeal by a reasoned judgment on 20.10.2015.The refusal by the Authorities consistently to lookinto the vouchers has been upheld by this Courtalso. 6.Vouchers are coming into picture as aproof of expenditure incurred. There has to befirst an effort and a plea to demonstrate thatwithout incurring a particular expenditure, thatincome could not have been generated. Such a plea or material is factually absent on record. Inthis situation, we find that no case is made forreview, Misc. Civil Application is accordinglydisposed of. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.