BIPIN UMAKANT JOSHI,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

MA 325/MUM/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Bipin Umakant Joshi, who filed a miscellaneous application against an earlier ITAT order concerning the assessment year 2009-10. The application pointed out that a specific ground of appeal regarding the addition made by the AO for low personal withdrawals was not adjudicated in the original ITAT order. The AO had added Rs. 1,04,088 to the assessee's income, estimating personal drawings at Rs. 1,80,000 for the year, based on a presumed insufficiency of reported personal withdrawals. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, leading to the appeal. The ITAT, upon reviewing the documents, found that the actual withdrawals were higher than reported by the AO and adjusted the addition accordingly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26269 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM KRISHN KEDIA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI GUPTA

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No. 325/Mum/2018 (Arising out of ITA No. 5794/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & ITA No. 5794/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Bipin Umakant Joshi Gayatri Enterprises, Block-3, Sitasadan, Haji Bapu Road, Malad (East), Mumbai-400097. PAN: AACPJ 1374 N Vs. ITO, 30(1)(2), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Ravi Gupta. Revenue by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 31.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.02.2025 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The miscellaneous application no. 325/M/2018 filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ITAT passed on 19.02.2018 vide ITA No. 5794/M/2017 pertaining to the A.Y. 2009-10. 2. In the miscellaneous application, the assessee has pointed out that the ground of appeal no. 5 of the appeal has not been MA No. 325/Mum/2018 & ITA No. 5794/Mum/2017 Bipin Umakant joshi 2 decided by the ITAT while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No. 5794/M/2017 on 19.02.2018. 3. Heard both the sides on this issue and perused the material placed on record. 4. The ground of appeal no. 5 filed by the assessee as per Form No. 36 is as under: “The ld. CIT(A)-41 erred in not deleting the additions made by the ld. AO of Rs. 1,04,088/- on account of lower amount drawings and ignored the details of total drawings submitted for all family members.” However, in the impugned order, inadvertently this ground of appeal has not been considered. Therefore, there is apparent mistake from record as referred ground of appeal remained to be adjudicated by the ITAT. Therefore, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed to adjudicate the ground no. 5 of the appeal as referred above. 5. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer was of the view that personal withdrawal of Rs. 75,912/- shown by the assessee was not sufficient looking to the personal expenses required for the family members. The AO further stated that assessee has not furnished the detail of personal expenses along with withdrawal made by the members of the family. Therefore, the AO estimated the personal drawings on account of personal expenses at Rs. 15,000/- per month to the amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- for the year under consideration, and the difference MA No. 325/Mum/2018 & ITA No. 5794/Mum/2017 Bipin Umakant joshi 3 amount of Rs. 1,04,088/- was added to the total income of the assessee after reducing personal drawing amount of Rs. 75,912/- already shown by the assessee as discussed. 6. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The assessee has filed paper book comprising copies of documents and details filed before the lower authorities. On perusal of the said paper book, it is noticed that at page no. 130 to 138, the assessee has filed copies of balance sheet and copies of bank statement in respect of withdrawal made by assessee, Mr. Umakant Joshi and his wife Smt. Hansha Joshi. As per the documentary evidences, the assessee had shown total personal withdrawal of Rs. 1,19,967/- and his wife had shown total personal withdrawal of Rs. 40,300/-, therefore, the total personal withdrawal for the year under consideration in the case of the assessee comes to (Rs. 1,19,967/- + Rs. 40,300/-) Rs. 1,60,267/-. However, the AO has wrongly quoted the personal withdrawal of the assessee and his family to the amount of Rs. 75,912/- before further estimating such expenses to the amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. Since the total actual personal drawing made by the assessee and his family determined at Rs. 1,60,217/-, therefore, looking to the above facts and material on record, it is reasonable to restrict the addition on account of low personal withdrawal to the amount of Rs. 90,000/- as against Rs. 1,80,000/- estimated by the assessing officer. MA No. 325/Mum/2018 & ITA No. 5794/Mum/2017 Bipin Umakant joshi 4 Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 8. In the result, miscellaneous application of the assessee is allowed and ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.02.2025. Sd/- Sd/- JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG AMARJIT SINGH PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 17.02.2025 Biswajit, Sr. P.S. Copy to: 1. The Appellant: 2. The Respondent: 3. The CIT, 4. The DR //True Copy// [ By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai "