Shri Alpesh G. Patel, Nadiad V. The ACIT, Kheda Circle, Nadiad

ITA 1243/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9571 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA NO. 1243/AHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11) ALPESH G. PATEL MOLAN ASSOCIATES, 1 ST FLOOR, MANGAL MIRTI COMPLEX, NR. MAHAGUJARAT HOSPITAL, COLLEGE ROAD, NADIAD 387001 APPELLANT VS. THE ACIT, KHEDA CIRCLE, NADIAD RESPONDENT PAN: AHUPP1695F /BY ASSESSEE : SHRI S. N. DIVATIA, A.R. /BY REVENUE : SHRI JAMES KURIAN, SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 03.01.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.01.2017 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ARISES AGAINST THE CIT(A)-II, BARODAS ORDER DATED 29. 10.2014, IN APP EAL NO. CAB/II-225/13- ITA NO. 1243/AHD/2014 (ALPESH G. PATEL VS. ACIT) A.Y. 2010-11 - 2 - 14 IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. ASSESSEES FORMER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND CHALLENGES BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION IN MAKING UNEXPLAINED AGRICULTU RE EXPENSES OF RS.3,11,651/- U/S.69C OF THE ACT. A PERUSAL OF THE CASE FILE INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.14 ,11,362/- OUT OF GROSS AMOUNT OF RS.16,91,862/- THEREBY CLAIMING CORRESPON DING AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES OF RS.2,80,500/- COMING TO 16.57% OF THE A BOVE GROSS FIGURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ENHANCED THIS EXPENDITURE TO THAT @35% COMING TO RS.5,92,151/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD F AILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS EXPLANATION THAT THE SAME DEPENDED ON VARIOUS NATUR AL AND MANMADE FACTORS LIKE CLIMATE, SOIL TYPE, CROP QUALITY AND OUTPUT, M ARKET RATE AND STORAGE FACILITIES ETC. ALL THIS RESULTED IN THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.3,11,651/- IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.01.2013. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMS THE SAME. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. RELEVANT FINDIN G PERUSED. WE REITERATE FIRST OF ALL THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW HAVE DISALLOWED THE IMPUGNED AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES @35% OF THE GROSS AG RICULTURAL INCOME THEREBY ENHANCING ASSESSEES EXPENSES DECLARED @16. 5% (SUPRA). THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PINPOINT ANY SPECIFIC COGENT EVID ENCE IN THE CASE FILE SO AS TO BUTTRESS ITS CASE TO HAVE DERIVED THE IMPUGNED AGRI CULTURAL INCOME AT A NET FIGURE OF 85% OF THE GROSS AMOUNT. EVEN DETAILS OF THE CROPS SOLD OR EVIDENCE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN QUESTION IS NOT FORTHC OMING IN THE CASE FILE. WE THUS FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE CIT(A)S ACTION UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THIS FORMER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. ITA NO. 1243/AHD/2014 (ALPESH G. PATEL VS. ACIT) A.Y. 2010-11 - 3 - 4. WE NOW COME TO ASSESSEES LATTER SUBSTANTIVE GRO UND THAT THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE ERRED IN DISA LLOWING BUSINESS EXPENSES OF RS.6,44,023/-. WE FIRST COME TO ASSESSEES TABU LATION IN PAGE 5 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER AND NOTICE THAT THE ABOVE DISALLOWAN CE FIGURE COMPRISED OF CAR LOAN INTEREST, CAR DEPRECIATION, BANK COMMISSIO N, PETROL EXPENSES, CAR EXPENSES, SALARY & TELEPHONE EXPENSES OF RS.78,702/ -, RS.4,38,257/-, RS.2985/-, RS.6400/-, RS.65,356/-, RS.51,000/- & RS .1323/-; RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING OWNERSHIP OF THE VEHICLES IN QUE STION FOLLOWED BY THEIR UTILIZATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OF SEV EN FIRMS WHEREIN HE IS A PARTNER. HE FURTHER NOTICED THAT THERE WAS NO PROO F BY WAY OF VOUCHERS AND BILLS ETC. REGARDING OTHER CLAIMS OF EXPENDITURE. 5. WE NOW COME TO THE CIT(A)S ORDER WHEREIN HE OBS ERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IN ANY MA NNER AS TO HOW THE ABOVE EXPENSES SHOWN IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ARE INC URRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND EARNING OF THE BUSINESS INCOME IN QUES TION. THIS LEAVES THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. RELEVANT FINDIN GS IN BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ORDERS STAND PERUSED. THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT BEEN ABLE TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE IN THE INSTANT APPEAL SO AS TO SUBSTANTIAT E HIS CLAIM OF HAVING INCURRED ALL HEADS OF THE ABOVE EXPENSES BY WAY OF CAR LOAN INTEREST, DEPRECIATION, BANK COMMISSION, PETROL EXPENSES, CAR EXPENSES, SALARY AND TELEPHONE CHARGES. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THERE IS NOT EVEN A SINGLE PIECE OF PAPER IN THE NATURE OF A SELF-ATTESTED VOUCHER TO F ORTIFY ANY OF THE ABOVE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE MUCH LESS THAN THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIDE NCE OF OWNERSHIP OF THE CORRESPONDING VEHICLES AND THEIR NEXUS WITH ASSESSE ES BUSINESS INCOME. WE ITA NO. 1243/AHD/2014 (ALPESH G. PATEL VS. ACIT) A.Y. 2010-11 - 4 - THUS FIND NO REASON TO AGREE WITH ASSESSEES EXPEND ITURE CLAIM IN QUESTION AMOUNTING TO RS.6,44,023/-. WE THUS CONFIRM THE SA ME. THE ASSESSEE LOSSES IN ITS LATTER SUBSTANTIVE GROUND AS WELL. 7. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 06 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017.] SD/- SD/- ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 06/01/2017 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )*+ ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 45 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0