BHAGWANDAS B. MAHTANI, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 19(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1322/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1560 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R V JAIN
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1322/MUM/2010 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R S PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1322/MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2006-07 ) BHAGWANDAS B MAHTANI 401A DADAR MANISH MARKET TULSI PIE ROAD, DADRA (W), MUMBAI 28 THE INCOME TAX OFFI CER WARD 19(2)(1) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN AAEPM9013H ASSESSEE BY: NONE REVENUE BY: SHRI R V JAIN O R D E R PER R S PADVEKAR: IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMP UGNED ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A)-30, MUMBAI DATED 10.12.2009 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2 THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL FOR OUR CONSIDERATI ON IS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 1 LAC ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. 2.1 THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED F OR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. THE AO PASSED THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 51,000/- ONLY. THE AO, BY CONSIDE RING THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAC ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. APART FROM THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL OR FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE SAID ADDITION BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS I N APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO. 1322/MUM/2010 2 3 ON THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT HIS WIFE IS ALSO A TAXPAY ER AND SHE HAS ALSO CONTRIBUTED RS. 51,000/- TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES . THE FAMILY CONSISTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE ONLY. I FAILED TO UND ERSTAND THAT ON WHICH BASIS THE A.O. GAVE THE FINDINGS THAT CONSIDERING THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1 LAC IS TO BE ADDED DUE TO LOW WITHD RAWAL SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUPPOR T SUCH ERRONEOUS FINDINGS. I HAVE NO HESITATION BUT TO DELETE THE AD DITION. I, ACCORDINGLY, DO SO. 4 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2010. SD/- R S PADVEKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED: 4 TH JUNE 2010 RAJ* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR, ITAT, MUMBAI