R. Ravi (HUF), Madanpalle, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-1, Madanapalle

ITA 1331/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1330 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMISHA S GUPT
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI SESHAGIRI RAO

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1331/HYD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 04-05) M/S. R.RAVI(HUF), MADANAPALLE (PAN AAGHR 2421 E) V/S INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADANAPALLE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAVI SESHAGIRI RAO RESPONDENT BY : MS. AMISHA S.GUPT DATE OF HEARING 17.01.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22.02.2013 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) GUNTUR DATE D 27.9.2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. THE FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,77,830 OUT OF THE EX PENDITURE BY WAY OF BROKERAGE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. ASSESSEE CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,44,570 TOWA RDS BROKERAGE. ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED RS.3.55,66 AND ALLOWED ONLY 2% OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION TOWARDS BROKERAGE. AGAIN ST THIS, ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW BROK ERAGE AT 5% INSTEAD OF 2%. STILL AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. ITA NO.1331/HYD/11 M/S. R.RAVI(HUF), MADANAPALLE 2 4. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE ASSESSEES LINE OF BUSINESS, BROKERAGE IS GENER ALLY PAYABLE AT 2%. IN SPITE OF THIS, THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED 5% OF THE SAL E CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS MORE THAN REASONABLE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). IT IS ACC ORDINGLY CONFIRMED, AND THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS REJECTE D. 5. THE NEXT EFFECTIVE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IN TH IS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,54,420 TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,5 44,420 TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAUSED VERIFICATION TOWARDS GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE THOROUGH INSPECTOR. THE INSPECTOR REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH DEVELOPMENT ON THE LANDS IN THE GIVEN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING O FFICER DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES, AND THE SAID DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 6. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. EVEN BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL REGAR DING THE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROPERTY AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. BEING SO, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SAME AND REJ ECT THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. 7. THE NEXT GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.5,11,695 ON ACCOUNT OF STAMP DUTY AND REGIST RATION CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THESE EXPENSES TOWARDS REGISTRATIO N OF SALE DEEDS, BY STATING THAT THERE WAS A CONDITION IN THE SALE DEE D STATING THAT THE EXPENSES BY WAY OF STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION FEES SHALL BE BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE SALE ITA NO.1331/HYD/11 M/S. R.RAVI(HUF), MADANAPALLE 3 DEED, FOUND THAT THERE IS NO SUCH CONDITION, WARRAN TING THE ASSESSEE TO INCUR THE EXPENDITURE RELATING TO STAMP DUTY AND RE GISTRATION CHARGES, AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E. ON APPEAL, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE, UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 8. WE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD. EVEN BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL TO INDICATE THAT THE STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES WERE TO BE BORNE BY THE ASSESS EE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, ON THIS ISSUE ALSO, WE FIND NO INFIR MITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY CONFI RMED AND THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22.02.2013 SD/ - (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN ) SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DT/- 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2013 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. R.RAVI(HUF), (MADANAPALLE) C/O. SHRI S.RAMA RAO, FLAT NO.102, SHIRYA'S ELEGANCE, NO.3-6-643, STREET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500029 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, MADANAPALLE. 3. 4. 5. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) GUNTUR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TIRUPATI THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT HYDERABAD B.V.S.