M/s. Maruti Developers, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1462/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85823 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MK SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH AHMEDABAD , LH LHLH LH BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI N. S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. NO. 1462/AHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08) M/S. MARUTI DEVELOPERS 404, TWINKLE COMPLEX, NR. SHYAMAL CROSS ROAD, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD - 9(2), AHMEDABAD RESPONDENT PAN: AAAAM7245C /BY APPELLANT : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSION) /BY RESPONDENT : SHRI M. K. SINGH, SR. D.R. !' /DATE OF HEARING : 04.03.2015 #$% !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.03.2015 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD, DATED 23.03.2011 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S. ITA NO. 1462/AHD/11 A.Y. 2007-08 [M/S. MARUTI DEVELOPERS VS. ITO] PAGE 2 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) - XV, HAD GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE FINDING OF TH E INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 9(2), AHMEDABAD, THAT RS. 87,263 APPEARED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS UNSECURED LOANS AS WELL AS SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE THE FACT THAT A SINGLE ENTRY IN COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM CANNOT B E REFLECTED UNDER TWO DIFFERENT HEADS VIZ. UNSECURED LOANS AND SUNDRY CREDITORS. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE GARDENING EXPENSES TO RS. 50,570 INSTEAD OF ALLOWING THE FULL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,50,570. THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL GARDENING EXPENSES, ONLY RS.50,570/- WAS UTILIZED FOR BUSINES S PURPOSES. 2. FIRST ISSUE IS WITH REGARDS TO ADDITION OF RS.87 ,263/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT RS. 87,263 APPEARED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS UNSECURED LOAN FRO M SHRI B. R. SHAH AND IN SUNDRY CREDITORS ALSO THE SAME AMOUN T APPEARED WHICH ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE WAS INADVERTEN TLY WRONGLY CLASSIFIED AS SUNDRY CREDITORS SHRI B. R. S HAH BEING PROPRIETOR OF AVI ENTERPRISES AND THINKING AVI ENTE RPRISE TO BE A SUPPLIER THIS AMOUNT THOUGH ACTUALLY BEING AN UNS ECURED LOAN ONLY GOT CLASSIFIED IN SUNDRY CREDITORS AS WEL L. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION, WHICH WAS UPHELD BY CIT(A). 2.1 SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF AS SESSEE BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION. LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THROUGH WRITTEN SUBMISSION SUBMITTED THAT ITA NO. 1462/AHD/11 A.Y. 2007-08 [M/S. MARUTI DEVELOPERS VS. ITO] PAGE 3 CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING IN PROPER PERSPECT IVE THE FACT THAT A SINGLE ENTRY MADE IN COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM CAN NOT BE REFLECTED UNDER TWO DIFFERENT HEADS VIZ. UNSECURED LOANS AND SUNDRY CREDITORS. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION ON THE ISS UE BE DELETED. ON OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 2.2 AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATER IAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT RS. 87,263 APPEARED IN THE BAL ANCE SHEET AS UNSECURED LOAN FROM SHRI B. R. SHAH AND IN SUNDR Y CREDITORS AS WELL THE SAME AMOUNT APPEARED. ACCORD ING TO ASSESSEE, SAME WAS INADVERTENTLY WRONGLY CLASSIFIED AS SUNDRY CREDITORS SHRI B. R. SHAH BEING PROPRIETOR OF AVI E NTERPRISES AND THINKING AVI ENTERPRISE TO BE A SUPPLIER THIS A MOUNT THOUGH ACTUALLY BEING AN UNSECURED LOAN ONLY GOT CL ASSIFIED IN SUNDRY CREDITORS AS WELL. IN VIEW OF THIS CIT(A) W AS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.87,263/-, WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED TWICE ONCE IN UNSECURED LOAN AND OTHER TIME IN SUNDRY CREDITOR. THIS REASONED FINDING OF CIT(A) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FR OM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 3. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARDS TO DISALLOWANCE OF GA RDENING EXPENSES OF RS.1,50,570/-. THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE AS PER ON PARA 7 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. MATTER WAS CARR IED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHEREIN WRITTEN SUBM ISSION WAS FILED AND HAVING GONE THROUGH THE SAME, CIT(A) OBSE RVED THAT ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, IT WAS REQUIRED TO INCUR EXP ENSES FOR ITS ITA NO. 1462/AHD/11 A.Y. 2007-08 [M/S. MARUTI DEVELOPERS VS. ITO] PAGE 4 SITE OFFICES BUT ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT ASSE SSEE ENTERED INTO CONTRACTS WITH INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS AND GARDENIN G EXPENSES HAD TO BE BORNE BY THEM, WHICH WAS NOT FOU ND CONVINCING BY HER. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUS TICE, SHE RESTRICTED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,50,570/-. 4. THIS REASONED FINDING OF CIT(A) NEEDS NO INTERFE RENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) (SHAILENDR A KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R AHMEDABAD: DATED 13/03/2015 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA & & & & ' ' ' ' ('% ('% ('% ('% / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. +, / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. // 0 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 0- / CIT (A) 5. '45 , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 589 :; / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / & ,