Munshi Ram Gulati , Kanpur Dehat V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Kanpur

ITA 170/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3220 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Wrong claim
• Section: 80C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC : LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 170 /LKW/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR:0 7 - 0 8 SHRI MUNSHI RAM GULATI, VS. DY. C.I.T., PUKHRAYAN, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, KANPUR DEHAT. KANPUR. PAN:AAQPG9699F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO. 171 /LKW/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR:0 7 - 0 8 SHRI KISHAN LAL GULATI, VS. DY. C.I.T., PUKHRAYAN, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, KANPUR DEHAT. KANPUR. PAN:AHWPG2597B (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) I.T.A. NO. 172 /LKW/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR:0 7 - 0 8 SHRI GULSHAN KUMAR GULATI, VS. DY. C.I.T., PUKHRAYAN, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, KANPUR DEHAT. KANPUR. PAN:AAQPG9697M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO. 17 3 /LKW/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR:0 7 - 0 8 SHRI SANJAY KUMAR GULATI, VS. DY. C.I.T., PUKHRAYAN, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, KANPUR DEHAT. KANPUR. PAN:AAXPK3661L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO. 174 /LKW/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR:0 7 - 0 8 SHRI ASHOK KUMAR GULATI, VS. DY. C.I.T., PUKHRAYAN, KANPUR DEHAT. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, KANPUR. PAN:ACNPK5351K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) 2 APPELLANT BY : SHRI ABHINAV MEHROTRA , ADVOCATE RESPONDENT B Y : SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 13 /0 6 /2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/06/2013 ORDER THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A). MOST OF THE GROUNDS IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON EXCEPT THE DIFFERENCE IN QUANTUM, THEREFORE, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. THE FIRST GROUND IN ALL THESE APPEALS RELATES TO THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME. SINCE THE FACTS IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, EXCEPT THE DIFFERENCE IN QUANTUM, FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, I REFER THE FACTS IN I.T.A. NO.170/LKW /2013 IN THE CASE OF SHRI MUNSHI RAM GULATI. IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,96,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE ACTUAL SOURCE AND THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED. W HEN THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE CORRESPONDING EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF ` 2,20,000/ - RESULTING INTO ADDITION OF ` 24,000/ - AGAINST WHICH AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION MADE O N ACCOUNT OF ENHANCEMENT TO ` 12,000/ - . 3. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME WITHOUT ANY BASIS, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THIS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ENHANCED THE SAME BY MAKING HIS OWN ESTIMATION WITHOUT ANY BASIS. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO BRING ANYTHING ON RECORD FOR ENHANCING THE INCOME 3 SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, I FIND NO JUSTIFICATION THEREIN. MOREOVER, THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO REDUCED THE SAME BUT HE HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY REASON FOR REDUCING THE ENHANCED INCOME. FINDING NO MERIT IN THIS EN HANCEMENT, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DELETE THE ADDITION IN THIS REGARD. 5. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION IN OTHER CASES ALSO IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION BY ENHANCING THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE REFORE, THE ADDITION MADE IN OTHER APPEALS ON THIS ISSUE, IS ALSO HEREBY DELETED. 6. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATING THE HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. IN THIS REGARD ALSO I PREFER TO CONSIDER THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN I.T.A. NO.170/LKW/2013 OF SHRI MUNSHI RAM GULATI. 7. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE DRAWINGS OF ` 30,000/ - DURING THE WHOLE YEAR, WHICH WERE CONSIDERED TO BE AT LOW BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE ACCORDINGLY ES TIMATED THE HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS AT ` 72,000/ - @ ` 6,000/ - PER MONTH RESULTING INTO ADDITION OF ` 4 2,000/ - INTO TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT DID NOT FIND ANY FAVOUR. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, NO EVIDENCE IS PLACED ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE H AVE ALSO MADE SOME DRAWINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS. IN ANY CASE, ` 30,000/ - SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE REASONABLE AMOUNT FOR THE WHOLE YEAR IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES. THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY ESTIMATED ` 7 2 ,000/ - PER YEAR CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE EXCESSIVE. IN VIEW OF PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE COST OF LIVING, I FIND NO MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES. THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD IS CONFIRMED . 9. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION IN OTHER APPEALS ALSO IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE DRAWINGS AT ` 30,000/ - PER YEAR WHICH WAS ESTIMATED TO ` 72,000/ - PER 4 YEAR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED ABOVE, I FIND NO MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. 10. GROUND NO. 3 RAISED IN I.T.A. NO.170, 171, 172 AND 174 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON SAVINGS ACCOUNT. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF INTER EST EARNED ON SAVINGS ACCOUNT AS IT WAS NOT INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS GROSS TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH HIM. 11. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BUT COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THIS INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON SAVING ACCOUNT WAS EVER INCLUDED IN THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. I, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF THE APPEALS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. 12. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION IN OTHER APPEALS ALSO IN WHICH THE INTEREST INCOME WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FOLLOWING THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS, I CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. 13. IN I.T.A. NO.173/LKW/2013, THE GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF ` 20,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ADOPTING HIGHER FIGURE OF INCOME. 14. THE FACTS, BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD, ARE THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED THE FIGURE OF ` 2,00,000/ - AGAINST THE OTHER INCOME AS DISCUSSED ABOVE WHEREAS THE OTHER INCOME WAS ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT ` 1,80,000/ - AGAINST ` 1,42,000/ - SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE RESULTING IN TO ADDITION OF ` 38,000/ - WHICH WAS LATER ON REDUCED BY THE CIT(A) TO ` 20,000/ - . ACCORDINGLY, THE ENHANCED INCOME, AFTER THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WAS REDUCED TO ` 1,62,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THIS DEFECT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT THE CIT(A) DID N OT APPRECIATE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5 15. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COMPUTATION PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THAT IN THE COMPUTATION THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED THE FIGURE OF ` 2,00,000/ - AGAINST A COLUMN OTHER INCOME, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, BUT WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE IN THE ORDER HE HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT ` 1,80,000/ - AGAINST ` 1,42,000/ - SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE ADOPTED THE FIGURE OF ` 1,80,000/ - AGAINST A COLUMN OTHER INCOME, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IN PLACE OF ` 2,00,000/ - . 16. THE LEARNED D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, DID NOT DISPUTE THIS FACTUAL ASPECT. 17. I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY ADOPTED THE FIGURE OF ` 2,00,000/ - AGAINST THE ESTIMATED INCOME AT ` 1,80,000/ - . NOW CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THIS ENHANCED INCOME WAS FURTHER REDUCED T O ` 1,62,000/ - , THEREFORE, IN CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE ADOPTED THE FIGURE OF ` 1,62,000/ - IN PLACE OF ` 2,00,000/ - WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN FOREGOING PARAS I HAVE DELETE D THE ADDITION MADE UNDER THIS HEAD AS INCOME WAS ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY BASIS, THEREFORE, THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT ` 1,42,000/ - IS TO BE ADO PTED AGAINST THE COLUMN OTHER INCOME, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, I DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER IN TERMS INDICATED ABOVE AND ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 18. GROUND NO. 4 IN I.T.A. NO.173/LKW/2013 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S 80C OF THE ACT AT ` 16,272/ - AND ALSO WITH REGARD TO THE DIRECTION TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR MAKING WRONG CLAIM U/S 80C OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A CLAIM U/S 80 C OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT OF LIC PREMIUM OF ` 16,272/ - BUT HE COULD NOT FILE THE EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM AGAINST WHICH AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE LIC 6 PREMIUM RECEIPT RELEVANT TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2005 - 2006 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 2007. SINCE THIS PREMIUM RECEIPT DOES NOT RELATE TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE CIT(A) CONF IRMED THE DISALLOWANCE AND ALSO DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR MAKING BOGUS CLAIM U/S 80C OF THE ACT. 19. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BUT COULD NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENT OF LIC PREMIUM. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80C OF THE ACT CANNOT BE ALLOWED. I, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THIS GROUND ALSO. SO FAR AS INITIATION OF PENALTY PROC EEDINGS IS CONCERNED, THE CIT(A) IS COMPETENT TO PASS SUCH DIRECTION AND THE MERIT OF THE PENALTY CAN ONLY BE EXAMINED WHENEVER THE ASSESSEE COMES IN APPEAL AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/06/2013) SD/. ( S UNIL KUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28/06/2013 *CL SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO THE: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT (A) 4. CIT 5. DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR