Upal Kanti Das, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-7(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 177/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4413 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K J RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH RAICHURA
• Keywords: Business expenditure
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 177/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI UPAL KANTI DAS, HYDERABAD. PAN AACPU1872G VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(3), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SURESH RAICHURA (AR) REVENUE BY : SHRI K.J. RAO (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 23-11-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 -11-2016 ORDER PER P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M.: THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A), DATED 10- 12-2015, AT THE OUTSET, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY ONE DAY. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATI ON OF DELAY AND BEING SATISFIED WITH THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE SAID PETITI ON, THE DELAY IS CONDONED. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E, AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS IN BATTERY CHARGING AND MANUFACTURING, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 04-01-2007 ADMITTING A TOTA L INCOME OF RS. 1,60,000/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 23-04-2010, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH, THE A SSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 23-09-2010, REQUESTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE RETURN FILED ON 04-01-2007 AS A RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE. THE ITA NO.177/HYD/2016 SHRI UPAL KANTI DAS, HYDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 3 ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED THE REQUIRED DETAILS. ON VER IFICATION OF DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT NO PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINTAINED AND ACCORDIN GLY ADMITTED A NET INCOME OF RS. 3,86,350/- AND HAS FURTHER CLAIMED A SUM OF RS. 1,93,670/- FROM THE NET INCOME DECLARED. HE ALSO OBSERVED THA T THESE EXPENDITURE ARE IN RELATION TO A CAR AND SINCE ASSESSEE DID NO T FILE ANY MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE BASIS FOR THE RETURNED INCOME OF R S.3,86,350/-, AND ALSO IN SUPPORT OF FURTHER EXPENSES OF RS. 1,93,670/-, T HE AO DISALLOWED THE SAME AND THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANC E. THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY HIM BEFORE THE AO AND ALSO ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. I N REPLY TO A QUERY RAISED BY US AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE HAS ARRIVED AT THE NET INCOME OF RS. 3,86,350/-, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REDU CED ONLY THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES FROM THE RECEIPTS TO ARRIVE AT THE NET INCOME AND THE FURTHER EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN RELATION TO A CAR PURCHASED AND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO INTEREST ON THE LOAN TAKEN FOR PURCHASE OF THE CAR AND ALSO DEPRECIA TION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CAR. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO PRESENT IN THE C OURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND ON A QUERY RAISED BY US AS TO WHETHER T HE CAR WAS USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS, HE FAIRLY ADMI TTED THAT THE CAR WAS NOT USED FOR HIS BUSINESS PURPOSES BUT WAS USED FOR HIS PERSONAL PURPOSES ONLY. 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW: ITA NO.177/HYD/2016 SHRI UPAL KANTI DAS, HYDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 3 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE FURTHER EXPEN DITURE OF RS. 1,96,670/- WAS ONLY IN RELATION TO THE CAR AND THAT THE CAR WAS MAINTAINED ONLY FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSEE AS ADMIT TED BY THE ASSESSEE PRESENT IN PERSON IN THE COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE SAME IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS). 6. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 SD/- SD/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (P. MAD HAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 KRK COPY TO:- 1) SHRI UPAL KANTI DAS, 3-6-381, FLAT NO. 401, RELIANCE COMPLEX ROAD NO.2, HIMAYAT NAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 0 29. 2) ITO, WARD - 7(3), HYDERABAD. 3) CIT (A) 3, HYDERABAD 4) THE PR.CIT-3, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., H YDERABAD. 6) GUARD FILE