Ashok Kumar Tandon, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 180/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7935 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JAISWAL
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 180 /DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 ) ASHOK KUMAR TANDON, E - 25, GREEN PARK MAIN, NEW DELHI PAN:AACPT4661N VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 37(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SHAILESH GUPTA, CA RE VENUE BY: SH. K. K. JAISWAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 15/03/ 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12 / 05 /2016 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. THIS IS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT ( A) - XXVIII , NEW DELHI DATED 09.10.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1.) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) XXVIII, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION A SUM OF RS. 4,41,348.00 OUT OF AN ADDITION OF RS. 511348.00 MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS ALLEGED INCOME FROM PERQUISITE NOT HAVING DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT AS PE R FORM NO. 16 ISSUED TO HIM WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE INCOME REFERRED TO HAS BEEN REFLECTED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BY THE APPELLANT AND HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE INCOME FROM PERQUISITE IF TAKEN SHALL RESULT IN TAXING THE SAME INCOME TWICE. 2.) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 70000.00 MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS UNVOUCHED EXPENSES WITHOUT COMPLETELY APPRECIATING THE FAC TS AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS. 3.) THAT IT IS ACCORDINGLY PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2009 - 10 ON 24 TH JULY 2009 DECLARING OF INCOME OF RS. 3092450/ - . THE ASSESSEE IS EMPLOYED WITH ITC LTD. AND HAS OFFERED INCOME OF RS. 2973863/ - UNDER THE HEAD SALARY . HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO FORM NO. 16 ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYER THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SALARY WERE SHOWN AT PAGE 2 OF 3 RS. 3415211/ - AND THE DIFFERENCE HAS ARISEN BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAS RENTED HIS PROPERTY TO ITC LTD. AND THE SAME PROPERTY IS ALLOTTED BY THE EMPLOYER TO THE ASSESSEE AS A RENT FREE FURNISHED ACCOMMODATION. THE PERQUISITE VALUE OF THIS HOUSE OF RS. 441348/ - HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD ' SALARY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 44134 8/ - AS PERQUISITE ON ACCOUNT OF RENT - FREE FURNISHED ACCOMMODATION PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THIS ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT ( A). THEREFORE, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD CIT ( A) IN CONFIRMING THE ABOVE ADDITION. 4. LD AR OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THIS GROUND IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO . 3051/DEL/2010 WHERE GROUND A TO G WERE ADJUDICATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR EARLIER YEARS VIDE ORDER DATED 25.07.2014. LD DR ALSO CONFIRMED THE FACT. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF COORDINATE BENCH IN THAT APPEAL WHERE THE SAME IS CONSIDERED F OR THE EARLIER YEAR WHERE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THE VALUE OF THE PERQUISITE OF THE RENT - FREE FURNISHED HOUSE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE EMPLOYER AND COORDINATE BENCH HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF THE SAME UNDER THE HEAD SALARY. IN VIEW OF THIS, RES PECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF COORDINATE BENCH WHEREIN PARA NO. 12 THE IDENTICAL GROUND OF APPEAL FOR THE EARLIER YEARS HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT PERQUISITE VALUE OF THE RENT FREE FURNISHED ACCOMMODATION SHALL BE CHARGEABLE IN T HE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PERQUISITE, WE ALSO HOLD THAT PERQUISITE VALUE OF RENT FREE FURNISHED ACCOMMODATION PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY HIS EMPLOYER SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS PERQUISITE UNDER THE HEAD SALARY AND THEREFORE DISMISS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL. 5. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD CIT ( A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 70,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNVOUCHED EXPENSES. 6. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT ASSESSEE IS ALSO ENGAGED IN PART TIME CONSULTANCY AND AGAINST T OTAL RECEIPT OF RS. 18,000/ - . HE HAS CLAIMED VARIOUS EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 96060/ - AND DEPRECIATION ON CAR OF RS. 39795/ - . THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 70,000/ - AS NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINTAINED , EXPENSES INCURRED ARE UNVOUCH ED AND ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE OF CAR. BEFORE THE LD CIT ( A) ASSESSEE SUBMITTED WRITTEN SUBMISSION, WHICH WERE REJECTED HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER FILED ANY EVIDENCE OF INCOME OR EXPENSES AND LD CIT ( A) WAS ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT EXISTENCE OF C ONSULTANCY INCOME IS ALSO IN DOUBT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THIS DISALLOWANCE AS PER GROUND NO .2. 7. THE LD AR OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 3051/DEL/2010 WHILE DECIDING GROUND NO (H) DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 20,000/ - CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER WAS UPHELD BY ITAT ALSO. LD DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ABOVE DECISION REFERRED BY LD AR. PAGE 3 OF 3 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERE D THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH IN IT A NO. 3051/DEL/2010 WHILE DECIDING GROUND NO .H HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION RS. 20,000/ - SUSTAINED BY LD CIT ( A) AS THE EXPENSES WERE NOT VOUCHED AND VERIFI ABLE. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE FOR THIS YEAR AND THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH WE CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 70,000/ - SUSTAINED BY THE LD CIT ( A). THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. GROUND NO. 3 AND 4 OF THE APPEAL ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE THEY ARE DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 2 / 05 /2016 . - S D / - - S D / - ( DIVA SINGH ) ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 2 / 05 /2016 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI