The ITO, Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad V. Shri Ganesh Chhababhai Valabhai Patel Family Trust, Ahmedabad

ITA 2034/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94609 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 28-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOMOGYAN

Judgement Text

, B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2034/AHD/2013 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-2009 ITO, WARD-9(2) AMBAWADI AHMEDABAD. VS SHRI GANESH CHHABABHAI VALABHAI PATEL FAMILY TRUST 2 ND FLOOR, MUNICIPAL BUILDING PATHARKUVA, RELIEF ROAD AHMEDABAD. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI SOMOGYAN, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DHIREN SHAH ! / DATE OF HEARING : 28/09/2015 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16/10/2015 %& / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE LD.CIT(A)-I, AHMEDABAD DATED 29.5.2013 PASSED FOR T HE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-2009. 2. SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD .CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,40,000/- WHICH WA S ADDED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF ADVOCATE-FEE. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.3.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT A LOS S OF RS.31,92,961/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND ITA NO.2034/AHD/2013 2 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 30.3.2010 , WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON PERUSAL OF THE ACCOUNTS, IT REVEALED TO THE A O THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ADVOCATE-FEE TO THE TUNE OF RS .4,01,000/- AND RS.12,30,000/- RESPECTIVELY. THE AO HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT NECESSARY DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AND CLAIM OF ADVOCATE-FEE IN GANESH HOUSING CORPORATION. SIMILARLY, IT HAS SUBMITTED LEDGER ACCOUNT AND CLAI MED ADVOCATE-FEE OF RS.12,30,000/- IN GCVFT. THE LD.AO WAS NOT SATISF IED WITH THE QUALITY OF EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM. 5. ON APPEAL, THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMIS SIONS OF THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. THE A.R. OF TH E APPELLANT IN THE SUBMISSIONS FILED HAD ENCLOSED THE BILLS OF THE ADV OCATES. THESE WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION AND REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 30.03.2 013 SUBMITTED A REPORT, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REMAIN ED COMPLETELY SILENT REGARDING THE LEGAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 16,40,000/-. THE APPELLANT HAD EN CLOSED EVIDENCES OF PAYMENT OF ADVOCATE BILLS TOTALLING TO RS. 16,40,000/- WHICH HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AT ALL. THE DETAILS SHOW THAT A SUM OF RS.3 0,000/-WAS PAID TO SHRI SAURABH SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE WHO HAS A PPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE ITAT AND A SUM O F RS.4,00,000/- HAS BEEN PAID TO VARIOUS ADVOCATES IN CLUDING SHRI A.M. DIVECHA, SHRI APURVA S. VAKIL, SHRI DEVEN PARI KH, SHRI RAISHA SHAIKH AND SHRI R.K. SHAH AND SUM OF RS. 12,00,000/ - HAS BEEN PAID TO SHRI DHIREN SHAH & CO. BILLS FOR THE SAME W ERE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. A COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF T HE APPELLANT WAS ALSO FURNISHED TO SHOW THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNTS W ERE PAID BY THE APPELLANT TO THE PERSONS CONCERNED IN VIEW OF T HE ABOVE, THE EXPENSES ON ADVOCATE FEES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.16,40 ,000/- IS ALLOWABLE. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS HENCE DE LETED. ITA NO.2034/AHD/2013 3 6. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES, WE H AVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) H AS GONE THROUGH THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND THEREAFTER, ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT FEES HAVE BEEN PAID TO VARIOUS ADVO CATES TO CONDUCT LITIGATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE AO TO DOUBT SUCH TYPE OF EXPENDIT URE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, AND WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16 TH OCTOBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER