SHRI SHANKAR LAL JAISWAL, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 230/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 23023114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K MEENA

Judgement Text

ITA 230-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH : SMC JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.K.GUPTA) ITA NO.230/JP/2012 ASSTT. YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI SHANKAR LAL JAISWAL, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFF ICER, JAIPUR. WARD-4(1), JAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.K.MEENA DATE OF HEARING : 26.06.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.06.2012 ORDER DATE OF ORDER : 28.06.2012 PER R.K.GUPTA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR2007-08. 2. IN FIRST GROUND THE ASSESSEE IS OBJECTING CONFIR MING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ESTIMATED EXPENSES AT RS.30,000/-. 3. OUT OF TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS.1,40,777/- SHOWN ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLING, TELEPHONE, CONVEYANCE AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES TH E AO DISALLOWED 30,000/- AS LUM-SUM BASIS. THE CIT(A) CONFIRM THE SAME. LD.D/R HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF AO & CIT(A). I FO UND THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30,000/- ON LUM-SUM BASIS IS ON HIRE SIDE. DISAL LOWANCE COMES ABOUT 20% OF THE TOTAL - 2 - EXPENSES CLAIM. TRAVELLING & CONVEYANCE EXPENSES SH OULD NOT HAVE BEEN DOUBTED AS THEY WERE MADE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE BY KEEPING COMPLETE DETAILS. REGARDING TELEPHONE EXPENSES THERE MAY BE SOME PERSONAL USSER INVOLVED. LIKEWISE IN MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ALSO THERE CAN BE SOME PERSONAL EXPENSES. KEEPING IN MIND ALL THESE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES. I FEEL THAT IF AN ADDITION OF RS.7,5 00/- IS MADE THAT WILL MEET THE END OF JUSTICE. ACCORDING I DELETE THE REMAINING ADDITION OF RS.22,500/-. 5. NEXT ISSUE IS AGAINST SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.2 LAC IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS NEWLY STARTED BUSINESS. 6. THE AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED CAPI TAL OF RS. 2 LAC IN CASH ON 01.04.2006 IN HIS PROPRIETARY BUSINESS. IT WAS EXPL AINED THAT ASSESSEE WAS WORKING AS A COMMISSION AGENT AND HE IS 60 YEARS OF AGE, THEREFO RE, SAVING OF RS. 2 LAC WAS NOT UNREASONABLE. HOWEVER AO WAS NOT SATISFIED THEREFOR E HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 2 LAC U/S 68. THE CIT(A) CONFIRM THE ACTION OF AO. THE LD .D/R HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE AO & CIT(A). 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF AO & CIT(A. I FOU ND THAT ASSESSEE DESERVED TO SUCCEED IN THIS GROUND IN PART. IT IS SEEN THAT IT WAS EXPLAIN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A 60 YEARS OLD AND WAS DOING BUSINESS OF COMMISSION AGENT IN H OSIERY LINE. THEREFORE IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT NO SAVING COULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY HIM. TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT SOME CASH WAS NOT SAVED IN SO MANY YEASRS OF PAST. THOUGH ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT LEAD ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISHED THAT HE WAS HAVING CASH OF RS.2 LAC AS ASSESSEE NEVER FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND NEITHER HAS MAINTAINED ANY STATEMENT OF AFFAIR. HOWEVER KEEPING IN MIND ALL - 3 - THE ABOVE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES, I FEEL THAT IF A C ASH AMOUNT OF RS.1,50,000/- IS HELD AS AVAILABLE OUT OF PAST SAVINGS SO MANY YEARS THEN IT WILL MEET THE END OF JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY I DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,50,000/- AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.50,000/- IS SUSTAINED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. 9. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28. 06.2012. SD/- (R.K.GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR, *BASANT* COPY FORWARDED TO :- SHRI SHANKAR LAL JAISWAL, JAIUR. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), JAIPUR. THE CIT(A) THE CIT THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITA NO.230/JP/12) BY ORDER AR, ITAT, JAIPUR.