Shri Omkareshwar Mahadev, Baroda V. The ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 245/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0979 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P MEENA
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.245/AHD/2016 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2013-2014 SHRI OMKARSHWAR MAHADEV HARNI BARODA 390 022. PAN : AAITS 8774 K VS ACIT, CPC BANGALORE. ./ ITA.NO.246/AHD/2016 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2013-2014 SHRI MOTNATH MAHADEV HARNI BARODA 390 022. PAN : AAITS 8771 N VS ACIT, CPC BANGALORE. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TEJ SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. MEENA, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 20/07/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01/08/2016 $%/ O R D E R PRESENT TWO APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEES AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF EVEN DATED I.E. 1.10.2015 PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A)-5, VADODARA ON RESPECTIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2013-14. 2. BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED THEIR RETURN OF IN COME ON 25.12.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,824 (IN THE CASE OF SHRI OMKARESHWAR MAHADEV) AND RS.2,229/- (IN THE CASE OF SHRI MOTNAT H MAHADEV). THEIR RETURNS HAVE BEEN PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) ON 1.12.2014. A SUM OF RS.29,452/- WAS CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSES SEE (SHRI OMKARESHWAR ITA NO.245 AND 246/AHD/2016 2 MAHADEV) AND A SUM OF RS.1,15,000/- WAS CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE BY SHRI MOTNATH MAHADEV). THE LD.AO HAS DISALLOWED THESE EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF PRIMA FACIE ADJUSTMENT. HE ACCORDINGLY DETERMINED THE INCOME AT RS.31,276/- AND RS.1,17,230/- IN THE RESPECTIVE CAS ES. THE ASSESSEES HAVE CHALLENGED THESE ADJUSTMENTS IN APPEALS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). HOWEVER, THEIR APPEALS DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THEM. 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE VERY OUT SET, CONTENDED THAT DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN TH E AMBIT OF PRIMA FACIE ADJUSTMENTS. 4. I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GON E THROUGH THE RECORD. POWER TO MAKE PRIMA FACIE ADJUSTMENT CAN ONLY BE EXERCISED ON THE POINT WHERE NO EXPLANATION WAS REQUIRED AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AO CANNOT MAKE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE WITHOUT GIV ING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IF HE HAD ANY RESERVATION ABOUT THE NON-AVAILABILITY OF REGISTRATION TO BOTH THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 12A A OF THE INCOME TAX, HE SHOULD HAVE SELECTED THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSME NT, AND ONLY THEREAFTER, THE EXPENSES COULD BE DISALLOWED. THE LD.AO HAS EXCEED ED HIS JURISDICTION BY MAKING ADDITION OF THE EXPENSES. I ALLOW BOTH THE APPEALS AND DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 ST AUGUST, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 01/08/2016