ANIL KUMAR GOYAL, Jaipur V. ITO, Kishangarh

ITA 247/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 24723114 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHLESH KATARIA
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES SMC, JAIPUR JH IH-DS-CALY] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 247/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ANIL KUMAR GOYAL, MAHESH NAGAR, AJMER ROAD, MADANGANJ, KISANGARH. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MADANGANJ, KISHANGARH. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AATPG 8056 F VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHLESH KATARIA (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 05/11/2015 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/11/2015 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/12/2014 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A), AJMER FOR A.Y. 2 005-06 BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. THE ORDER U/S 143(3)/148 IS BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, HENCE, THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE QUASHED. ITA 247/JP/2015_ ANIL KUMAR GOYAL VS ITO 2 2. RS. 145079/-: THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL A S ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 145079/- BY TREATING THE CASH DEPOSITS AS TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. RS. 15796/-: THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS O N THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN SUSTAINING OF DISALLOWANCE OF SUM OF RS. 15796/- OUT OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE, MARUTI HIRE PURCHASE CHARGES AND DEPRECIATION OF CAR. 2. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL RELATE TO ILLEGALITY TO THE PROCEEDING INITIATED U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SH ORT THE ACT). AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, CONSIDERED THE SAME INCLUDING ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW, I NOT ED THAT THE PROCEEDING HAS BEEN INITIATED ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS DEPOSITED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 14,50,790/- IN IDBI ACCOUNT. THIS IS A FACT THAT THIS BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BEL IEVE THAT THE SAID RECEIPT IS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. I, THEREFORE, FOUND THAT THE PROCEEDING INITIATED ARE VALID. I, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISS THE GROUND NO. 1. 3. THE GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL RELATE TO SUSTENAN CE OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,45,079/-. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, CONSIDERED THE SAME INCLUDING ORDERS OF THE TAX AUT HORITIES BELOW, I FOUND THAT THIS IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED A CASH OF RS. ITA 247/JP/2015_ ANIL KUMAR GOYAL VS ITO 3 14,50,790/- IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WITH IDBI AND SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT DISCLOSE D TO THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT AND DECISION OF HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT DATED 14/10/2011 IN THE CASE OF ANITA CHOUDHARY, KISHANG ARH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FAIR ENOUGH TO APPLY G.P. RATE @ 10% AND MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 1,45,079/-. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THE CASH AND THE BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT DISCLOSED, IN MY OPINION, ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT BUT SINCE THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL, THEREFORE, I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER O F THE LD CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,45,079/- ACCORDINGL Y, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. 4. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL RELATE TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15,796/- OUT OF THE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE AND MARUTI HIRE CHARG ES. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, CONSIDERED T HE SAME INCLUDING ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW, I NOTED THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 20% OF THE MARUTI HIRE CHARGES AND DEPRECIATION AS WELL AS PETROL MAINTENANCE OF RS. 78,982/- INCURRED BY THE ASSESSE E. PERSONAL USE OF THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DENIED. THE PROVISION OF SECTION 38(2 ), THEREFORE, WERE CLEARLY APPLICABLE, IN MY OPINION, THE DISALLOWANCE @ 20% IS ON A HIGHER ITA 247/JP/2015_ ANIL KUMAR GOYAL VS ITO 4 SIDE. I, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% OF THESE EXPENSES. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL I S PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/11/2015. SD/- IH-DS-CALY (P.K. BANSAL) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 06 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI ANIL KUMAR GOYAL, KISANGARH. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, KISANGARH. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 247/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR