Sh. Mukul Rishi, Jalandhar V. The Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

ITA 250/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0691 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A N MISRA
• Assessee Lawyers: K BHAGAT

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR (CAMP AT JA LANDHAR ) BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.250(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SH. MUKUL RISHI 18-DEEN DAYAL UPADHYA NAGAR JALANDHAR. PAN: AKDPR2788P VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-IV(2) JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH.K. BHAGAT (CA) RESPONDENT BY: SH. A.N.MISRA (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 20.06. 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21.06.2016 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LEARNED CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED 07.04.2016 FOR ASST. YEAR: 2010-11. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THE A CTION OF LEARNED CIT(A), BY WHICH HE HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN LIVING EXPENSES AMOUN TING TO RS.1,60,000/-. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS NOTED IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER IN A FIRM AND IS DER IVING INCOME FROM INTEREST AND SHARE IN FIRMS INCOME. DURING THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD LE FT INDIA ON 20.04.2009 FOR UK AND ON 17.08.2009 & 08.10.2009, HE HAD LEFT INDIA FOR AUSTRALIA. ITA NO.25 0(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD WI THDRAWN THE TICKET AMOUNTS FROM THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM WHEREAS HIS LIVI NG EXPENSES DURING HIS STAY AT U.K AND AUSTRALIA WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE LIVING EXPENSES BEING BORNE BY HIS UNCLE AND MA DE ADDITION OF RS.1,60,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED EXPENDITURE OUT OF HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME EARNED ON FOREIGN TOURS. BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE REITERATED HIS ARGUMENTS AND SUBMITTED THA T HIS UNCLE MR. RAJESH SHARMA HAD CONFIRMED THAT THE ASSESSEE STAYE D WITH HIM AND HIS LIVING EXPENSES IN U.K WERE BORN BY HIM. HOWEVER, T HE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE AND UPHEL D THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT ASS ESEE WAS A STUDENT AND DID NOT EARN ANYTHING ON IN FOREIGN COUNTRY. TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD ACCEPTED PART CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY HIS UNCLE M R. RAJESH SHARMA REGARDING HIS TRAVELLING EXPENSE BUT IGNORED THE OT HER PART REGARDING LIVING EXPENSES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE VISITED AUSTRALIA ONLY ON 17.08.2009 AND IT WAS A WRONG FINDING THAT ASSES SEE VISITED AUSTRALIA ON 08.10.2009 WHEREAS ON 08.10.2009 HE HAD VISITED ENGLAND ONLY. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS A BACHELOR AND A STUDEN T AND WAS NOT HAVING ANY SOURCE OF INCOME ABROAD AND DID NOT INCU R ANY LIVING EXPENSE ITA NO.25 0(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 3 AS THE SAME WAS BORNE BY HIS UNCLE AND IN THIS RESP ECT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO (PB PAGE-3) WHERE A COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY HIS UNCLE WAS PLACED. 6. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON T HE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT DETAILED SU BMISSIONS WERE MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED CIT(A), AN D CERTIFICATE FROM MR. RAJESH SHARMA (UNCLE OF THE ASSESSEE) CERTIFYING TH EREIN THAT HE HAD BORNE THE LIVING EXPENSES OF ASSESSEE AT U.K WAS NO T ACCEPTED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DID NOT FI ND ANYTHING WRONG IN THE CERTIFICATE AND NEITHER ANY OTHER EVIDENCE WAS DEMANDED FROM THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, NOT ACCEPTING THE EVIDENCE SUB MITTED BY ASSESSEE WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY CONTRADICTION IN THE EVIDE NCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE FURTHER FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD VISITED AUSTRALIA ONLY ONCE I.E., ON 17.08.2009 AND NOT ON 08.10.2009. 8. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS MADE ADDITIONS BASE D UPON ASSUMPTIONS ONLY AND NO EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTME NT REGARDING INCURRING OF EXPENSES ABROAD. ON THE OTHER HAND THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED CERTIFICATE FROM HIS UNCLE MR. RAJESH SHARMA WHEREI N HE HAD CERTIFIED THAT HE HAD INCURRED THE LIVING EXPENSES OF THE ASS ESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ITA NO.25 0(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 4 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A ) IS REVERSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 21.06.2016. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER