DR. VIKRAM GOYAL, JAIPUR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

ITA 255/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4213 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VARINDER MEHTA DHK
• Keywords: Wrong claim
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES A, JAIPUR JH JES'K LH 'KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 255/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 DR. VIKRAM GOYAL, SAYEED KA GATTA, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR-302015. CUKE VS. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA -@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACZPG 5369 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI VARINDER MEHTA (CIT-DR) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 09/05/2019 MN?KKS 'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10/05/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A)-4, JAIPUR DATED 29/01/2018 FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153B(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED FOR UPHOLDING LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS. 1.50 LACS OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS. 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS DOCTOR BY PROFESSION (CARDIAC ITA 255/JP/2018_ DR. VIKRAM GOYAL VS DCIT 2 SURGEON). A SEARCH U/S 132(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CARRIED OUT ON 08.06.2011 AT THE BUSINESS OF JAIPUR HOSPITAL GROUP ALONGWITH THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS ASSESSEES ASSOCIATION WORKING WITH IT. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED WHEREIN AD HOC ADDITION OF RS. 1.50 LACS WERE MADE BY DISALLOWING VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING THAT THE SAME STOOD UPHELD IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO. AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 4. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHO CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING IN 8 AT PAGE 6 OF THE ORDER THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN EARLIER YEAR FROM AY 2007-08 TO 2011-12 WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). WHILE OBSERVING SO, ID. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT FOR AY 2007-08 TO 2009-10, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS DELETED AND FOR AY 2010-11 AND 2011-12 THE SAME WAS UPHOLD FOR THE REASON THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NO SUPPORTING VOUCHERS WERE AVAILABLE REGARDING THE EXPENSES CLAIMED. 5. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN P&L ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS. 12,69,287/- WHICH WAS STATED TO BE MOST REASONABLE AND IN CONSONANCE WITH NATURE OF PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA 255/JP/2018_ DR. VIKRAM GOYAL VS DCIT 3 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD CIT-DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FOUND FROM THE RECORD THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, OUT OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS. 52.15 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL FEES, THE ASSESSEE HAS JUST CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 10.00 LACS AND BALANCE WERE SHOWN AS INCOME. WE FOUND THAT THE EXPENSES DOUBTED BY THE AO INCLUDES SALARY, TELEPHONE, TRAVELLING WERE PAID IN CASH. REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF SALARY, WE FOUND THAT THE SAME WAS PAID TO DRIVER, ACCOUNTANT AND HELPER AND RENDERING OF SERVICES BY THEM CANNOT BE DOUBTED MERELY BECAUSE THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH. IT IS NOT THE CASE WHERE THE AO HAD ALLEGED THAT THE EXPENSE INCURRED AND CLAIMED ARE FOR NON-PROFESSIONAL PURPOSES. THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1.50 LAC AS MADE WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN NOT A SINGLE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT / EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH INDICATING ANY FICTITIOUS OR REASONABLE EXPENSE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY EVIDENCE OF WRONG CLAIM OR UNREASONABLE CLAIM WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD DURING THE EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED AND PRODUCED. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS JUST CLAIMED 20% OF THE RECEIPTS AS EXPENSES AND BALANCE WAS SHOWN AS NET INCOME, THE AD HOC ITA 255/JP/2018_ DR. VIKRAM GOYAL VS DCIT 4 DISALLOWANCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. TO SAFEGUARD THE LEAKAGE OF REVENUE, IF ANY, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO DISALLOW 10% OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON PETROL, CONVEYANCE AND TELEPHONE. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED PETROL EXPENSES OF RS. 54,835/- AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES OF RS. 28,834/-, 10% OF THE SAME WORKS OUT TO BE RS. 5,483/- AND RS.2,883/- RESPECTIVELY. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH MAY, 2019. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO JES'K LH 'KEKZ (VIJAY PAL RAO) (RAMESH C SHARMA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 10 TH MAY, 2019 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- DR. VIKRAM GOYAL, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 255/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR