ITO, New Delhi V. Shri Vikrant Sinha, Gurgaon

ITA 2594/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 259420114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 10-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DUM KANUNJHA
• Keywords: Salary income
• Section: 69C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH H HH H : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE , VICE , VICE , VICE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI PRASHANT MAHARISHI PRASHANT MAHARISHI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, , , , ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO . .. . 2594/DEL/2012 2594/DEL/2012 2594/DEL/2012 2594/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2008 2008 2008 2008 - -- - 09 0909 09 INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -11(2), 11(2), 11(2), 11(2), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. VS. VS. VS. VS. SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI VIKRANT SINHA, VIKRANT SINHA, VIKRANT SINHA, VIKRANT SINHA, 1100 1100 1100 1100- -- -B, BEVERLY PARK B, BEVERLY PARK B, BEVERLY PARK B, BEVERLY PARK- -- -2, 2,2, 2, MEHRAULI GURGAON ROAD, MEHRAULI GURGAON ROAD, MEHRAULI GURGAON ROAD, MEHRAULI GURGAON ROAD, DLF CITY, PHASE DLF CITY, PHASE DLF CITY, PHASE DLF CITY, PHASE- -- -2, 2,2, 2, GURGAON, GURGAON, GURGAON, GURGAON, HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA 122 002. 122 002. 122 002. 122 002. PAN : AOMPS5466C. PAN : AOMPS5466C. PAN : AOMPS5466C. PAN : AOMPS5466C. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. DUM KANUNJHA, SR.DR. RESPONDENT BY : NONE. DATE OF HEARING : 10.09.2015 10.09.2015 10.09.2015 10.09.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.10.2015 05.10.2015 05.10.2015 05.10.2015 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G.C. GUPTA PER G.C. GUPTA PER G.C. GUPTA PER G.C. GUPTA, VP , VP , VP , VP : :: : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8-09 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XIII, NEW DELHI DATED 14 TH MARCH, 2012. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, NONE APPEA RED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS BEING DECIDED QUA THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT ON MERITS AFT ER HEARING THE LEARNED DR. 3. GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UNDER: - ITA-2594/DEL/2012 2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN ADMITTING FRESH EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. 4. LEARNED DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC EVID ENCE ADMITTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF T HE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 AND, ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. 5. GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UNDER: - THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,36,406/- ON ACCOUNT OF BROUGHT FORW ARD LOSSES. 6. LEARNED DR HAS RELIED UPON THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARN ED CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED A SPEAKING ORDE R ON THIS ISSUE. HE HAS CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS A LOSS UNDER THE HEAD PROPERTY INCOME OF `4,36,406/- WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS SET O FF AGAINST THE INCOME FROM SALARY AND INTEREST DURING THE YEAR. HE HAS RECORDED THAT THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH FORM 16 WERE ATTAC HED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LOSS ON PROPERTY HAS ALSO BEEN SHOWN IN FORM 16 ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYER AND SU CH LOSS HAS BEEN ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION WHILE ISSUING FORM 16. THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT IN COLUMN 6 PART-B OF THE RETURN OF I NCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED UNDER THE HEADING LOSSES OF CURRENT YEAR SET OFF AGAINST-5 AND SUCH LOSS HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THAT COLUMN. THE LOSS BEING ALLOWABLE, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED T HE SAME TO BE ITA-2594/DEL/2012 3 SET OFF. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, THERE BEING NO MI STAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), HIS ORDER IS CONFIRMED ON THIS ISSUE AND GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UNDER: - THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.91,283/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI A OF THE IT ACT. 9. LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARN ED CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INSURANCE PR EMIUM, PAYMENT MADE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOU SE AND REPAYMENT OF PRINCIPLE HOUSING LOAN AND THESE DETAILS WERE SHOWN IN FORM 16 ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYER. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILE D CERTIFICATES FROM MAX NEW YORK LIFE AND A CERTIFICAT E FROM DLF LTD. AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FROM CITI BANK IN EVIDENCE OF THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER CHAPTER VI-A OF THE ACT. WE FIND THA T THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AN D THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED NECESSARY E VIDENCE IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE HIM WHICH WAS ALSO FORWAR DED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE OR DER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED ON THIS ISSUE AND GROUND NO.3 OF TH E REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. GROUND NO.4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AS UNDER:- THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ITA-2594/DEL/2012 4 RS.12,47,937/- UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE IT ACT ON ACC OUNT OF CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS. 12. LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE O N THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SPENT A SUM OF `12 .47 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT CARDS HELD IN HIS NAME WITH DIFF ERENT BANKS. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARN ED CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR REMAND R EPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS CONSIDERED THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE H AS INCURRED `12,47,937/- THROUGH CREDIT CARDS OF DIFFER ENT BANKS. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THESE EXPENSES THROUGH CREDIT C ARDS WERE INCURRED ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICE AS WELL AS FOR PERSON AL PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR PER SONAL PURPOSES AS WELL AS FOR OFFICE PURPOSES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). THE SUM OF `9,39,764/- WAS INCURRED ON BEHALF OF M/S FERODO INDIA PVT.LTD. BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME HAS B EEN REPAID BY THE SAID FIRM THROUGH ITS ACCOUNT WITH STANDARD CHART ERED BANK, NEW DELHI. THIS FINDING OF FACT BY THE CIT(A), COULD NO T BE CONTROVERTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. THE TRANSACTIONS ARE THROUGH BANK AND FULLY EXPLAINED. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE CONFIRM T HE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND GROUND NO.4 IS DISMISSED. 14. GROUND NO.5 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UNDER :- THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 15. LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIVING A L AVISH LIFESTYLE AND, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ADDITION OF ` 10 LAKHS FOR LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. ITA-2594/DEL/2012 5 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED D R. WE FIND THAT THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE CONSISTS OF THREE MEMBERS A ND THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED WITHDRAWAL OF `11.56 LAKHS FOR HOUSEH OLD EXPENSES MADE THROUGH CREDIT CARDS AS WELL AS CASH WITHDR AWALS. THE CIT(A) HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE WITHDRAWALS MADE WERE SU FFICIENT FOR A FAMILY OF THREE MEMBERS AND THE ADDITION MADE OF `10 LAKHS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE T HE ADDITION FOR THE SAKE OF ADDITION ONLY AND HAS NOT GIVEN A SINGLE V ALID REASON FOR MAKING THE ADDITION OF `10 LAKHS OVER AND ABOVE THE SUM OF `11,56,326/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS HOUSEHOLD EXPEN SES. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.5 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS D ISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH OCTOBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( (( ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI PRASHANT MAHARISHI PRASHANT MAHARISHI PRASHANT MAHARISHI ) )) ) (G. (G. (G. (G. C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA ) )) ) ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -11(2), NEW DELHI. 11(2), NEW DELHI. 11(2), NEW DELHI. 11(2), NEW DELHI. 2. RESPONDENT : SHRI VIKRANT SINHA, SHRI VIKRANT SINHA, SHRI VIKRANT SINHA, SHRI VIKRANT SINHA, 1100 1100 1100 1100- -- -B, BEVERLY PARK B, BEVERLY PARK B, BEVERLY PARK B, BEVERLY PARK- -- -2, 2,2, 2, MEHRAULI GURGAON ROAD, DLF CITY, PHASE MEHRAULI GURGAON ROAD, DLF CITY, PHASE MEHRAULI GURGAON ROAD, DLF CITY, PHASE MEHRAULI GURGAON ROAD, DLF CITY, PHASE- -- -2, 2,2, 2, GURGAON, HARYANA GURGAON, HARYANA GURGAON, HARYANA GURGAON, HARYANA 122 002. 122 002. 122 002. 122 002. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR