Shri Sheetal Mohanlal Jain, Mumbai V. The Income tax Officer,Vapi Ward-4, Daman

ITA 2823/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 282320514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 23-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JHANGID
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Deemed to accrue or arise in india

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE: SRI D.K TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER SRI SHEETAL MOHANLAL JAIN, 101, SHIVAM COMPLEX, VAPI DAMAN ROAD, KACHIGAM, NANI DAMAN- 396210 PAN: AADPJ1872E (APPELLANT) VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI M.K. PATEL, A.R. REVENUE BY: SRI J.P.JHANGID , SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 23-09-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27-09-20 13 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS IS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), VALSAD DATED 20-08-2010. ITA NO. 2823/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 I.T.A NO.2823/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO SHEETAL MOHANLAL JAIN VS. ITO 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUN D:- 1. ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ESTI MATION OF INCOME FROM CARS AT RS. 2,40,000/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER. THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF TH E CASE AND HENCE DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS THREE CARS AND CLAIMED D EPRECIATION OF RS. 1,31,070/-. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THIS CLA IM. ASSESSEES CONTENTION WAS THAT HE WAS A PARTNER IN THE FIRM AND LOOKS AFT ER FACTORY AT GANDHIDHAM AND ALSO VISIT TO THE PARITES AT VAPI AND MUMBAI. THIS EXPLANATION WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO AND HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT TH OUGH EXPENSES OF VEHICLE WERE CLAIMED BUT INCOME FROM THEM WAS NOT OFFERED T O TAX, THEREFORE HE ESTIMATED RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 10,000/- PER CAR PER MONTH AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,40,000/- AS DEEMED INCOME FROM T HESE CARS. IN APPEAL THIS ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A). 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER IN A FIRM AND DRAWS INTEREST ON CAPITAL REMUNERATION OF SHARE OF PROFIT. HE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS . 1,31,070/- ON THE THREE CARS USED BY HIM. THE AO ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN CASE HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CARS WERE NO T USED BY THE ASSESSEE TO EARN ANY INCOME WHICH WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAXATION, HE SHOULD HAVE DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF ESTIMATING THE DEEMED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE CARS. THE ADDITION SO MADE BY AO AND SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) IS HEREBY DELETED. I.T.A NO.2823/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO SHEETAL MOHANLAL JAIN VS. ITO 3 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (T.R. MEENA) ( D.K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 27 /09/2013 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,