Akshay Kumar Gupta, Meerut V. ITO, Meerut

ITA 2955/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6465 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Assessee Lawyers: P S KASHYAP
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Revised return
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCHES (CAMP AT MEERUT) BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2955/DEL./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) SHRI AKSHAY KUMAR GUPTA, VS. ITO, WARD 1 (1), C/O KASHYAP & CO., CAS MEERUT. 214, CITI CENTER, BEGUM BRIDGE ROAD, MEERUT. (PAN : AARPG1074H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.S. KASHYAP, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI S.S. RANA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 08.01.2019 DATE OF ORDER : 16.01.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPELLANT, SHRI AKSHAY KUMAR GUPTA (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE) BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL, SO UGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.01.2017 PASSED BY LD. CIT (APPEALS), ALIGARH QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE GROUNDS INTE R ALIA THAT :- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW NOT ALLOWING RS.25,00,000/- AS COST OF FLAT IS TOTALLY WRONG, UN JUSTIFIED & ILLEGAL ON THE INTER-ALIA GROUNDS : I) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED RS.25,00,000/- EXPENSES TOWARDS INTERIOR WORK OF FLAT. IN REVISED ITR SAME HAS BEEN CLAIMED UNDER BUSINESS HEAD BUT DURING ASSESSMENT ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED THAT THE ITA NO.2955/DEL./2017 2 INTERIOR EXPENSES TO BE ALLOWED AS COST OF FLAT UN DER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. II) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID AMOUNT FOR INTERIOR WORK EXPENSES THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND SUFFICIENT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WERE FILED IN RESPE CT OF INTERIOR WORK EXPENSES INCURRED BEFORE THE LD. A O AS WELL AS BEFORE THE CIT (A). BUT CIT (A) HAS NOT ALLOWED RS.25,00,000/- TOWARDS INTERIOR WORK OR TOWARDS BUSINESS LOSS IN ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.25,00,000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN GIVEN TO INTERIOR DESIGNER FOR DECORATING THE FLAT NO.K-2061 ON THE G ROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH CONFIRMATION COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE PARTIES, BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF THE EXPENSES AND OTH ER SUPPORTING EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY DISMISSIN G THE APPEAL. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UP ON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS GIVEN ADVANCE OF RS.25,00,000/- TO INTERIOR DESIGNER FOR CARRYING OU T THE INTERIOR OF THE ITA NO.2955/DEL./2017 3 FLAT ON 14.03.2012 THROUGH M/S. AUROPROBE. IT IS A LSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SAID INTERIOR WORK WAS NOT COMPLETED. THE ASSE SSEE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADVANCE OF RS.25,00,000/- WOULD BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS LOSS AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS SUCH IN REVISED RETURN. 6. WHEN UNDISPUTEDLY WORK ASSIGNED TO THE INTERIOR DESIGNER WAS NOT COMPLETED NOR SHE HAS RETURNED THE MONEY, WHO S TATED TO BE DIED ON 16.04.2013, NOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED VOUCHERS/ BILLS FOR THE WORK CARRIED OUT TO PROVE THE PART PERFORMANCE ON THE PA RT OF THE INTERIOR DESIGNER AND IT IS ALSO ADMITTED CASE OF THE ASSESS EE THAT HE WAS NOT GIVEN POSSESSION OF THE FLAT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN POSSESSION OF THE FLAT IN QUESTION, QUESTION DOES NOT ARISE TO CA RRY OUT INTERIOR WORK IN THE SAME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CO NSIDERED VIEW THAT AO/CIT (A) HAVE RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS.25,00,000/- TOWARDS INTERIOR WORK OR TOWARDS BUS INESS LOSS. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, FINDING NO ILLEGA LITY OR PERVERSITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 16 TH DAY OF JANUARY , 2019 TS ITA NO.2955/DEL./2017 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), ALIGARH. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.