Shri Mukund G. Nagarkar, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 3143/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1842 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'A' BEFORE SHRI MUKUKL SHRAWAT,JM & SHRI A N PAHUJA,AM ITA NO.3143/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:-2006-07) SHRI MUKUND G NAGARKAR, 8, RUDRA BUNGALOWS, VASTRAPUR, AHMEDABAD V/S INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD- 9(4),AHMEDABAD PAN: AAHPN 5503 G [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI S N DIVATIA, AR REVENUE BY:- SHRI K MADHUSUDAN, DR O R D E R A N PAHUJA: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 7 TH OCTOBER, 2009 OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2006-07, RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S 250 OF THE ACT ON 07-10-2009 F OR AY 2006-07 BY CIT(A)-XV, ABAD BY UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.67,347/- MADE BY AO IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDIN G THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.67,347/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPER LY THE EXPLANATION OFFERED AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL WAS STATED BY THE APPELLANT THOUGH EVERY EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATION WER E FILED. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND / OR ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.67,347/-. 2.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.67, 347/-. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 67,347/- MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 2. FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,37,850/- FILED ON 31-03-2007 BY THE ASSESSEE, AN ITA N O.3143/AHD/2009 2 ADVOCATE, AFTER BEING PROCESSED ON 1.9.2007 U/S 1 43(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E ACT], WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE ISSUE OF A NOTICE U/ S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 29-11-2007. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER[AO IN SHORT] NOTICED THAT THE ASS ESSEE CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS.78,317/- UNDER THE HEAD COURT EXPENSE S, RS.13,200/- FOR DRAFTING EXPENSES, RS.33,677/- FOR TYPING EXPEN SES AND CLERKAGE EXPENSES OF RS.9500/-, TOTALING TO RS.1,34,694/-. S INCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF THESE EXPENSES WHILE THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED SALARY EX PENSES OF RS.50,000/- FOR TYPING/OFFICE WORK ETC., THE AO DIS ALLOWED 50% OF THESE EXPENSES RESULTING IN DISALLOWANCE OF RS.67,3 47/-. 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWANC E IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: THE AO DISALLOWED 50% OF COURT EXPENSES, DRAFTING E XPENSES AND CLERKAGE EXPENSES ETC. BECAUSE THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FURNISH ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS THE AO FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED SEPARATE SA LARY EXPENSES OF RS.50,000/- WHICH IN HIS VIEW WERE FOR DRAFTING, TY PING, CLERKAGE ETC. ONLY AND THAT ACCORDING TO THE AO THERE WAS DUPLICATION OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL WAS STATED BUT FOR STATING THAT THERE WAS NO DUPLICATION OF EX PENSES HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IS CONFIRMED. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LD. AR ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THEIR SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A). TH E LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. C IT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS EXPLAINED BY THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A),MS. RAKHI SADHWANI HAS BEEN PAID COURT EXPENSES BY CHEQUE AS PER DETAILS GIVEN IN THE COPY OF LEDGER ITA N O.3143/AHD/2009 3 ACCOUNT AND SALARY HAS BEEN SEPARATELY PAID TO ONE NISHANT RAJPUT AT THE RATE OF RS.30,000/-P.A.,FOR COURT AND AFFIDAVIT WORK ETC.,S HRI HITESH MORE RS.15,000/- P.A.,FOR DAILY BOARD FROM COURT WORK ETC., AND ALKE SH AT RS.5,000/-P.M.FOR OFFICE WORK . IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS THAT THE A.O. DID NOT CALL FOR ANY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE TYPING OR CLERKAGE EXPENSES ETC. WHEN CONSIDERED WITH THE OVERALL FACTS IN THEIR ENTIRETY , WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT DISALLOWANCE OF ONLY RS. 30,000/- WOULD MEET THE EN DS OF JUSTICE . ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS. 30,000/- ONLY WHILE ALLOWING THE REMAINING CLAIM. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, GROUN D NOS. 1.1,1.2,2.1 & 2.2 ARE DISPOSED OF. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 24-03-2011 SD/- SD/- (MUKUL SHRAWAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A N PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 24 -03-2011 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI MUKUND G NAGARKAR 8, RUDRA BUNGALOWS, VASTR APUR, AHMEDABAD 2. THE ITO, WARD-9(4), AHMEDABAD 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-XV, AHMEDABAD 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH-A, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD