M/s Vinayak Enclave, Allahabad V. ACIT, Allahabad

ITA 331/ALLD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 33120714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P SRIVASTA VA
• Assessee Lawyers: VINAY KUMAR AGARWAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 331/ALL./2012 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07 M/S. VINAYAK ENCLAVE, VS. A.C.I.T., RANGE-1, 265/316, OLD KATRA, ALLAHABAD. ALLAHABAD. (PAN :AAEFV 6411 E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VINAY KUMAR AGARWAL, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI Y.P. SRIVASTAVA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 08.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 09.11.2012 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ALLAHABAD DATED 29.03.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, CHALLEN GING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS.1,81,050/-. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.10.200 6, DECLARING LOSS OF RS.12,77,189/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSEE DRIVES INCOME FROM PURCHASE AND SALES OF PROPERTIES. DURING THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ITA NO.331/ALLD./2012 2 RECEIPT FROM SINGLE PARTY, BEING HOUSE NO. 440/192, NEWADA, ALLAHABAD HAS BEEN DISCLOSED AT RS.17,50,000/-. EXCEPT THIS TRANSACTIO N, THERE IS NO PURCHASE OR SALE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF BROKERAGE EXP ENSES OF RS.1,81,050/-. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE BROKERAGE HAS BEEN PAID ON THE AMOUNTS OF LOAN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT, GIVING NAME OF THE PERSON TO WHOM BROKERAGE HAS BEEN GIVEN, WAS FI LED. THE BROKERAGE ACCOUNT SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO POORAN CHAND DAL AL & COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISALLOWED THE BROKERAGE AMOUNT. ULTIMATELY, THE INCOME REMAINED C OMPUTED AT LOSS. THE ASSESSEE AT THE APPELLATE STAGE FILED CONFIRMATION FROM M/S. POORAN CHAND DALAL & CO. TO PROVE THAT THE BROKERAGE WAS PAID, BUT IT WA S NOT ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 3. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ADMITTED THE CONFIRMATION OF THE BROKER AT THE APPELLATE STAGE, BEING IT WAS RELEVANT AND NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSA L OF THE APPEAL. THE CERTIFICATE IS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, AD MITTED FOR HEARING. IN THE SAID CERTIFICATE, THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE BROKER HA VE BEEN EXPLAINED. SINCE THIS AMOUNT WAS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THEREFORE, ITA NO.331/ALLD./2012 3 NO ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AGAINST THE ASSES SEE. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, ALLAHABAD 6. GUARD FILE ASSTT. REGISTRAR TRUE COPY