Dr Goutam Mukherjee, Kolkata V. ITO, WD-55(1), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 409/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 40923514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO . 4 09 / KOL ./201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 8 - 20 0 9 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA SMC BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4 09 / KOL / 20 1 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 8 - 20 0 9 DR. GOUTAM MUKHERJEE,.................................. .... ............. .. .APP ELL ANT 2B, 28, SHYAMANANDA ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 025 [PAN : A EVPM 7540 L ] - VS. - INCOME TAX OFFICER , ........................... ................... ... . RESPONDENT WARD - 55 ( 1 ), KOLKATA , 54/1, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA - 700 016 APPEARANCES BY: N O N E, FOR THE ASSESSEE S MT. RANU BISWAS , J CIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : NOVEMBER 24, 2 01 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 24 , 201 4 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSE E AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - XXXVI, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 210 / CIT(A) - XXXVI/KOL/ WD - 55(1 ) / 10 - 1 1 DATED 11 .12.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 0 9 . 2. NONE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. RANU BISWAS, JCI T, SR. D.R. REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. AS NONE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS THERE WAS NO ADJOURNMENT PETITION , THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BEING DISPOSED OF ON MERIT . I.T.A. NO . 4 09 / KOL ./201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 8 - 20 0 9 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. SR. D.R. THAT THE ASS ESS EE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE TAKEN A LOAN OF RS.48,000/ - FROM THE ASSESSEE S WIFE. AS THE SOURCE OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE S WIFE COULD NOT BE VERIFIED NOR THE CREDITWORTHINESS BE ASCERTAINED , THE AMOUNT OF RS.48,000/ - WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. SR. D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN PRODUCED. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMIS SIONS. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE LOAN FROM THE ASSESSEE S WIFE, OBVIOUSLY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION CANNOT BE DOUBTED. FURTHER THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE S WIFE SMT. KAVERI MUKHERJEE HAS SPECIFICALLY BEEN SAID TO BE PROVIDING D ANCE C LASSES , SHOWS THAT SHE DID HAVE SOME SOURCE OF INCOME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, CONSIDERING THE MEAGRENESS OF THE AMOUNT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS COUNT STANDS DELETED. 5. IT WAS THE FURTHER S UBMISSION BY THE LD. SR. D.R. THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO DISALLOWED 20% OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD TELEPHONE EXPENSES , CAR RUNNING EXPENSES , TOUR & TRAVEL EXPENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ALL THE DETAILS HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESESE IS A VETERINARY DOCTOR. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) WAS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A VETERINARY DOCTOR. OBVIOUSLY THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO HIS PATIENTS AS FEW FROM HIS PATIENTS WOULD NORMALLY COME TO HIM. CONSEQUENTLY HE WOULD ADMITTEDLY HAVE TO INCUR THIS EXPENDITURE ON TELEPHONE, CAR RUNNING, TOUR AND TRAVELS AND I.T.A. NO . 4 09 / KOL ./201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 8 - 20 0 9 PAGE 3 OF 3 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AN AD HOC BASIS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND CONSEQUENTLY STAND DELETED IN RESPECT OF THE TELEPHONE EXPENSES, TOURS AND TRAVELS AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES. HOWEVER, IT CANNOT BE RULED OUT THAT THE CAR RUNNING EXPENSES WOULD NOT HAVE AN ELEMENT OF PERSONAL USE. IN THESE CIRCUMS TANCES THE DISALLOWANCE OF 20% AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE CAR RUNNING EXPENSES AND THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON THE MOTOR CAR IS REDUCED TO 10%. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS PARTLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNC ED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 4 TH NOV EMBER , 2014. SD/ - GEORGE MATHAN ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 2 4 TH D AY OF NOVE MBER , 201 4 COPIES TO : (1) DR. GOUTAM MUKHERJEE, 2B, 28, SHYAMANANDA ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 025 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 55(1),KOLKATA, 54/1, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA - 700 016 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( 6 ) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.