Shri Satish Kumar Kharbanda, Vidisha V. The ITO, Vidisha

ITA 511/IND/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2501 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 30-11-2009
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA KARAN

Judgement Text

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL, SMC-I BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 511/IND/09 A.Y. 2005-06 SHRI SATISH KUMAR KHARBANDA VIDISHA APPELLANT PAN AOUPK-8770P VS INCOMETAX OFFICER VIDISHA RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, CA RESPONDENT BY SMT. APARNA KARAN, SR. DR O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ORDE R OF THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 31.8.2009 O N THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE :- 1. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS BAD IN LAW, NOT SUSTAINABLE, BARRED BY LIMITATION, CONTRARY TO MATERIAL AND LA W, WITHOUT JURISDICTION, ILLEGAL AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. - 2 - 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER WHICH IS BARRED BY LIMITATION, PASSED WITHOUT JURIS DICTION, BAD N LAW, CONTRARY TO MATERIAL AND LAW AND WAS ILL EGAL. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING IN THE FOLLOW ING ADDITIONS :- CLAIMED BY CONFIRMED BY ASSESSEE LD.CIT(A) (A) STATIONARY RS. 2,764 RS. 1,000 (B) HAMMALI EXPENSESRS.1,08,487 RS. 2,500 SHOP EXPENSES RS. 5,815 RS. 1,000 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL WE HAVE HEARD SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. APARNA K ARAN, LEARNED SENIOR DR. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL W ERE NOT PRESSED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, CONSEQUENTLY BOTH THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. THE LAST GROUND PERTAINS TO SUSTAINING THE ADDIT IONS OF RS. 1,000/- TOWARDS STATIONARY, RS. 2500/- ON ACCOUNT OF HAMMAL I EXPENSES AND RS.1,000/- OUT OF SHOP EXPENSES. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED T HAT SUSTENANCE OF THE AFORESAID AMOUNTS IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ON THE OTH ER HAND, THE LD. SR. DR STRONGLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I HAVE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED RS. 2764/- ON ACCOUNT OF STATIONARY, - 3 - RS. 1,08,498/- ON ACCOUNT OF HAMMALI EXPENSES AND R S. 5815/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHOP EXPENSES OUT OF WHICH THE LEARNED F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS TO THE TUNE OF RS . 1,000/-, RS. 2500/- AND RS. 1,000/-, RESPECTIVELY. WITHOUT GOING INTO MUCH DELIBERATION, KEEPING IN VIEW THE QUANTUM OF ADDITIONS REMAINED I N THE APPEAL AND ALSO TO PUT AN END TO THE LITIGATION, THE REMAINING ADDITIONS ARE FURTHER REDUCED TO 50% OF THE RESPECTIVE ADDITIONS, CONSEQU ENTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 30.11.2009. SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER IST DECEMBER, 2009 COPY TO APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR