JATIN L. RAJGURU, MUMBAI V. ACIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5855/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9338 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH J, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5855/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1996-97) JATIN L RAJGURU, 12,SUHAS, GULMOHAR CROSS RD. J V P D SCHEME, JUHU, MUMBAI -400 049 PAN: AAFPR 0352 R VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - II, MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT-ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANIL THAKRAR RESPONDENT-REVENUE BY : SHRI RAKESH RANJAN DATE OF HEARING: 18.10.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.11.2012 O R D E R PER VIVEK VARMA, JM: THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF C IT(A) 3, MUMBAI, DATED 15.07.2011, WHEREIN, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. ACIT IS ERRED IN ADDING A SUM OF RS 8,02,558/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE FOR THE RENOVATION WORK WHICH, IN FACT DID NOT TAKE PLACE FULLY AND THE BILLS REFERRED BY THE LD. AO WERE NOT THE BILLS, BUT ONLY QUOTATIONS FOR THE FUTURE WORK. 2. YOUR HONOURS ARE THEREFORE, REQUESTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON THE GROUND. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND, DELETE OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS WITH PRIOR PERMISSION OF YOUR HONOUR. 2. THE SOLITARY ISSUE INVOLVED IS WITH REGARD TO TREATMENT OF RS 8,02,558 AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON RENOVATION WORK. JATIN L RAJGURU ITA 5855/MUM/2011 2 3. THE APPEAL HAD BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO BY THE ORDER OF THE ITAT. IN THE RESTORED PROCEEDINGS, THE AO, ONCE AG AIN ADDED BACK THE IMPUGNED ADDITION, AGAINST WHICH, THE ASSESSEE APPROAC HED THE CIT(A), WHO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THE ITAT. 5. BEFORE US, THE AR CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE AO IS BASED ON THE ESTIMATE BILL OF THE RENOVATION WORK. ACCORDING TO THE A R, THE ADDITION CANNOT EXCEED RS 3,00,000 BECAUSE, AS PER T HE DETAILS FILED BY HIM THERE WAS A DUPLICATION OF ADDITION OF RS 99,334 & RS 96,249 AND RS 50,000 WAS ACTUALLY PAID. THIS RESULTED IN T HE EXPENDITURE OF RS 6,61,675. OUT OF THIS, ACCORDING TO THE AR, RS 2,29,890 WAS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS AND RS 1,15,000 WAS SH OWN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH LEAVES RS 2,61,785. THE AR, SUBMIT TED THAT TO GIVE A QUIETUS TO THE ISSUE, HE IS PREPARED FOR A NET ADD ITION OF RS 3,00,000, INSTEAD OF RS 2,61,785. 6. THE DR, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ARE OF THE V IEW THAT THE DETAIL AS PROVIDED BY THE AR AT THE TIME OF HEARING, WAS N OT BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND SINCE THE DETAIL DEPICTS CERTAIN FA CTUAL INFIRMITIES, AS HIGHLIGHTED THEREIN, THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE EXAM INED BY THE AO. 8. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIR ECT THE AO TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS AS NARRATED IN THE COMPUTATION SHEET AND ALSO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ARS COMPRO MISE OF ADDITION AT RS 3,00,000. JATIN L RAJGURU ITA 5855/MUM/2011 3 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 23/11/2012. SD/- (B.R JAIN) ACCOUTANT MEMBER SD/- (VIVEK VARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 23/11/2012 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)- 3, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT -11, MUMBAI, 5) THE D.R. J BENCH, MUMBAI. 6) COPY TO GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *CHAVAN