Shri Anupam Chouksey, Bhopal V. The ACIT 2(1), Bhopal

ITA 605/Ind/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4614 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA GUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure

Judgement Text

ITA NO.605 OF 2018 ANUPAM CHOUKSEY 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 605/IND/2018 A.Y. 2008-09 ANUPAM CHOUKSEY, BHOPAL PAN ADCPC 1557 M :: APPELLANT VS ACIT-2(1), BHOPAL :: RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI HITESH CHIMNANI, CA RESPONDENT BY S MT. ASHIMA GUPTA, CIT DATE OF HEARING 07 . 2 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08 . 2 .2019 O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL DATED 06.06.2018 ON THE GROUND THAT ON THE F ACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.4,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN EXPENSES. 2. FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT FOR THE PACKAGE TOUR WAS ARRANGED THROUGH PRIYANKA BUILDERS IN WHICH HE WAS A PARTNER . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING ITA NO.605 OF 2018 ANUPAM CHOUKSEY 2 OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED A NY DETAILS THAT WOULD INDICATE THE TOUR WAS ARRANGED BY PRIYANKA BUILDERS . FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF RELEVANT RECOR DS, IT WAS NOT ASCERTAINED AS TO WHETHER THE AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRIP OF THE ASSESSEE IS DEBITED. THE EXPENDITURE ON FOREIGN TRAVEL OF THE A SSESSEE AND HIS WIFE WAS ESTIMATED AT RS.4 LACS AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOM E AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ACTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE LD. CIT(A). 3. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD TAKEN PACKAGE TOUR FROM COX & KINGS (I) LTD. WHEREIN ALL THE EXPENSES WERE INCLUDED. COPIES OF INVOICE, TOUR PROGRAM, PAYMENT DETAILS, AIR TICKETS ETC. WERE FILED AND ACCORDINGLY, CONSOLIDATED PACKAGE CO ST AT RS.75,708/- WAS PAID THROUGH CHEQUE BY M/S. PRIYANKA BUILDERS, A PA RTNERSHIP FIRM. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT OUT OF FOREIGN CURRENCY PURCHASED, A SSESSEE SPENT RS.28,510/- FOR PERSONAL EXPENSES ON FOREIGN TOUR. NO OTHER EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGH T ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REBUT THE SAME EXCEPT ESTIMATI NG ON AD HOC BASIS. CONSIDERING THE CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN A CONSOLIDATED FOREIGN TOUR PACKAGE, WHICH WAS PAID THROUGH CHEQUE FROM THE BANK OF ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE STANDS EXPLAINED. HOWEVE R, THE LD. CIT(A) PRESUMED THAT ASSESSEE MUST HAVE INCURRED MORE EXPE NSES THAN CLAIMED AND ITA NO.605 OF 2018 ANUPAM CHOUKSEY 3 ACCORDINGLY, SUSTAINED AN ADDITION OF RS.1 LAC ON E STIMATE BASIS. STILL AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTING THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE RECORD ED THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS EXPLAINED, THEREFORE, CONFI RMING THE ADDITION AT RS.1 LAC BY MAKING FURTHER ESTIMATION IS UNJUSTIFIED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. CIT/DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE O RDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IF WE GO THROUGH THE ORDER THE LD. CIT (A), WE FIND THAT HAVING GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT(A) REACHED TO A PARTICULAR CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPENDITURE, SO SHOWN, STANDS E XPLAINED. THEREFORE, WHEN THE EXPENDITURE WAS EXPLAINED, THERE WAS NO NE ED TO MAKE THE ESTIMATION ON AD HOC BASIS ON GENERAL SURMISES AND CONJECTURES BECAUSE SAME CANNOT TAKE THE SHAPE OF THE EVIDENCE AS NO CO GENT MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY INCURRED EXPENSES MORE THAN CLAIMED. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS 1 LAC TOO. 6. IN RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. ITA NO.605 OF 2018 ANUPAM CHOUKSEY 4 ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08.2.2019 . SD/ - ( MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 08.2.2019 !VYAS! COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/PR.CIT(A)/PR.CIT/DR, INDORE