Smt. Bhawani Devi, Jamshepur V. ITO, Jamshepur

ITA 62/RAN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85460 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAKESH KR DAS JCITLD
• Keywords: Depreciation; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 2

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO .62/RAN/2013 SMT.BHAWANI DEVI INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CIRCUIT BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT , AND HON'BLE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO. 62 /RAN/2013 A.Y 200 5 - 06 SMT. BHAWANI DEVI, JSR VS. I.T.O WARD 1(3), JSR PAN: ABEPD4248G ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) FOR THE APPELLANT /ASSESSEE : NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT /DEPARTMENT : SHRI RAKESH KR.DAS, JCIT/LD.DR DATE OF HEARING : 26 - 11 - 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26 - 11 - 201 4 ORDER SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2013 PASSED BY LD CIT(A), JAMSHEDPUR AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: - ( A ) DOUBLE ADDITION OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON CAR. ( B ) ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED IN LIEU O F SPACE ALLOTTED FOR CAR PARKING. ( C ) ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF SITE EXPENSES. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE, WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HEARD LD D.R AND PERUSED THE RE CORD. THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A BUILDER AND THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE 2 ITA NO .62/RAN/2013 SMT.BHAWANI DEVI ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE REASSESSMENT BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT WIN IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE L D CIT(A). 4. THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO THE CLAIM OF DOUBLE ADDITION OF DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS.60,288/ - ON A CAR PURCHASED BY HER. IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED 50% OF THE CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USAGE AND THE SAID DISALLOWANCE WAS REDUCED TO 10% BY LD CIT(A) IN THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM ANY PETROL OR MAINT ENANCE EXPENSES AND ACCORDINGLY THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT USED THE CAR FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AT ALL. ACCORDINGLY HE PROPOSED TO DISALLOW THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. SINCE THE DEPRECIATION HAD BEEN DISALLOWED TO THE TUNE OF RS.6 ,028/ - (10% OF THE CLAIM) IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.54,260/ - . THE LD CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION. FROM THE ABOVE SAID FACTS, WE NOTICE THAT THERE IS NO DOUBLE DISALLOWANC E AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE 5. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.1,51,481/ - RELATING TO THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON SALE OF CAR AND SCOOTER PARKING. ON RECONCILIATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER BUILDING PROJECT, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE RS.1,51,481/ - AS HER INCOME. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECONCILE THE SAME, THE AO ASSESSED THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE SAME REPRESENTED ADVANCE RECEIVED ON CAR AND SCOOTER PARKING AND THE SAME WAS RETURNED BACK IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE SAID CLAIM WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO LD CIT(A) AND HENCE HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. WE NOT ICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT AS ADVANCE TOWARDS SALE OF CAR AND SCOOTER PARKING SPACE. THOUGH IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE SAME WAS RETURNED BACK IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, YET NO EVIDENCE WAS ADDUCED 3 ITA NO .62/RAN/2013 SMT.BHAWANI DEVI BEFORE LD CIT(A) T O PROVE THE SAID CLAIM. NORMALLY, THE CAR/SCOOTER PARKING SPACE IS SOLD TO THE BUYERS OF THE FLAT AND HENCE THE POSSIBILITY OF RETURNING BACK THE AMOUNT IS ALSO REMOTE. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,000/ - FROM OUT OF SITE EXPENSES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH DETAILS OF SITE EXPENSES OF RS.37.87 LAKHS RELATING TO BARIDIH SITE, THE AO DISALLOWED A ROUND SUM OF RS.50,000/ - ON ESTIMATED BASIS. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE FOR WANT OF DETAILS. IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE SITE EXPENSES AS DEDUCTION. THE LD D.R ALSO COULD NOT FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE IS NOT WARRANTED ON THE BASIS OF AVAILABLE FACTS ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO D ELETE THIS DISALLOWANCE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 - 11 - 2014 SD/ - SD/ - [ H.L. KARWA ] [ B.R. BASKARAN ] PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 26.11.2014 PLACE : RANCHI PP, SPS 4 ITA NO .62/RAN/2013 SMT.BHAWANI DEVI COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT : SMT. BHAWANI DEVI PROP: M/S. ASHRAY ENTERPRISES, CROSS RD, 5 NO. BAGAN AREA ,JSR . 2 T HE RESPONDENT: ITO W 1(3)/CIT,JSR 3. .THE CIT, 4.THE CIT(A), 5.DR, ITAT CIRCUIT BENCH, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR 5 ITA NO .62/RAN/2013 SMT.BHAWANI DEVI 1. DATE OF DICTATION ............. 26 - 11 - 2014 DICTATED ON MEMBER S LAPTOP. HENCE, SHORTHAND PAGES NOT AVAILABLE ....................... 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ........................OTHER MEMBER ....... 27 - 11 - 2014 ........................ 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. ..................... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT................... 26 - 11 - 14 .................................................................. 5 . DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S ................ 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK ....................................... 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ...................................... ... 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER ................................................................................................. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER ................................ ..............................