THE ITO WD 18(1)(1), MUMBAI V. SHRI SANDEEP BHADRESH MODY, MUMBAI

ITA 6202/MUM/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 62485 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V S SAMUEL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI J BENCH BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.6202/M/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ITO WD-18(1)(1), R.NO. 103, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, MUMBAI 400 012. .......... APPELLANT VS. SHRI SANDEEP BHADRESH MODY, G-21, VENUS APT, WORLI, MUMBAI 400 018. PAN: AABPM9142N ......... RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI V.S. SAMUEL, JCIT RESPONDENT BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING: 31.5.2012 DAT E OF ORDER: 8.6.2012 ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM: THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST LD.CIT ( A) ORDER DATED 18.7.2007 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 PASSED U/S 25 0 OF THE ACT. 2. FROM THE GROUNDS RAISED, WE FIND THAT ONLY ONE C OMPREHENSIVE ISSUE ARISE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION I.E. WHETHER THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRE D IN DELETING ADDITION OF UNAPPROVED EXPENSES OF COMMISSION, ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES, MEM BER SUBSCRIPTION, BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES ETC. AS M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WANT OF SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE? 2 ITA NO.6202/M/2007 3. CONCISE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE THAT IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED ABOVE EXPENSES TO HAVE BEEN INCURR ED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT HIS EXPLANATION. VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.11.2006, AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE PRODUCE ANY EVI DENCE IN SUPPORT OF ALL THE EXPENSES (SUPRA). THEREFORE, MADE DISALLOWANCE THE REBY RE-COMPUTING THE INCOME BY WAY OF MAKING ADDITIONS. 4. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSE SSEES PLEA. PARTICULARLY BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED RELEVANT DE TAILS IN SUPPORT OF COMMISSION BY MENTIONING NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL THE RECIPIENT S AS WELL AS RECEIPTS. REGARDING OTHER ADDITIONS AS WELL, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS HELD T HAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN SUPPORT OF THE ADDITIONS. HOWEVER, SOME OF THE ADDITIONS NAMELY ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES WHICH HAS BEEN RESTRICTED TO 10%, BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES WHIC H WAS CLAIMED AS RS. 60, 531/- BUT RESTRICTED TO ONLY RS. 10,000/- ETC. AND REGARDING TELEPHONE EXPENSES, MOTOR EXPENSES, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO @ 25% HAS BEEN LIMITED TO 10%. ACCORDINGLY, THE NECESSARY DELETIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. 5. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 6. OPENING HIS ARGUMENTS, LD DR BEFORE US HAS RELIE D ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS FINDINGS CONTAINED THEREIN. HE SUBMITTED T HAT THE AO HAD PASSED WELL REASONED ORDER BY CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE . HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING SOME OF THE ADDITIONS AS WELL AS RESTRI CTING THE OTHER EXPENSES. HENCE, HE HAS PRAYED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE REVENUES PLEA. 3 ITA NO.6202/M/2007 7. ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NOBODY HAS APPEARED D ESPITE NOTICES. SINCE IT IS AN OLD APPEAL, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO DISPOSE IT OF IN ASSESSEES ABSENCE. 8. AFTER HAVING HEARD THE REVENUE, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ABOVE SAID ADDITIONS UNDER VARIOUS HEADS FOR WANT OF SUFFICIEN T EVIDENCE LED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN APPEAL, THERE IS NEITHER ANY APPLICATION FOR ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE NOR ANY ORDER. SO, IT CAN BE VALIDLY PRESUMED THAT THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE LEARNED LOWER APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVID ENCE ON RECORD AVAILABLE AS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE AO ARE BAD ON FACTS. 9. THE REVENUE BEFORE US HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTR OVERT THE SAID FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE LED BY THE REVENUE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS EXERCISED JURISDICTION TO REAPPRECIATE THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE MORE SO WHEN IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO RE ASON TO INTERFERE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8.6.2012. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 8.6.2012 OKK COPY TO 1. ITO WARD 18(1)(1), MUMBAI. 2. SHRI SANDEEP BHANDRESH MODY, MUMBAI. 3. CIT (A)-XVIII, MUMBAI. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR J, BENCH, ITAT MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. 4 ITA NO.6202/M/2007 // TRUE COPY // BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI.