Shri Ramesh Madhavdas Khurana, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-6(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 788/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76794 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BATHEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: R M KURANA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , , , . .. . . .. . , , , , !' ! # !' ! # !' ! # !' ! # BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.788/AHD/2011 ( % & '& % & '& % & '& % & '& / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) RAMESH MADHAVDAS KHURANA 178, SUNRISE PARK OPP.DRIVE-IN-CINEMA THALTEJ ROAD AHMEDABAD % % % % / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2) AHMEDABAD ( !' ./)* ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ABBPK 9881 F ( (+ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . ! / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.M. KURANA (ASSESSEE) ,-(+ / . ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI O.P. BATHEJA, SR.DR %0 / ' / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 28/05/2014 12' / ' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/5/14 !3 / O R D E R PER SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XI, AHMEDABA D (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 03/01/2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR (AY) 2007- 08. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1) THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03/01/2011 IS ILLEGAL , BAD IN LAW AND VOID ABINITIO AND REQUIRES TO BE SET ASIDE. 2) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-XI ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN HOLDING THAT ASS ESSING OFFICER CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED THE FACTS FOR A.Y. 2003-04 AN D A.Y. 2004-05 ON ITA NO.788/AHD/ 2011 RAMESH MADHAVDAS KHURANA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 2 - ONE HAND AND FACTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON THE OTHER HAND. 3) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-XI FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE FACTS OF THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION WERE SAME AS IN THE YEAR A.Y. 2003-04 AND A.Y. 2004-05. 4) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-XI FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT INCOME OF RS.23,822/- C OMPRISED A SUM OF RS.22,000/- RECEIVED FROM M/S.M.S. KHURANA, UDAIPUR BEING REMUNERATION AS PARTNER IN THE SAID FIRM. 5) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-XI GROSSLY FAILED IN HOLDING THAT EXPENDITURE OF RS.79,315/- I S NOT RELATABLE TO THE INCOME RETURNED. 6) THE APPELLANT THEREFORE HUMBLY PRAYS BEFORE THIS HO NBLE TRIBUNAL TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO ALLO W DEDUCTION OF RS.79,315/-. 2. ALL THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS ARE INTER-CONNECTED AN D THE SAME ARE DECIDED TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING INCOME FORM S ALARY, SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN & LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SH ARES AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED VARIOUS EXPENSES AT RS.79,315/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURC ES. THE AO AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNER AND HAS SHOWN SALARY INC OME FROM THE PARTNERSHIP-FIRM M/S.KHURANA UDAIPUR UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, NOW EXPENSE IS ALLOWABLE EXCEPT EXP ENSE PROVIDED U/S.56 OF THE ACT. HE RELIED UPON VARIOUS CASE-LAWS IN HI S ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DISALLOWED RS.79,315/-. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEF ORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - ITA NO.788/AHD/ 2011 RAMESH MADHAVDAS KHURANA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 3 - 3.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I AM NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE APPELLANTS CONTENTIONS. AS SEEN FROM PARA-2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, A.O. CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED THE FACTS FOR A.YS.2003-04 AN D 2004-05 ON ONE HAND AND THE FACTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION ON THE OTHER HAND. FINALLY A.O. COME TO THE FINDING THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED OF RS.79,315/- (TO EARN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF RS.23,822/-) IS NOT RELATABLE TO THE INCOME RETURNE D AND DISALLOWED THE SAID EXPENDITURE. APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO CONT ROVERT THE FINDINGS OF A.O. HENCE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE IS UP HELD. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 4. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IN AY 2004-05 AND IN AY 2003-04, THE HONBLE ITAT BENCH AHMEDABAD HAD ALLOWED THE A PPEAL ON OTHER ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING THE BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF PARTNERSHIP-FIRM. THE LEGAL REPRESE NTATIVE HAS WRONGLY SHOWN THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THEREFORE THIS EXPENSE IS ALLOWABLE U/S.37 OF THE ACT. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF ITAT A BENCH AHMEDABAD IN ITA NO.1012/AHD/2009 FOR AY 2004-05 (IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE),DATED 03/07/2009 AND THE DECISION OF ITAT C BENCH AHMED ABAD IN ITA NO.1847/AHD/2006 FOR AY 2003-04 (IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE), DATED 30/11/2006 RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPEN SES CLAIMED BY THE ITA NO.788/AHD/ 2011 RAMESH MADHAVDAS KHURANA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 4 - ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO MARKETING & PUBLICITY EXPENS ES, PETROL EXPENSES, TRAVELLING EXPENSES, ACCOUNTING EXPENSES, ETC. WHIC H ARE NOT PERTAINED TO ANY INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THEREFORE, ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY REJECTED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ) ( .. ) !' ( MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT ) ( T.R. MEENA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/5/2014 ..%, .%../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !3 / ,4 5!4' !3 / ,4 5!4' !3 / ,4 5!4' !3 / ,4 5!4'/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 6() / THE CIT(A)- 5. 49: ,% , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :;& <0 / GUARD FILE. !3% !3% !3% !3% / BY ORDER, -4 , //TRUE COPY// = == =/ // / ) ) ) ) ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 29.5.14(DICTATION-PAD 4-PA GES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 29.5.14 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 D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.30.5.14 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 30.5.15 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER