Shri Arjunbhai D.Parmar, Bharuch V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2, Bharuch

ITA 809/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 80920514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 16 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: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BATHEJA

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.809/AHD/2011 ( % & '& % & '& % & '& % & '& / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) ARJUNBHAI D.PARMAR A-8, VRUNDAVAN PARK MAKTAMPUR BHARUCH % % % % / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BHARUCH ( !' ./)* ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ADLPP 2679 J ( (+ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . ! / APPELLANT BY : - NONE - ,-(+ / . ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI O.P. BATHEJA, SR.DR %0 / ' / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 28/5/2014 12' / ' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/5/14 !3 / O R D E R PER SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING F ROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-VI, BARODA DATED 31/12/2 010 PASSED FOR ASST.YEAR 2006-07 AS PER THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WE LL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIR MING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING RS.2 5,129/- BEING INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN CLAIMED U/S.24(B) OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WE LL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIR MING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING RS.4 5,671/- ITA NO.809/AHD/ 2011 ARJUNBHAI D.PARMAR VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 2 - BEING PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE LOAN REPAYMENT U/S.80 C OF THE ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, HE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING RS.1 0,000/- BEING MEDICLAIM PREMIUM CLAIMED U/S.80D OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIR MING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING RS.1 8,000/- BEING DONATION CLAIMED U/S.80G OF THE I.T. ACT. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIR MING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING AN ADDITI ON ON ACCOUNT OF LEAVE TRAVEL ALLOWANCE OF RS.1,35,212/-. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIR MING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING AN ADDITI ON ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY NOT DISCLOSED IN RETURN OF INCOME OF RS.34,347/-. 7. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES/A DDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) M AY PLEASE BE DELETED. 8. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR DELETE ANY GROUND(S) EITHER BEFORE OR IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE AP PEAL. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORD TH AT NOTICE DATED 12/5/2014 HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY FIXING THE DATE FOR HEARING ON 28/05/2014 (AS PER EVIDENCE ON RECORD). HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, I.E. ON 28-05-2014 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE NOR FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION. THIS SHOWS THAT THE APPELL ANT-ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO DISMISS THIS APPEAL SINCE THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING WITH HIS APPEAL. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO ITA NO.809/AHD/ 2011 ARJUNBHAI D.PARMAR VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 3 - HOLKA VS. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) AND OF HON'BLE DELHI TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (PVT.) LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DELHI) , WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE . 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. 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)-VI, BARODA 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 .. COPIED MATTER(DICTATION-PAD - PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 28.5.14 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 30.5.14 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