Chandrakant Somabhai Patel, Unjha V. ACIT, Patan Circle, Patan

ITA 928/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5100 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: PRITESH L SHAH

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 928/AHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 CHANDRAKANT SOMABHAI PATEL UMANG STONE AITHOR ROAD NR. JAKAT NAKA UNJHA 384 170. PAN: AHAPP 3878 Q VS ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE, PATAN / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRITESH L. SHAH REVENUE BY : SHRI V.K. SINGH, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 27/06/2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/08/2018 O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD DATED 19.1.2018 FOR THE ASST T.YEAR 2014-15. 2. SOLE GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF I NTEREST AND PPF INTEREST EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.2,82,528/-. 3. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD.REPRSENTATIVES, WE HAV E GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 30.3.2 016 DECLARING TOTAL ITA NO.928/AHD/2018 - 2 - INCOME AT RS.57,11,442/-. THIS BEING A SURVEY CASE , THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THEREBY IS SUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2). DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST AND PPF EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.2,82,528/- AGAINST THE DISCLOSURE OF INCOME OF R S.47,50,000/- DURING THE SURVEY. AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE DISC LOSURE WAS OVER AND ABOVE REGULAR INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, NO EXP ENSES CAN BE CLAIMED OUT OF THE SAID UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IT WAS RECORDED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ISSUE ABOUT DISCLO SURE AND ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE AR O F THE ASSESSEE, AND THE LD.AR AGREED FOR THE ADDITION. THE LD.AO ACCOR DINGLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,82,528/-. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER WE NT IN APPEAL, BUT THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE LD.CIT(A) READS AS UNDER: 4. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.L IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST & PPF INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.2,82,528/-. THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOTED THAT APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.2,71,180/- AND CLAIMED PPF INTEREST WHICH IS CLAIMED -AS DEDUCTION OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH WAS DISCL OSED DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. THE AO HELD THAT SINCE THE DISC LOSURE WAS MADE OVER AND ABOVE THE REGULAR INCOME EARNED BY THE APPELLAN T, NO EXPENSES CAN BE ALLOWED OUT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.47.50 L AKHS AND MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,82,528/- AND ADDED IT TO THE T OTAL INCOME. 4.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND MAT ERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN M ADE BY THE AO AS THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED EXPENSES ON THE INCOME DISCLO SED BY HIM DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO SEEN FR OM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAD AGREED FOR THE PRO POSED ADDITION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT M ADE ANY SUBMISSION ON THIS ACCOUNT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. I N ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCES FILED, I FIND NO REASON TO DISAGREE WITH THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,82,528/-. THEREFORE , THE ADDITION MADE ITA NO.928/AHD/2018 - 3 - BY THE AO OF RS.2,82,528/- IS UPHELD. GROUND OF APP EAL NO.1 IS DISMISSED. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES, WE FIND THAT THE LD.AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESS EE HAS ADMITTED THE PROPOSED ADITION BEFORE THE AO. THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT FILED ANY AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE CIT(A) DEPOSING THEREIN THAT THE AR OF T HE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ADMITTED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,82,528/- BEFORE THE A O WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION NOR AFFIDAVIT OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVE HAS BEEN FILED STATING THEREIN THAT HE HAS NOT AGREED TO BEFORE TH E AO ABOUT THE ABOVE ADDITION. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING CONCURRENT FINDIN G OF THE BOTH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES INDICATING THAT THIS ADDITION W AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASONS TO INTERFERE I N THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND WE CONFIRM THE SAME, AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST AUGUST, 2018. SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER