Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2(1), Pune

ITSSA 20/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3057 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAVEEN GUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” Ɋायपीठ पुणे मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं. / IT(SS)A No.20/PUN/2018 िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav, Office No.2, 2 nd Floor, Lalwani Plaza, B Wing, Plot No.57/58, Sakore Nagar, Off New Airport Road, Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014. PAN: AANPJ 0529 P Vs . The DCIT, Central Circle- 2(1), Pune. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Kishor B Phadke – AR Revenue by Shri Naveen Gupta – DR Date of hearing 12/08/2022 Date of pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune’s order dated 20.06.2016 passed in appeal no.PN/CIT(A)- 12/10260/2015-16, in proceedings u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in adding the alleged unexplained expenditure of Rs.21,13,135/- in the course of assessment dated 30.03.2015 as affirmed in the CIT(A)’s order we IT(SS)A No.20/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 (A) Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav 2 note that the latter’s detailed discussion to this effect reads as follows:- “4. Vide this ground of appeal the appellant challenged the addition of Rs.21,13,135/- to the returned income as unexplained expenditure on account of alleged foreign travelling. The AO during the assessment proceedings found out that the appellant undertook 28 foreign trips during the financial year under consideration. The AO asked the appellant to furnish the expenses incurred in relation to such foreign trips since the expenditure of these trips were neither reflected in the fund flow statement nor in the bank account statements submitted by him. In response the appellant submitted that the expenses were incurred by the certain foreign companies, but failed to submit any details regarding the same. Findings : 4.1 I have considered the materials placed before me. During the assessment proceedings the AO found out that the appellant undertook 28 foreign trips during the financial year under consideration. The AO asked the appellant to furnish the expenses incurred in relation to such foreign trips. In response to the queries the appellant only submitted that these expenses were incurred by the companies which invited the appellant for such trips. However he failed to produce any documents in relation to the same. The AO estimated expenses incurred on foreign tour at the rate of 5000/- per day plus the cost of air ticket. The total expenses estimated by the AO was Rs.21,13,135/-. During the appellate proceedings the appellant also submitted that expenses on all his foreign trips were borne IT(SS)A No.20/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 (A) Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav 3 by the companies and he was not required to submit any documents regarding the same. The appellant also contended that he was a large tax payer and the expenses could have been made from the drawings/withdrawals made by him. I find no merit in the contentions raised by the appellant. The appellant on one hand claimed that the expenses were incurred by the companies wherein he was engaged and on the other hand claimed that expenses could have been met from the withdrawals made by him. These two contentions of the appellant are contradictory. If the expenses were met from the withdrawals made, there was no factor hindered the appellant from submitting the details of the expenses made and the corresponding withdrawals. On the other hand the appellant was director of a company which did not bar him to produce the evidence of payments made by the company on behalf of him for his foreign trips. The arguments given by the appellant are contradictory and has no logic. The arguments made by the appellant were merely statements with no supporting evidence. I find no merit to disturb the assessment order passed by the AO. The addition made by the AO is hereby upheld and grounds raised by the appellant are hereby dismissed.” 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions. Learned Counsel is very fair in not challenging both the lower authorities estimation of the impugned expenditure coming to Rs.21,13,135/- in principle. Mr.Phadke reiterated the assessee’s stand that various overseas entities i.e. M/s. PL World Wage Ltd., Goldwings Trading FZE, DWT International Pvt. Ltd., HRG, etc., had reimbursed his expenditure herein. He invited our attention to IT(SS)A No.20/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 (A) Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav 4 the assessee’s paper book running into 147 pages allegedly containing all these particulars. The Revenue’s case on the other hand is that all these documents are in the nature of additional evidence which require the Assessing Officer’s factual verification. Mr.Phadke accepted the fact that the learned lower authorities had no occasion to factually verify all these details since they are being filed for the first time before us. 4. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance back to the Assessing officer with a rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s risk and responsibility only to file and prove all the necessary evidence in consequential proceedings within three(03) effective opportunities. Ordered accordingly. 4. No other ground has been pressed before us. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29 th August, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (S.S.GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 29 th Aug, 2022/ SGR* IT(SS)A No.20/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 (A) Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav 5 आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.