Shri Manish Agarwal, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

MA 106/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9329 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PIRTHI LAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A NOS.106 & 107/DEL/2012 (ITA NO.1595/D/2011 & CO NO.120/DEL/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 MANISH AGARWAL, M-1, NDSE-II, NEW DELHI. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 32 (1), NEW DELHI. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI RAJ KUMAR GUPTA, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PIRTHI LAL, SR. DR O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: VIDE THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED AS ABOVE, TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SOME MISTAKES, WHICH ARE APPARENT ON REC ORD, HAVE CREPT IN IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 15.03.2 012, PASSED IN THE ABOVE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS, AND THAT THE SA ME NEED TO BE RECTIFIED BY PASSING NECESSARY ORDERS. 2. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.106/DEL/2012, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT ON PAGE 3 ( SIC.PGS.3 & 4) (PARA-4) OF THE ORDER, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS UNDER:- .., ONE SH. NITIN AGGARWAL, HAD PURCHASED TWO FREE -HOLD PLOTS IN VASANT KUNJ (VK, FOR SHORT)..; MA NOS.106 & 107/DEL/2012 2 THAT CORRECTLY, THE ASSESSEE (MANISH AGARWAL) AND HIS BRO THER SHRI NITIN AGARWAL HAD PURCHASED TWO FREEHOLD PLOTS IN UNITED KI NGDOM (UK) HAVING UN-DIVIDED 50% SHARE EACH; THAT THIS FACT IS AP PARENT FROM PARA 3.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS WELL AS FROM PAGES 42 & 6 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK, BEING COPIES OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS; AND THAT THE PARTICULARS OF THE OWNERS AND DETAILS/SITUATION OF THE PROPERTIES NEED TO BE CORRECTLY MENTIONED IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 3. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, COULD NOT DISPUTE THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR IN THIS REGARD. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT A MISTAKE HAS IND EED CREPT IN IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR. WE, THEREFORE, HEREBY RECTIFY THE SAME. THE WORDS ON PAGE 3 ( SIC.PGS.3 & 4) (IN PARA- 4) OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 15.03.2012: ., ONE SH. NITIN AGGARWAL, HAD PURCHASED TWO FREE-HOLD PLOTS IN VASANT KUNJ (VK, FOR SHORT). WILL NOW READ AS, ..THE ASSESSEE SHRI MANISH A GARWAL AND HIS BROTHER SHRI NITIN AGARWAL PURCHASED TWO FREEHOLD PLOTS IN UNITED KINGDOM (UK) HAVING UN-DIVIDED 50% SHARE EACH 5. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.107/DEL/2012, WHICH IS IN RESPECT OF THE CROSS OBJECTION DEALT WITH IN THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 15.03.2012, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT IN THE I TAT ORDER, THE FACTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AS UNDER:- 24, TURNING TO THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENSES OF ` 6,46,740/- IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE A.O. DISALLOWED 30% OF THE SAME, ON AD-HOC BASIS, AMOUNTING TO ` 2,00,000/-. THE LD. CIT (A) IN CREASED THE DISALLOWANCE TO ` 5,00,000/- , AGAINST WHICH, THE ASSE SSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION. MA NOS.106 & 107/DEL/2012 3 6. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CORRECT FACTS AS B ORNE OUT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS WELL AS FROM THE ORDER OF THE CI T (A), SHOULD HAVE BEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 50%, I.E ., ` 3,23,370/- ON AD-HOC BASIS, WHICH WAS REDUCED TO ` 2,00,000/-, WH ICH IS AROUND 30% OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY CIT (A) AS PER FI NDINGS ON PAGE 17 OF THE LD. CIT (A)S ORDER. 7. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, COULD NOT DISPUTE THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR IN THIS REGARD. 8. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES AND HAVING PERUSED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT INDEED, THE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN CORRECTLY TRANSCRIBED IN PARA 24 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORD ER. THEREFORE, WE REPLACE PARA 24 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 15.03.2012 AS BELOW: 24, TURNING TO THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENSES OF ` 6,46,740/- IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE A.O. DISALLOWED 50%, I.E., ` 3,23, 370/- ON AD- HOC BASIS, WHICH WAS REDUCED TO ` 2,00,000/-, BY CIT (A) AS PER FINDINGS ON PAGE 17 OF THE LD. CIT (A)S ORDER. AGAI NST THIS RESTRICTION OF DISALLOWANCE TO ` 2 LAC, THE ASSESSEE F ILED ITS CROSS OBJECTIONS DEMANDING DELETION OF THE DISALLOWANCE IN FULL. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.11 .2012. SD/- SD/- [SHAMIM YAHYA] [A.D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 23.11.2012. DK MA NOS.106 & 107/DEL/2012 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES