Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: cpt :: VAT Audit :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: due date for vat payment :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT RATES :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: empanelment :: TDS :: form 3cd :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT
 
 
From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

Shri Dilipbhai Vaghjibhai Patel Block No.1, Gala No.3 Ashwin Society Bhat ni Wadi Varachcha Road, Surat. Vs. ITO, Ward-9(1) Surat.
February, 18th 2014
          ,          ,  Û ``SMC'',  
        IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD,
                            "SMC" BENCH

                     ..
                   ^ . .,  Ú¢                 ¢ 
                BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT

                           ITA No.5/Ahd/2011
                         [Asstt.Year : 2003-2004]

Shri Dilipbhai Vaghjibhai Patel         /Vs.        ITO, Ward-9(1)
Block No.1, Gala No.3                               Surat.
Ashwin Society Bhat ni Wadi
Varachcha Road, Surat.

PAN : ADSPP 6006 C

( / Appellant)                               (× / Respondent)


     [   /                         : Shri Ronak Parekh
     Assessee by
        /                          : Shri D.K. Mishra, Sr.DR
     Revenue by
       /                           : 18th December, 2013
     Date of Hearing
       /                           :
     Date of Pronouncement             03-02-2014


                               / O R D E R

       This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2003-04 is
directed against the order of the CIT(A)-V, Surat dated 12.03.2010.

2.     The ground nos.1, 2 and 3 of the assessee are as under:
       "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as
       law on the subject, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in applying provisions
       of sec. 147 & 148 of the Act.

       2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law
       on the subject, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in giving reasonable
                                                           ITA No.5/Ahd/2011


      opportunity of being heard and hence addition of income and
      thereby made addition and taxing the same as income of the
      assessee which is against the law of natural justice and equity.

      3.     On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as
      law on the subject, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in treating business of
      the assessee and not applying provisions of sec. 44AD of the Act."

3.    The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the reopening
was made within four years from the end of the assessment year and the
assessment was framed under section 144 of the Act. He submitted that
the provision of section 44AD of the Act should have been applied to the
facts of the case of the assessee.       The learned DR opposed the
submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee.




4.    I have considered rival submission. I find that the reopening in this
case is valid as the reopening is within four years from the end of the
relevant assessment year and the assessment was framed under section
144 of the Act due to non-cooperation on the part of the assessee. No
cogent reason for applicability of section 44AD of the Act could be given
by the assessee. Accordingly, the ground nos.1, 2 and 3 of the assessee's
appeal are dismissed.

5.    The ground no.4 of the assessee's appeal is as under:
      "4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as
      law on the subject, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in treating
      disallowance of expenses of Rs.27,948/- and thereby made addition
      and taxing the same as income of the assessee."

6.    The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the
disallowance of 25% of the purchase was made by the AO which was
restricted to 10% of the total expense at `27,948/- by the CIT(A). He
submitted that no reason for the disallowance was given by the
                                                            ITA No.5/Ahd/2011


department. The learned DR has relied on the orders of the AO and the
CIT(A).


7.    I have considered rival submissions and perused the orders of the
AO and the CIT(A). I find that in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the disallowance restricted to 10% of the total expenses at `27,948/- was
quite reasonable, which is confirmed and the ground no.4 of the assessee
is dismissed.

8.    The ground no.5 of the assessee's appeal is as under:

      "5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as
      law on the subject, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in treating unexplained
      credits in to capital account for Rs.17,345/- and thereby made
      addition and taxing the same as income of the assessee."

9.    The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the
disallowance under this head was restricted to `17,345/- by the CIT(A).
He submitted that there is no valid reason for confirmation of part
disallowance made by the AO. The learned DR has relied on the orders
of the AO and the CIT(A). I have considered rival submissions. I find
that major portion of the addition on account of agricultural income from
agricultural land received in inheritance after the death of father of the
assessee was deleted by the CIT(A). The balance addition made was due
to unexplained credit in the capital account on account of miscellaneous
gifts and mutual fund refund, which could not be proved by the assessee.
In these facts, I find no merit in the ground no.5 of the assessee, which is
accordingly dismissed.

10.   The ground no.6 of the assessee's appeal is as under:
                                                                    ITA No.5/Ahd/2011


       "6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as
       law on the subject, the assessing officer has erred in making
       addition of unexplained investment of Rs.1,67,200/-"

11.    The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there were nine
entries of loans & advances on the assets side of the balance sheet of the
assessee and the interest on such loans & advances has been shown by the
assessee in its computation of total income, and therefore, no case of
addition of this amount, as unexplained investment, could be made out by
the Revenue. The learned DR has referred to the relevant portions of the
assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order in support of the case of the
Revenue.




12.    I have considered rival submission and perused the orders of the
AO and the CIT(A).            I find that there were nine entries of loans &
advances in the assets side of the balance sheet filed of the assessee.
None of these entries was found to be outside the books of accounts of
the assessee. The CIT(A) has recorded a finding that undisputedly these
assets are shown in the balance sheet of the assessee. It is not explained
by the Revenue that what further proof or evidence regarding source of
investment was required to be submitted by the assessee, when the asset
was already shown in its balance sheet filed in the statement of account
duly audited by the Chartered Accountant. In these facts of the case, I
hold that there is no valid reason to make the aforesaid addition by
holding the unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee, which is
according deleted and the ground no.6 of the assessee is allowed.

13.    In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
                                                                                Sd/-
                                                                       ..
                                                                      (../G.C. GUPTA)
                                                                    Ú¢ /VICE-PRESIDENT

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Mission

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions