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) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
 Cromption Greaves Limited vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd.
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Royal Airways Ltd.
 Lally Motors India (P.) Ltd vs. PCIT (ITAT Amritsar)
  Mehsana District Co-operative vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)

Shri Suresh Henry Thomas 718-719, B Wing, Raheja Classique, New Link Road, Oshiwar, Andheri(W), Mumbai 400 061 Vs. Income Tax Officer-8(1)(2) Mumbai
April, 02nd 2014
                                "H" Bench, Mumbai

      Before Honourable Vice President Shri. D. Manmohan, & Shri Rajendra (AM)

                                ITA No. 1757/Mum/2011
                               (Assessment Year 2006-07)
         Shri Suresh Henry Thomas                   Income Tax Officer-8(1)(2)
         718-719, B Wing, Raheja Classique,
         New Link Road,                             Mumbai
         Oshiwar, Andheri(W),
         Mumbai 400 061

         Appellant                                  Respondent

                Date of Hearing:                          26/03/2014
                Date of Pronouncement:                   26/03/2014

                       Assessee by:                     None
                       Department By.                   Pitamber Das


Per Bench:

       This appeal, filed at the instance of the assessee, is directed against the
order of Ld.CIT(Appeals)-16, Mumbai, and it pertains to A.Y. 2006-07.

2.     The assessee has raised following grounds before us: -
              "1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action
              of Assessing Officer of adding a sum of Rs.12,89,720/- towards the cost of flat for want
              of proof without considering the fact that the flat was purchased in the year 1998.

              2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of
              Assessing Officer of disallowing motor car expenses of Rs.31,572/- i.e. 20% of total
              motor car expenses on the ground of personal use without considering the fact that the
              same has been incurred for the purposes of business."

3.     This appeal was posted for hearing on 05.02.2014 and notice was sent to
the assessee by registered post. However, the Bench having not functioned on
that date, the case was adjourned to 26.03.2014 and the new date of posting is
                                                                   IT A N o . 1 7 5 7 / M / 2 0 1 1

announced through notice board. None appeared on behalf of the assessee
today; we therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal, qua assessee.

4.    Facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are stated in brief. The
assessee is a Trader in Electronics goods. For the year under consideration, it
declared total income of Rs.1,61,311/-. During the course of scrutiny
proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee purchased flat for a
consideration of Rs.46,12,850/-. When asked to furnish the details of the date
of purchase, etc. it was submitted that he has purchased flat no.718 for a total
consideration of Rs.33,55,460/- whereas another flat i.e., flat No.719 is in the
name of Mrs. Olivia Thomas & Mr. H.M.S. Thomas and it was purchased for a
total consideration of Rs.12,89,720/-. On close scrutiny the AO came to the
conclusion that Flat No.719 was also purchased by the assessee and hence the
source of purchase has to be explained by the assessee. In the absence of
proper explanation, the AO added a sum of Rs.12,89,720/- as income from
other sources.

5.    Learned CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing
as under:
      "I have carefully considered the contention of the appellant and also carefully
      gone through the documents as are available on record. I find that the appellant
      has shown flat No.719 as its own assets in its personal balance sheet, therefore,
      the same is to be considered as acquired during the year under consideration for
      the amount shown against it. The appellant was not able to adduce any
      evidences before the Ld. AO as to from where this asset was acquired. Under
      `the circumstances, the Ld. AO was left no other option to except to treat the same
      as unexplained investment and added under the head income from other
      sources. The appellant also deliberately failed to attend the appellate
      proceedings before me and also did not give any evidences to prove that the
      investment is from known sources of income. Under the circumstances, I am left
      no other option to except to confirm the addition made by the Ld. AO. This ground
      of appeal failed and is accordingly dismissed."

6.    The AO also noticed that the assessee claimed depreciation on motor car
which was used for personal as well as business purposes. Therefore,
estimated 20% of the total expenditure toward personal purposes, which works
                                                                       IT A N o . 1 7 5 7 / M / 2 0 1 1

out to Rs.31,572/-. When called upon to explain as to whether the assessee
can justify that the expenditure was only for business purpose, there was no
response from the assessee and therefore, the AO disallowed a sum of

7.          Though an appeal was filed, learned counsel for the assessee did not
furnish any proof before the AO and the CIT(A) and thus, the action of the AO
was affirmed by the learned CIT(A) by observing that the assessee has not
furnished any evidence to prove that the motor vehicle is used for its business
purpose only.

8.          Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before us. No evidence was
furnished in the form of paper book or written submissions by the assessee.
Having carefully perused the record we are of the view that the order passed by
the learned CIT(A) does not suffer from any infirmity and, therefore, we dismiss
the appeal filed by the assesse.

9.          In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed, as pronounced in the
Open court.

                    (RAJENDRA)                                     Sd/-
                ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                             (D. MANMOHAN)
                                                            VICE PRESIDENT
Mumbai; Dated : 26/3/2014
Copy of the Order forwarded to :

 1.         The Appellant
 2.         The Respondent.

 3.         The CIT(A)

 4.         CIT
 5.         DR, ITAT, Mumbai

 6.         Guard file.

                                                BY ORDER,
                          //True Copy//
                                                       (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
                                                              ITAT, Mumbai
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Work Flow Workflow Software Software Automation Workflow automation Software Design Workflow Design Business Work Flow Workflow automation tools

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