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: empanelment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: form 3cd :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: TDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: cpt :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: VAT Audit :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT RATES :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
 
 
From the Courts »
  Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

Binu Nair, C/o Raj Kumar & Associates, 4435/7, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. Vs. Income-tax Officer, CA Ward 48(2), New Delhi.
September, 10th 2015
         IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
              DELHI BENCH "SMC" NEW DELHI
     BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                            ITA no. 529/Del/2014
                            Asstt. Yrs: 2009-10

Binu Nair,                             Vs.   Income-tax Officer,
C/o Raj Kumar & Associates, CA               Ward 48(2), New Delhi.
4435/7, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi.
PAN: AAIPN 4744 L

( Appellant )                          (Respondent)


      Appellant by          :    Shri Raj Kumar Gupta FCA &
                                 Shri Sumit Goel CA
      Respondent by         :    Shri S.K. Jain Addl. Commissioner


                   Date of hearing     :     23/07/2015.
                   Date of order       :     09/09/2015.

                            ORDER


PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M..:



      This appeal, preferred by the assessee, is directed against the order of ld.
CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi dated 30-10-2013 passed in appeal no. 3228/11-12,
relating to A.Y. 2009-10.


2.    Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, in the relevant assessment year,
derived income from salary. He had filed its return of income declaring total
                                         2
                                                                          ITA 529/Del/2014
                                                                           Binu Nair Vs. ITO


income of Rs. 9,38,749/-. The AO noticed that assessee had claimed HRA
amounting to Rs. 3,80,856/-. He noticed that the assessee had also shown the self
occupied property at address 1-D, Pocket B, SFS Flats, Outer Ring Road, New
Delhi-110018 in his income tax return. However, as per the certificate of interest of
HDFC Bank , the assessee's self occupied property was M-139, Ashiana Utsav
Bhiwadi-301019, for which he had taken loan and claiming deduction u/s 24(b) of
Rs. 1,50,000/-. The AO, after examining the bank statement noted that though
assessee had claimed of having made the payment of rent @ Rs. 32,000/- per
month, but there was no sufficient cash withdrawals and no such entry i.e. cash/
cheque in respect of rent paid by the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed the
assessee's claim of HRA and made addition of Rs. 3,80,856/-.





3.     Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition, inter alia, observing that total cash
withdrawal of the assessee was Rs. 3,82,000/- out of which assessee claimed that
Rs. 3,80,856/- was paid towards HRA and there was no regular withdrawal of cash
from bank, therefore, explanation of the assessee was not acceptable, inter alia,
observing that if all the cash withdrawals were given to the land-lord, then how
assessee survived.


3.1.   Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a summary of withdrawals/ house hold
expenses. Ld. counsel further submitted that assessee paid rent of Rs. 3,84,000/-
and claimed HRA at Rs. 3,80,856/- for rented property no. 1-D, Pocket B, SFS
Flats, Outer Ring Road, New Delhi-110018. He has filed the copy of rent
agreement dated 11-2-2011 in which it is stated that the tenancy commenced from
1-4-2008 for a period of 5 years. He further pointed out that the amount was paid
in cash as the owner was suffering from Parkinson disease and, therefore, was not
                                         3
                                                                          ITA 529/Del/2014
                                                                           Binu Nair Vs. ITO


competent for writing anything and for operating bank account. The land-lord
ultimately died on 22-8-2009. Ld. counsel submitted that there is no dispute that
house rent was paid on which assessee was eligible for HRA deduction. He pointed
out that the only reason for disallowance was insufficient cash withdrawals from
bank for payment of rent and for house-hold expenses. In this regard ld. counsel
referred to the summary of bank withdrawals/ house-hold expenses, contained at
page 1 of the PB and pointed out that the total cash withdrawals were Rs. 3,82,100
and house-hold expenses Rs. 4,48,128/-, which met the car insurance, credit card
payment, LIC premium payment, phone bills, PPF account, school admission fee,
parents a/c/ wife account. He further submitted that, in any view of the matter, on
the basis of insufficient cash withdrawal, HRA could not be disallowed.





4.    I have heard the submissions of both the parties. I find considerable merit in
the argument of ld. counsel for the assessee that once AO did not dispute the
payment of HRA, then the deduction on account of payment of HRA could not be
denied against the income from salary. I further find that the assessee had
sufficiently explained the reasons for payment of rent in cash and also
demonstrated that there were cash withdrawals which were almost sufficient to
meet the rent payment requirement. Further, other house-hold expenses were easily
met as is evident from the chart submitted by assessee. Further, the assessee has
also pointed out that it had some cash in hand also available from earlier years,
which aspect also cannot be doubted. Under such circumstances, I find that the
explanation given by the assessee was quite reasonable and, therefore, the
deduction on account of payment of HRA could not be denied to assessee.
Accordingly, order of ld. CIT(A) on the issue in question is set aside and the
assessee's claim is allowed.
                                          4
                                                             ITA 529/Del/2014
                                                              Binu Nair Vs. ITO


5.    In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in open court on 09/09/2015..


                                                 Sd/-
                                           (S.V. MEHROTRA)
                                       ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 09/09/2015.
*MP*
Copy of order to:
  1. Assessee
  2. AO
  3. CIT
  4. CIT(A)
  5. DR, ITAT, New Delhi.
                                                   5
                                                                                    ITA 529/Del/2014
                                                                                     Binu Nair Vs. ITO




-+                                                       Date     Initial

1.    Draft dictated on                                -09.2015             PS

2.    Draft placed before author                       .09.2015             PS

3.    Draft proposed & placed before the second                             JM/AM
      member

4.    Draft discussed/approved        by     Second                         JM/AM
      Member.

5.    Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS                                  PS/PS

6.    Kept for pronouncement on                                             PS

7.    File sent to the Bench Clerk                                          PS

8.    Date on which file goes to the AR

9.    Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.

10.   Date of dispatch of Order.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Bath SEO Company Birmingham SEO Company Bradford SEO Company Brighton and Hove SEO Company Bristol SEO Company Cambridge SEO Company Canterbury SEO Company Carlisle SEO Company Chester SEO Company Chichester SEO Company Coventry SEO Compan

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