IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
`H' : NEW DELHI
DELHI BENCH `H
GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND
BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA,
MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI,
No.2594/Del/2012
ITA No.
2008-09
Assessment Year : 2008-
Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Vikrant Sinha,
Ward-11(2),
Ward- 1100-B, Beverly Park-
1100- Park-2,
New Delhi. Mehrauli Gurgaon Road,
Phase-2,
DLF City, Phase-
Gurgaon,
Haryana 122 002.
PAN : AOMPS5466C.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri P. Dum Kanunjha, Sr.DR.
Respondent by : None.
Date of hearing : 10.09.2015
Date of pronouncement : 05.10.2015
ORDER
GUPTA, VP :
PER G.C. GUPTA,
This appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2008-09 is
directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XIII, New Delhi dated 14th
March, 2012.
2. At the time of hearing of the appeal, none appeared on behalf of
the assessee-respondent and, accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue
is being decided qua the assessee-respondent on merits after hearing
the learned DR.
3. Ground No.1 of the Revenue's appeal reads as under:-
2 ITA-2594/Del/2012
"The learned CIT(A) has erred on the facts and
circumstances of the case and in law in admitting fresh
evidences under Rule 46A of the IT Rules."
4. Learned DR could not point out any specific evidence admitted
by the learned CIT(A) in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules,
1962 and, accordingly, ground No.1 of the Revenue is dismissed.
5. Ground No.2 of the Revenue's appeal reads as under:-
"The learned CIT(A) has erred on the facts and
circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the
addition of Rs.4,36,406/- on account of brought forward
losses."
6. Learned DR has relied upon the relevant portion of the
assessment order dealing with this issue in support of the case of the
Revenue.
7. We have considered the submissions of the learned DR and have
perused the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). We
find that the learned CIT(A) has passed a speaking order on this issue.
He has concluded that there was a loss under the head property
income of `4,36,406/- which has been claimed as set off against the
income from salary and interest during the year. He has recorded that
the relevant documents along with form 16 were attached along with
the return of income filed by the assessee. The loss on property has
also been shown in form 16 issued by the employer and such loss has
been allowed as deduction while issuing form 16. The CIT(A) has
recorded that in Column 6 Part-B of the return of income filed by the
assessee, it is clearly mentioned under the heading "losses of current
year set off against-5" and such loss has been shown in that column.
The loss being allowable, learned CIT(A) has allowed the same to be
3 ITA-2594/Del/2012
set off. In these facts of the case, there being no mistake in the order
of the learned CIT(A), his order is confirmed on this issue and ground
No.2 of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
8. Ground No.3 of the Revenue's appeal reads as under:-
"The learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and circumstances
of the case and in law in deleting the addition of
Rs.91,283/- on account of deduction under Chapter VIA of
the IT Act."
9. Learned DR has relied on the order of the Assessing Officer.
10. We have heard the submissions of the learned DR and have
perused the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). The
assessee has claimed deduction on account of insurance premium,
payment made for construction of new residential house and
repayment of principle housing loan and these details were shown in
form 16 issued by the employer. The assessee has also filed
certificates from Max New York Life and a certificate from DLF Ltd. And
other relevant documents from Citi Bank in evidence of the deduction
claimed under Chapter VI-A of the Act. We find that there is no
mistake in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee and the learned
CIT(A) has recorded that the assessee has filed necessary evidence in
the paper book filed before him which was also forwarded to the
Assessing Officer for examination. Accordingly, the order of learned
CIT(A) is confirmed on this issue and ground No.3 of the Revenue's
appeal is dismissed.
11. Ground No.4 of the Revenue's appeal is as under:-
"The learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and circumstances
of the case and in law in deleting the addition of
4 ITA-2594/Del/2012
Rs.12,47,937/- under section 69C of the IT Act on account
of credit card payments."
12. Learned DR submitted that the addition was made on the basis
of AIR information and the assessee has spent a sum of `12.47 lakhs
on account of credit cards held in his name with different banks.
13. We have heard the submissions of the learned DR and have
perused the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). We
find that the learned CIT(A) has called for remand report of the
Assessing Officer and has considered the same. The assessee has
incurred `12,47,937/- through credit cards of different banks. The
assessee has explained that these expenses through credit cards were
incurred on behalf of the office as well as for personal purposes. The
assessee has filed details of the expenses incurred for personal
purposes as well as for office purposes before the Assessing Officer
and the CIT(A). The sum of `9,39,764/- was incurred on behalf of M/s
Ferodo India Pvt.Ltd. by the assessee and the same has been repaid by
the said firm through its account with Standard Chartered Bank, New
Delhi. This finding of fact by the CIT(A), could not be controverted on
behalf of the Revenue. The transactions are through bank and fully
explained. In this view of the matter, we confirm the order of learned
CIT(A) on this issue and ground No.4 is dismissed.
14. Ground No.5 of the Revenue's appeal reads as under:-
"The learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and circumstances
of the case and in law in deleting the addition of
Rs.10,00,000/- on account of household expenses."
15. Learned DR submitted that the assessee was living a lavish
lifestyle and, in the facts of the case, addition of `10 lakhs for low
household expenses was rightly made by the Assessing Officer.
5 ITA-2594/Del/2012
16. We have considered the submissions of the learned DR. We find
that the family of the assessee consists of three members and the
assessee has disclosed withdrawal of `11.56 lakhs for household
expenses made through credit cards as well as cash withdrawals. The
CIT(A) has concluded that the withdrawals made were sufficient for a
family of three members and the addition made of `10 lakhs was not
justified. We find that the Assessing Officer has made the addition for
the sake of addition only and has not given a single valid reason for
making the addition of `10 lakhs over and above the sum of
`11,56,326/- shown by the assessee for his household expenses.
Accordingly, ground No.5 of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
17. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Decision pronounced in the open Court on 5th October, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
MAHARISHI)
(PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (G.C. GUPTA)
(G.C. GUPTA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
VK.
Copy forwarded to: -
1. Appellant : Income Tax Officer,
Ward-11(2), New Delhi.
Ward-
2. Respondent : Shri Vikrant Sinha,
1100- Park-2,
1100-B, Beverly Park-
Phase-2,
Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, DLF City, Phase-
Gurgaon, Haryana 122 002.
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR, ITAT
Assistant Registrar
|
