Shri Sunil shankar Goswamipuri,, Indore v. The IT0,, Indore

ITA 520/IND/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 52022714 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN ACKPG1727E
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITA 520/IND/2009
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant Shri Sunil shankar Goswamipuri,, Indore
Respondent The IT0,, Indore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 31-05-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 13-11-2009
Judgment Text
PAGE 1 OF 5 - I.T.A.NO. 520/IND/2009 SUNIL SHANKAR GOSWAMIPURI INDORE. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH : INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PAN NO. : ACKPG 1727 E I.T.A.NO. 520/IND/2009 A.Y. : 2006-07 SHRI SUNIL SHANKAR GOSWAMIPURI INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(1) 3 BHIMGIRGALI INDORE. VS INDORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI C.P. RAWKA C. A. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 31.5.2010 O R D E R PER V.K. GUPTA A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II INDORE DATED 31.8.2009 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE ALSO PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. GROUND NO. 1 READS AS UNDER :- THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ON PAGE 2 OF 5 - I.T.A.NO. 520/IND/2009 SUNIL SHANKAR GOSWAMIPURI INDORE. ACCOUNT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 1 50 000/- W ITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FULL FACTS. 4. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOWED B USINESS INCOME FROM THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS AT RS. 79 175/-. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 6 65 000/- WHICH IN THE VI EW OF THE AO WAS ON HIGHER SIDE. THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS THEREOF AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DETAILS MADE A DISALLOWA NCE OF RS. 1 50 000/- OUT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO CALLED THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AND IN SUCH REMAND REPORT THE AO STATED THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS VERIFIABLE. HOWEVER THE LD. CIT(A) AGAIN ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT T HE DETAILS SUCH AS STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS ETC. AND FOUND THAT NO STATEME NT OF AFFAIRS WAS EVER PREPARED NOR THERE WAS ANY DETAILS OR EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. HENCE HE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. STILL AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL NARRATED THE FACTS AND CONTEND ED THAT IT HAD FILED THE VALUATION REPORT OF A REGISTERED VALU ER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT TAKE THE SAM E INTO CONSIDERATION AND IT WAS A TECHNICAL MATTER AND THE REPORT OF AN EXPERT WAS LIABLE TO BE ACCEPTED ESPECIALLY WHEN NO DEFICIENCY WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. PAGE 3 OF 5 - I.T.A.NO. 520/IND/2009 SUNIL SHANKAR GOSWAMIPURI INDORE. CIT(A). THE LEARNED SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE ON THE OTHER HAND PREFERRED TO RELY ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. 7. IT IS NOTED THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT THE AO HAS A CCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS COST OF CONSTRUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION FOR THE REASON THAT NO DETAILS OF EVIDENCES WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM REGARDING COST OF CONSTRUCTION. HOWEVER THE FACT I S THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE VALUATION REPORT OF A TECHNICAL PERSO N AND NO COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE LD. CIT (A) ON THIS REPORT THOUGH HE HAS NOTED THAT VALUATION REPORT HAD BEEN FILED. IN OUR VIEW SUCH APPROACH OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN L AW AS IT IS A TECHNICAL MATTER AND THE VIEW OF TECHNICAL EXPERT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AND IN CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THAT REPORT T HEN THE PROPER COURSE WAS TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION CELL OF TH E DEPARTMENT. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT SUCH REPORT IS ALSO A CASE OF EVIDENCE. HENCE THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FILE D IS ALSO NOT CORRECT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE ACCEPT THIS GROUND OF T HE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE AO TO ACCEPT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. GROUND NO.2 READS AS UNDER :- PAGE 4 OF 5 - I.T.A.NO. 520/IND/2009 SUNIL SHANKAR GOSWAMIPURI INDORE. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES AT RS. 1 25 000/- WI THOUT CONSIDERING THE FULL FACTS. THE ADDITION MADE THERE FORE IS TOTALLY WRONG ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 9. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT DISPUTED BY HIM. HOWEVER THE FACT THAT ASSESSEES WIFE AS WELL AS BROTHER WHO WERE ALSO THE ASSESSEE S ALSO CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSI DERED. IN THIS REGARD HE REFERRED TO COMPUTATION OF INCOME/ACKNOW LEDGMENT OF RETURN FILED OF THEM AT THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PAPER BO OK. HENCE HE CONTENDED THAT NO ADDITION WAS LIABLE TO BE MADE. 10. THE LEARNED SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS WAS SUSTAINED AS THE ASSESSEE WAS FAILE D TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE OF CONTRIBUTION BY THEM TOWARDS HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. 12. IT IS NOTED THAT BEFORE BOTH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIE S THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A PLEA THAT WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS HIS BROTHER WHO WERE LIVING WITH HIM ALSO CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS H OUSE HOLD EXPENSES. PAGE 5 OF 5 - I.T.A.NO. 520/IND/2009 SUNIL SHANKAR GOSWAMIPURI INDORE. HOWEVER BOTH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE REJECTED THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CALLING THEM. HENCE THIS APPROACH OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IS MERELY A CASE OF DISBELIEVING THE VE RSION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT BRINGING ANY COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD TO S HOW THAT THE FUNDS GENERATED BY THEM HAD BEEN UTILIZED OTHERWISE.. THU S HAVING REGARD TO THEIR EARNINGS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT A CREDIT OF RS. 50 000/- IS TO BE GIVEN AS THEIR CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS HOUSE HOLD EXPE NSES AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION IS RESTRICTED TO RS. 75 000/-. ACCORDI NGLY THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MAY 2010. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (V. K. GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 31 ST MAY 2010. CPU* 315