SHRI MANOHAR SINGH MORYA,BHIKANGOAN vs. THE ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV HONBLE & SHRI MANISH BORAD
अपील�य अ�धकरण, इ�दौर �यायपीठ, इ�दौर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE
BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.98/Ind/2021 Assessment Year:2015-16 Shri Manohar Singh Morya ITO Khargone Khargone बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.BYFPM6568P Appellant by Shri S.N. Agrawal, AR Respondent by Shri Amit Soni, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 10.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 26.11.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD: The above captioned appeal at the instance of Assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-III, (in short ‘CIT(A)’), Indore dated 04.03.2021 which is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’) framed by ITO, Khargone. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
Shri Manohar Singh Morya ITA No.98/ind/2021 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining addition of Rs.1,42,320/ - as made by the assessing officer by invoking the provision of section 115BBE of the Act in respect of Mini bus plying income of Rs.13800/ - even when the appellant has proper Justify the said income with supporting documents and explanation. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintain the addition of Rs.1,42,320/ - as made by the assessing officer under section 115BBE of the Act even when the said addition was not made by the assessing officer either under section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D of the Income Tax Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining addition of Rs.1,42,320/ - as made by the assessing officer under section 115BBe of the Income Tax even when the said income has already been included in the return of total income and the same was duly offered for tax by the appellant himself. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO grossly erred in taxing the said amount of income of Rs.1,42,320/- in the ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 on Substantive basis even when the assessment is pending before the AO was for the A.Y.2015-16 and therefore direction as given related to the ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 is uncalled for and therefore required to be expunged from the Ld. AO.
From perusal of the above grounds, the sole grievance of the
assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining the addition of
Rs.1,42,320/- made by the Ld. AO invoking the provisions of section
115BBE of the Act.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed
before us and also gone through the synopsis and paper book filed
by the Ld. counsel for the assessee containing 22 pages. Facts in
brief are that the assessee declared income of Rs. 2,60,690/- in the
Shri Manohar Singh Morya ITA No.98/ind/2021 return of income filed on 25.02.2017 for A.Y. 2015-16. Assessee
claims to derive income from Mini Bus playing, Income of
Rs.2,60,690/- declared in the return of income which included
income from Mini Bus playing at Rs.1,28,520/- and income from
interest at Rs.13,800/-. Ld. AO called for the source of income but
was not satisfied with the submissions filed by the assessee. Before
Ld. CIT(A) also assessee filed the details but could not find any
favour.
On perusal of the paper book page 13, we find that the assessee
was issued Road permit for playing Mini Bus No. MH05AZ0059
along with relevant details including allowing of two return trips
daily. This certificate bearing No. 12000337703 was issued on 2nd
June 2014. This vehicle was also purchased by the assessee on
23.04.2014. These evidences are sufficient enough to prove that the
assessee was engaged in the business of playing Mini Bus and the
income shown for the financial year 2014-15 has been genuinely
earned from Mini Bus playing.
Under these given acts we find no justification in the finding of
both lower authorities applying the provisions of section 115BBE of
the Act on the assessee since the alleged income is duly explained 3
Shri Manohar Singh Morya ITA No.98/ind/2021 by the assessee and does not fall under any of the provisions of
section 68 to 69D of the Act which is necessary to invoke the
provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. Since no other addition has
been made by the ld. AO except treating the income of
Rs.1,42,320/- on protective basis u/s 115BBE of the Act, we, set
aside the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and allow ground No.1,2, 3 & 4 raised
by the assessee holding that Ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining the
addition of Rs.1,42,320/- made by the Ld. AO invoking the
provisions of section 115BBE of the Act.
In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITANo.98/Ind/2021 is
allowed.
Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of I.T.A.T., Rules 1963 on … 26.11.2021.
Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANISH BORAD) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Indore; �दनांक Dated : 26/11/2021 Patel/PS Copy to: Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/Guard file. By order Assistant Registrar, Indore 4
