Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT, HON’BLE & SHRI MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE
O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-I, Bhopal dated 06.06.2018 on the ground that on the facts and in circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the estimated addition of Rs.1,00,000/- out of total addition of Rs.4,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of foreign expenses.
Facts, in brief, are that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the payment for the package tour was arranged through Priyanka Builders in which he was a partner. However, the Assessing indicate the tour was arranged by Priyanka Builders. Further, the Assessing Officer noted that in the absence of relevant records, it was not ascertained as to whether the amount on account of foreign trip of the assessee is debited. The expenditure on foreign travel of the assessee and his wife was estimated at Rs.4 lacs and added to the total income as unexplained expenditure. Aggrieved with the action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee approached the ld. CIT(A).
Before ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the assessee had taken package tour from Cox & Kings (I) Ltd. wherein all the expenses were included. Copies of invoice, tour program, payment details, air tickets etc. were filed and accordingly, consolidated package cost at Rs.75,708/- was paid through cheque by M/s. Priyanka Builders, a partnership firm. It was explained that out of foreign currency purchased, assessee spent Rs.28,510/- for personal expenses on foreign tour. No other expenses were incurred by the assessee and no evidence was brought on record by the Assessing Officer to rebut the same except estimating on ad hoc basis.
Considering the contention on behalf of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee had taken a consolidated foreign tour package, which was paid through cheque from the bank of account of the partnership firm, therefore, the expenditure stands explained. However, the ld. CIT(A) presumed that assessee must have incurred more expenses than claimed and of 2018 3 Anupam Chouksey accordingly, sustained an addition of Rs.1 lac on estimate basis. Still aggrieved, the assessee is before this Tribunal.
Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Revenue Authorities and submitted that ld. CIT(A) accepting the version of the assessee recorded the factual finding that the expenditure is explained, therefore, confirming the addition at Rs.1 lac by making further estimation is unjustified. On the other hand, the ld. CIT/DR relied upon the orders of the Revenue Authorities.
We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of Revenue Authorities. If we go through the order the ld. CIT(A), we find that having gone through the material on record, the ld. CIT(A) reached to a particular conclusion that the expenditure, so shown, stands explained. Therefore, when the expenditure was explained, there was no need to make the estimation on ad hoc basis on general surmises and conjectures because same cannot take the shape of the evidence as no cogent material was brought on record to suggest that the assessee has actually incurred expenses more than claimed. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs 1 lac too.
In result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. of 2018 4 Anupam Chouksey Order was pronounced in the open court on 08.2.2019.