MILIND BHOLE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2 (3) , THANE

This appeal is filed by assessee against the order of the Commissioner of income tax (appeals) – one, Mumbai dated 21/8/2019 for assessment year 2010 – 11 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed by the learned assessing officer i.e. income tax Officer, Ward – 2 (3) Thane was partly allowed.

The assessee is aggrieved with that. Appellate order and in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: –

On the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing the addition of interest of ₹ 3,69,293/- received from J& K Bank merely on the basis of Form 26AS without appreciating the fact that the said interest was not received during the assessment year under appeal. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have allowed the various contentions of appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case.

On the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition on account of rent in respect of vacant flat owned by the Appellant by estimating the rent without appreciating various contentions of the Appellant. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have allowed the various contentions of appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case.

On the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 8,36,347/- on account of disallowance of expenses on account of salary and such other genuine business expenses incurred by the Appellant during the course of the Profession. The learned

On the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of disallowance of expenditure to the extent of ₹ 1,19,000/- by applying provisions of section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have allowed the various contentions of appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case.

On the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 24,000/- towards rend paid by the Appellant during the course of his profession. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have allowed the various contentions of appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case.

On the facts and circumstances and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of disallowance of ₹ 45,556/- merely on estimation by the learned Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact that the Appellant is Professional. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have allowed the various contentions of appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

During the course of assessment proceedings,

The assessee aggrieved with the above order has preferred an appeal before the learned and CIT – A, who disposed of the appeal of the assessee wide order dated 21/8/2019. The addition/disallowance is retained by the learned CIT – A, are contested before us.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The inception itself the learned authorized representative did not press the disallowance u/s for 40A (3) of Rs 119,000 as well as the alleged excess payment of godown rent of Rs 24,000/–. Accordingly, both these grounds of appeal are dismissed.

Ground number 6 of the appeal is with respect to the ad hoc allowances of Rs 15,522/– being 10% of advertisement, miscellaneous expenditure and travelling and conveyance expenditure as no evidences for verification could be produced. The learned assessing officer made the disallowance at the

Accordingly appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.