Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1053/JP/2016
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1053/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 cuke Shankar Jhalani, Income Tax Officer, Vs. B-3, Lalji Ka Bagh, Moti Lal Atal Ward 3(2), Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABTPJ 9902 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 29/01/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 19/02/2018 vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I Jaipur dated 30/09/2016 for the A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of precious and semi precious stones. The return of income was e-filed by the assessee on 30/09/2011 declaring total income of Rs. 1,96,910/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer has passed assessment order U/s 144 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) and
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 2 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
assessed total income of the assessee at Rs. 45,50,810/- by making
various additions. The ld. CIT(A) has given part relief to the assessee.
Now the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT by taking following
grounds of appeal:
“1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in deciding the appeal without admitting the additional evidence filed under rule 46A.
The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the trading addition of Rs. 11,99,984/- by disallowing 15% of the entire purchases of Rs.79,99,891/- alleging the same to be unverifiable but at the same time accepting the sales declared by the assessee and ignoring the fact that the g.p. rate declared during the year is better than the earlier years.
The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs.73,714/- u/s 40(a)(ia) without considering the fact that the recipient of this amount has included the same in its income and paid the tax on the same.
The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming an addition of Rs.3,83,757/- by considering the peak of cash deposit and withdrawal from the bank account as unexplained. He has further erred in confirming the addition ignoring that these are regular bank accounts of the assessee and all the deposits in the bank account is verifiable from the cash book maintained by the assessee.
The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs.56,256/- made under Chapter VIA of the Act.”
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 3 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
The issue involved in ground No. 1 of the appeal is that the ld.
CIT(A) without admitting the additional evidences decided the appeal. In
this regard, the ld CIT(A) has dealt the issue by holding as under:
(i) I have duly considered the assessment order, the submissions of the appellant, the remand report of the AO and its rejoinder by the AR. It may be mentioned that the additional evidences filed by the AR were not admitted by me before sending the same to the AO for obtaining its comments, as specifically stated in my letter to the AO. It was the contention of the appellant that since it was suffering from heart disease and TB, it could not make compliance before the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings. It would be relevant to reproduce Rule 46A of the IT Rules as under:
“Production of additional evidence before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals).
46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals), any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the Assessing Officer, except in the following circumstances, namely :—
(a) where the Assessing Officer has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or
(b) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer; or
(c) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the Assessing Officer any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal; or
(d) where the Assessing Officer has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal.
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 4 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
(2) No evidence shall be admitted under sub-rule (1) unless the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] records in writing the reasons for its admission.
(3) The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (I) unless the Assessing Officer has been allowed a reasonable opportunity—
(a) to examine the evidence or document or to cross-examine the witness produced by the appellant, or
(b) to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the appellant.
(4) Nothing contained in this rule shall affect the power of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) to direct the production of any document, or the examination of any witness, to enable him to dispose of the appeal, or for any other substantial cause including the enhancement of the assessment or penalty whether on his own motion or on the request of the Assessing Officer under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271 (I)(c)
(ii) In view of the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, the additional evidences could be admitted only if the case of the assessee falls in any of the four clauses as mentioned in Sub-Rule-1 of Rule 46A. It was claimed by the AR that sufficient opportunities were not provided by the AO to produce these evidences. It is to be noted that this contention of the AR is not correct as it is evident from the assessment order and the remand report of the AO that a large number of opportunities were provided by the AO. The contention of the appellant that its AR did not made compliance before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings is also devoid of any merit as the appellant has not filed any affidavit from its earlier AR in this regard.
(iii) It may be mentioned that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manish Build well 204 Taxman 106 observed as under:
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 5 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
"Rule 46A is a provision which is invoked, on the other hand, by the assessee who is in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Once the assessee invokes Rule 46A and prays for admission of additional evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals), then the procedure prescribed in the said rule has to be scrupulously followed. The fact that subsection (4) of sec. 250 confers powers on the Commissioner (Appeals) to conduct an enquiry as he thinks fit, while disposing of the appeal, cannot be relied upon to contend that the procedural requirements of rule 46A need not be complied with. If such a plea of the assessee is accepted, it would reduce rule 46A to a dead letter because it would then be open to every assessee to furnish additional evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, contend that the evidence should be accepted and taken on record by the Commissioner (Appeals) by virtue of his powers of enquiry under subsection (4) of section 250. This would mean in turn that the requirement of recording reasons for admitting the additional evidence, the requirement of examining whether the conditions for admitting the additional evidence are satisfied, the requirement that the AO should be allowed a reasonable opportunity of examining the evidence, etc., can be thrown to the winds, a position which is wholly unacceptable and may result in unacceptable and unjust consequences. The fundamental rule which is valid in all branches of law, including Income tax law, is that the assessee should adduce the entire evidence in his possession at the earliest point of time. This ensures full, fair and detailed enquiry and verification. It is for the aforesaid reason that rule 46A starts in a negative manner by saying that an appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) shall not be entitled to produce before him any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence adduced by him before the AO. After making such a general statement, exceptions have been carved out that in certain circumstances it would be open to the Commissioner (Appeals) to admit additional evidence. Therefore, additional evidence can be produced at the first appellate stage only when conditions stipulated in rule 46A are satisfied and a finding is recorded. The conditions prescribed in rule 46A must be shown to exist before additional evidence is admitted and every procedural requirement mentioned in rule has to be strictly complied with so that rule is meaningfully exercised and of exercised in a routine or cursory manner. A distinction should be recognized and maintained between a case where the assessee invokes rule 46A to adduce additional evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals) and a case where the Commissioner (Appeals), without being prompted by the assessee, while dealing with the appeal, considers it fit to cause or make a further enquiry by virtue of the powers vested in him under subsection (4) of section 250. It is only when the exercises his statutory suo motu power
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 6 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
under the above subsection, that the requirements of rule 46A need not be followed. On the other hand, whenever the assessee, who is in appeal before him, invokes rule 46A, it is incumbent upon the Commissioner (Appeals) to comply with the requirements of rule strictly.
(iv) It is noted from the financial statements of the appellant placed on record that for the financial years 2012-13 and 2013-14, the appellant was having total turnover of Rs. 92,01,799/- and Rs. 57,26,420/- respectively. These facts clearly prove that the appellant want to take undue advantage on account of its illness as it was claimed that it was suffering from heart disease and TB when it comes to make compliance before the AO, however, the said illness did not hinder its business activities. It may be noted from the assessment order as well as the remand report of the AO as reproduced above that a number of notices were issued by the AO requiring the appellant to file various details, however, no compliance was made by the appellant. In fact, the AO levied a penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on 15.10.2013 for non compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1 )/143(2) of the Act. Another, penalty under Section 272A(1)(c) was imposed by the JCIT, Range for non compliance of summon issued under section 131 of the IT Act. It is also noted from the remand report of the AO that again an opportunity was provide to the appellant by the AO to explain its case, however, still no compliance was made on the date fixed. This shows the non-cooperative attitude of the appellant. In view of the non-compliance by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, it was submitted by the AO that additional evidences produced by the appellant during appellate proceedings may not be admitted under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules.
(v) In view of the above discussion and respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the additional evidences sought to be admitted by the AR cannot be admitted under Rule 46A of the IT Rules as the AR
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 7 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
failed to make out that its case falls in any of clauses of Rule 46A and thus the matter is decided without taking into account these evidences.
While pleading on behalf of the assessee, the ld AR has submitted
as under:
In course of assessment proceedings, AO observed that assessee did not respond to the show cause notices issued by him and thus he completed the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 on the basis of material already available on record.
In appellate proceedings, assessee vide letter dt. 09.03.2016 (PB 12A) requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A. It was submitted that assessee is suffering from heart disease since 2010 and in FY 2010-11, he was diagnosed with TB also. The treatment of TB was started and due to this he could not give attention to the various notices issued by AO and was dependent on his counsel. The medical documents were also filed. However, on receipt of order it was gathered that counsel did not appear before the AO as and when required and thus the assessment was completed u/s 144. On suggestion of counsel, assessee filed an appeal. However, it was seen that he was not giving enough time for preparation of the case and thus assessee changed the counsel. Affidavit of assessee in this regard is at PB 13A.
The Ld. CIT(A) called for remand report. In remand report dt. 15.04.2016 (PB 14A-16A), AO submitted that no documentary evidence has been filed regarding contention of assessee that he was suffering from illness. The assessee case does not fall in any of the exceptions mentioned in Rule 46A. The AR of the assessee
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 8 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
appeared on 11.04.2016 and submitted some bills and sought adjournment till 15.04.2016. However, on this date none attended. Thus, all evidences produced by assessee are liable to be rejected.
In response to the remand report, assessee vide his reply (PB 17A) submitted that he has produced the medical treatment prescriptions to the AO on 11.04.2016. All the evidences in support of the addition made are placed in the paper book containing 102 pages. The AO did not examine the same simply because AR of the assessee reached late on 15.04.2016 and the AO by that time has already prepared and signed the report.
The Ld. CIT(A) held that assessee’s case does not fall in any of the four clauses mentioned in sub-rule 1 of Rule 46A. In FY 2012-13 & 2013-14 assessee has shown turnover of Rs.92,01,799/- and Rs.57,26,420/- respectively. This shows that assessee wants to take undue advantage on account of its illness when it comes to make compliance before the AO, however, the said illness does not hinder its business activities. A number of notices were issued by the AO requiring the appellant to file various details, however, no compliance was made by the appellant. In remand proceedings, again opportunity was provided to the assessee to explain its case but no compliance was made on the fixed date also. This shows non-cooperative attitude of the assessee. Accordingly, after relying on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Manish Build Well 204 Taxman 106, Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of AO and decided the case without taking into account additional evidence filed under Rule 46A.
It is a fundamental rule of jurisprudence that justice should prevail over the technicalities. Supreme Court in case of S. Nagaraj Vs.
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 9 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
State of Karnataka 4 SCC 595 observed that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. The order of the Court should not be prejudicial to anyone. Rule of stare decisions is adhered to for consistency but it is not as inflexible as Administrative Law as in Public Law. Even the law bends before justice. Entire concept of writ jurisdiction exercised by the higher courts is founded on equity and fairness. If the Court finds that the order was passed under a mistake and it would not have exercised the jurisdiction but for the erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its preparation shall result in miscarriage of justice, then it cannot on any principle be precluded from rectifying the error. Mistake is accepted as valid reason to recall an order. Difference lies in the nature of mistaken and scope of rectification, depending on if it is of fact or law. But the root from which the power flows is the anxiety to avoid injustices. It is either statutory or inherent. The latter is available where mistake is of the Court. In Administrative Law, the scope is still wider. Technicalities apart if the Court is satisfied of the injustice then it is its constitutional and legal obligation to set it right by recalling its order.
In the present case, assessee has given an explanation which prevented him for submitting the documents before the AO. The same were submitted before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) also called a remand report. Thus, opportunity has been given to the AO to examine the additional evidences filed. Once this course is adopted which is as per Rule 46A, it is not appropriate on part of the Ld. CIT(A) not to consider the same. The decision of Delhi High Court in case of Manish Build Well 206 Taxman 106 is in a
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 10 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
different fact situation where the assessee invokes Rule 46A and prayed for admission of additional evidence but the Ld. CIT(A) without calling a remand report from the AO decided the issue. As against this, in the present case, CIT(A) has called a remand report but the AO without giving his finding on the merit of the case has submitted that the evidences produced may not be accepted. This contention of the AO is accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) though on the basis of these papers he has worked out the peak balance and reduced the addition without considering the cash book furnished by the assessee in support of the transaction made in the bank account.
In view of the above facts, the additional evidence, in the interest of justice ought to have been admitted and therefore the matter be set aside to the AO for making the fresh assessment after considering all the evidences.
On the other hand, the ld Sr. DR has relied on the orders of the
authorities:
The Bench have heard both the sides on this issue. The assessee
has claimed that the ld. CIT(A) without admitting his additional evidences
decided the appeal of the assessee and sufficient opportunities were not
provided by the Assessing Officer to the assessee to produce the
evidences. The ld. CIT(A) held that in the provisions of Rule 46A of the IT
Rules, the additional evidences could be admitted only if the case of the
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 11 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
assessee falls in any of the four clauses mentioned in Sub-Rule (1) of Rule
46A. The clauses are as under:
46A.(1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals), any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the Assessing Officer, except in the following circumstances, namely :—
(a) where the Assessing Officer has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or
(b) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer; or
(c) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the Assessing Officer any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal; or
(d) where the Assessing Officer has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal.
The ld. CIT(A) held that large number of opportunities were provided by
the A.O. to the assessee. It is noted from the financial statements of the
assessee that for the F.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14, the assessee was having
total turnover of Rs. 92,01,799/- and Rs. 57,26,420/- respectively.
Various notices were issued by the Assessing Officer to file the details but
no compliance was made by the assessee. In view of the above facts and
circumstances, the Bench find that there are no any contrary material in
the order of the ld. CIT(A), therefore, we uphold the order of the ld.
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 12 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, this ground of assessee’s appeal is
dismissed.
The 2nd ground of the appeal is against confirming the trading 8.
addition of Rs. 11,99,984/- by disallowing 15% of the entire purchases of
Rs. 79,99,891/-. The ld. CIT(A) has dealt the issue by holding as under:
3.1.2 Determination: (i) During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant was required to produce its books of accounts, which were not produced and therefore the purchases made by the appellant remained unverifiable. In view of the bogus/unverifiable purchases, the AO disallowed 25% of purchases amounting to Rs. 79,99,891/- and made addition of Rs. 19,99,973/-. During appellate proceedings, it was submitted that it was maintaining complete books of accounts on day to day basis and these are supported by bills and vouchers. It has also filed the copies of its purchase bills. However since the additional evidences submitted by the appellant at the appellate stage are not admitted, therefore no cognizance could be given to the additional evidences filed before me for the first time. It is noted that in the cases of bogus / unverifiable purchases, the Honorable ITAT, Jaipur has taken a consistent view that the 15% of such bogus / unverifiable purchases can be disallowed and accordingly respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Anuj Varshney & Others, it is held that the trading edition is to be restricted to 15% of purchases shown by the appellant for the year under consideration. Therefore, out of the trading addition of Rs. 19,99,973/- made by the AO, addition of Rs. 11,99,984/- is hereby sustained and the remaining addition of Rs. 7,99,989/- is hereby deleted. Therefore this ground of appeal is partly allowed.
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 13 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
While pleading on behalf of the assessee, the ld AR has submitted
as under:
Assessee is maintaining complete books of account on day-to-day basis. These books are duly supported by bills and vouchers. All the transaction of purchases & sales is fully verifiable from the supporting bills, vouchers & documents maintained by assessee. The assessee has produced the copy of purchase bills and ledger account of parties (PB 70-93). From these documents it can be noted that payment to these parties were made by cheque. These documents were not accepted by the CIT(A) because it was not filed before the AO. The AO has accepted the sales. There cannot be sale without purchase. In these circumstances, the disallowance of 15% of the purchases made by the CIT(A) is uncalled for.
Hon’ble ITAT has taken a view in various cases that where purchases are unverifiable, books of accounts are to be rejected but the addition cannot be made by disallowing 25% of the purchases, rather appropriate G.P. Rate is to be applied considering the past history of the case & other surrounding circumstances. The position of the G.P. Rate declared by the assessee as compared to earlier year is as under:- A.Y. Sales Gross Profit G.P. Rate 2011-12 1,27,12,846 18,67,361 14.68% 2010-11 99,94,807 14,60,532 14.61% 2009-10 2,10,06,499 30,46,728 14.50%
From the above table, it can be noted that G.P. Rate of 14.68% declared during the year is better than the G.P. rate of 14.61% declared in last year & G.P. Rate of 14.50% declared in AY 09-10.
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 14 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
It is a settled law that, no trading addition is called for if the result declared is better as compared to the result declared in earlier year. Thus, when the overall amount of profit declared by the assessee is better as compared to the results declared in earlier years, disallowance of 15% of purchases made by the CIT(A) is unwarranted & be deleted. For this reliance is placed on t he following cases:-
CIT Vs. Vaibhav Gems Ltd. (2014) 112 DTR 84 (Raj.) (HC) dt. 21.08.2014
While the past history becomes the relevant basis but if the AO wishes to tinker with the basis of past records, then some flaw has to be found by the AO in making some addition. Tribunal has come to a conclusion that in the immediate past assessment year, the Tribunal itself has applied G.P. rate of 2.60% whereas in the present year under consideration, the G.P. rate has been declared at 4.85%. AO was unable to point out as to what are the distinguishing features in between the two assessment years. No substantial question of law arises.
CIT Vs. Gupta K.N. Construction Company (2015) 116 DTR 377 (Raj.) (HC)
In a case where the provisions of sec. 145(3) are invoked, either the past history of the assessee or the history of similarly situated cases has to be considered. In the instant case, the AO is absolutely silent in justifying the addition/disallowance made by him which has resulted in N.P. rate of 13.7%. Assessment order is totally silent about the net profit rate shown by other similarly situated cases. While comparing with the past history, if the
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 15 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
results are fair and reasonable, then invariably no addition is to be made. In the relevant year, though the contract receipts of the assessee have sharply increased from Rs. 10.60 crores to Rs. 12.32 crores in the preceding year, the N.P. rate has increased from 5.02% to 5.38%. Though the argument of the Revenue that where the assessee manipulates the accounts by keeping the profit margins commensurate with the past years or slightly more than by itself cannot be a basis for acceptance of results is justified, it is for the AO to bring on record some concrete material/evidence to make a proper addition. In the instant case, the AO has failed to bring on record any comparable case so as to justify the addition made by him. Tribunal has sustained only an adhoc addition to the extent of Rs. 5 lacs. Findings of the Tribunal is a pure finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises.
CIT Vs. Inani Marbles Pvt. Ltd. 316 ITR 125 (Raj.) (HC) dt. 19.08.2008
In this case, AO rejected the books of accounts, invoked section 145 & made assessment by applying G.P. rate of 15% on the sales disclosed by assessee. Tribunal held that in the absence of any change in factual position normally the profit rate declared & accepted in preceding year, constitutes a good basis for working out the gross profit. Accordingly, it applied G.P. rate declared & accepted at 2.51% in earlier year. Hon’ble High Court held that as the G.P. rate of 2.51% was applied in A.Y. 99-00 & that having been upheld by the Tribunal, the order of the Tribunal for A.Y. 00- 01 was justified.
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 16 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
Kansara Bearings P. Ltd Vs. ACIT 270 ITR 235 (Raj) dt. 01.05.2003
It was held that the last year’s profits declared by assessee is the best guide for application of profit rate and when the GP shown in the last year was better and AO has not given any comparable case for higher GP then his action to make the trading addition cannot be approved.
CIT vs. Babulal Agarwal (2014) 97 DTR (Raj) 284 (HC)
G.P. shown in the present year at 7.43% was reasonably higher than the previous years, and could not have been dubbed as fanciful or palpably baseless. When the CIT(A) has deleted the addition in the trading result on relevant considerations and further, when ITAT has concurred with the CIT(A), no substantial question of law arise and appeal was thus dismissed. Thus, where the GP rates shown by assessee in current year was higher than last year's profit declared by the assessee, profit declared by assessee cannot be rejected.
M/s Oscar Exports Vs ITO ITA No. 203/JP/08 order dated 19-09- 2008
It was held that when the estimation is made, the immediate preceding year is the nearest year where the assessee has declared the GP rate of 10%. The assessee has declared the GP rate of 14.32% during the impugned year which is better than the gross profit declared in the immediate preceding year. Therefore, though the books of accounts are rejected yet no addition is called for on account of trading.
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 17 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
Addl. CITVs. V. Lakhani Shoes Limited 34 Tax world 32 (JP)
The trading addition can’t be made without pointing out any specific defect in the books of accounts. Further no trading addition is required where the assessee has shown better result than earlier years.
The Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench vide order dt. 22.10.2014 in case of Anuj Kumar Varshney Vs. ITO (2014) 41 CCH 175 held that disallowance of 15% of unverifiable purchases is reasonable. In holding so, the Bench relied on the Rajasthan High Court judgment in case of Venus Arts & Gems Vs. ITO (2014) 369 ITR 161. It may be noted that in this case, the assessee carrying on the business of manufacturing of silver and metal beads etc. declared G.P. rate of 8.79% as against G.P. rate of 11.4% declared in the immediately preceding year. The AO by holding that assessee is unable to prove certain purchases made trading addition by applying G.P. rate of 14% on the declared turnover. The Ld. CIT(A)/ITAT after perusing the previous history of the assessee, applied a G.P. rate of 11% as against 14% applied by the AO. On appeal, the Hon’ble High Court upheld the trading addition confirmed by Hon’ble ITAT by applying the G.P. rate of previous year by holding that once provisions of sec. 145(3) are invoked then what should be a reasonable G.P. rate is required to be seen which is a finding of fact and on the basis of appreciation of evidence, thus it is a pure finding of fact. Thus, in this decision also, the trading addition is upheld by application of G.P. rate of the previous year.
Reliance is further placed on the following cases:-
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 18 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
Diagnostics Vs. CIT & Anr. 56 DTR 317 dt. 04.03.2011 (Cal) (HC)
Assessee made payment for purchases from various parties by account payee cheque as well as by cash. AO gave an opportunity to the appellant to produce these parties for verification of the claim, but none of them appeared before the AO. Accordingly, he made the addition by treating the claim as fictitious. It was held that in respect of purchases in cash, the assessee having failed to produce any of the parties except the bills alleged to be raised by those concerns, the Tribunal was justified in disbelieving those transactions. However, in respect of another party, payment was not made by cash but by account payee cheques and encashed through the bankers. If an assessee took care to purchase the materials for his business by way of account payee cheques from a third party and subsequently, three years after the purchase, the said third party does not appear before the AO pursuant to the notice or even has stopped the business, the claim of the assessee on that account cannot be discarded as non-existent.
CIT Vs. Amarpali Jewels (P.) Ltd. 65 DTR 196 (Raj.)(HC)
It is essentially for the taxing authorities to decide as to what should be the % rate of GP that should be applied on particular yearly turnover of the assessee. It is a matter of discretion to be exercised on settled practice applicable to business standards and which is prevalent in commercial world. Thus, in a case, where books of accounts are rejected u/s 145(3) & addition made by disallowing 25% of unverifiable purchases is reduced by applying a G.P. rate by accepting the factual explanation of assessee, the same would not involve any substantial issue of law as such & the Court in its appellate jurisdiction u/s 260A ibid, would not again de
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 19 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
novo hold yet another factual inquiry with a view to find out as to whether explanation offered by assessee is good or bad, or whether it was rightly accepted or not. Therefore, it is only when the factual finding recorded had been entirely de hors the subject, or unreasoned, or found against the provisions of law, then a case for formulation of any substantial question of law arises.
CIT vs. Precious Jewels Corporation 205 Taxman 22 (Raj.)(HC)(Mag.)
In course of assessment, AO made certain addition on account of bogus purchases made by the assessee. CIT(A) as also Tribunal deleted the additions made by AO holding that transactions in question were genuine. It was held that once CIT(A) and Tribunal accepted the factual explanation offered by the assessee & on that basis deleted the additions made by AO, then, it would not involve any substantial question of law for examination by High Court. Therefore, High Court in its appellate jurisdiction u/s 260A, would not de novo hold another factual inquiry with a view to find out as to whether the explanation offered by the assessee was good or bad & thus revenues appeal is to be dismissed.
Shankar Exporters Vs. ACIT 42 DTR 441 dt.01.06.2010 (Jpr.)
Assessee dealing in jewellery, diamond, precious &semi precious stones & pearls returned G.P. Rate of 17.89% as against 19.83% in the preceding year. AO rejected the books of accounts & made trading addition on the ground that assessee failed to produce 8 parties for verification for genuineness of purchases. Assessee has maintained regular books of accounts; day to day stock register, production & manufacturing records & books were audited u/s
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 20 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
44AB. In these facts, it was held that only on account of non verifiability of few purchases rejection of books of accounts was not justified as no other defect found by the AO in maintaining books of accounts. A small variation in G.P. Rate does not justify disturbance in the trading result & therefore addition on account of low G.P. Rate is to be deleted.
Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Leader Valves P. Ltd. 285 ITR 0435 (P&H)
The assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of various types of valves, cocks and boiler fittings, etc. AO invoking the provisions of section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, assessed its income at Rs. 2,10,63,154 which included bogus purchases to the tune of Rs. 1,48,93,287. CIT(A) held that the books of account of the assessee were fully verifiable, that section 145 need not have been invoked and the addition for purchases as bogus was wrong as the consumption stood fully proved and the existence of selling parties could not be denied. It upheld the basis of valuation of closing stock of work-in-progress and hence deleted the additions of Rs. 1,48,93,286 made by the AO on account of bogus purchases. It was held that the purchase of scrap could not be termed bogus for the reason that in the subsequent assessment year, the purchases from these very parties stood accepted by the Department to a very substantial extent. No sale invoices were found to be undervalued or the purchases inflated. The extraordinary profit in respect of goods sold and as recorded in the books of account which ought to have been taken favourably qua the assessee, was considered “adverse” by the Assessing Officer by adopting an erroneous approach. The assessee’s contention that out of total purchases of
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 21 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
non-ferrous metals of Rs. 2.44 crores, the Assessing Officer had treated purchases worth Rs. 1.49 crores only as bogus and it was impossible to manufacture the goods shown to have been manufactured by it out of the remaining purchases if the Assessing Officer’s conclusion was accepted also found favour with the Tribunal. This was a simple finding of fact based upon appreciation of the material on record and thus no question of law arose. The assessee’s method of accounting stood approved by the Tribunal and it had attained finality. The Tribunal noticed the Department’s contradictory stand inasmuch as firstly specific additions were made in the assessment on account of the alleged bogus purchases and then the assessee’s books were rejected on the ground that these were not verifiable but adjustment of bogus purchases was made while working out the gross profits and that too on the basis of sales version in those very books though with a slight modification. Further, the Department also accepted the method of accounting adopted by the assessee. These were pure findings of fact and no question of law arose. In view of above, trading addition upheld by CIT(A) be deleted.
On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR has relied on the orders of the
authorities below and further submitted as under:
In the above case the purchasers/suppliers could not be verified due to not producing necessary details / parties before AO and therefore, AO made the addition u/s 69C to follow the decision of Vijay Protins and Sanjay Oil Cakes in which disallowance of 25% of bogus purchases was held justified. In the case of Shri Vijay Kedia (HUF) ITA No. 248/JP/16 (revenue appeal), AO disallowed 100% Bogus purchase but CIT(A) restricted to 15% to follow the case of Anuj Kumar Varshney (ITAT,
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 22 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
Jaipur) which is not justified. In most of the cases AO made the addition of 25% but CIT(A) restricted to 15% by following decision of Anuj Kumar Varshney (ITAT, Jaipur) which is also not unjustified, because facts of Anuj Varshney are not applicable in those cases. I relied upon following decisions in which either 25% or 100% were held justified. He relied on the following case laws: 1. 58 taxamnn.com 44 (Guj)- Vijay Protins - disallowance of 25% of bogus purchases was held justified
316 ITR 274 (Guj) - Sanjay Oil Cakes Ind. - disallowance of 25% of bogus purchases was held justified
72 taxmann.com 289 (Guj) N.K. Industries - disallowance of 25% of bogus purchases was held justified
2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT-NK Protins Ltd- Hon’ble Supreme Court held disallowance of 100% of bogus purchases was justified
178 CTR 420 (Raj) -Indian woollen Carpet Factory- held that onus is on assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases.
186 CTR 718 (MP) - VISP Pvt. Ltd.- Same view was taken as in case of Indian woolen
227 ITR 391 (Raj) - Golcha Properties P Ltd
250 ITR 575 (Del) - Law Medica
240 ITR 322 (KER) - Beena Metals
229 ITR 181 (MP) - System India Casting
50 DTR 502 (ITAT, Jaipur) - Deepak Dalela
49 ITR 112 (SC) - Shri Lekha Banerjee
288 ITR 10 (SC) - Kachawala Gems
In view of the above, where the assessee filled the appeal /CO may kindly be dismissed and where revenue filled appeal may kindly be allowed.
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 23 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
The Bench have heard both the sides on this issue. The ld. CIT(A)
held that the assessee has not produced its books of accounts, therefore,
the purchases made by the assessee remained unverifiable. The
Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Anuj Kumar
Varshney & Ors. had decided that 15% of such bogus/unverifiable
purchases can be disallowed and the ld. CIT(A) had followed the same.
Therefore, the Bench find no merit in the contention of the ld. AR of the
assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) in this
regard. Hence, this ground of the assessee’s appeal stands dismissed.
The issue involved in ground No. 3 is confirming the disallowance of
Rs. 73,714/- U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue
by holding as under:
“3.2.2 Determination:
(i) The brief facts are that the appellant incurred certain expenditure which were liable to TDS, however, since the appellant has not produced any documents relating to these expenses, the AO issued show cause notice dated 19.02.2014, requiring the appellant to explain why the following expenses should not be disallowed for non-deduction of tax at source: Brokerage Expenses Rs. 38,182/- Interest Rs. 4,28,283/- Legal & Consultancy charges Rs. 94,714/ TOTAL Rs. 5.61179/-
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 24 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
As the appellant could not prove that TDS was made on these expenses, the AO disallowed expenses of RS. 5,61,179/- u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act.
(ii) During the appellate proceedings, it was submitted by the appellant that:
Brokerage Rs.38,182/-:-This brokerage was paid to Ashok Dhamani on which tax was deducted at source.
Interest of Rs. 4,28,283/-:- This interest was paid to the various parties on loan taken for the purpose of the business and the appellant has duly deducted the Tax at source, wherever interest paid was more than Rs.5,000/-.
Legal and Consultancy Expenses Rs.94,714/-:- Out of the said amount payment of Rs. 73,714/- was made to S. Jhalani & Company on which no Tax was deducted at source, payment amounting to Rs. 2,500/- to various parties on which no tax was deductible at source and payment to auditor amounting to Rs. 18,500/- for consultancy on which TDS was deducted. It was further submitted that only in respect of amount of Rs.73,714/-, no tax was deducted at source and hence the disallowance made under this head be restricted to Rs.73,714/-.
(iii) I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant, assessment order and the material placed on record. It is an admitted tact that the appellant has not deducted tax at source in respect of payment of Rs. 73,714/-. It was stated that, however, it has deducted tax at source in respect of payment of Rs. 18,500/- to the auditor. It was claimed by the appellant that it has deducted tax on brokerage of Rs. 38,182/- paid to Sh. Ashok Dhamani and has also deducted tax at source on account of interest payment wherever the interest paid was more than Rs. 5,000/- During the appellate proceedings, it was submitted by the AR that the
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 25 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
deduction of tax at source is verifiable from the TDS return filed by the appellant which is on the record of the department.
(iv) As the appellant has admitted that it has not deducted tax at source on account of payment of Rs. 73,714/- , the disallowances made by the AO u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act is hereby sustained. Regarding the remaining expenses, the AO is directed to obtain the TDS return from the TDS Wing of the Income Tax Department and allow the claim of the appellant wherever TDS was made in respect of the payments under consideration.
While pleading on behalf of the assessee, the ld AR has submitted
as under:
The AO observed that assessee has incurred brokerage expenses of Rs.38,182/-, interest expenses of Rs.4,28,283/- and legal & consultancy charges of Rs.94,714/- which were liable to TDS. However, since the assessee has not produced any documents relating to the expenses, it could not be verified that TDS were made out of these expenditures or not. Accordingly, AO disallowed expenses of Rs. 5,61,179/- u/s 40(a)(ia).
Before CIT(A), assessee submitted that except payment of Rs.73,714/- made to S. Jhalani & Company, he has deducted TDS on the remaining expenditure wherever required and the same can be verified from the TDS return file by the assessee which is on record of the department.
The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs.73,714/- u/s 40(a)(ia) and regarding the remaining expenses, directed the AO to obtain the TDS return and allow the claim of the assessee where TDS is made.
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 26 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
It may be noted that second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) inserted by FA, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 has provided that where an assessee fails to deduct tax on the sum paid to the resident but such resident payee has furnished the return, taken into account such sum for computing income and has paid the tax due on the income declared by him then it will be deemed that assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return by the resident payee. The return of S. Jhalani & Company Pvt. Ltd. is at PB 94- 95. Therefore, considering the above amendment which is introduced to remove unintended hardship, no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) be made in the hands of the assessee. It is a settled law that second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2013 has retrospective effect as held by Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt. Ltd. 124 DTR 185, Bangalore Bench in case of Sh. G. Shankar Vs. ACIT in ITA No.l832/Bang/2013 dt. 10.10.2014, Agra Bench in case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal Vs. ACIT (2014) 34 ITR(Trib.)479, Delhi Bench in case of ITO Vs. Dr. Jaideep Kumar Sharma (2014) 34 ITR(Trib.)565, Bangalore Bench in case of DCIT Vs. Ananda Marakala (2014) 150 ITD 323 as the amendment was made to remove the undue hardship.
In view of above, disallowance of Rs.73,714/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) be directed to be deleted.
On the contrary, the ld Sr. DR has relied on the orders of the
authorities below.
The Bench have heard both the sides on this issue. The ld. CIT(A)
held that the assessee has not deducted tax at source in respect of
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 27 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
payment of Rs. 73,714/-. The assessee has deducted tax on brokerage of
Rs. 38,182/- paid to Shri Ashok Dhamani and also deducted tax at source
on account of interest payment of more than Rs. 5,000/-. The assessee
has admitted that he has not deducted tax at source on account of
payment of Rs. 73,714/-. In view of the above, the Bench find no any
contrary material in the order of the ld. CIT(A), therefore, we uphold the
same. Hence, this ground of appeal of assessee stands dismissed.
In the 4th ground of the appeal, the issue involved is confirming the 16.
addition of Rs. 3,83,757/- by considering the peak of cash deposit and
withdrawal from the bank account as unexplained. The ld. CIT(A) has
dealt the issue by holding as under: “3.3.2 Determination:
(i) The brief facts of the case are that during the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the AO that the appellant has made cash deposit of Rs. 17,24,150/- in Allahabad Bank and Rs. 5,000/- in Union Bank on various dates as mentioned on page 6 & 7 of the assessment order. Since, the appellant has not filed any explanation for the same, the AO made addition of Rs. 17,24,150/- to the income of the appellant.
(ii) During the appellate proceedings, it was submitted by the appellant that these are the regular bank accounts of the appellant and duly incorporated in the books of accounts. The source in the cash book is either receipt from debtors or earlier withdrawals from the bank account itself. In support of its contention, the appellant has filed copy
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 28 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
of bank account and relevant pages of cash book where this account was incorporated as additional evidence. It was further submitted that the AO has considered the entire deposit only whereas in the bank account there is continuous deposit as well as withdrawals. If the same are considered, the entire deposit is backed by the earlier withdrawals in the bank account or sales of the business. The summary of the cash withdrawals and deposits in all the bank account is enclosed. Hence the cash deposit in the bank account is fully explained. It was also submitted that it is a settled law that where there are continuous debit or credit entries, the peak deposit should be considered for determining the income. In support of its contention, the appellant relied upon a number of judicial pronouncements.
(iii) I have gone through the above submission of the appellant, assessment order and the material placed on record. The appellant has filed copy of bank account and relevant pages of cash book where this account was incorporated as additional evidence which were not admitted in view of the discussion made earlier in this order. However, it may be mentioned that in the case of Sind Medical Stores vs. CIT (Supra), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that this court in CIT vs. Ishwardas Mutha (2004) 270 ITR 597 (Raj.) also accepted the contention to take into account, the peak credit theory. When any amount is paid, later withdrawn from the bank, would be available for recycling and rotation, unless otherwise established as invested elsewhere by the Revenue. It was held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of peak credit which ought to have been allowed instead of making separate addition of entire amount. However, it was observed that it the Assessing Officer comes to a finding that withdrawn amount was used or spent by the assessee for any other investment or expenditure than the benefit of peak of such credit, in such circumstances, may not be available.
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 29 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
(iv) In the instant case under consideration, no specific finding was recorded by the AO regarding the utilization of cash withdrawal by the appellant from its bank accounts in some investment or expenditure. Therefore, in view of the above referred decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sind Medical Store vs. CIT (Supra), the benefit of peak credit theory could be allowed to the appellant. As per the chart, enclosed to this order as Annexure-A, submitted by the appellant, the peak credit balance was to the tune of Rs.3,83,757/- as on 27.01.2011 and not Rs. 2,53,857/- as stated by the appellant. Therefore, addition of Rs. 3,83,757/- is hereby sustained as undisclosed income of the appellant. However, the AO is directed to examine the peak deposit chart i.e. Annexure-A with the bank statements of the appellant and to rectify the mistake, if any, in the said chart.”
The ld. AR of the assessee has reiterated the arguments as made
before the ld. CIT(A) and further submitted as under:
The AO observed that assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 17,24,150/- in Allahabad Bank on various dates and Rs.5,000/- in Union Bank of India on 16.04.2010. Since assessee has not filed any explanation for the same, he treated the above cash deposit of Rs. 17,29,150/- as unexplained and made addition for the same u/s 68 of the IT Act.
In appellate proceedings, assessee submitted that these are regular bank accounts and duly incorporated in the books of accounts. The source of cash deposit is either receipt from debtors or earlier withdrawal from the bank account itself. The copy of bank account and cash book was filed as additional evidence (PB 23-69). It was further submitted that the AO has considered the
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 30 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
entire deposit whereas in the bank account there is continuous deposit as well as withdrawals. If the same is considered, the entire deposit is backed by the earlier withdrawals in the bank account or sales of the business. The summary of cash withdrawal and deposit in all the bank account was also filed (PB 10A-11A). Alternatively, it is submitted that where there are continuous debit or credit entries, the peak deposit should be considered for determining the income and therefore, even if addition is to be made it should be restricted to Rs.2,53,857/-.
The Ld. CIT(A) held that the documents filed as additional evidence cannot be admitted in view of discussion made earlier. However, in view of decision of Rajasthan High Court in case of Sind Medical Stores Vs. CIT, the assessee is entitled to benefit of peak credit. No specific finding was recorded by the AO regarding the utilization of cash withdrawal by the appellant from its bank accounts in some investment or expenditure. The peak credit balance is Rs.3,83,757/- as on 27.01.2011 and not Rs.2,53,857/- as stated by the assessee.
As discussed above, the additional evidences filed by the assessee should be accepted. From the copy of bank account and cash book (PB 23-69) it can be noted that all the deposits in the bank account is verifiable from the cash book maintained by the assessee. The source of cash deposit is either receipt from debtors or earlier withdrawal from the bank account itself. The chart showing the deposit in the bank account and the source of such deposit is at PB 6A-7A. In view of above, the addition of Rs.3,83,757/- confirmed by CIT(A) be directed to be deleted.
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 31 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
On the contrary, the ld Sr. DR has relied on the orders of the
authorities below.
The Bench have heard both the sides on this issue. It is undisputed
fact that the assessee has deposited Rs. 17,24,150/- on various dates in
Allahabad Bank. The ld. CIT(A) has held that the assessee has filed copy
of bank account and relevant pages of cash book where this account was
incorporated as additional evidence which were not admitted in. He also
held that in the case of Sind Medical Stores vs. CIT, the Hon’ble
jurisdictional High Court held that this court in CIT vs. Ishwardas Mutha
(2004) 270 ITR 597 (Raj.) also accepted the contention to take into
account, the peak credit theory. When any amount is paid, later
withdrawn from the bank, would be available for recycling and rotation,
unless otherwise established as invested elsewhere by the Revenue. It
was held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of peak credit
which ought to have been allowed instead of making separate addition of
entire amount. However, it was observed that it the Assessing Officer
comes to a finding that withdrawn amount was used or spent by the
assessee for any other investment or expenditure than the benefit of peak
of such credit, in such circumstances, may not be available. No specific
reason was recorded regarding the utilization of cash withdrawal by the
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 32 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
assessee from its bank accounts in some investment or expenditure. In
view of the above and considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Bench find no any contrary material in the
order of the ld. CIT(A), therefore, we uphold the same. Hence, this
ground of appeal of assessee stands dismissed.
In the 5th ground of appeal, the issue involved is confirming the 20.
disallowance of deduction of Rs. 56,256 made under Chapter VI of the
Act. The ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue as under:
3.4.2 Determination:
(i) In its return of income, the appellant has claimed deduction of Rs. 56,256/- under Chapter Vl-A of the Act, however, since no evidence was submitted by the appellant, the AO disallowed the claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act. During appellate proceedings, it was submitted by the appellant that it paid the amount of Rs. 56,256/- as premium to LIC. However the receipt of the same was misplaced. As the appellant has failed to submit the necessary evidence to support its claim of deduction of RS. 56,256/- even during the appellate proceedings, it is therefore held that the AO was justified in not allowing deduction under chapter Vl-A of the Act. Hence, this ground of appeal is hereby rejected.
(ii) In its written submission, the appellant has taken ground of appeal No. 1 by stating that ‘passing order u/s 144 without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee’. It may be mentioned that the appellant has not raised any ground of appeal relating to passing of ex- parte order u/s 144 of the Act in the grounds of appeal annexed with
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 33 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO
Form No. 35. Further, no prayer was made for its admittance as an additional ground of appeal. However, it may be mentioned that it has been discussed earlier in this order that a number of opportunities were provided by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings to the appellant to explain its case but no compliance was made.
While pleading on behalf of the assessee, the ld AR has submitted
as under:
The assessee claimed deduction under Chapter VIA on account of payment to LIC. Both the lower authorities disallowed the claim for the reason that evidence of payment is not furnished.
It is submitted that the evidence of payment of LIC is misplaced and therefore could not be furnished. However, the lower authorities failed to consider that assessee has made a withdrawal of Rs.6,83,686/- as per the Capital Account. Therefore, the AO be directed to be allowed the deduction in case if assessee is able to furnish the evidence for the same.
On the contrary, the ld Sr. DR has relied on the orders of the
authorities below.
The Bench have heard both the sides on this issue. The assessee
has claimed deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act but no evidence was
submitted by the assessee. During the appellate proceedings, the
assessee has submitted that he has paid the amount as premium of LIC
but he failed to submit necessary documents. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A)
ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 34 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO has rejected the claim of the assessee. Considering the totality of the
facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench find no any contrary
material in the order of the ld. CIT(A), therefore, we uphold the same.
Hence, this ground of appeal of assessee stands dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19/02/2018.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ ¼Hkkxpan½ (VIJAY PAL RAO) (BHAGCHAND) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 19th February, 2018 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Shankar Jhalani, Jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 3(2), Jaipur. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1053/JP/2016) 6.
vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत