Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी वी दुगा� राव �ाियक सद� एवं �ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ Year:2010-11 Shri K. Thanikachalam, The Deputy Commissioner of No. 18-A, Girija Gardens, Vs. Income Tax, Devadi Street, Mylapore, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 4. Chennai. [PAN:AAEPT1404B] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai, dated 18.03.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2010-11 challenging confirmation of disallowance of eviction expenses of ₹.11,00,000/-.
The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by one day in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay in support of an affidavit by stating that the delay was neither wilful not wanton and pleaded for condoning the delay, against which, the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. Since the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 on 14.10.2010 declaring a total income of ₹.55,79,419/- and the same was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 28.03.2013 by assessing total income of the assessee at ₹.5,13,86,050/- after making various additions. On appeal, vide order dated 28.07.2014, the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal by confirming the additions made towards disallowance under section 68 of the Act and unsecured loans. Further, the ld. CIT(A) remitted back various disallowances to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification. After verification, vide order under section 143(3) r.w.s.
250 of the Act dated 29.03.2016, the Assessing Officer reassessed the total income at ₹.3,26,22,797/-. Thereafter, vide order under section 154 of the Act dated 23.05.2018, the Assessing Officer has further revised the total income at ₹.2,62,69,258/- by allowing the claim of the assessee to the extent of ₹.50.00 lakhs with respect to unsecured loans of ₹.63,25,360/- and rejected the claim of eviction expenses of ₹.33.00 lakhs. On appeal, after considering the confirmation letter dated 15.03.2019 from Shanti Jain, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition towards disallowance to the extent of ₹.22.00 lakhs and confirmed the balance expenses of ₹.11.00 lakhs for want of evidence.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By filing confirmation letters and bank statements, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed for deleting the addition made towards disallowance of eviction expenses.
On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. With regard to the disallowance of claim of eviction expenses, the Assessing Officer disallowed ₹.33.00 lakh for want of evidence. On appeal, after considering the confirmation letter dated 15.03.2019 from Shanti Jain, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition towards disallowance to the extent of ₹.22.00 lakhs and confirmed the balance expenses of ₹.11.00 lakhs for want of evidence. Before us, the assessee has produced confirmations from J. Manoj Kumar (₹.2.00 lakhs), Jaya Ravi (₹.1.00 lakh), S. Banumathy (₹.1.00 lakh) & M. Saravanan & K. Lakshmanan (₹.50,000/- each) along with bank statement. On perusal and verification of the bank statement, we find that the assessee has actually made payment to the above parties. However, the assessee has not produced any evidence/confirmation from Jaganathan & Kuppammal for the expenses of ₹.6,00,000/-. Under the above facts and circumstances and by considering the confirmation letters as well as bank statement furnished by the assessee, we, hereby delete the addition made towards the disallowance of eviction expenses to the extent of ₹.5,00,000/-. Since the assessee could not file any confirmation from Jaganathan & Kuppammal, the disallowance of eviction expenses to the extent of ₹.6,00,000/- is sustained.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on the 26th August, 2022 in Chennai.