SANDHYA ASTHANA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-33(4), NEW DELHI

There was a delay of 9 days in filing of this appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit stating that due to her treatment of ill health she was out of Delhi for which the delay occurred. After hearing the Ld. DR and after considering the contents of the condonation petition filed alongwith the affidavit of the assessee, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has filed her return of income on 27.09.2017 declaring total income of Rs.5,41,400/-. In this case as per AIR data available it was seen that the assessee had made payment of credit card Bill of Rs.5,62,452/- and had received Rs.9,50,484/- u/s. 192/194 C. Accordingly the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by recording reasons and after taking necessary prior approval of the competent authority.

During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has not shown the income under the head other sources of Rs.4,80,000/- In the return filed in response to notice u/s. 148. The Assessing Officer, therefore, made addition of Rs.4,80,000/- to the total income of the assessee. 5. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under :- “4.2 I have considered the facts of the case and the submission made by the AR. It is contended that the appellant had revised the return of income on 04.12.2017 in which the receipts of Rs. 4,80,000/- were considered while showing income u/s 44AD of the Act on presumptive basis. However, it is noticed that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant on 29.03.2017 in response to which the appellant had filed the return of income on 27.09.2017 in which these receipts of Rs. 4,80,000/- were not shown by the appellant. It is also observed that the appellant had not filed the original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act and therefore, the appellant was not entitled to revise her return of income. Page | 2

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the amount of Rs.4,80,000/- is on account of leasing of one vehicle. Therefore, if the gross receipt is treated as income of the assessee then corresponding expenditure and depreciation should have been allowed. However, the same has not been allowed. He accordingly submitted that this matter maybe restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for allowing the claim of expenses u/s. 57 of the IT Act. 8. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). 9. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. I find the case of the assessee was reopened on the ground that assessee has received Rs.9,50,484/- u/s. 192 / 194C and has made payment of credit card bill of Rs.5,62,452/-. I find the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s. 147/143 (3) made addition of Rs.4,80,000/- on the ground that assessee has not shown the income earned under the head “other sources”. I find the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition so made by the Assessing Officer the reasons of which has already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee should have been allowed the benefit of deduction of expenses incurred for earning the income from leasing of the vehicle and depreciation thereon. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice I deem it proper to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case and decide the issue as per fact and law. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised