SHRI DIPAK KUMAR MONDAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 55(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

It transpires at the outset that assessee’s instant appeal suffers from 590 days delay in filing. Learned counsel invite my attention to the assessee’s condonation affidavit making it clear that he had received the CIT(A)’s order under challenge dated 08.04.2016 only on 02.03.2018. This clinching averment has gone undisputed from the Revenue side. I therefore condone the impugned Dipak Kr. Mondal Vs. ITO Wd-55(3), Kol. Page 2 595 days delay in filing of instant appeal as neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond assessee’s control. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits.

Learned counsel does not press for assessee’s first substantive ground challenging correctness of addition amounting to ₹55,683/- on account of earnings from EEDF the same is declined as not pressed.

Next comes assessee’s second substantive ground seeking to delete the alleged addition of undisclosed investment amounting to ₹14 lac in UTI Mutual Fund. I notice during the course of hearing that the assessee has made the impugned investment in mutual fund from his bank account only in four installments involving sums of ₹ 3 lac each on three occasions and ₹5 lac on 17.02.2006, 20.02.2006, 06.10.2005 and 25.08.2005; respectively. The assessee’s bank statements as well as balance-sheet and profit and loss account form part of record to this effect. I therefore conclude in these facts that both lower authorities have erred in treating the impugned investment in UTI mutual fund to the tune of ₹14 lac as unexplained in course of assessment and upheld in the lower appellate proceedings. The same is directed to be deleted.

Lastly comes the third issue of disallowance of professional expenses amounting to ₹4,75,729/- @ 50% of the total claim amounting to ₹9,51,458/- both the lower authorities hold that assessee could not file supportive evidence to this effect. They have disallowed 50% of the assessee’s claim on account of assessee’s failure in filing the relevant details. I notice that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) have drawn any comparative chart of the impugned expenditure in preceding as well as succeeding assessment year. The fact also remain is that assessee has not proved his impugned claim by filing all supportive details. I therefore deem it appropriate in this peculiar facts and Dipak Kr. Mondal Vs. ITO Wd-55(3), Kol. Page 3 circumstances that lump sum disallowance of ₹2.50 lac would meet the ends of justice with a rider that same shall not be treated as precedent in any other assessment year. The assessee gets relief to the tune of ₹2,25,729/-. The third substantive ground is treated as partly accepted.