Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Shri Pawan Singh (JM)
O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28- 03-2016 passed by Ld CIT(A)-52, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2010-11. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, even though the hearing was adjourned from time to time at the request of the assessee. Hence we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.
We heard ld D.R and perused the record. The solitary issue urged by the assessee relates to the addition of Rs.32.90 lakhs made by the AO and partially confirmed by the Ld CIT(A).
The assessee declared brokerage and commission income in his return of income. The AO has stated that the work of the assessee is to arrange road transport vehicles and steamers. The AO noticed from 26AS statement that the assessee has received a sum of Rs.32.90 lakhs and he noticed that the assessee did not offer the same. Hence the AO added the above said amount to the total income of the assessee. Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee submitted
2 Shankarlal Kanji Bhanushali that the above said amount represents reimbursement of expenses received from his clients and hence it does not constitute his income. The Ld CIT(A) examined the claim of the assessee vis-a-vis the relevant bills. The first appellate authority gave relief to the assessee to the extent of bills found in the name of the assessee, which worked out to Rs.9.93 lakhs. The remaining bills were in the name of other persons, mainly in the name of Jay Kay Forwarders. The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the same. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal.
In the grounds of appeal, it is submitted that the bills might have been obtained in the name of principals and hence there is no justification in adding those bills in the hands of the assessee, as the assessee has got only reimbursement of the same from the principals. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has failed to examine this claim. If the assessee has got reimbursement from the principals, then it is possible that the bills for expenses might have been obtained in the name of the concerned principal. What is required to be seen is whether the claim of the assessee that it represents reimbursements is correct or not? If it is correct, then no addition is warranted in the hands of the assessee. However, the above said claim of the assessee requires verification and we notice that the Ld CIT(A) has also not given his findings on the above said contentions of the assessee. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) to the extent confirmed by him and restore the same to his file for examining it afresh, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 15.6.2018.