NAVIN N RAJPUT,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

Assessee by: Shri Anant N. Pai Department by: Shri Sumit Kumar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing: 14.03.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 13.05.2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 12.09.2013 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax A.Y.2009-10 (Appeals)30, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the learned “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:-

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner{Appeals} erred in confirming in part @ Rs.11,61,195/- the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer u/s.69A as unexplained money.

We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned representative of the parties and perused the record carefully. The learned representative of the assessee has argued that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming in part @ Rs.11,61,195/- which is the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in A.Y.2009-10 short “the Act”) as unexplained money. The learned representative of the assessee has produced the bank summary lies at page 5 to 18 of the paper book and also the date wise cash accounts lies at page 19 to 26 of the paper book. The annual cash summary was also been reproduced before us which is at page 31 of the paper book. Monthly cash summary has also been produced which lies at page 32 to 35 of the paper book. The contention of the assessee is that the amount which has been treated as unexplained was withdrawn from the account and subsequently deposited with the above mentioned accounts. No doubt these documents were not produced before the learned CIT(A) for consideration. No doubt in view of the above mentioned documents the matter of controversy can be adjudicated by examining the relevant record. Therefore in view of the said circumstances we are of the view that the amount which has been treated as an explanation u/s. 69 of the Act is required to be re- examined a fresh in the light of the documents produced before us and by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly we set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the file before the Assessing Officer to re- examine the matter a fresh in view of the observations made above. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue for statistical purpose. A.Y.2009-10 Issue No. 2:-

The issue no.2 is in connection with the conformity of ad-hoc disallowance to the tune of Rs.51,852/- made @ 20% by the Assessing Officer confirmed by learned CIT(A) in his order. The assessee claimed the following expenses:-

Expenses Claimed (a) Telephone Rs. 16,534 (b) Petrol Rs. 18,600 (c) Interest on car loan Rs. 86,663 (d) Car insurance Rs. 20,388 (e) Depreciation on car Rs.1,17,083 Total Rs.2,59,268 Disallowance @ 20% on above - Rs.51,852/- The Assessing Officer disallowed 20% expenses on the basis of such that the log book was not produced by the assessee and the assessee failed to produce full details. Thus, the Assessing Officer disallowed 20% of the said expenses on account of personal expenditure. The said disallowance has been confirmed by the learned CIT(A). By going through the order passed by the authorities below no doubt firstly it is incumbent upon the assessee to raise claim before the authority with appropriate and justifiable documents. No doubt the log book and other documents have not been produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. In view of the said circumstances the learned Assessing Officer disallowed the 20% expenditure treating as personal expenditure of the assessee. Observing the nature of the A.Y.2009-10 expenditure we are of the view that the disallowances to the extent of 20% is excessive and end of the justice would be meet if 10% of the said expenditure to be allowed. Therefore in the said circumstances we disallowed the 10% expenditure of the amount to the tune of Rs.2,59,268/-. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13th May, 2016. (R.C.SHARMA) (AMARJIT SINGH) लेखा सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated : 13th May, 2016 MP MP MP MP A.Y.2009-10