HEMANT UMAJI DOKE,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 17(2), MUMBAI

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 25.01.2011 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2008-09.

The appeal of the assessee is time barred by 46 days. The assessee has moved an application for condonation of delay which is supported with an affidavit stating that the assessee was not well as he was suffering from hepatitis. It has also been submitted that even his counsel was also not keeping good health. The Ld. A.R. has also produced the copies of the medical certificate in this respect. Considering the above application which is supported with evidences, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. Now coming to the merits of the appeal.

The sole ground taken by the assessee in this appeal read as under: “1) On the basis of facts of the case the learned Assessing Officer erred in making addition of and learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the said addition of

The assessee in this case is an individual engaged in the business of carrying out liaison work with builders and developers. The assessee also provides various services for slum and redevelopment projects including convincing unit dwellers of such projects for development. During the year, the assessee obtained licensing and consulting work for M/s. Big Search Properties Pvt. Ltd. and received fee of Rs.5,02,84,799/-. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) found that the assessee had made payment of Rs.3 lakh each to 15 tenants amounting to Rs.45 lakhs as compensation made in cash. When asked to explain in this respect, the assessee explained that the amount was paid in cash to the occupants who after receiving the money had agreed for redevelopment. The assessee produced evidence such as copy of consent letter, copy of agreement with the developer in the name of the persons to whom the payment was made and it was also explained that since the unit dwellers were poor and not very educated persons, hence they demanded money in cash before singing the consent terms. However, the AO was not convinced with the reply given by the assessee and he accordingly disallowed the claim of expenditure.

At the outset, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee has stated that the identical issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the subsequent assessment year 2009-10 and that the Tribunal, after considering the submissions and evidences relied upon by the assessee vide order dated 17.01.16, has restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after verifying the facts and considering the evidences relied upon by the assessee. The relevant findings of the Tribunal for the sake of convenience are reproduced as under: “4. During the course of hearing before us, the Departmental Representative(DR) argued that original vouchers were not produced in 3 M/s. Hemant Umaji Doke support of the claim made by the assessee, that bank details did not show payment of Rs.73 lakhs, that there was long time gap(6 months to 30 months) between the liability and payment, that relevant agreement was not furnished for verification. The Authorised Representative(AR) contended that the assessee was following mercantile system of accouting, that the liability had accrued during the year under appeal, that payments were made in subsequent years, that all the necessary details were made available to the AO. He referred to the statement of facts filed before the FAA.