ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI VIKRANT SINHA, GURGAON

At the time of hearing of the appeal, none appeared on behalf of the assessee-respondent and, accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is being decided qua the assessee-respondent on merits after hearing the learned DR.

Ground No.1 of the Revenue’s appeal reads as under:-

“The learned CIT(A) has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law in admitting fresh evidences under Rule 46A of the IT Rules.”

Learned DR could not point out any specific evidence admitted by the learned CIT(A) in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and, accordingly, ground No.1 of the Revenue is dismissed.

Ground No.2 of the Revenue’s appeal reads as under:-

Learned DR has relied upon the relevant portion of the assessment order dealing with this issue in support of the case of the Revenue.

We have considered the submissions of the learned DR and have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). We find that the learned CIT(A) has passed a speaking order on this issue. He has concluded that there was a loss under the head property income of `4,36,406/- which has been claimed as set off against the income from salary and interest during the year. He has recorded that the relevant documents along with form 16 were attached along with the return of income filed by the assessee. The loss on property has also been shown in form 16 issued by the employer and such loss has been allowed as deduction while issuing form 16. The CIT(A) has recorded that in Column 6 Part-B of the return of income filed by the assessee, it is clearly mentioned under the heading “losses of current year set off against-5” and such loss has been shown in that column. The loss being allowable, learned CIT(A) has allowed the same to be 3 ITA-2594/Del/2012 set off. In these facts of the case, there being no mistake in the order of the learned CIT(A), his order is confirmed on this issue and ground No.2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

Ground No.3 of the Revenue’s appeal reads as under:-

Learned DR has relied on the order of the Assessing Officer.

We have heard the submissions of the learned DR and have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). The assessee has claimed deduction on account of insurance premium, payment made for construction of new residential house and repayment of principle housing loan and these details were shown in form 16 issued by the employer. The assessee has also filed certificates from Max New York Life and a certificate from DLF Ltd. And other relevant documents from Citi Bank in evidence of the deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A of the Act. We find that there is no mistake in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee and the learned CIT(A) has recorded that the assessee has filed necessary evidence in the paper book filed before him which was also forwarded to the Assessing Officer for examination. Accordingly, the order of learned CIT(A) is confirmed on this issue and ground No.3 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

Ground No.4 of the Revenue’s appeal is as under:-

Learned DR submitted that the addition was made on the basis of AIR information and the assessee has spent a sum of `12.47 lakhs on account of credit cards held in his name with different banks.

We have heard the submissions of the learned DR and have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). We find that the learned CIT(A) has called for remand report of the Assessing Officer and has considered the same. The assessee has incurred `12,47,937/- through credit cards of different banks. The assessee has explained that these expenses through credit cards were incurred on behalf of the office as well as for personal purposes. The assessee has filed details of the expenses incurred for personal purposes as well as for office purposes before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The sum of `9,39,764/- was incurred on behalf of M/s Ferodo India Pvt.Ltd. by the assessee and the same has been repaid by the said firm through its account with Standard Chartered Bank, New Delhi. This finding of fact by the CIT(A), could not be controverted on behalf of the Revenue. The transactions are through bank and fully explained. In this view of the matter, we confirm the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue and ground No.4 is dismissed.

Ground No.5 of the Revenue’s appeal reads as under:-

Learned DR submitted that the assessee was living a lavish lifestyle and, in the facts of the case, addition of `10 lakhs for low household expenses was rightly made by the Assessing Officer.

We have considered the submissions of the learned DR. We find that the family of the assessee consists of three members and the assessee has disclosed withdrawal of `11.56 lakhs for household expenses made through credit cards as well as cash withdrawals. The CIT(A) has concluded that the withdrawals made were sufficient for a family of three members and the addition made of `10 lakhs was not justified. We find that the Assessing Officer has made the addition for the sake of addition only and has not given a single valid reason for making the addition of `10 lakhs over and above the sum of `11,56,326/- shown by the assessee for his household expenses. Accordingly, ground No.5 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 5th October, 2015.