TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 809X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no interference on our side is required - Decided against the assessee. - ITA No. 849/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2016 - SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Sh. S.C. Agarwal, CA Respondent by : Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.DR ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 31/10/2012 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXVIII, New Delhi for assessment year 2009-10 raising following grounds: 1. Ld. Income Tax Officer Ward 37(3) New Delhi was not justified to pass the assessment order of the appellant without having his jurisdiction. The Assessment order is absolutely illegal and is liable to set aside on the ground of assessment order passed beyond the jurisdiction of the Ld. Income Tax Officer Ward 37(3) New Delhi, the assessee resides at NOIDA, and is employed at Noida and is also doing his profession/ practice at Noida, despite of having filed the return of income stating his address of Noida, and clearly mentioning the designation of Assessing Officer at Ward-3 Noida in the Return of Income. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii) addition for unexplained cash deposits in ABN Amro bank accounts amounting to ₹ 5,14,548/- (iii) addition for unexplained cash deposits in Standard Chartrerd Bank Account amounting to ₹ 8,90,090/- 2.1 Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal to the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed and, therefore, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. The ground No. 1 of the appeal was not pressed by the learned Authorized Representative of the assessee and, therefore, being rendered infructuous, we dismiss the same. 4. In ground No. 2, the assessee challenged the disallowance of ₹ 1,33,376/- out of the expenses claimed against professional receipts. The facts in respect of the disallowance are that in the computation of income filed, the assessee shown gross receipt from profession of ₹ 9,31,780/- and after deducting expenses of ₹ 6,66,880/- declared profit/gains of ₹ 2,64,900/- resulting into profit ratio of 28.42%. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had not maintained any bills/vouchers in support of the expenses o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view of above, the learned Senior Departmental Representative prayed that the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the issue in dispute might be confirmed. 4.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the Assessing Officer has specifically mentioned in the relevant paragraph, while disallowing the expenses claimed against professional receipt, that the assessee has not maintained books of accounts being the gross receipt from profession less than ₹ 10 lakh and the assessee had not maintained bills and vouchers in respect of the expenses and, therefore, he was unable to verify the claim of the expenses. In our opinion, when the Assessing Officer has specifically mentioned in relevant paragraph of the assessment order the fact of non-maintenance of books of accounts and bills and vouchers for the claim of expenses against professional receipt, the general comment of the test check of books of accounts, bills and vouchers, in first paragraph of the assessment order is not relevant. Further, we find that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has also observed that the assessee has not maintained b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he disallowances made by the Assessing Officer the profit from profession arrives at around 40.35% of the professional receipt and which is even much below the 50% threshold adopted by the legislature for computing income in case of professional on presumptive basis, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, according to us the disallowance of 1/6th of expenses made by the Assessing Officer is reasonable and no interference on our side is required, however, the same is restricted to amount of ₹ 1,11,147/- computed correctly as 1/6 th of the expenses claimed. Accordingly, the ground No. 2 of the appeal is allowed partly. 5. In ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged addition of ₹ 5,14,548/- made towards unexplained deposits of ₹ 2,27,000/- and ₹ 2,87,548/- into bank accounts maintained by the assessee. The facts in respect of issue in dispute are that the Assessing Officer called for detailed statements of two banks account bearing numbers 1044766 and 1238024 maintained with ABN Amro bank and observed that these bank accounts were not declared in the return of income or in the details furnished during assessment proceedings. He observed cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation of the assessee need to be examined by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, we feel appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination of the assessee s claim of deposits from tenants and expenditure made in cash as well as a through cheque from the two bank accounts of the assessee and determining profitability in the venture of running mess, if any, in accordance with law after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all evidences in respect of its claim of running mess for the tenants. The ground of appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose. 6. In ground No. 4, the assessee has challenged addition of ₹ 8,90,090/- towards unexplained deposits in saving bank account with the Standard Chartered Bank. The facts in respect of issue in dispute are that as per the information received from annual information return, the assessee had deposited cash of ₹ 30,58,140/- in the saving bank account bearing No. 530-1031467-3 of the Standard Chartered bank, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee explained a sum of ₹ 16,36, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
