TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accountant Member Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, C.A., for the assessee Shri A. K. Singh, JCIT, D.R., for the Department ORDER These three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against three separate orders, all dated 27.06.2014 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXVI, Kolkata and since some of the issues involved therein are common, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. First we take up the appeal of the assessee for A. Y. 2004-05 being ITA No. 1783/KOL/2014. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in this appeal is general, which does not require any specific adjudication. 3. The issue involved in Ground No. 2 relates to the claim of the assessee for exemption on account of agricultural income of ₹ 2, 25, 000/- which is disallowed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT( Appeals). 4. The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is engaged in carrying on legal profession. The return of income for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y. 2004-05 was filed by him on 29. 10.2004 declaring total income of ₹ 20, 58,220/- and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t record in the form of Log Book, etc. was not maintained by the assessee in order to establish that the motor car running and maintenance expenses of ₹ 2,93, 370/- and salary and bonus paid to the driver of ₹ 78,000/- was wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of his profession. He also noted that no disallowance out of these expenses was offered by the assessee in his return of income on account of personal use of vehicle. Since such personal use of the vehicle could not be ruled out, the Assessing Officer made a disallowance of ₹ 48, 895/- being 1/6t h of the motor car running and maintenance expenses and ₹ 13, 000/- being 1/7t h of the Driver s salary and bonus. Similarly a disallowance of ₹ 27, 035/- being 1/ 5t h of the telephone and Trunk- call expenses of ₹ 1, 35, 175/- claimed by the assessee was made by him for the involvement of the personal element as no proper record was maintained by the assessee to establish that the expenses claimed by him on telephone and Trunk- call were wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of his profession. The Assessing Officer also noted that the Chamber maintenance expenses of ₹ 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee for A.Y. 2005-06 being ITA No. 1784/KOL/ 2014. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in this appeal is general, which does not require any specific adjudication. 10. The issue raised in Ground No. 2 relates to the disallowance of ₹ 3, 37,535/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT( Appeals) on account of legal charges paid by the assessee. 11. In the Profit Loss Account filed along with his return of income declaring total income of ₹ 22,94, 210/-, a sum of ₹ 3,37, 535/- was debited by the assessee on account of professional fees paid to Shri Ranjan Mitra. As no tax had been deducted by the assessee from the payment made to Shri Ranjan Lal Mitra, the Assessing Officer required him to explain as to why the said amount should not be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia). In reply, it was explained by the assessee that the amount in question was paid by him to Shri Ranjan Lal Mitra for making payments to his Juniors, Clerks and other Counsels for the services rendered in favour of the assessee. It was contended by the assessee that since the proper break-up of the amount so paid was not available, it was not practically possible t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer. On such examination, he found that a sum of ₹ 67, 267/- was paid by the assessee for the air-fare of his daughter Ms. Pragya Tiwari from Mumbai to London. In this regard, the explanation offered by the assessee that his daughter Ms. Pragya Tiwari was graduated in Law from a very reputed U.K. University and had assisted him during the visits to London by working for Goodricke Group of Companies was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any supporting evidence. He also noted that Ms. Pragya Tiwari was neither the employee or the Associate of the assessee and no amount of salary or professional fees was paid by him to her. He, therefore, held that the visit of Ms. Pragya Tiwari to London is purely personal in nature having no nexus with the profession of the assessee and the expenses claimed on the said visit amounting to ₹ 67, 267/- was disallowed by him. On appeal, the ld. CIT( Appeals) confirmed the said disallowance. 15. I have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. Although the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the main client of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2(22)(e) and treated the amount of ₹ 6, 55,000/- received by the assessee from M/s. Mahanagar Properties Pvt. Limited as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) in the assessment completed under section 143(3) read with section 263 by order dated 28. 12. 2010. On appeal, the ld. CIT( Appeals) confirmed the said addition made by the Assessing Officer. 18. I have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the amount in question was received by the assessee as advance from M/s. Mahanagar Properties Pvt. Limited under an agreement by which the property belonging to the assessee was agreed to be sold to the said Company. He has submitted that the sale of the said property, however, was not effected and the property belonging to the assessee was ultimately sold by the assessee to some other party in the year 2008. Relying on the decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra [ 338 ITR 538], he has contended that the amount in question received by the assessee as a consequence of any other consideration, which is beneficial to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
