2013 (7) TMI 32 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained deposit with Shri Girish Ruparel - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - As assessee has not placed the assessment order of Shri Girish Ruparel on record & CIT(A) has also not given a finding that whether the amount of Rs.28.45 lakhs has been assessed in the hands of the Shri Girish Ruparel this issue be restored back to the file of the CIT(A) to verify whether the assessment has been framed in respect of addition of Rs.28.45 lakhs in the hands of Shri Girish Ruparel. If so, the deletion as made by the CIT(A) stands confirmed. Unexplained sub-brokerage - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - CIT(A) has decided this issue after considering the order of the CIT(A) passed in original assessment, wherein CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance on the basis of the report submitted to him. As CIT(A) has examined all the aspects of the matter, therefore, no reason to interfere arises. In favour of assessee. Addition on account of telephone expenses - 1/4th disallowed - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - Considering the objection of the AO that the assessee has not maintained any log book for telephone calls so as to identify the personal nature of the calls. It is possible that office telephone can be used for personal purposes. CIT(A) has not taken into account this fact, and therefore the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is set aside, and the addition made by the AO is hereby confirmed. Against assessee.

Issues:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs.28,45,000/- on account of unexplained deposit with Shri Girish Ruparel.
2. Deletion of addition of Rs.11,37,270/- on account of unexplained sub-brokerage.
3. Deletion of addition of Rs.19,100/- on account of telephone expenses.

Issue 1: Deletion of addition of Rs.28,45,000/- on account of unexplained deposit with Shri Girish Ruparel:
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of the addition of Rs.28,45,000 made by the CIT(A) on the grounds of unexplained deposit with Shri Girish Ruparel. The appellant contended that the CIT(A) did not provide a detailed explanation for the deletion and that Shri Girish Ruparel did not retract his statement regarding the amount. However, the counsel for the assessee argued that since Shri Girish Ruparel affirmed that the amount did not belong to the assessee, no addition should be made in the assessee's hands. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not verified if the amount had been assessed in Shri Girish Ruparel's hands. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for further examination.

Issue 2: Deletion of addition of Rs.11,37,270/- on account of unexplained sub-brokerage:
The second ground of appeal was against the deletion of the addition of Rs.11,37,270 on account of unexplained sub-brokerage. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition as the assessee failed to provide conclusive evidence for the claimed brokerage. However, the counsel for the assessee maintained that all details were submitted to the authorities. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had thoroughly examined the matter and found no reason to interfere with the decision. Consequently, the deletion of the addition was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed.

Issue 3: Deletion of addition of Rs.19,100/- on account of telephone expenses:
The final issue concerned the deletion of the addition of Rs.19,100 on account of telephone expenses. The AO disallowed a portion of the expenses due to personal use without a log book for call identification. The CIT(A) did not consider that the telephones were primarily for business use. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the AO's addition, as the personal nature of the calls was not adequately addressed. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal on this ground was allowed.

In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the Revenue's appeal, remanding one issue back to the CIT(A) for further verification while upholding the decisions on the other issues regarding unexplained sub-brokerage and telephone expenses.

← Previous Next →