2017 (6) TMI 346 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment under section 148 - Held that - The proceedings under section 148 of the Act were initiated against the assessee. However, where the assessee had failed to furnish any return of income in response to the said notice issued under section 148 of the Act and in response to 142(1) /143(2) of the Act then, the assessee at this juncture cannot raise issue against re-opening of assessment. Hence, the ground of appeal No. 1 raised by the assessee is dismissed. Unexplained investment u/s 69 - Held that - Addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment for purchase of plot u/s 69 of the Act is upheld in the hands of the assessee, as the said plot is purchased in the name of two persons. The Ld. AR for the assessee has fairly conceded that balance sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- is to be added in the hands of other partner, Shri Arun Chachad. In the said case, appeal is pending before the CIT(A). Accordingly, addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- is upheld in the hands of the assessee. Disallowance of transport charges - Held that - There is no merit in the plea of the assessee in this regard wherein the Ld. AR of the assessee had already accepted 5% of disallowance out of total lorry hire charges paid. Upholding the order of CIT(A), ground No. 3 raised by the assessee in appeal is dismissed. Disallowance out of total expenses on vehicles and telephone expenses - Held that - Assessing Officer had disallowed 1/3rd of the expenditure of car and telephone totaling ₹ 76,413/-. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 10% of the total expenses i.e ₹ 22,924/-. There is no merit in the ground of appeal No. 4 raised by assessee and hence, the same is dismissed. Addition on account of cash introduced in the firm s account by the partners - Held that - In appeal herein above, in the case of Jagatsingh Pratapsingh Jadhav, addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- on the same ground is upheld and accordingly, no other addition on the same transaction is to be made in the hands of the firm and the same is deleted. In respect of other partner, Shri Arun Chachad, addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- has been made and appeal is still pending before the CIT(A). The Ld. AR for the assessee has proposed that the addition made in the hands of the partners on account of their cash contribution be upheld. In case no addition is confirmed in the hands of Shri Arun Chachad, the balance addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- would be upheld in the hands of the assessee s firm. Otherwise, in case it is added in the hands of the partner, no addition in the hands of the assessee, is valid. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the ground No. 2 accordingly.

Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition of ?5,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act.
3. Disallowance of transport charges.
4. Disallowance of expenses on vehicles and telephone.
5. Addition of ?10,00,000/- on account of cash introduced in the firm’s account by the partners.
6. Disallowance of ?25,000/- on ad-hoc basis out of labor charges, contract work charges, and supervision charges.
7. Disallowance of ?11,235/- on account of office expenses and vehicle expenses.
8. Direction to take further action for A.Y 2003-04 to verify an amount credited in the bank account.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reopening of Assessment under Section 148:
The first issue raised by the assessee was against the reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had initially filed a return of income declaring ?4,65,043/-. The Assessing Officer received information that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment concerning an investment of ?10,00,000/- for purchasing a plot. The notice under section 148 was issued, but the assessee did not file a return in response. The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to furnish any return of income in response to the notice, the issue against the reopening of assessment cannot be raised at this juncture. Hence, the ground of appeal was dismissed.

2. Addition of ?5,00,000/- on Account of Unexplained Investment under Section 69:
During a search action, certain documents revealed that the assessee, along with another partner, had invested in a plot. The source of ?10,00,000/- deposited in the bank was unexplained. The Assessing Officer added ?5,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69, which was confirmed by CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld the addition of ?5,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee, acknowledging the submission that the balance sum of ?5,00,000/- should be added in the hands of the other partner. Hence, the ground of appeal was dismissed.

3. Disallowance of Transport Charges:
The assessee was engaged in the transport business and had paid lorry hire charges, mostly in cash. The Assessing Officer made an ad-hoc disallowance of 7.5%, which was reduced to 5% by CIT(A). The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee’s plea, noting that the assessee’s representative had already accepted a 5% disallowance. Thus, the ground of appeal was dismissed.

4. Disallowance of Expenses on Vehicles and Telephone:
The Assessing Officer disallowed 1/3rd of the car and telephone expenses, totaling ?76,413/-, which was reduced to 10% by CIT(A). The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee’s appeal against this disallowance and dismissed the ground.

5. Addition of ?10,00,000/- on Account of Cash Introduced in the Firm’s Account by the Partners:
The firm’s appeal involved the addition of ?10,00,000/- as unexplained cash introduced by the partners. The Tribunal noted that ?5,00,000/- had already been upheld in the hands of one partner. The Tribunal directed that if the addition is confirmed in the hands of the other partner, no addition should be made in the firm's hands. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide accordingly.

6. Disallowance of ?25,000/- on Ad-hoc Basis out of Labor Charges, Contract Work Charges, and Supervision Charges:
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of ?25,000/- made on an ad-hoc basis due to some expenses being supported by self-made vouchers. Hence, the ground of appeal was dismissed.

7. Disallowance of ?11,235/- on Account of Office Expenses and Vehicle Expenses:
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of ?11,235/- on account of office and vehicle expenses, noting that some expenses were supported by self-made vouchers. Therefore, the ground of appeal was dismissed.

8. Direction to Take Further Action for A.Y 2003-04 to Verify an Amount Credited in the Bank Account:
The grounds of appeal related to this issue were not pressed by the assessee and hence were dismissed as not pressed.

Conclusion:
The appeals in ITA No. 696/PUN/2015 and ITA No. 676/PUN/2015 were dismissed. The appeal in ITA No. 371/PUN/2016 was partly allowed. The order was pronounced on 2nd June 2017.

← Previous Next →