9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure of AED 36501 - We notice from a perusal of the corresponding assessment order dt.17-03-2016 that the assessee failed to substantiate the same as running business expenditure which has already been allowed @50%. We thus confirm the impugned payment disallowance - ITA No. 909 to 915/Hyd/18 - - - Dated:- 15-3-2021 - Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member And Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri S.Rama Rao, AR For the Revenue : Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DRs ORDER PER BENCH : These assessee s seven appeals for arise from the CIT(A)- 11, Hyderabad s orders dated 04-12-2017 in case No.375/2016-17/ACIT CC-1(1)/CIT(A)-11, Hyd in AY.2008-09 involving proceedings u/s.271(1)(c), and followed by his common order of the very date in case Nos.08 to 13/2016- 17/ACIT CC-1(1)/CIT(A)-11, Hyd, in proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A in AYs.2009-10 to 2013-14 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, the Act ] for AY.2014-15; respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It transpires at the outset that all these assessee s appeals suffer from identical 52 days delay stated to be attributable to identic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he A.Yrs. 2009-10 to 2013-14 (common grounds) which are as under: 1.The order of the Learned AO is erroneous and not based on the. facts of the case. 2. The AO has failed to give credit for the income declared in the ROI s filed in USA which should have been considered and the same should have been deducted from the monies credited in US banks. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing In addition to the above grounds, the following grounds are also raised for the following Years: For the A.Y 2009-10: 4. The learned AO has wrongly added an amount of ₹ 21,73,665/- being the FD account of the assessee held in USA upto the period ended 2005-06 and hence outside the scope of block assessment and therefore does not partake the character of income. 5.The learned AO has wrongly added an amount of ₹ 126500/-(1000 Dirhams) being amount given to Anil Mathew out of the foreign bank account held by the assessee which does not partake the character of income as the AO has already treated the deposits into the bank account as income and further this payment was made in the F.Y.2013-14 relevant to A.Y 2014-15 but the same does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome tax paid in USA and not the income returned. It is seen from the records submitted by the appellant, that the appellant has filed returns jointly with his spouse Smt.Merlyn Manjula Patta. The incomes shown jointly by the appellant and Smt.Merlyn Manjula Patta and taxes paid are as below: Sl.No. Asst.Year Income returned in USD Tax paid in USA in USD Income returned (In INR) 1 2009-10 22128 0 1125873 2 2010-11 22323 424 1005205 3 2011-12 21828 0 975275 4 2012-13 21376 0 1090390 5 2013-14 20156 0 1095075 6 2014-15 20689 281 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e church activities. ii. As submitted, the premises is used as office of M/s International outreach, and it cannot be said that the assets were found and seized from his residence. iii. Lockers from where foreign exchange were found and seized are in the name of M/s. International outreach iv. Considering the facts stated by the assessee during assessment proceedings and also taking into consideration the affidavit filed by the assessee in this regard, the assessee's view that the value of the assets found and seized during search should be considered and taxed in the case of M/s International outreach is accepted and a SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION on this account will be made in the case of M/s International outreach 3.5 However, as the assessee could not furnish convincing explanation that if the above is the fact, as to why during his statement on oath u/s 132(4) of IT Act, he admitted the value of the assets found and seized as undisclosed income in his hands. Further though the lockers were in the name of M/s International outreach, it is the assessee who was authorized and has been operating the same. Further the assets were found from the premises, may be in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove. The assessment in his case of M/s. International Outreach with respect to the above income has become final. In view of the above the addition made on protective base in the case of the appellant is deleted. 11. Regarding the ground no.7 related to A.Y-2014-15 the appellant contended that the AO has taxed an amount of ₹ 904741/-(70% of Gross Credits into the Bank account of the appellant bearing account no.1101257518603-UMM Suqeim Branch and also a similar sum of ₹ 904741/- being Special Current Account. It was contended that the above account is in the category of special current account and there is no other account held by the appellant. 11.1 On consideration of the assessment order, the assessment record and the contention of the appellant, it is seen that there is no separate account held by the appellant wherein monies worth of ₹ 12,92,487/- are credited/deposited. The treatment of AO resulted in double addition, which is liable to be deleted. Accordingly, the addition is deleted. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival pleadings against and in support of the correctness of the CIT(A) s action affirming and partly upholding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent order dt.17-03-2016 that the assessee failed to substantiate the same as running business expenditure which has already been allowed @50%. We thus confirm the impugned payment disallowance of ₹ 6,77,094/-. No other grounds or arguments have been raised before us. 9. The assessee s instant quantum appeals ITA Nos.910 to 915/Hyd/2018 are partly allowed in foregoing terms. 10. Next comes the assessee s penalty appeal ITA No.909/Hyd/2018 in AY.2008-09. The same admittedly pertains to undisclosed global income addition of ₹ 10,01,998/- computed after allowing only 30% expenditure as in AY.2009-10 to 2014-15 (supra) component of expenditure. We make it clear that although the assessee has not preferred any quantum appeal in the above batch decided in preceding paragraphs, the fact remains that we have already accepted his arguments claiming 50% of the undisclosed income as business expenditure thereby disallowing the remaining equal component only. 11. After vehemently argued against the correctness of the impugned penalty for some time, Mr.Rao stated very fairly at the bar that the assessee restricts his challenge only to the extent of 50% quantum relief gran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
