9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As it can be seen from the assessment proceeding as well as penalty proceeding, the assessee failed to substantiate its claim of expenditure made u/s. 57 to earn the income from other sources . In the absence of the same, even before the Lower Authorities as well as before this Tribunal mere filing written submission for 5 pages without any material evidences cannot yield good result to the assessee. We do not find proper assistance from the assessee by simply filing a written submission without any material evidences before us as well as before Ld. CIT(A). It is not the case of the Revenue that made the addition without hearing the assessee, whereas five opportunities were given to the assessee to explain its case which were never responded by the assessee and nor filed any details or evidences in respect of the expenses claimed u/s. 57 of the Act. Therefore, we have no hesitation in confirming the order passed by the Lower Authorities. Thus the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is hereby rejected. - Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Written Submission/None For the Revenue : Shri Ashish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . But grounds of appeal as reproduced above give impression that A.O. had committed grave mistake in not giving opportunity to the appellant and therefore order passed u/s 144 should be annulled (Ground No.1 to Ground No.7). Considering the totally contradictory statement by the appellant, the assessment folder was called for. It is apparent from the assessment folder that:- 1. The case was picked up for scrutiny to verify the claim of large deduction claimed u/s. 57. 2. In the return, gross receipt under the head 'Income from Other Sources has been returned at Rs. 672483/- and against the same Deduction u/s. 57 of Rs. 519863/- has been claimed. 3. Notices u/s. 143(2), 142(1) and detailed questionnaire were issued in the manner as narrated in the assessment order. 4. The notices as narrated in the assessment order were also dispatched by RPAD and at least on two occasions (notices u/s. 142(1) along with questionnaire dt.22/10/2013 November 2013) these RPAD were received by the appellant as apparent from the acknowledgement. 5. Vide letter dt. 22/1/2014 dispatched via RPAD, the appellant was clearly informed that non-compliance will result in disallowa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve the income out of the gross receipts/But in the case of non-recurring. non-systematic, onetime receipts falling under the head of other sources this logic does not apply unless the appellant is able to show that these receipts are also basically of the nature of a secondary or accessory business. For eg. a trader-manufacturer may also indulge in the side business of money lending or share trading and may return the receipts thereof under the head 'Income from other sources' after claiming the required expenses, viz. interest, brokerage etc. But in the present case, no such material is available to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant is actually running a small business. He has himself offered his receipts as income from other sources' and claimed deduction u/s. 57. Verification of this deduction was the main purpose of the assessment. The receipt being under the head income from other sources, it was on the appellant to prove and substantiate that he has actually incurred an expenditure of Rs. 519863 in earning the gross receipts of Rs. 672483. Despite repeated opportunity given by the AO, no details of this item of claim was submitted nor any details of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmed by him was without providing opportunity to the assessee for invocation a provisions of section 144A and depriving the assessee to have the benefit of valuable guidance of Joint CIT Sir, though statutorily provided. 7. The assessment order passed being bad in law ought to have been annulled. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 6,72,473/- (as per A.O. para 3 Rs. 5,19,863/-). The same needs deletion. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition Rs. 6,72,473/- (as per A.O. para 3 Rs. 5,19,863/-) based on irrelevant material. The same needs deletion. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in not considering the expenses, deductions and exemptions available to the appellant under the various provisions of the Act. 11. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in not applying guidelines available u/s. 44AD. The taxability of gross income in full is neither legal nor statutory nor logical. 12. Without prejudice, the income determined needs suitable reduction. 13. Without prejudice the Ld. CIT(A) erred confirming disallow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. Thus, it is the duty of the assessee to justify that the deduction claimed by him was incurred in connection with the impugned gross income. But the assessee, failed to do so. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the authorities below. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 6. It is thereafter assessee filed MA No.35/RJT/2020 dated 21-12- 2022 and thereby this above order was recalled on the ground that another Co-ordinate bench decision dated 14-09-2022 in the case of Naranbhai Rambhai Zala -Vs- ITO in ITA No.477/RJT/2017 was not considered by this Tribunal. 6.1. Thus this is the second round of appeal before us, as stated earlier, None appeared on behalf of the assessee but a Written Submission is filed by the assessee, the same is considered carefully. This Written Submission is filled with all the provisions of the Income Tax Act, but without any piece of evidences like bills, vouchers, etc about the claim of expenditure u/s. 57 to earn this income from other sources . 6.2. In para 3.1. of the Written Submission, assessee claims t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levance to the claim of expenses u/s. 57 of the Act. In this paragraph, the assessee pleads that he is a very small taxpayer, no assessment proceeding has been taken place for any preceding or succeeding assessment years and the assessee was heavily burden with levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. It is seen from the Penalty order, the Ld. A.O. proceeded with the Penalty proceedings after the disposal of appeal by Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 5,19,863/-. The A.O. issued a show cause notice dated 08-01-2018 and served on the assessee by RPAD to explain its case on 29-01-2018. Even for this Penalty proceedings, the assessee has not responded thereby the Assessing Officer imposed a minimum penalty of Rs. 70,551 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has mentioned about the pendency of the appeal before the ITAT and not explained the expenditure claimed u/s. 57 of the Act. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. As it can be seen from the assessment proceeding as well as penalty proceeding, the assessee failed to substantiate its claim of expenditure made u/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
