Shri Manmohan Singh Bindra,, Burhanpur v. The Dy. CIT.,, Khandwa

ITA 105/IND/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 10522714 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AECPB3710Q
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITA 105/IND/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant Shri Manmohan Singh Bindra,, Burhanpur
Respondent The Dy. CIT.,, Khandwa
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 19-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 25-03-2010
Next Hearing Date 25-03-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 02-03-2010
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE SMC BENCH INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.104 105 106 107 & 108/IND/2010 AY: 2005-06 1. AMARJEET SINGH BINDRA (PAN AECPB 3710 Q) 2. MANMOHAN SINGH BINDRA (PAN AECPB 3709 F) 3. MOHINDERPAL SINGH BINDRA (PAN AECPB 3713 P) 4. SWARNJEET SINGH BINDRA (PAN AECPB 3712 N) 5. MANJEET SINGH BINDRA (PAN AECPB 3711 R) ..APPE LLANTS V/S. DCIT-KHANDWA ..RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.S. DESHPANDE CA DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN SR. DR ORDER THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES FOR T HE AY 2005-06 AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II IN DORE DATED 4.12.2009. 2. DURING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS I HAVE HEARD SH RI S.S. DESHPANDE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SMT . APARNA KARAN LD. SR. DR. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE IDENTICAL G ROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS THEREFORE THESE CAN BE DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER. THE FIRST GROUND RAI SED IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF BUSI NESS EXPENSES TO THE 2 EXTENT OF RS.54 105/- RS.54 628/- RS.51 660/- RS .54 200/- & RS.52 120/- RESPECTIVELY AS THE SAME WERE INCURRE D WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE PRESENT ASSESSEES ARE I N THE BUSINESS OF GINNING/PRESSING AND EXTRACTION OF OIL. ALL THE ASS ESSEES ARE MAINTAINING INDIVIDUAL CARS WHICH ARE USED FOR BUSI NESS PURPOSES. WHEREAS THE LD. SR. DR POINTED OUT THAT NECESSARY D ETAILS WERE NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE THE RESPECTIVE AD DITIONS WERE ARGUED TO BE JUSTIFIED. IN REPLY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSE SSEE CONTENDED THAT NECESSARY DETAILS WERE DULY FILED FOR WHICH MY ATTE NTION WAS DRAWN TO PAGES 4 & 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. RES PECTIVE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE FILES. BR IEF FACTS ARE THAT ON EARLIER OCCASION ALSO THE MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS WERE ORDERED TO PROVIDE OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING NECESSARY DETAILS. THE FINDINGS IN T HE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CLAI MED DEDUCTION WAS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED WRITT EN SUBMISSION DATED 4.11.2009. ADMITTEDLY THE CARS WERE IN THE NAMES O F INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL USE CANNOT BE RULED OUT. TO AVOID LITIGATI ON AND TO PUT AN END TO THE REPEATED FILING OF APPEALS THE RESPECTIVE A DDITIONS ARE REDUCED 3 TO THE 50% THEREFORE THE FIRST GROUND IN THE RESP ECTIVE APPEALS (CONSOLIDATED GROUND NO.1 ABOVE) IS PARTLY ALLOWED. WE ARE MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THIS ORDER MAY NOT BE QUOTED AS A PRECED ENT AS IT HAS BEEN TAKEN TO AVOID REPEATED LITIGATION/TO PUT AN END TO THE LITIGATION. 4. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES W ITHOUT CONSIDERING THE TRUE FACTS. THE STAND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT MORE WITHDRAWALS HAVE BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN COMP ARISON TO ESTIMATION MADE BY HIM AND EVEN THE EXPENSES HAVE B EEN DEBITED FROM HUF ACCOUNT WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. SR. DR DEFENDED THE ADDITION BY CONTENDING THAT KEEPING IN VIEW THE STATUS AND BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE THE H OUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS ARE TOWARDS LOWER SIDE. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON FILES. THE WHOLE ISSUE IS SUMMARISED A S UDNER: NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AMARJEET SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH MAHENDRAPAL SINGH SWARNJEET SINGH MANJEET SINGH ADDITIONS MADE ON A/C OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES 72000 72000 72000 72000 72000 4 WITHDRAWAL BY THE ASSESSEE 48000 48000 48000 48000 48000 ESTIMATED BY THE AO 120000 120000 120000 120000 120000 EXPENSES DEBITED BY HUF 115000 115000 115000 115000 115000 IF THE AFORESAID TABLE IS ANALYSED THE RESPECTIVE HOUSE HOLD ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 1 20 000/- EACH WHEREAS THERE IS WITHDRAWALS FROM HUF TO THE TUNE O F RS.1 15 000/- EACH AND RS.48 000/- EACH FROM THE RESPECTIVE INDIV IDUAL ACCOUNTS THEREFORE THE RESPECTIVE ADDITION IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES IS ALLOWED. 6. THE LAST GROUND RAISED PERTAINS TO MAINTAINING O F ADDITION OF RS.34 791 RS.16 679/- RS.33 507/- RS.33 456/- AN D RS.16 679/- RESPECTIVELY. IT WAS FAIRLY AGREED BY THE LD. COUNS EL FOR ASSESSEE THAT NECESSARY DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE E CONSEQUENTLY THIS GROUND IN THE RESPECTIVE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. FINALLY THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE PARTLY A LLOWED. 5 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 19.5.2010. (JOGINDER SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19.5.2010 !VYAS! COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE