JAYESH K SAMPAT, MUMBAI v. DCIT CEN CIR 46, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J B ENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / I .TA NO. 160/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 MR. JAYESH K. SAMPAT BLOCK H SHRI SADASHIV CHS LTD. 6 TH ROAD SANTACRUZ (E) MUMBAI-400 055 / VS. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-46 AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: SHRI MUKESH CHOKSI / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI ALOK JOHRI / DATE OF HEARING :27.09.2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :27.09.2016 / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-38 MUMBAI DATED 22.11.2013 PERTAINING TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-38 HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE INCOME OF THE ITA NO. 160/MUM/2014 2 APPELLANT AT RS. 13 05 770/- AS AGAINST RETURNED IN COME OF RS 3 59 820/- 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 38 HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN PASSING THE ORDER WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 38 HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE RAT E OF 2% INCOME ON ENTIRE BANK DEPOSITS AS AGAINST 0.15% OFF ERED AND BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS 9 45 950/-. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 38 HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN ESTIMATING THE INC OME ON GROSS RECEIPTS WITHOUT REDUCING THE TRANSFER ENTRIE S AMOUNT IN BANK ACCOUNT FROM WHICH NO INCOME IS EARN ED. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 38 HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING 2% INCO ME ON ENTIRE BANK DEPOSITS MANAGED BY AGENTS AS AGAINST 0 .03% OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 38 HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING INCOME OF THE APPELLANT OF RS. 5 60 062/- ON A/C OF JEWELLARY FOU ND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ACQUIRED AT THE T IME OF MARRIAGES OF HIS PARENTS & HIMSELF AND ARE WITHIN T HE LIMITS OF EXEMPTION AVAILABLE UNDER INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 7.THE LD. CIT(A) -38 HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT ALLOWING BUSINESS EXPENSES AGAINST THE INCOME ESTIM ATED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THIS APPEAL MAY BE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN SINC E THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WHICH IS NUMBERED AS ITA NO . 1005/MUM/2015. TAKING NOTE OF THE SUBMISSION OF TH E LD. COUNSEL ITA NO. 160/MUM/2014 3 THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN AS THE ASSESS EE FILED TWO APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH SEPTEMBER 2016. SD/- SD/- (N.K. PRADHAN) (C.N. PRASAD ) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ %' /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; (' DATED 27 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 . % . ./ RJ SR. PS !'#$#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ) / CIT 5. *+ %%-. -.! / DR ITAT MUMBAI 6. /01 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER *% //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT MUMBAI