Muktaben Nathabhai Patel, Ahmedabad v. The Income tax Officer,WArd-6(1),, Ahmedabad

ITA 1736/AHD/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 173620514 RSA 2010
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1736/AHD/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant Muktaben Nathabhai Patel, Ahmedabad
Respondent The Income tax Officer,WArd-6(1),, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 06-07-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 06-07-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 24-05-2010
Judgment Text
- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH SMC AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI D.C.AGRAWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUKTABEN NATHABHAI PATEL B/1/15 HARSHAD COLONY PART- 1 B/H INDIA COLONY THAKKARBAPANAGAR AHMEDABAD 382350. VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1) AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI HARDIK VORA AR REVENUE BY:- SHRI P. R. GHOSH DR O R D E R PER D. C. AGRAWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RAISING F OLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WE LL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF HANDICRAFT LABOUR EXPENSES OF RS.63 400/-. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRM ING AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF RS.10 000/- INCURRED FO R LORRY RENT TEA AND REFRESHMENT AND STORE CONSUMPTION EXPENSES. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WE LL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADD ITION OF RS.25 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL. ITA NO.1736/AHD/2010 ASST. YEAR :2006-07 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF JOB OF HANDIC RAFTS. SHE IS COLLECTING CLOTH FROM DEALERS AND SENDING THE SAME TO WOMEN LABOURERS TO CARRY OUT HANDICRAFT WORK. SHE FILED RETURN OF INCO ME ON AN INCOME OF RS.1 74 190/-. THE AO MADE VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES AN D MADE ADDITIONS OF RS.1 18 400/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TOTAL LABO UR RECEIPTS OF 15 86 678/- WHEREAS LABOUR EXPENSES WERE CLAIMED AT RS.12 87 587/-. SINCE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO SUBMIT PROOF OF LABO UR PAYMENTS BUT PROVIDED NAMES OF WOMEN LABOURERS DATE OF WORK GIV EN AND RATE OF QUANTITY OF CLOTH GIVEN. ADDRESSES OF 27 WOMEN LABO URERS AND PAYMENTS MADE TO THEM OR PAYABLE TO THEM WERE ALSO PROVIDED. CONFIRMATION FROM THESE 27 WOMEN LABOURERS WERE ALSO PROVIDED BUT TH E AO CONSIDERED THAT CONFIRMATION AVAILABLE IS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 12 29 187/- AND THUS THERE IS A GAP OF RS.58 400/- WHICH WAS ADDED BY HI M IN THE TOTAL INCOME. HE FURTHER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.25 000/- TOWARDS IMPROPER RECORD MAINTENANCE. THE AO THEN CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESS EE MADE EXPENDITURE OF RS.17 935/- TOWARDS COLLECTION OF CLOTH FROM DEA LERS AND LABOURERS AT DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE CITY AND INCURRED EXPENDITU RE ON TEA & REFRESHMENT AT RS.7 689/-. RS.7 224/- WAS SHOWN AS SPENT FOR ST ORE CONSUMPTION. EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEE PROVIDED CERTAIN DETAILS OF THESE E XPENSES BUT THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED AND PROPOSED AN ADDITION OF RS.10 000/- UNDER THESE HEADS. HE ALSO MADE AN ADDITION OF 25 000/- FOR ALL EGED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THESE ADDITIONS AFTER R EJECTING THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD. I FIND THAT MAINTENANCE OF RECORD BY THE AS SESSEE IS NOT UPTO THE MARK POSSIBLY BECAUSE NATURE OF WORK CARRIED OUT BY HER. BUT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THERE WOULD BE S UPPRESSION OF INCOME 3 TO THE EXTENT ESTIMATED BY THE AO. THOUGH THE LABOU R PAYMENTS MAY NOT BE FULLY VERIFIABLE OR CLAIM OF OTHER EXPENSES IS ALSO NOT SUPPORTED BY VOUCHERS BUT FOR THAT MATTER ADDITION TO THIS EXTEN T MADE BY AO AND CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) WILL NOT BE JUSTIFIED. CONS IDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I RESTRICT THE TOTAL ADDITION TO RS.20 000/- OVER AND ABOVE THE RETURNED INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 6/7/2010 SD/- (D.C.AGRAWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD DATED : 6/7/2010 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD