Shri Yogeshkumar Sanmukhbhai Dudhwala, Surat v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(4),, Surat

ITA 1988/AHD/2011 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 198820514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN ABWPD2835M
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1988/AHD/2011
Duration Of Justice 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant Shri Yogeshkumar Sanmukhbhai Dudhwala, Surat
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(4),, Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 16-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 16-09-2011
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 10-08-2011
Judgment Text
. .. . . .. . IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : SMC BENCH : AHMEDABAD (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA J.M .) . / I.T.A. NO. 1988/AHD./2011 ! '# ! '# ! '# ! '# / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-2009 YOGESHKUMAR SANMUKHLAL DUDHWALA SURAT -VS- I.T.O. WARD-2(4) SURAT (PROP. SHREE AMBICA BAKERY) (PAN : ABWPD 2835M) $% / APPELLANT &'$% / RESPONDENT $% ( ) / APPELLANT BY NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSION) &'$% ( ) / RESPONDENT BY SHRI H.P.MEENA SR.D.R. *!' + ( - / DATE OF HEARING 08.09.2011 ./# ( - / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16.09.2011 / ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 13.07.2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II SURAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009. 2. GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED UNDER THIS HEAD AR E RS.18 846/- AS AGAINST RS.19 569/- FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT MONTHLY EXPENSES OF TELEPHONE AND MOBILE WORKS OUT TO RS.1 575/- ON TURNOVER OF RS.5 97 23 277/-. THIS ALSO INCLUDES FIXED MONTHLY RENT OF RS.650/- FOR TE LEPHONE. ON THIS BASIS IT WAS CLAIMED THAT DISALLOWANCE OF 20% IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE. 2 ITA NO. 1988-AHD-2011 3. SHRI H.P.MEENA SR.D.R. APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT DISALLOWANCE OF 1/5 TH OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES FOR PERSONAL USE IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE AC TION OF THE AO. 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE PERSONAL USE OF TELEPHONE AND MOBILE CANNOT BE RULED OUT. IN MY OPINION DISALLOWANCE OF 10% ON TELEPHONE AND MOBILE EXPENSES LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. THE AO MAY WORK OUT THE SAME. RESULTANT LY THIS ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. THE ONLY OTHER GROUND IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 69 ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.36 000/-. 6. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE ARE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE TOTAL WITHDRAWAL MA DE FOR FAMILY OF SIX MEMBERS IS RS.1 66 255/- WHICH IS VERY LOW LOOKING TO THE LIF E STYLE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LOCALITY IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY RESIDE. THE A O ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL OF THE FAMILY AT RS.2 16 000/- AND ACCORDINGLY ADDED R S.49 775/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS. 7. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION O F THE AO BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS OF HOUS EHOLD EXPENDITURE TO JUSTIFY AS TO HOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WERE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 66 225/-. 8. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT THEY LIFE VERY SIMPLE AND PIOUS LIFE COMMENSURATE WITH THEIR EARNING. NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAD ANY CLUB MEMBERSHIP AND/OR DEBIT/CREDIT CARDS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION THAT SINCE THEY LIVE IN THEIR ANCESTRAL PROPERTY THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PAY RENT. EDUCATION EXPENSES IS ALSO NIL SINCE ONLY MIN OR CHILD OF THE FAMILY IS LESS THAN ONE YEAR OLD. MOREOVER THEY HAVE NO LUXURIOUS ELECTRIC AL/ELECTRONIC APPLIANCES/GAZETTES FITTED AT THE RESIDENCE. THEREFORE THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.1 66 225/- IS RIGHTLY SHOWN. 3 ITA NO. 1988-AHD-2011 9. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONTENTED THAT THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON THE LOWER SIDE AND HENCE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO. 10. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE 50% OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. THE AO MAY ACCORDINGLY WORK OUT THE SAME. RESULTANT LY THIS ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. 0 ( ./# 1! 2 16 / 09 /2011 / 3 ( 4+ 5 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16.09.2011. SD/- (T.K. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : /09/2011 ( (( ( & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 76# 76# 76# 76# / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. $% / APPELLANT 2. &'$% / RESPONDENT 3. *; / CONCERNED CIT 4. *;- / CIT (A) 5. 6'? 4 & ! / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. 4 A B 0 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ C / D 5 TALUKDAR/SR.P.S. 4 ITA NO. 1988-AHD-2011