SHAILESH WAGHANI, MUMBAI v. ACIT (OSD)-I CR-7, MUMBAI

ITA 2166/MUM/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 216619914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AEBPV1661B
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2166/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant SHAILESH WAGHANI, MUMBAI
Respondent ACIT (OSD)-I CR-7, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 28-01-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 18-03-2010
Judgment Text
1 ITA 2166/MUM/10 SHRI SHAILESH WAGHANI IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES F BEFORE SHRI R.V. EASWAR PRESIDENT AND SHRI P.M. JA GTAP A.M. ITA NO. 2166/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 SHRI SHAILESH WAGHANI MOHANLAL JAIN & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 10 CHARTERED HOUSE GR. FLOOR DR. C.H. STREET MARINE LINES MUMBAI 400 002. PAN AEBPV 1661B VS. ACIT (OSD)-1 CR 7 ROOM NO. 413 AAYAKAR BHAWAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI. 400 020. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI VIJAY KOTHARI RESPONDENT BY MS. ASHIMA GUPTA ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) -40 MUMBAI DATED 4.2.10 AND IN THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED THER EIN THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF ` 4 03 796/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT ALLEGEDLY EARNED BY THE ASSESS EE FROM THE BUSINESS OF ASSORTMENT OF DIAMONDS. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L WHO DERIVES INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OF ASSORTMENT OF DIAMONDS. A SEARCH AND SE IZURE ACTION U/S 132(1) WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE COMP UTATION OF TOTAL INCOME FILED ALONG WITH ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED GROSS RECEIPTS OF ` 89 400/- FROM THE BUSINESS OF ASSORTMENT OF DIAMON DS AND DEDUCTION OF ` 2 ITA 2166/MUM/10 SHRI SHAILESH WAGHANI 6 804/- WAS CLAIMED AGAINST THE SAID RECEIPTS ON AC COUNT OF CONVEYANCE CHARGES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS OR DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID RECEIPT S AS WELL AS IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF CONVEYANCE. HE ALSO FAILED TO GIVE THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES FOR WHOM THE WORK OF ASSORTMENT OF DIAMONDS WAS DONE BY HIM DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAID DE TAILS THE A.O. PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BUSINES S OF ASSORTMENT OF DIAMONDS AT ` 5 LACS AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY DECLARED THE SAI D RECEIPTS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 89 400/- DIFFERENCE OF ` 4 10 600/- WAS ADDED BY HIM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF CON VEYANCE CHARGES AMOUNTING TO ` 6804/- WAS DISALLOWED BY HIM IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OR DETAILS FURNISHED TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ESTIMATION OF ` 5 LACS MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS RECEIP TS OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS OF ASSORTMENT OF DIAMOND. HE HOWEVER ALLOWED THE CL AIM OF ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF CONVEYANCE CHARGES AMOUNTING TO ` 6804/-. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION OF ` 4 10 600/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON THIS ISSUE WAS SUSTA INED BY HIM TO THE EXTENT OF ` 4 03 796/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A) THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS WAS ALSO ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. ON THE SIMILAR LINE AT ` 1 50 000/- ` 4 00 000/- AND ` 4 50 000/- FOR A.Y. 2003-04 2004-05 AND 2005-06 RE SPECTIVELY. ON CONFIRMATION OF THE SAID ESTIMATION BY THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE PRE FERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE SMC BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DTD. 9 .10.09 PASSED IN ITA NO. 2014 TO 2016/MUM/09 HAS RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. INTER ALIA FOR DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAID THREE YEARS ON A REASONABLE BASIS AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS W ELL AS THE EVIDENCE TO BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS ALL THE 3 ITA 2166/MUM/10 SHRI SHAILESH WAGHANI MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT THERETO ARE QUITE SIMILAR T O A.Y. 2003-04 2004-05 & 2005-06 WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH THE SAME DIRECTION AS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUN AL IN ITS ORDER DTD. 9.10.09 (SUPRA) FOR A.Y. 2003-04 2004-05 & 2005-06. 4. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28 TH JANUARY 2011. SD/- SD/- (R.V. EASWAR) (P.M. JAGTAP) PRESIDENT A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 28 TH JANUARY 2011. RK COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A) CENTRAL -40 MUMBAI 4. THE CIT CENTRAL II MUMBAI 5. THE DR BENCH F 6. MASTER FILE // TUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI 4 ITA 2166/MUM/10 SHRI SHAILESH WAGHANI DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 14.1.11 SR. PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHOR 17.1.11 SR. PS 3 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS SR. PS 5 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. PS 6 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR. PS 7 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER