Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Satish Kumar Mehra, Mumbai vs Ito Wd 8(3)(2), Mumbai on 1 March, 2017
Satish Kumar Mehra
ITA No.1400/M/2013
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH "E",MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.1400/Mum/2013 (Assessment Year- 2009-10)
Satish Kumar Mehra, Income Tax Officer -8(3)(2)
6,Ravi Kiran Estate , Mumbai-400020
Andheri (w) Vs.
Mumbai-400053
PAN: AKKPM1432G
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Hari Raheja -AR
Revenue by : Shri B.S. Bist (DR)
Date of hearing : 24.01.2017
Date of Pronouncement : 01.03.2017
Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act
PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
1. This appeal by assessee under section 253 of the Income-tax Act ('the Act') is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [for short 'the CIT(A)] -18, Mumbai dated 18.12.2012 for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. The assessee has raised as many as 9 grounds of appeal , however as per our considered opinion only 2 substantially ground of appeal emerges from the grounds of appeal filed before the tribunal which are summarized as under;
(i) If learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of professional fees of Rs.22,425/-.
(ii) If learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs. 1,50,000/-
2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income for relevant assessment year on 30 September 2008 declaring total income of Rs.15,56.460/- . The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 29 December 2011. The 1 Satish Kumar Mehra ITA No.1400/M/2013 Assessing Officer while passing assessment order disallowed the professional fees of Rs. 22,425/- and further disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- out of total interest debited to P/L account of Rs. 6,42,192/- paid to HDFC Bank. On appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) both the disallowance was sustained. Hence, aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee has filed present appeal before us.
3. We have heard ld AR of the assessee and learned DR for the revenue and perused the material available on record. First ground of appeal relates to disallowance of professional expenses of Rs. 22,425/-. The learned and AR of the assessee argued that assessee was not given sufficient and adequate opportunity by Assessing Officer as well as by ld Commissioner (Appeals). The ld AR argued that expanses of professional fee are allowable expenses. On the other hand the ld DR for the revenue argued that assessee has not furnished any evidence in support of such claim.
4. We have considered the rival contentions of ld representatives of the parties The assessing officer while framing assessment disallowed the professional fees of Rs. 22,425/- holding that no proof in support of claim is filed by assessee. The ld CIT(A) also confirmed the disallowance on similar lines. We are also unable to find out any documentary evidence in the e paper book filed before us. The ld AR of the assessee has not explained, to whom such payments of professional fee was paid. The ld AR of the assessee failed to discharge the onus lies upon him. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of authorities below. Hence, this ground of appeal is dismissed.
5. Ground No. 2 relates to disallowance of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of interest expenses. The ld AR for the assessee argued that the assessee has shown sufficient evidences that the assessee owned sufficient interest-free funds available with him and no interest disallowance was warranted against the assessee. In support of its submission the ld AR of the assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Reliance Utility Services Private 2 Satish Kumar Mehra ITA No.1400/M/2013 limited. On the other hand the ld DR for the revenue supported the orders of authorities below. The learned DR for revenue prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and further gone through the orders of authorities below. For far as the interest disallowance is concerned the assessing officer noticed that assessee has given interest-free loans to various persons. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.6,42,192/- from profit and loss account as interest. The assessee has given interest free loan to various parties, thus the assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on ad hoc basis. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed both the disallowance is holding that the onus was upon assessee to prove the necessary facts in order to claim and a deduction. We have perused the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.2009 the assessee owned as sum of Rs. 8,593,837.90/- in his Capital Account , the assessee has invested only as sum of Rs.47,76,278/- in share and securities. Thus, as per the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Reliance Utilities 313 ITR 340(Bom) , where an assessee has his own funds as well as borrowed funds, a presumption can be made that the advances for non-business purposes have been made out of the own funds and that the borrowed funds have not been used for this purpose. Accordingly, the disallowance of the interest on the borrowed funds is not justified. Hence , this ground of appeal is allowed.
7. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 1st March, 2017.
Sd/-s Sd/-
(B.R. BASKARAN) (PAWAN SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated 01/03/2017
S.K.PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A), Mumbai. BY ORDER,
4. CIT
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard file. (Asstt.Registrar)
स ािपत ित //True Copy/ ITAT, Mumbai
3