Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur

Dr. (Mrs) Shobha Tomar, Jaipur vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 25 June, 2018

             vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Jh fot; ikWy jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM

                  vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 14/JP/2018
                 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16
Dr. (Mrs) Shobha Tomar                cuke    ACIT,
B-4, Govind Marg,                     Vs.     Central Circle-1,
Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.                         Jaipur

LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AALPT 4876 A
vihykFkhZ@Appellant                            izR;FkhZ@Respondent

     fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj l@
                         s Assessee by : Shri G. M. Mehta (CA)
        jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)

           lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 19/06/2018
       mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 25/06/2018

                              vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur dated 03.10.2017 for Assessment Year 2015-16 wherein the following sole ground of appeal has been taken:-

"Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition of Rs. 2,68,450/- estimated for foreign tour expenses, though during course of search U/s 132 of IT Act on 30.10.2014, no incriminating material or other evidence was found for incurring such expenses as made out of her undisclosed sources for the reasons that the same were incurred by the assessee out of her substantial amount of drawings during the year as against lower drawings in immediately preceding year."

Dr. (Mrs) Shobha Tomar, vs. ACIT

2. Briefly stated, the facts of case are that the AO observed that based on various seized documents and details collected during the course of post search investigation, Shri Balvir Singh Tomar and Smt. Shobha Tomar, the assessee have frequently travelled to foreign countries. The AO determined an amount of Rs. 2,70,050/- towards foreign tour expenses of Dr. Sobha Tomar and Rs. 3,33,750/- towards foreign tour expenses of Shri Balvir Singh Tomar and thereafter taking into consideration visa charges Rs. 1,14,000/-, determined total foreign tour expenses Rs. 7,71,800/-. It was further observed by the AO that the NIMS University has paid Rs. 4,54,900/- towards such foreign tour expenses and the balance amount of Rs. 2,62,900/- was determined as undisclosed expenses incurred in cash by Dr. Sobha Tomar and Shri Balvir Singh Tomar as no proof with regard to the source was found during the search as well as post-search proceedings. A show cause was issued to the assessee and the response so submitted by the assessee was however, not found acceptable to the Assessing Officer. The AO brought to tax half of the total unexplained expenditure of Rs. 2,62,900/- to tax in the hands of the assessee. Further he has estimated expenses of Rs. 97,000/- on two return trips to london and Rs. 22,000/- as return trip to Sharjah. The AO accordingly made an addition to Rs. 2,68,450/- in the hands of assessee.

3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) and submitted that during the course of search proceedings, no incriminating material or other evidence was found which shows that the appellant has incurred foreign tour expenses, visa 3 ITA No. 14 /JP/2018 Dr. (Mrs) Shobha Tomar, vs. ACIT expenses and other expenses out of her undisclosed sources. It was further submitted that the assessee has incurred the foreign tour expenses out of his personal drawings of Rs. 11,13,115/- during the year. The ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the addition relying on the finding of the AO that the expenses on foreign travel is not relatable to drawings and no cash flow or evidence is submitted to show that such cash payment has been made out of the cumulative drawings made during the year. Further, ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision of the Settlement Commission which has also refused to recognize that expenses on such trips have been made from the accounts of IMT.

4. Now, the assessee is in appeal against the said findings of the ld CIT(A). During the course of hearing, the ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that additions have been made on mere estimation and guess work without any incriminating material found during the course of search. It was further submitted that the assessee lives in a joint family in a house jointly owned along with her husband, therefore, no rent is payable for residence. Besides, the assessee and the family members have drawn substantial amount of drawings in FY 2014-15 duly disclosed in their respective income tax returns. It was further submitted that the individual drawings of the assessee during the year comes to Rs. 11,13,115/- which is sufficient enough to take care of foreign tour expenses which have been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee.

5. The ld CIT DR is heard who has vehemently argued the matter and relied on the findings of the lower authorities.

Dr. (Mrs) Shobha Tomar, vs. ACIT

6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The AO has made an addition of Rs. 2,68,450/- on account of unexplained foreign tour expenses. The ld AR has reiterated the contentions raised before the ld CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee's drawings during the year are sufficient enough to explain the source of such expenditure. In support, our reference was drawn to the assessee's capital account for the financial year ended 31st March, 2015 which shows total drawings of Rs. 11,13,115/-. It was further submitted that similar additions made in the hands of Dr Balvir Singh Tomar have been recently deleted by this Bench in ITA No. 837/JP/2017 dated 27.04.2018. In absence of anything contrary on record, it would be reasonable to hold that the foreign tour expenses of Rs 2,68,450 are met out of such drawings of Rs 11,13,115. In the result, following our decisions in case of Dr Balvir Singh Tomar, the addition made by the AO is hereby deleted and ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/06/2018.

              Sd/-                                   Sd/-
        ¼fot; iky jko½                          ¼foØe flag ;kno½
       (Vijay Pal Rao)                        (Vikram Singh Yadav)
U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member             ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member

Tk;iqj@Jaipur
fnukad@Dated:- 25/06/2018.
*Santosh

vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Dr. (Mrs) Shobha Tomar, Jaipur 5 ITA No. 14 /JP/2018 Dr. (Mrs) Shobha Tomar, vs. ACIT

2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT

4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A)

5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur.

6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { ITA No. 14/JP/2018} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar