Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai

Jatin Premji Ghala, Mumbai vs Assessee on 3 May, 2012

           IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                    "SMC" BENCH: MUMBAI

       BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                            ITA No.339/Mum/2012
                          (Assessment Year: 2008-09)


Jatin Premji Ghala,
8th Road, Khar (West),
Mumbai -400 052                                               ........ Appellant
                Vs
Income-tax Officer,
Ward -19(1)(3),
Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug,
Mumbai -400 012                                           ....... Respondent
PAN : AAGPS 8381 J

                        Appellant by:   None
                      Respondent by:    Shri Parasarth Naik
                     Date of hearing:   03.05.2012
             Date of Pronouncement:     01.06.2012

                                 ORDER

R.S. PADVEKAR, JM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A)-22, Mumbai dated 04.10.2011 for the A.Y. 2008-
09. When this appeal was called for the hearing the Ld. D.R. for the revenue was present and none was present for the assessee. It is seen that the notice of hearing has already been served on the assessee and acknowledgment is also placed on record. I, therefore, decided to dispose off this matter on merit after hearing the Ld. D.R.

2. The solitary issue in controversy is whether there is a justification in making the addition of ` 2,43,481/- u/s.41(1) on the reason of cessation of liability.

3. The facts revealed from the record are as under. The A.O. has observed that from the balance sheet of Mr. Jatin P. Gala, the assessee, 2 ITA 339/M/2012 Jatin Premji Ghala a sum of ` 2,43,481/- was shown as liability in the name of M/s. Shree Shivam. The A.O. sought the explanation of the assessee on the said outstanding liability. The assessee stated before the A.O. that he is a partner in M/s. Shree Shivam and amount of ` 2,43,481/- is partner's overdrawn amount from firm and the said amount is payable to the firm. The A.O. asked the assessee copy of the balance sheet of M/s. Shree Shivam for the earlier years and also copy of the bank accounts etc. The assessee informed the A.O. that M/s. Shree Shivam has been dissolved on 30.06.2004 and he has filed the copy of Dissolution Deed of the said firm. The A.O. has reproduced some of the clauses of the Dissolution Deed in the assessment order and observed that in Para 4 of the Deed of Resolution it is clearly mentioned that all the partners have released each other from there respective share, rights, title, claims, interest, properties, assets and deposit of business. In the opinion of the A.O. the liability of ` 2,43,481/- as shown in the balance sheet as payable to M/s. Shree Shivam was not actual liability as firm was dissolved in 2004. He, therefore, made the addition of ` 2,43,481/- treating the same as cessation of liability. The assessee carried the issue before the Ld. CIT (A) who confirmed the order of the A.O. The Ld. CIT (A) rejected the claim of the assessee that even the write off of the liability is not required as the same can be taxed in the hands of the assessee. I have heard the Ld. D.R. who supported the orders of the authorities below.

4. The short dispute in controversy is in respect of the liability shown by the assessee in the balance sheet (B/S) payable to M/s. Shree Shivam in which he was a partner. Nowhere, it is disputed that the said firm was dissolved in 2004. The A.O. made the addition u/s.41(1). In my opinion, the said addition is not at all justified for the following reasons:

i) as firm has been dissolved in June, 2004, so at the most the liability ceased in the A.Y. 2005-06;

3 ITA 339/M/2012 Jatin Premji Ghala

ii) Sec.41(1) contemplates that the assessee should have claimed the deduction in respect of the sum shown as a liability.

What I find is the liability relating to capital account of the assessee firm is dissolved. In my opinion, both the parties below have misinterpreted the provisions of sec.41(1). I find no justification to sustain the addition of ` 2,43,481/- and I, accordingly, delete the same.

5. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 1st June 2012.

Sd/-

(R.S. PADVEKAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date: 1st June 2012 Copy to:-

        1)    The   Appellant.
        2)    The   Respondent.
        3)    The   CIT (A) -22, Mumbai.
        4)    The   CIT-19, Mumbai.
        5)    The   D.R. "SMC" Bench, Mumbai.

                                                           By Order

              / / True Copy / /
                                                        Asstt. Registrar
                                                       I.T.A.T., Mumbai
*Chavan