Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Alpesh G. Patel, , Nadiad vs Acit, Kheda Circle, , Nadiad on 6 January, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD "B" BENCH AHMEDABAD
BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,
AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
ITA No. 1243/Ahd/2014
(Assessment Year:2010-11)
Alpesh G. Patel
Molan Associates, 1st Floor,
Mangal Mirti Complex, Nr.
Mahagujarat Hospital, College
Road, Nadiad 387001 Appellant
Vs.
The ACIT,
Kheda Circle, Nadiad Respondent
PAN: AHUPP1695F
आवेदक क ओर से/By Assessee : Shri S. N. Divatia, A.R.
राज व क ओर से/By Revenue : Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.R.
सन
ु वाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 03.01.2017
घोषणा क तार ख/Date of
Pronouncement : 06.01.2017
ORDER
PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This assessee's appeal for assessment year 2010-11 arises against the CIT(A)-II, Baroda's order dated 29. 10.2014, in appeal no. CAB/II-225/13- ITA No. 1243/Ahd/2014 (Alpesh G. Patel vs. ACIT)
A.Y. 2010-11 -2- 14 in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act".
2. Assessee's former substantive ground challenges both the lower authorities' action in making unexplained agriculture expenses of Rs.3,11,651/- u/s.69C of the Act. A perusal of the case file indicates that the assessee had shown net agricultural income of Rs.14,11,362/- out of gross amount of Rs.16,91,862/- thereby claiming corresponding agricultural expenses of Rs.2,80,500/- coming to 16.57% of the above gross figure. The Assessing Officer enhanced this expenditure to that @35% coming to Rs.5,92,151/- on the ground that the assessee had failed to substantiate its explanation that the same depended on various natural and manmade factors like climate, soil type, crop quality and output, market rate and storage facilities etc. All this resulted in the impugned addition of balance amount of Rs.3,11,651/- in assessment order dated 18.01.2013. The CIT(A) confirms the same.
3. We have heard both the parties. Relevant finding perused. We reiterate first of all that both the authorities below have disallowed the impugned agricultural expenses @35% of the gross agricultural income thereby enhancing assessee's expenses declared @16.5% (supra). The assessee fails to pinpoint any specific cogent evidence in the case file so as to buttress its case to have derived the impugned agricultural income at a net figure of 85% of the gross amount. Even details of the crops sold or evidence of the agricultural lands in question is not forthcoming in the case file. We thus find no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s action upholding the impugned addition. This former substantive ground is accordingly rejected.
ITA No. 1243/Ahd/2014 (Alpesh G. Patel vs. ACIT)A.Y. 2010-11 -3-
4. We now come to assessee's latter substantive ground that the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer have erred in disallowing business expenses of Rs.6,44,023/-. We first come to assessee's tabulation in page 5 of the CIT(A)'s order and notice that the above disallowance figure comprised of car loan interest, car depreciation, bank commission, petrol expenses, car expenses, salary & telephone expenses of Rs.78,702/-, Rs.4,38,257/-, Rs.2985/-, Rs.6400/-, Rs.65,356/-, Rs.51,000/- & Rs.1323/-; respectively. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had not furnished any evidence regarding ownership of the vehicles in question followed by their utilization for the purposes of the business of seven firms wherein he is a partner. He further noticed that there was no proof by way of vouchers and bills etc. regarding other claims of expenditure.
5. We now come to the CIT(A)'s order wherein he observed that the assessee has not been able to demonstrate in any manner as to how the above expenses shown in the computation of income are incurred for the purpose of business and earning of the business income in question. This leaves the assessee aggrieved.
6. We have heard both the parties. Relevant findings in both the lower authorities' orders stand perused. The assessee has not been able to file any evidence in the instant appeal so as to substantiate his claim of having incurred all heads of the above expenses by way of car loan interest, depreciation, bank commission, petrol expenses, car expenses, salary and telephone charges. We make it clear that there is not even a single piece of paper in the nature of a self-attested voucher to fortify any of the above claim of expenditure much less than the substantive evidence of ownership of the corresponding vehicles and their nexus with assessee's business income. We ITA No. 1243/Ahd/2014 (Alpesh G. Patel vs. ACIT) A.Y. 2010-11 -4- thus find no reason to agree with assessee's expenditure claim in question amounting to Rs.6,44,023/-. We thus confirm the same. The assessee losses in its latter substantive ground as well.
7. The assessee's appeal is dismissed.
[Pronounced in the open Court on this the 06th day of January, 2017.] Sd/- Sd/-
(PRAMOD KUMAR) (S. S. GODARA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad: Dated 06/01/2017
True Copy
S.K.SINHA
आदे श क त ल
प अ े
षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. राज व / Revenue
2. आवेदक / Assessee
3. संबं धत आयकर आय!
ु त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु!त- अपील / CIT (A)
5. )वभागीय ,-त-न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड3 फाइल / Guard file.
By order/आदे श से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।