Acceptance of application under Rule 46-A of the Income Tax Act

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES 'B', JAIPUR
BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM

ITA No. 375/JP/2016
Assessment Year :2008-09

Shri Sanjay Matai,
Prop.-M/s Metro Wines, Madar
Gate, Ajmer.
Appellant

Vs.
I.T.O.,
Ward-1(2),
Ajmer.
Respondent

PAN/GIR No.: ALKPM9533D

Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)
Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Date of Hearing : 15/06/2021
Date of Pronouncement : 08/09/2021

ORDER

PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Ajmer dated 25/01/2016 for the A.Y. 2008-09 in the matter of order passed U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), wherein following grounds have been taken.

“1. Whereas on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A), Ajmer has grossly erred in not accepting the application under Rule 46-A submitted during the course of appeal proceedings stating there in that though complete details & evidence were filed before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings which were not considered prospectively. It is therefore respectfully requested before your honour that application under Rule 46A of the I.T.Act,1961 of the appellant deserves to be accepted.

2. Whereas on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) Ajmer ought to have accepted the appellant's application Under Rule 46A of the I.T.Rules 1962 as the Assessing Officer had failed to reconcile /consider the documents submitted before him during the course of assessment proceedings.

3. That the Learned CIT (A), Ajmer, erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.500000/- which was made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment in the building, whereas the appellant has paid a sum of Rs.450000/- jointly with his mother for purchase of property at Darji Mohalla, Lakhan kotri, Ajmer and further incurred a sum of Rs.50000/- as its stamp & registration charges. Thus the Learned CIT(A), Ajmer has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs.500000/- which may kindly be deleted.

4. That the Learned CIT(A), Ajmer erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.514400/- which was treated by the AO being unexplained credit in the name of Shri Ashok Matai, whereas said loan was given by Shri Ashok Matai at the time of starting the business of M/s Metro Filling Station. Thus an addition so confirmed by the CIT(A), Ajmer deserves to be deleted.

5. That the Learned CIT(A), Ajmer erred on facts and in law in confirming an addition of Rs.75000/- made by the ITO on account of unexplained credit U/s 68 of the I.T.Act,1961, whereas said sum of Rs.75000/- related to Shri Kamal Matai & shown in the balance sheet under head "current a/c balance . Thus addition of Rs.75000/- so confined by the CIT(A), deserves to be deleted.

6. That the Learned CIT(A), Ajmer erred on facts and in law in confirming an addition of Rs.221000/- made by the ITO being cash deposit in firm's Bank a/c as unexplained credit, whereas the appellant is proprietor for both the firm M/s Metro Wines & Metro Filing Station & cash sales of Metro Wines have been deposited in the Metro Wine UCO Bank A/c. Keeping these facts in view, an addition of Rs.221000/- so confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted.

7. That the Learned CIT(A), Ajmer erred on facts and in law in confirming the following various disallowances made by the ITO & added in the total income of the appellant.

a. Disallowed out of Conveyance Exp. 13700.00 (8500 + 5200)
b. Disallowed out of Depreciation 3707.00
c. Disallowed out of Telephone Exp. 8990.00
d. Disallowed out of Shop Exp. 5300.00

The above disallowed expenses are totally wrong as the same have been incurred exclusively for business purpose. Thus disallowed expenses so confirmed by the Learned CIT(A), Ajmer deserves to be deleted.

8) That the Learned CIT(A), Ajmer erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition made at Rs.95400/- on account of rent, whereas the appellant has paid rent for Bubani Shop at Rs.1200/- P.M. & Rs.6750/- for Ajmer Shop. Thus addition so made by the ITO & confirmed by CIT(A) on account of rent paid at Rs.95400/- deserves to be deleted.”

2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic.

To read the full judgment, find the enclosed attachment