TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 894
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ld. CIT( Appeals). 4. The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is engaged in carrying on legal profession. The return of income for the year under consideration, i.e. A.Y. 2004-05 was filed by him on 29. 10.2004 declaring total income of Rs. 20, 58,220/- and agricultural income of Rs. 2, 25,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the claim of the assessee of agricultural income was examined by the Assessing Officer. In this regard, the explanation of the assessee of having received his share of agricultural income of Rs. 2, 25,000/- by cheque from the ancestral agricultural land was not accepted by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the same was not supported by the relevant documentary evidence showing cultivation of crops, sale of crops, expenditure incurred, etc. He, therefore, treated the agricultural income of Rs. 2, 25, 000/- shown by the assessee as income from other sources and brought the same to tax in the hands of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT( Appeals) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on this issue. 5. I have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the assessee to establish that the expenses claimed by him on telephone and Trunk- call were wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of his profession. The Assessing Officer also noted that the Chamber maintenance expenses of Rs. 47,370/- claimed by the assessee were inclusive of the electricity expenses incurred for the flats, which were being used by the assessee for the stay of his family. He, therefore, made a disallowance of Rs. 7, 895/- being 1/ 6t h of the Chamber maintenance expenses of Rs. 47, 370/- claimed by the assessee. A further disallowance of Rs. 49,117/- was also made by the Assessing Officer being 1/6t h of the travelling and conveyance expenses of Rs. 2, 94, 720/- claimed by the assessee on the ground that the said claim was not duly supported by the relevant documentary evidence to show that the travelling and conveyance expenses claimed by the assessee were wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of his profession. The provision for liability of Rs. 1, 560/- was also disallowed by the Assessing Officer as the same was not supported by any documentary evidence and the assessee also failed to furnish the relevant details in respect of such prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and other Counsels for the services rendered in favour of the assessee. It was contended by the assessee that since the proper break-up of the amount so paid was not available, it was not practically possible to deduct tax at source. This contention of the assessee was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer. According to him, Shri Ranjan Lal Mitra having raised a consolidated bill of Rs. 3, 37,535/-, the assessee was required to deduct tax at source from the said amount under section 194J of the Act and since there was failure on the part of the assessee to do so, he disallowed the amount of Rs. 3, 37,535/- under section 40(a)(ia). On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 12. I have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the amount in question was mainly paid by the assessee to two Advocates, who have already included the said amounts in their income and paid tax thereon. He has contended that no disallowance under section 40( a)(ia) in respect of the amounts paid to these two Advocates can be ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. Although the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the main client of the assessee is having offices in London, he has not been able to rebut or controvert the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer that Ms. Pragya Tiwari was neither the employee nor the Associate of the assessee during the year under consideration. He has also not been able to bring any evidence on record to show that the visit of Ms. Pragya Tiwari to London had any nexus with the profession of the assessee. I, therefore, find no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the ld. CIT( Appeals) confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on this issue and upholding the same, I dismiss Ground No. 3 of the assessee' s appeal for A.Y. 2005- 06. 16. Now I take up the appeal of the assessee for A. Y. 2005-06 being ITA No. 1785/KOL/2014, which is arising from the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143( 3) of the Act read with section 263. 17. The records of the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) was examined by the ld. CIT and on such ex....