TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1338
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 5,19,863/- against the above income. The AO during the assessment proceedings required the assessee to justify the expenses/deduction under section 57 of the Act of Rs. 5,19,863/- against the income earned from other sources. The assessee failed to file any reply to the FOUR notices issued under sections 142[1] and 143[2] of the Act and not filed any evidence for the above claim of expenses. Further the assessee failed to reply to the final Show Cause Notice issued by the AO. Accordingly, the AO treated the entire gross income of Rs. 6,72,483/- as the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved against the exparte assessment order the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]. Even before the Ld. CIT(A) none appeared on behalf of the assessee but only a Written Submission filed without any evidences on the claim of expenses incurred under section 57 of the Act. After considering the same the Ld. CIT[A] passed a detailed appellate order partly allowing the assessee appeal observing as follows: 5.1 The assessment order gives clear indication that the assessment proceeding was initiated by system for verification of issue as indicated by CASS. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 44AD. Section 44AD is applicable to assessee conducting small scale business enterprises wherein concept of 'deemed profit' on presumptive basis can be safely applied as business results are generally predictable in long run. But how can this principle be applied in case of receipts falling under the head Income from other sources' which are unsystematic, often onetime, non-recurring transaction with no predictable outcome. Obviously, there is no force in this ground and the same stands dismissed. 5.4 Rest of the grounds are specifically with the plea that total gross receipts of Rs. 672483/- should not be taxed entirely without giving deduction to any expenditure. The Ld. AR has pointed out to a double addition wherein the net receipt of Rs. 152620 (i.e. gross receipt of Rs. 672483 less deduction u/s. 57 of Rs. 519863) was again added back with the gross receipts of Rs. 672483- and not with the deduction u/s. 57. To this extent, the AR's argument is correct. 5.5. But the further argument that some deduction should be given on an estimate basis even if no details have been submitted by the appellant as gross receipt can never be the net income, lacks logic. As ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... A.O. is directed to delete the double addition, Le to substitute the amount of disallowance from Rs. 672483 to Rs. 519863. Subject to this, the addition is confirmed. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming an assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the act. The order deserves annulment. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in not considering that no reasonable opportunity was provided to the appellant by the Ld. A.O. The order deserves annulment. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming passing of order u/s. 144 without properly service of the notice on the appellant. The proceedings being bad in law deserve annulment. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in not considering that the Ld. A.O. has not provided material available with him and utilized against the assessee. The assessment thus made is in violation of principles of natural justice and deserves annulment following the guidelines issued by the Hon. Supreme Court in 249 ITR 216 (SC). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned DR and perused the materials available on record. The assessee in the instant case has shown gross income of Rs.6,72,483 and claimed an expense of Rs.5,19,860 against such gross income leaving the balance of Rs.1,52,620 under the head 'income from other sources'. The authorities below made the disallowance of all the expenses claimed by the assessee against the gross income of Rs.6,72,483 in the absence of any documentary evidence. 8.1 From the preceding discussion, we note that the primary onus lies on the assessee to justify the nature of the income shown under the head other sources but the assessee has failed to clarify the same. Similarly, the assessee has not specified the nature of the expenses against such gross income based on any cogent material. 8.2 Generally, the income cannot the generated without incurring the expenses qua to the income. But it does not apply to each and every kind of income. For example, in case the assessee has invested his own fund in the bank account and earning interest income thereon. Then, there cannot be any claim of the expenses against such income. Yet, if the assessee claims any expense against such income, then the onus lies on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2) notice on 08-08-2019 and thereafter u/s. 142(1) notices on 04-09-2013, 22-10-2013, 19-11-2013 and 22-01-2014 requesting the assessee to furnish basic information of the expenses claimed by the assessee. For all the above notices, the assessee neither attended nor filed adjournment or any explanation about the expenses. Therefore with the available materials on record, the Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of expenses. Even before the Ld. CIT(A) only a written submission was filed by the assessee without any material details or evidences on the claim of deduction u/s. 57 of the Act. Thus the assessee's submission before us are clearly contradictory and the case laws relied thereon is clearly distinguishable and will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 6.5. In Para 4 of the written submission, the assessee claimed that the provisions of Section 44AD and levy of tax at 8% and thereby the Act itself provides 92% of the income is allowable for expenditure in case of small businessman. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the above submission of the assessee and held that the assessee has shown "income from other sources" only and not from "Business income" who is eligi....