Kumudben Manharlal Gajjar, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 1373/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8597 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P MEENA
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1373/AHD/2015 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2011-2012 KUMUDBEN MANHARLAL GAJJAR PLOT NO.1716 GIDC, PHASE-3 VATVA, AHMEDABAD. PAN : ADVPG 4950 F VS. ITO, WARD-6(4) AHMEDABAD. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASEEM THAKKAR, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. MEENA, SR.DR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 10/08/2017 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07 /09/2017 %& / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST O RDER OF LD.CIT(A)-13, AHMEDABAD DATED 27.2.2015 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2011-12. 2. IN THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.1,48,550/-. 3. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, W E HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED COMMISSION EXPENSE AMOUNTI NG TO ITA NO.1373/AHD/2015 2 RS.13,07,750/-. OUT OF THIS COMMISSION EXPENSES ON E PAYMENT WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE TO SHRI JASHWANTLAL D AHYALAL SHAH. THIS PERSON NEITHER CONFIRMED RECEIPT OF THE PAYMEN T NOR APPEARED BEFORE THE AO. EVEN NOTICE COULD NOT BE S ERVED UPON HIM. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE DE MONSTRATING SERVICES RENDERED BY HIM TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASS ESSEE. THEREFORE, THE AO DISALLOWED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. APPEAL TO THE CIT(A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING SERVIC ES RENDERED BY THIS PERSON TO THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASONS TO ALLOW THE COMMISSION PAYMENT. THEREFORE , THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 4. IN THE NEXT GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THA T THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,556/-. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT ASSESSEE HAS CL AIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.11,111/- UNDER SECTION 80G FOR GRAN T OF DONATIONS. THE LD.AO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.5,556/ -. ON APPEAL TO THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE OF THIS AMOUNT AND THE GROUND WAS WITHDRAWN FOR ADJUDI CATION. WE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE ASSESSEE CAN CHALLENGE THIS ISSUE BEFORE SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, TH IS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 5. IN THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF T HE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE D ISALLOWANCE OF 27,024/-. 5. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED VEHICLE INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.47,659/- AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES OF RS.60,437/-. THE AO HAS MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE AT ITA NO.1373/AHD/2015 3 25% OF THIS EXPENDITURE. THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED T HE DISALLOWANCE. TWO REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE FORMED AN OPINION AFTER LOOKING INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE US DEMONSTRATING THE FACT THAT SUCH ESTIMATE D OPINION FRAMED BY THE AUTHORITIES IS BASED ON SOME EXTRANEO US CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT DEEM IT APPROP RIATE TO REPLACE THE ESTIMATED OPINION FORMED BY THE AO, WHI CH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) BY A THIRD OPINION. THE REFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 6. IN THE NEXT GROUND, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSE E IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,000/- TOWARDS GSPMA FOR ADVERTISEMENT. THIS PAYMENT RELA TES TO EARLIER YEAR. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE ON THE GROUND THAT SHE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF A CCOUNTANCY. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT TH E LIABILITY WAS CRYSALLISED IN THIS YEAR, AND THEREFORE, IT HAS BEE N DISCHARGED IN THIS YEAR. CONSIDERING THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT ONCE LIABILITY HAS BEEN CRYSTALILISED IN THIS YEAR, THEN THE DISALLOWANCE OUGHT NOT TO BE MADE. THEREFORE, WE A LLOW THIS GROUND AND DELETE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,000/-. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 7 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017. SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 07/09/2017