CLEAN PLAST, MUMBAI V. DCIT 15(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1418/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 71866 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY MEHTA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI .. , !'# $ $ $ $ %$$ $&; ( !'# !) BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, J M !./ I.T.A. NO. 1418/MUM/2012 ( (+ & $,& (+ & $,& (+ & $,& (+ & $,& / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S CLEAN PLAST, 712, EMBASSY CENTRE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021. + + + + / VS. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE 15(1), MATRU MANDIR, TARDEI ROAD, MUMBAI - 20. #- !./ PAN : AADFC5415E ( -. / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( /0-. / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY SHRI VIJAY MEHTA REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJEEV JAIN !+$ 1 / // / DATE OF HEARING : 27-11-2013 23, 1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-11-2013 [ '4 / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M . : .. , !'# THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) 26, MUMBAI DATED 13-12-2011 AND GROUNDS RAIS ED THEREIN READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS ILLE GAL, BAD IN LAW, ULTRA VIRES AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THEIR PROPER PERSPECTIVE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CAR RUNNING EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF 15% OF RS.1 ,01 .856/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. ITA 1418/M/12 2 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED T(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF GENERAL REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE (HOSHIARPUR UNIT) TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF RS.14,39,440/- CLAIME D BY THE APPELLANT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES (HOSHIARPUR UNIT) TO THE EXTENT OF 15% OF RS. 1 ,65, 199/- CLAIMED BY THE AP PELLANT. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES ( BOMBAY) OF RS.2,08,396/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES ( DELHI) OF RS.68,1491- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CAR RUNNING EXPENSES (DELHI) TO THE EXTENT OF 15% OF RS. 1,16,226/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 8. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE HEAD CASH V OUCHERS TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF RS.23,46,4951- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT FOR ALL THE UNITS. 9. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PACKING, FREIGHT AND HANDLING CHARGES TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF RS.18,01,3451- CLAIMED BY THE APPE LLANT. 10. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF GUEST HOUSE REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE (HOSHIARPUR) TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF RS.1 ,98,2371- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 11. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF REPAIRS OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AT BARABANKHI TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF RS.1,07,363/- CLAIMED BY TH E APPELLANT. 12. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF MACHINERY REPAIRS AN D MAINTENANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF RS.14,71,570/- CLAIMED BY THE APPE LLANT. 13. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES T O THE EXTENT OF 10% OF RS.6,48,6431- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 14. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF FESTIVAL EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF RS.1,53,544/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. ITA 1418/M/12 3 15. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF GUEST HOUSE EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF RS. 36,985/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE GROUND NO. `1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS GENERAL IN NATURE WHILE GROUND NO. 2 TO 15 INVOLVE THE ISSUES RELATING TO T HE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) OUT OF VAR IOUS EXPENSES ON ADHOC BASIS. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OUT O F VARIOUS EXPENSES ON ADHOC BASIS WASE MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR WANT OF SUPPORTING VOUCHERS AND BILLS WITHOUT GIVING PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE TO PRODUCE THE SAME FOR VERIFICATION. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL SUCH VOUCH ERS AND BILLS WERE PROPERLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE VA RIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED BY IT WERE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PUR POSE OF BUSINESS. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS POSITION WAS CLEARLY PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED THE SAME. HE HAS DEMONSTRATED BEFORE US WITH THE HELP OF SOME SAMPLE VOUCHERS AND SUPPORTING BILLS PLACED ON RECORD THAT THE CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE FOR VARIOUS EXPENSES IS DULY SUPPORTED BY RELEVANT VOUC HERS AND BILLS AND URGED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE A.O. TO GIV E AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH ITS CLAIM FOR VARIOUS EXPENSE S ON THE BASIS OF RELEVANT SUPPORTING VOUCHERS AND BILLS. SINCE THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE OF HAVING NOT GIVEN PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM FOR VARIOUS EXPENS ES IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM RECORD AND THE LD. D.R. HAS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THE S AME WHILE RAISING NO OBJECTION FOR SENDING BACK THE MATTER TO THE A.O. F OR GIVING SUCH OPPORTUNITY, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) A ND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISS UES INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ITA 1418/M/12 4 ASSESSEE RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCES MADE OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29. 11.2013. . '4 1 23, 5'+6 29.11.2013 3 1 SD/- SD/- (VIVEK VARMA) (P.M. JAGTAP ) ( !'# JUDICIAL MEMBER !'# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 5'+ 29/11/2013 DATED $.(+.!./ RK , SR. PS '4 1 /(7% 8%, '4 1 /(7% 8%, '4 1 /(7% 8%, '4 1 /(7% 8%,/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. -. / THE APPELLANT 2. /0-. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 () / THE CIT(A)26, MUMBAI. 4. 9 / CIT 15, MUMBAI 5. %$< /((+ , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI C BENCH 6. =& > / GUARD FILE. '4+! '4+! '4+! '4+! / BY ORDER, !0% /( //TRUE COPY// ? ? ? ?/ // /!@ !@ !@ !@ ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI