M/s Pari India, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1495/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7159 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: PULKIT GUPTA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC-II, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1495/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S. PARI INDIA, 4012-13, 2 ND FLOOR, NAYA BAZAAR, DELHI 110 096. PAN: AAKFP 3803E VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 63(1), NEW DELHI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI PULKIT GUPTA, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. JAIN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 14.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.09.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2016 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-20, NEW DELHI INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE AL) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF APPELLANT FIRM AND RETA INING ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,62,931/- IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX CIRCLE- 63(1) NEW DELHI U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961. 2. THAT LD. CIT (APPEAL)-20 NEW DELHI GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS REDUCING ADHOC DISALLOWANCE BY APPLYIN G MECHANICAL RATE OF 10% OUT OF 'CAR REPAIR & MAINTEN ANCE, ITA NO. 1495/DEL/2016 PAGE 2 OF 3 ADVERTISEMENT & PUBLICITY, TELEPHONE AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES' AMOUNTING TO RS.1,22,967/ - (10% OF 12,29,670/ -). 3. THAT LD. CIT (APPEAL)-20 NEW DELHI GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS REDUCING ADHOC DISALLOWANCE BY APPLYIN G MECHANICAL RATE OF 10% OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES AM OUNTING TO RS.39,964/ - (10% OF 3,99,646/ -). 4. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) N EW DELHI, BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS DESERVED TO BE DELETED. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE HAS OPTED NOT TO PRESS GROUND NO.1. ACCORDINGLY THE SA ME IS DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. 3. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NOS.2 & 3, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAS MADE ADHOC ADDITIONS WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ADHOC ADDITIONS DESERVE TO BE DELETED. 4. THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS EVERY POS SIBILITY OF PERSONAL USE OF VEHICLES AND TELEPHONES, THEREFORE THE AO HA S MADE REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE. 5. I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AU THORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A FIRM ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF PROCESSING, SELLING & TRADING OF RICE A ND HAS CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE ON CAR AND TELEPHONES. NOTHING HAS BEE N PLACED ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT IT HAS NEVER USED TELEPHONE OR THE C AR FOR PERSONAL USE. ITA NO. 1495/DEL/2016 PAGE 3 OF 3 THEREFORE, THE ELEMENT OF PERSONAL USE CANNOT BE RU LED OUT. IN LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, SOME DISALLOWANCES ARE TO BE MADE. SI NCE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE FROM 20% MADE BY TH E AO TO 10% OF TOTAL CLAIM, HAVING NOTED THAT THERE IS POSSIBILITY OF PE RSONAL USE OF VEHICLES AND TELEPHONES. I FIND NO INFIRMITY THEREIN. ACCORDING LY, I CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS). 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016. SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER NEW DELHI, DATED, THE 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016. /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.