Shri Prakash G.Mittal, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-11(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 2311/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85804 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2311/AHD/2011 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI PRAKASH G. MITTAL 212, NEW CLOTH MARKET O/S.RAIPUR GATE AHMEDABAD 380 002. VS ITO, WARD-11(4) AHMEDABAD. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI GAURAV NAHTA REVENUE BY : SHRI NIMESH YADAV, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 05/03/2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13/03/2015 $%/ O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XVI, AHMED ABAD DATED 9.8.2011 FOR ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS GENERAL IN NA TURE, AND HENCE, REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION BY US. 3. THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: 2. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONF IRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,08,674/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALL OWANCE OF SALARY & WAGES, BONUS, LEAVE ENCASHMENT EXPENSES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF CLOTH O N POWER-LOOM ON JOB WORK BASIS. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE CLAI MED EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD SALARY & WAGES, BONUS AND LEAVE SALA RY AGGREGATING TO RS.35,43,370/-. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE ITA NO.2311/AHD/2011 2 DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE AS REQUIRED BY HIM, AND THER EFORE, HE DISALLOWED 20% OF THE ABOVE EXPENSES, WHICH WORKED OUT TO RS.7 ,08,674/-. 5. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF TH E AO. 6. BEFORE US, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE ALLOWED UNDER THIS HEAD IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDIN G ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS RS.26,76,805/- AGAINST THE JOB WORK RECEIPTS OF RS.61,79,552/-. AS AGAINST THIS, THE TOTAL JOB WORK CHARGES IN THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS INCREASED TO RS.66,42,446/-, AND THEREFORE, DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS.7,08,674/- OUT OF THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.35,43,37 0/- WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 7. THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES. 8. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THAT COMPLETE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION COULD NOT BE FILED BY IT BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE REASONABLE EXPENDI TURE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALLOW DEDUCTION FOR THE SAM E ONLY. WE FIND THAT BEFORE US ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE DETAILS ASKED BY THE AO, SUCH AS NAME, ADDRESS, THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE E MPLOYEES AND THEIR ID-PROOF. IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHICH IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 9. THE GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL READS A S UNDER: 3. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONF IRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.33692/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWA NCE OF 1/5 TH OF THE TELEPHONE EXPENSE, CAR EXPENSES AND DEPRECIA TION ON CAR ON THE GROUND OF EXISTENCE OF PERSONAL ELEMENT IN S UCH TYPE OF EXPENSES. 10. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO FOUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.53,376/- UNDER THE H EAD TELEPHONE EXPENSES, RS.93,105/- UNDER THE HEAD CAR EXPENSES A ND RS.21,981/- UNDER THE HEAD DEPRECIATION ON CAR, AGGREGATING TO RS.1,68,462/-. THE ITA NO.2311/AHD/2011 3 AO DISALLOWED 20% OUT OF RS.1,68,462/- ON ACCOUNT O F PERSONAL USE OF TELEPHONE AND CAR BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF T HE AO. 12. BEFORE US, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE NO A RGUMENT ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE US AT PAGE NOS.8 TO 10, COPY OF THE ASSESSME NT ORDER FOR A.Y.2006-07 IS FILED. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT IN A.Y.2006-07 IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 22.10.2008, THE AO HAD DISALLOWED 20% OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED U NDER THE HEAD TELEPHONE EXPENSES. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SH OW THAT THIS DISALLOWANCE WAS VARIED IN APPEAL BY ANY HIGHER AUT HORITY. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO GOOD REASO N TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY THE 13 TH MARCH, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER