M/s Haribhai Dhanjibhai & Co., Kheda V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -3, Nadiad

ITA 2584/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94684 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADIPKUMAR MAJUMDAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Assessment record

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA NO.2584/AHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12) M/S. HARIBHAI DHANJIBHAI & CO. KRUSHNA NIVAS, BAZAR MATAR, KHEDA - 387530 APPELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, NADIAD - 387001 RESPONDEN T PAN: AABFH0563N / BY ASSESSEE : SHRI SUNIL TALATI, A.R. / BY REVENUE : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR MAJUMDAR, SR.D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 14.10.2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.11.2015 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, ARISES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT - IV, BARODA, DATED 30.07.201 4 PASSED IN ITA NO.2584/AHD/2014 (M/S. HARIBHAI DHANJIBHAI & CO . VS. ITO) A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 - PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, HEREAFTER THE ACT. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE C ASE FILE. THE ASSESSEES FIRST SUBSTANTIVE GROUND CHALLENGES DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,04,414/- @ 20% ON GROSS SUM OF RS.5,22,073/ - DEBITED FROM P&L ACCOUNT AS VEHICLE EXPENSES. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER NOTICED THE SAME TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED ON CAR REPAI RING, ITS INSURANCE, LOAN INTEREST, DEPRECIATION AND FUEL. H E WAS OF THE VIEW THAT PERSONAL USE OF THE VEHICLE IN QUESTION B Y ASSESSEE COMPANYS DIRECTOR COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED. HE PROCEEDED TO DISALLOW THE IMPUGNED SUM @20% THEREOF. THE CIT(A) UPHOLDS THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. 3. THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY ARGUED IN THE COURSE OF HE ARING THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DO NOT DISCUSS ANY ADVER SE MATERIAL SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE @20% OF CAR EX PENDITURE CLAIMED IN QUESTION. IT FILES BEFORE US ASSESSMENT RECORD PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10 ACCEPTING ITS IDENTICAL EXPENDITURE CLAIM. THE REVENUE STRONGLY SUPPORTS T HE CIT(A)S ORDER. IT TRANSPIRES FROM THE CASE FILE THAT NEITH ER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ANY EVIDENCE PROVING THAT ITS DIRECTORS O WN THEIR PERSONAL VEHICLES AND THE CAR IN QUESTION IS NOWHER E PUT FOR PERSONAL USE NOR DOES THE REVENUE POINT OUT ANY SPE CIFIC INFIRMITY IN THE SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE. THIS IS A CA SE OF AD HOC DISALLOWANCE @20%. WE FEEL IN THESE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES THAT LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MADE IN CA SE THE SAME IS RESTRICTED FROM THAT @ 20% TO 10% ONLY COMING TO RS .52,207/-. THE REMAINING DISALLOWANCE STANDS DELETED. THIS OR DER SHALL NOT ITA NO.2584/AHD/2014 (M/S. HARIBHAI DHANJIBHAI & CO . VS. ITO) A.Y. 2011-12 - 3 - FORM A PRECEDENT FOR PRECEDING AS WELL AS SUCCEEDIN G ASSESSMENT YEARS. 4. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 18 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 18/11/2015 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )* + ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 + 23 4 5 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0