B.Ranganathan, CHENNAI V. DCIT Non Corporate Circle 10(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2592/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3143 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RU GEORGE CIT D R
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMESHC A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2592/CHNY/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 MR.B.RANGANATHAN , 37,FIRST MAIN ROAD, JAWAHAR NAGAR,CHENNAI-600 004. VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - XIV, NEW JURISDICTION , DCIT,NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-10(1) CHENNAI-600 034. [PAN AAJPR 2197 L ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ! ' # / APPELLANT BY : MR.S.RAMESH,C.A $% ! ' # /RESPONDENT BY : MS.RUBY GEORGE, CIT D.R & ' ' () / DATE OF HEARING : 27 - 0 8 - 201 8 * ' () / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 - 0 8 - 201 8 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-12,CHENNA I IN APPEAL NO.61/CIT(A)-12/2014-15 DATED 11.08.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. ITA NO.2592/CHNY./2017 :- 2 -: 2. MR.S.RAMESH REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, AND MS.RUBY GEORGE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BELATED BY 4 DAYS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED NECESSARY AFFIDAVIT FO R EXPLAINING THE DELAY. THE REASONS GIVEN FOR THE DELAY HAVE NOT BEE N FOUND TO BE FALSE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APP EAL IS CONDONED AND APPEAL IS DISPOSED OFF ON MERITS. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.A.R THAT IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED 25% OF THE SALARY EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING THAT THE LD.A.R CO ULD NOT EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF EXPENSES AND ACCEPTED THE EXPENSES AS BOG US. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON APPEAL, LD.CIT(A) HAD CON SIDERED THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED AND RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO ` 6.5 LAKHS, JUST TO 8.66% OF THE TOTAL WAGES. IT WAS A PRAYER THAT WHEN ALL THE EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN PRODUCED, THE EXPENDITURE WAS L IABLE TO BE ALLOWED. 5. IN REPLY, THE LD.D.R VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE OR DERS OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD.CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS MADE AN ITA NO.2592/CHNY./2017 :- 3 -: ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF 25% OF THE SALARY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) SHOWS THAT THE LD .CIT(A) HAS MADE AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE. PERUSAL OF ORDER OF LD.CIT(A ) ALSO SHOWS THAT ALL THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF SALARY PAID HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R. ADMITTEDLY, ADHOC DISALLOWANCES ARE NOT PERMISSIBLE, UNLESS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE REJECTED. THIS BEING SO, THE ISSUE IN THIS APP EAL IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED AND SHALL NOT RESORT TO ANY ADHOC DISALLOWANCES, IF THE EVIDENCES ARE PRODUCED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 27 TH AUGUST, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( . ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ! '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) $ '# / JUDICIAL MEMBER - ' / CHENNAI . / DATED: 27-08-2018 . K S SUNDARAM / ' $(01 2 1( / COPY TO: 1 . ! / APPELLANT 3. & 3( () / CIT(A) 5. 145 $(6 / DR 2. $% ! / RESPONDENT 4. & 3( / CIT 6. 57 8' / GF