Sri Aninda Choudhury, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward-50(3) Kol, Kolkata

ITA 301/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4941 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DILI P KR RAKSHIT
• Assessee Lawyers: D K BANDYOPADHYAY
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE , /AND ! ' ! ! ' ! ! ' ! ! ' ! , ) [BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, AM & SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM] # # # # /I.T.A NO. 301/KOL/2010 '$% &' '$% &' '$% &' '$% &'/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI ANINDA CHOUDHURY, KOLKATA VS. INCOME-TAX OFF ICER, WD-50(3), KOLKATA (PAN: ACNPC7293G) ()* /APPELLANT ) (+)*/ RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 20.08.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26.08.2013 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI D. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, CA FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI DILIP KR. RAKSHIT, JCIT (DR) , / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM/ ! ' ! ! ' ! ! ' ! ! ' ! , : THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A)-XXXII, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.246/CIT(A)-XXXII/WD-50(3)08-09/KOL DATED 22.09.2 009. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO, WARD-50(3), KOLKATA U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 VIDE HIS ORD ER DATED 31.12.2008. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AS REGARDS TO UNRECORDED STOCK OF MUSTARD OIL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AMOUNTING TO RS.1 6,635/-. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.1: 1. FOIR THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFI RMING ADDITION OF RS.16,635/- WRONGLY ADDED BY LD. ITO WARD 50(3) KOLKATA ALLEGING UNRECO RDED STOCK OF MUSTARD OIL FOUND DURING SURVEY ON 21.09.2005. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE HAS INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE ASSESSEE NOT TO PRESS THIS ISSUE AND HENCE, HE IS N OT INTEREST IN PROSECUTING THIS ISSUE. THE LD. SR. DR HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE SAME. AS THE ISSUE IS NOT PRESSED, WE DISMISS THE SAME AS NOT PRESSED. 4. THE SECOND ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS A GAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DISCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.3,65,2 13/- OUT OF THE TOTAL DISCOUNT OF RS.7,99,111.88. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLL OWING GROUND NO. 2: 2. FOR THAT LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DELETED DISALLO WANCE OF RS.3,65,213/- WHICH WAS PAID TO THE RETAIL CUSTOMERS AS DISCOUNTS ETC. BY DEBIT NOTES OUT OF THE DISCOUNT OF RS.7,99,111.88 RECEIVED FROM THE WHOLESALERS BY CRE DIT NOTES WHICH WAS ENTIRELY CREDITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNTS. 2 ITA NO. 301/K/2010 ANINDA CHOUDHURY A. Y 2006-07 5. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIR LY ADMITTED THAT HE COULD NOT FILE THE DEBIT NOTES AND NOW HE HAS FILED THE SAME BEFORE US IN IT S PAPER BOOK PAGES 22 TO 78 AND CREDIT NOTES AT PAGES 79 TO 93. THE LD. SR. DR STATED THAT THIS DEBIT AND CREDIT NOTES NEED VERIFICATION AT THE LEVEL OF AO. HENCE, THE ISSUE CAN BE SET ASIDE TO T HE FILE OF THE AO. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, WE FEEL THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS T O BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN TERMS OF DEBIT NOTES AND CREDIT NOT ES SUBMITTED BEFORE US. THESE NOTES ARE TO BE VERIFIED BY THE AO AND HE WILL DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. THIS ISSUE IS ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF AO. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. COMING TO THE NEXT ISSUE REGARDING DISALLOWANCE @ 50% ON ACCOUNT OF CARRIAGE INWARD, TELEPHONE CHARGES, DELIVERY VAN REPAIRS AND DEPRECI ATION ON MOTOR CAR. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.3: 3. FOR THAT LD. CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED T HE FOLLOWING EXPENSES ARBITRARILY DISALLOWED BY LD. ITO. RS. 17890/- BEING 50% OF CARRIAGE INWARD, RS. 5100/- BEING 50% TELEPHONE CHARGES, RS.14,850/- BEING 50% OF DELIVERY VAN REPAIRS, RS.15,101/- BEING 50% OF DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CAR ALLEGING PERSONAL USE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUG H FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE CARRIAGE INWARD AND DELIVERY VAN REPAIR CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.17,890/- AND RS.14,850/- RESPECTIVELY. THE AO OR THE CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASONING THAT HOW THEY ARE MAKING DISALLOWANCE. AS SUCH, WE DELETE THE DISALL OWANCE. COMING TO TELEPHONE CHARGES OF RS.5,100/- AND DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CAR OF RS.15,1 01/-, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DISALLOW ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF ONE-FIFTH OF THE EXPENDITURE AND NOT 50%. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLO WED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 9. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.08.2 013. SD/- SD/- , ! ' ! ! ' ! ! ' ! ! ' ! , (PRAMOD KUMAR) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( - - - -) )) ) DATED : 26TH AUGUST, 2013 ./ '$01 '2 JD.(SR.P.S.) 3 ITA NO. 301/K/2010 ANINDA CHOUDHURY A. Y 2006-07 , 3 ''4 54&6- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . )* / APPELLANT SHRI ANINDA CHOUDHURY, 9, MANIKPUR, KOL KATA-700 079. 2 +)* / RESPONDENT ITO, WARD-50(3), KOLKATA 3 . ',$ ( )/ THE CIT(A) , KOLKATA 4. ',$ CIT, KOLKATA 5 . ='> '$ / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA +4 '/ TRUE COPY, ,$/ BY ORDER, ! 1 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .