Shri Chinmoy Kumar Sahoo, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 50(3), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 364/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 36423514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V A RAJU LD
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

ITA NO.364/KOL/2011- (SMC-B-MVS) 1 , SMC( B ) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SMC ( B ) BENCH : KOLKATA BEFORE HON. SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM () , / I.T.A NO. 364/KOL/2011 !' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SRI CHINMOY KUMAR SAHOO VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PAN:ALHPS 3655D WARD 50(3), KOLKATA ($% /APPELLANT ) (&'$%/ RESPONDENT ) $% / FOR THE APPELLANT : NONE &'$% / FOR THE RESPONDENT : ( / SHRI V.A RAJU, LD.DR )* / ORDER , SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF THE O RDER OF CIT(A)-XXXII, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.281/CIT(A)-XXXII/08-09/50(3)/KOL VIDE DATED 30-09-2010. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE ITO, WARD 50(3), KOLKATA FOR THE AY 2006-07 U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 29-12-08. 2. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OF CONVE YANCE CHARGES, CAR EXPENSES, DEPRECIATION ON CAR, TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND ALSO TH E ENTIRE ELECTRICITY EXPENSES OF RS.86,622/-. FOR THIS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING FIVE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS:- 1. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-XXXII/KOL GROSSLY ERRE D IN LAW AND INCORRECT APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD. A.O.(I.T.O. WD.50(3)/KO L) REGARDING DISALLOWANCES OF 20% CONVEYANCE CHARGES. 2. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-XXXII/KOL GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND INCORRECT APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD. A.O. (I.T.O. WD. 50( 3) /KOL) REGARDING DISALLOWANCES OF 20% CAR EXPENSES. 3. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A)XXXI1/KOL GROSSLY ERRED I N LAW AND INCORRECT APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE BY ITA NO.364/KOL/2011- (SMC-B-MVS) 2 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD. A.O. (I.T.O. WD.50(3)K OL) REGARDING DISALLOWANCES OF 20% DEPRECIATION ON CAR. 4. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-XXXII/KOL GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND INCORRECT APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD. A.O. (I.T.O. WD. 50(3) /KOL) REGARDING DISALLOWANCES OF 20% TELEPHONE EXPENSES. 5. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-XXXII/KOL GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND INCORRECT APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD. A.O. (I.T.O. WD. 50(3)/ KOL) REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF ENTIRE ELECTRICITY EXPENSES. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. SR.DR AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. I FIND THAT AO HAS DISALLOWED 20% OF THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES:- A) CONVEYANCE EXPENSES-20% OF RS.82,210/- = RS.16,4 42/- B) CAR EXPENSES 20% OF RS.43,697/- =RS. 8,740/- C) CAR DEPRECIATION 20% OF RS.46,934/- =RS. 9,387/- D) TELEPHONE CHARGES 20% OF RS.57,359/- =RS. 11,472/- 4. I FIND THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE GONE INT O THE DETAILS AND NOTED THAT THERE IS NO DENIAL BY THE ASSESSEE OF PERSONAL USER OF THIS CAR AND TELEPHONE. HENCE, THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCES @ 20%. I, IN THE INTEREST OF JUST ICE RESTRICT THESE DISALLOWANCES AT 10%. ACCORDINGLY, AO IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE THESE DIS ALLOWANCES IN RESPECT OF FOUR HEADS. THIS ISSUE OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. IN RESPECT OF ELECTRICITY EXPENSES, THE AO DISAL LOWED ONLY ON ONE PREMISE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE ELECTRICITY BILL IN HIS NAME. I FIND THAT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BEGINNING IS THAT ELECTRICITY CO NNECTION WAS IN THE NAME OF OWNER, SHRI KARTICK CHANDRA SAHA. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE AO AS WE LL AS BEFORE CIT(A) SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- ELECTRICITY BILL: ELECTRICITY BILLS WERE IN THE NAME OF LICENSOR SRI KARTICK CHANDRA SAHA AND AS PER CLAUSE 5(A) OF THE AGREEMENT OF LEA VE & LICENCE DATED 4 TH APRIL, 2005 THE LICENCEE HAS TO PAY THE BILLS. TH E ITA NO.364/KOL/2011- (SMC-B-MVS) 3 AGREEMENT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT HE DID NOT CONSIDER THE ABOVE AND ADDED BACK THE FULL AMOUNT OF RS.86,622/-. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO KINDLY DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE S. 5.1 I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE COPY OF LEASE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY HIM WITH THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AT SALT LAKE AND FR OM THE PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ELECTRICITY EXPENSES , ALTHOUGH ELECTRIC METER IS IN THE NAME OF OWNER OF PROPERTY. HENCE, I DELETE THIS ADDITION MA DE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THIS ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. )* +,) - , . / 0+ 14-06-2011 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14-06-2011 SD/- [ , ] MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (0+) DATED :14-06-2011 *PP 12 34 5 /SR.P.S. )* 6 &7 8)7!9- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. $% /APPELLANT- SRI CHINMOY KUMAR SAHOO 154 SALT LAKE ,SECTOR- 1, KOL-64. 2 &'$% / RESPONDENT : I.T.O WARD 50(3), BAMBOOVILA,KOL-14 3. */ THE CIT, 4. * ()/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA. 5. A. &/ DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA '7 &/ TRUE COPY , )*,/ BY ORDER , 4 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR