SNJAY SOOD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI

ITA 4183/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 101047 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MAHAPATRA
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.K . BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND RAM L AL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I .T.A. NO. 4183/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 SHRI SANJAY SOOD, A - 101, SAI SANSKAR, OPP. SARAS BAUG, SION TROMBAY ROAD, DEONAR, MUMBAI - 400 088 / VS. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 29, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ABBPS 4164M ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: SHRI SANJAY C. SHAH / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.K. MAHAPATRA / DATE OF HEARING : 0 3 .0 9 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 3 .0 9 .2015 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 40 , MUMBAI D ATED . 1 1 . 3 .201 3 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 11 . 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON ITA. NO. 4183/M/2013 2 MOTOR CAR, MOTOR CAR EXPENSES, ELECTRICITY EXPENSES, TRAVELLING EXPENSES AND TEL EPHONE AND MOBILE EXPENSES. IN A TWO PAGE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCES AS UNDER: S. NO. EXPENSE AMOUNT DISALLOWANCE 1. DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CAR 92,816/ - 46,408 (50%) 2. CONVEYANCE 24,580/ - 4,916(20%) 3. MOTOR CAR EXPENSES 1,53,314/ - 76,657(50%) 4. ELECTRICITY CHARGES 30,570/ - 15,285(50%) 5. TRAVELLING EXPENSES 69,250 / - 13,580(20%) 6. TELEPHONE & MOBILE EXPENSES 8,150/ - 4,075(50%) TOTAL 3,78,680/ - 1,60,921 FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DISALLOWED RS. 30,616/ - . THE AO MADE FURTHER DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,30,305/ - . 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HEAVI LY RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. ARTHUR ANDERSEN & CO., VS ACIT 94 TTJ 0736. 5. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE DISALLOWANCE IS MADE ON ADHOC ITA. NO. 4183/M/2013 3 BASIS AS EXHIBITED AT PARA - 2 OF THIS ORDER. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED CHART CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE AO HAS NOT DISCUSSED ANYTHING IN MAKING THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DISALLOWED RS. 30,616/ - , WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON FOR MAKING FOR ANY FURTHER DISALLOWANCES. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 7. IN T HE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON 3 RD SEPTEMBER , 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAM L AL NEGI ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 3 RD SEPTEMBER , 2015 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI