Surma Routray, Cuttack V. ITO, Cuttack

ITA 454/CTK/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65186 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S C MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: D K SHETHMOHIT SETH ARS
• Keywords: Business expenditure

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK ( ) BEFORE . . , , HONBLE SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. /AND . . . , H ONBLE SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I.T.A.NO. 454/CTK/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 SURAMAROUTRAY, PROP.ORISSA AUTOMOBILES, MADHUPATNA, CUTTACK 753010 PAN: ADCPR 4914 P - - - VERSUS - INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), CUTTACK. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / FOR THE APPELLANT : / SHRI D.K.SHETH/MOHIT SETH, ARS / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SHRI S.C.MOHANTY, DR / DATE OF HEARING: 20.11.2012 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.11.2012 / ORDER . . . , SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER . THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT.20.6.2012 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION OF 1,15,604 MADE BY THE BY WAY OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD ELECTRICITY & ELECTRICALS. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE CLAIMED EXPENSES OF 1,69,697 UNDER THE HEAD ELECTRICITY AND ELECTRICAL OUT OF WHICH 1,15,604 CONSISTING OF 11 VOUCHERS WERE IN THE NAME OF SRI PYARI MOHAN ROUTRAY, PROP. M/S.UTK AL MOTORS, BALIKUDA AND NOT IN ASSESSEES NAME. ON ASKING, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THOUGH THE PREMISES BUILDING BELONGS TO SRI PYARI MOHAN ROUTRAY THE PROPERTY WAS UTILISED BY THE I.T.A.NO. 454/CTK/2 012 2 ASSESSEE AS RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION AND AS SUCH THE EXPENDITURE IS TO BE ALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT SUCH EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE OF 1,15,604 CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD ELECTRICITY AND ELECTRICAL . 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF 1,15,604 OBSERVING THAT THE 11 VOUCHERS WERE NOT IN THE NAME OF THE A SSESSEE OR HER BUSINESS CONCERN M/S.ORISSA AUTOMOBILES. 5. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION RELATES TO ELECTRICITY AND ELECTRICAL FOR THE PREMISES IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON BUSINESS AND AS SUCH THIS BEING A BUSINESS EXPENDITURE, THE DISALLOWANCE AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND AS SUCH DESERVES DELETION. 6. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONTENDED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION IS JUSTIFIED SINCE THE RELATED VOUCHERS WERE NEITHER IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THE BUSINESS CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS FOUND THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS DISALLOWED A SUM OF 1,15,604 OUT OF 1,69,670 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD ELECTRICITY AND ELECTRICAL CHARGES. THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE IS EVIDENCED BY RELEVANT VOUCHERS IN THE NAME OF SRI PYARI MOHAN ROUTRAY, PROP. OF M/S.UTKAL MOTORS,BALIKUDA AND NOT IN THE ASSESS EES NAME FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN EXPLANATION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN THE PREMISES BELONGING TO SRI PYARI MOHAN ROUTRARY AS RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION AND THE EXPENDITURE IN DISPUTE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE I.T.A.NO. 454/CTK/2 012 3 ASSESSEE WHILE CARRYIN G ON BUSINESS IN THE PROPERTY OF SRI PYARI MOHAN ROUTRAY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED TAX ON THE INCOME DERIVED FROM SUCH BUSINESS. ON GOING THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT MADE OUT A NY CASE CONTRARY TO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO THIS CLAIM. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN ITS ENTIRETY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF 1,15,604 OUT OF THE TOTAL CLA IM OF 1,69,697 UNDER THE HEAD ELECTRICITY AND ELECTRICAL CHARGES IS NOT SUSTAINABLE FOR LEGAL SCRUTINY AND AS SUCH, SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ON THIS ISSUE, WE DIRECT DELETION OF THE SAID ADDITION OF 1,15,604 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. S D/ - S D/ - ( . . ) , , (K.K.GUPTA), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( . . . ) , (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO), JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) DATE: 30.11.2012 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . / THE APPELLANT : SURAMAROUTRAY, PROP.ORISSA AUTOMOBILES, MADHUPATNA, CUTTACK 753010 2 / TH E RESPONDENT: INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), CUTTACK. 3 . / THE CIT, 4 . ( )/ THE CIT(A), 5 . / DR, CUTTACK BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, ( ), (H.K.PADHEE), SENIOR.PRIVATE SECRETARY. I.T.A.NO. 454/CTK/2 012 4 APPENDIX XVII SEAL TO BE AFFIXED ON THE ORDER SHEET BY THE SR. P.S./P.S. AFTER DICTATION IS GIVEN 1. DATE OF DICTATION 28.11.2012 . 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 28.11.2012 OTHER MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.... 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S . 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 30.11.2012 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO TH E HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER ................ 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER ..