Sri.K.Chandrashekar Prakash , Bangalore V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 524/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2359 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR SHANKAR PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH A SMC BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.524/BANG/2018 (ASST. YEAR 2012-13) SRI K CHANDRASHEKAR PRAKASH, # 1233, FLAT NO.403, 1 ST MAIN, MC LAYOUT, VIJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU. . APPELLANT PAN AHEPP6124H. VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BENGALURU. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI V SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : DR. SHANKAR PRASAD, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 12-7-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-8-2018 O R D E R PER SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) INTER ALIA ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR A S THEY ARE AGAINST THE APPELLANT, ARE OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT[A] IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3.60,000/- BEING THE DEPREC IATION ON COMPUTER SOFTWARE CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S C ASE. ITA NO.524/B/18 2 3. THE LEARNED CIT[A] IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.00-5O00/- BEING THE EXPENSES INCURRED TOWARDS BUSINESS PROMOTION UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT TO SEEK WAIVER WI TH THE HON'BLE CCIT/DG, THE APPELLANT DENIES HIMSELF L IABLE TO BE CHARGED TO INTEREST U/S.234-A, 234-B, 234-C A ND 234-D OF THE ACT, WHICH UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE AND THE LEVY DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 5. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, YOUR AP PELLANT HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND JUS TICE RENDERED AND THE APPELLANT MAY BE AWARDED COSTS IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND ALSO ORDER FOR THE REFUN D OF THE INSTITUTION FEES AS PART OF THE COSTS. 2. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.2 RELATING TO DISALL OWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE, I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE OR DER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND I FIND TH AT THE REVENUE HAS DENIED THAT THE DEPRECIATION ON THE GROUND THAT SOFTWARE WAS NO T PUT TO USE DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE INVOICE DATE 23/3/2012 THROUGH WHICH THE SUP PLY OF SOFTWARE WAS EFFECTED BEFORE THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. BUT FROM PE RUSAL OF THIS INVOICE, I FIND THAT THE SUPPLIER HAS MADE A CATEGORICAL NOTE ON THIS IN VOICE THAT INSTALLATION OF SOFTWARE IS PENDING DUE TO CERTAIN REASONS. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, NOTHING WAS PLA CED BEFORE US TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SOFTWARE IS INSTALLED AND WAS PUT TO USE BEFORE THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS USE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR, I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) WHO HAS RIGHTLY DENIED THE DEPRECIATION OF SOFTWARE WHICH WAS NOT PUT TO USE. ACCORDINGLY, I CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ITA NO.524/B/18 3 4. SO FAR AS OTHER GROUNDS RELATING TO DISALLOW ANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PROMOTION, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S DEBITED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.3 LAKHS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PLACE ANY EVIDENCE FOR THE EXPENDITURE IN CURRED FOR BUSINESS PROMOTION. THE AO HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH AND WAS SUPPORTED BY ONLY SELF MADE VOUCHER S. SINCE NEITHER THE CONFIRMATION NOR ANY DETAILS OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENDITURE TO JUSTIFY THIS EXPENDITURE IS FILED EITHER BEFORE THE CIT(A) OR BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT REVENUE HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THIS EXPEN DITURE CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS PROMOTION. THUS, I CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31ST AUGUST, 2018 . SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE DATED : /8/2018 VMS COPY TO :1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRET ARY, ITAT, BANGALORE. ITA NO.524/B/18 4 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR.P.S .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE .. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO .. 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT.. 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 11. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER . 13. DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER. ..