M/s. Ajay Bharat Bal Avam Mahila Vikash Samiti 151, GONDA V. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II , Lucknow

ITA 529/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 52923714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.529/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007 - 08 M/S AJAY BHARAT BAL AVAM MAHILA VIKASH SAMITI, 151, CHHEDIPURWA, GONDA. PAN:AAAAA8593R VS. CIT(A) - II, LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 29/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 3 /06/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A) - II, LUCKNOW DATED 22/12/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING INSPITE OF NOTICE AND HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 13 GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING UPHOLDING OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,01,870/ - BEING 10% OF EXPENSES OUT OF TOTAL DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.6,05,612/ - BEING 30% OF TOTAL EXPENSES. 2 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE. WE FIND T HAT CIT(A) HAS UPHELD 10% OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW BEFORE HIM THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENSES ARE VOUCHED AND INCURRED SOLELY FOR COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATION. IN SPITE OF THIS , THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APP EARED BEFORE US AND HAS NOT SHOWN TO US ALSO THAT THE EXPENSES ARE VOUCHED AND INCURRED SOLELY FOR COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATION. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 3 /06/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR