Commercial Auto Products Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow V. Income Tax Officer-2(1), Lucknow

ITA 541/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1150 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.541/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.541/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 M/S COMMERCIAL AUTO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, 11, M.G. MARG, LUCKNOW. PAN:AABCC 5087 B VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 29/06/2016. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY T HE ASSESSEE RELATE TO DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EXPENSES RELATING TO STAFF WELF ARE, POOJA EXPENSES, POSTAGE, TELEGRAM & TELEPHONE EXPENSES ETC. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED A. R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE AD HOC DISALLOWANCES WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR IN THE VOUCHERS. IT WAS FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT REJECTED AND THEREFORE, WITHOUT REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE VOUCHERS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE AD HOC DISALL OWANCE WAS NOT APPELLANT BY SHRI DEVASHISH MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI AJAY KUMAR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 08/01/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11 / 01 /201 8 I.T.A. NO.541/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 2 WARRANTED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON A NUMBER OF CASE LAWS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT NO AD HOC DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE . 3. LEARNED D. R., ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANC E ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE DISALLOWANCE BY HOLDING THAT THE EXPENSES OF VOUCHERS WERE NOT PROP ERLY VOUCHED AND HE ALSO HELD THAT MAJOR EXPENSES WERE SUPPORTED BY SEL F-MADE VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC VO UCHER ON WHICH WE WAS NOT SATISFIED AND HAD MADE THE ADDITION ON AD HOC B ASIS. BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO DEFECT WAS P OINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ANY OF THE VOUCHERS AND HAD RE LIED ON A NUMBER OF CASE LAWS. LEARNED CIT(A), ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS, RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF 10% TO 5% AND ALSO UPHELD A PART OF CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD ALSO NOT CITED ANY REASON FO R PARTLY CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE ADDITIONS. IN VI EW OF THE ABOVE, THE DISALLOWANCES SUSTAINED BY LEARNED CIT(A) ARE NOT I N ORDER AND THEREFORE, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11/01/2018) SD/. SD/. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:11/01/2018 *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. RE GISTRAR