M/s Shree Pathik Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur V. ACIT central circle-VI, Kanpur

ITA 574/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5666 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-02-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 04-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: P K KAPOOR

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.574, 575 & 576/LKW/11 ASSESSMENT YEARS:01 - 02, 02 - 03 & 03 - 04 M/S SHREE PATHIK HOTEL PVT. LTD., 7/103, SWAROOP NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:AABCS9205R VS. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - VI, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI P. K. KAPOOR, C.A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI VIVEK MISHRA, CIT, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 26/02/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 8 /02/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. ALL THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THREE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) - I, KANPUR ALL DATED 25/07/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001 - 02, 2002 - 03 & AND 2003 - 04. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALTHOUGH VARIOUS GROUNDS ARE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOT H THE YEARS BUT THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,000/ - ON AD HOC BASIS IN EACH YEAR. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE LUCKNOW TRIB UNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE GROUP COMPANY CASE OF PANKAJ ESTATE PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT IN I.T.A. NO.589 TO 595/LKW/2011 DATED 27/12/2013. HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE ABOVE TRIBUNAL DECISION. 2 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT( A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF PANKAJ ESTATE PVT. LTD., THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE OF SMALL AMOUNT OF RS.5,000/ - OR RS.3,000/ - , WHICH WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,000/ - IN EACH YEAR ON THE BASIS THAT IN ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING VOUCHERS, EXPENS ES OF RS.5,000/ - ARE DISALLOWED AND THEREFORE, IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AD HOC BASIS WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT. THEREFORE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH IS TRIBUNAL DECISI ON, WHICH IS A GROUP CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, WE DELETE THE SMALL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,000/ - IN EACH OF THESE THREE YEARS, WHICH ARE BEFORE US. 5. SINCE THE ADDITIONS ARE DELETED IN EACH YEAR, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO D W ELVE UPON THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. (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: 2 8 /02/2014. *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