SUBEDAR PANDEY, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CIR 23(1), MUMBAI

ITA 575/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 57519914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LAV KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY C SHAH

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E MUMBAI . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER /AND SHRI R.C.SHARMA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.575/MUM/2013 (A.Y.2009-10) SUBEDAR PANDEY, C/O. SANJAY SHAH OFFICE: B-3, OM JOSHI APARTMENT, LALLUBHAI PARK ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST), MUMBAI 400058 PAN: ADCPP 7906P (APPELLANT ) VS. THE ACI, CIR. 23(1), MUMBAI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJAY C. SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI LAV KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 22/10/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 /10/2014 ORDER PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS D IRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-33, MUMBAI DATED 31/10/2012 FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) E RRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION MADE BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.41,651/- OU T OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND RS.106939/- OUT OF MOTOR CAR ON THE PLEA THAT P ERSONAL ELEMENT IN THE SAID EXPENSES CANNOT BE RULED OUT AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR SEGREGATION OF SAID EXPENSES INTO BUSINESS AND NON BUSINESS PURPOSE. APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT OF MOTOR CAR E XPENSES AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS ONLY AND NO AMOUNT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.14 8590/- MADE OUT OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES IS BAD IN LAW AND D ESERVES TO BE DELETED. ITA NO.575/MUM/2013 (A.Y.2009-10 ) 2 2. LD. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND MOTOR CAR EXPENSES WHICH WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USER. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF LD. AR THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IS AT HIGHER SIDE AND SHOULD BE REDUCED. 3. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, AFTER HEARING BOT H THE PARTIES AND AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS, WE REDUCE THE D ISALLOWANCE TO 10% ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USER OF TELEPHONE AND MOTOR CAR . THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RE- COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN T HE MANNER AFORESAID. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/10/20 14 !' # $%& 22/10/2014 ! ' SD/- SD/- ( . . /R.C.SHARMA ) ( . . / I.P. BANSAL ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; $% DATED 22/10/2014 ()* ()* ()* ()* +*') +*') +*') +*') / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ,- / THE APPELLANT 2. (.,- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. / / CIT 5. *0' ()% , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. '1 2 / GUARD FILE. % % % % / BY ORDER, .*) () //TRUE COPY// 3 33 3 / 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI . % . ./ VM , SR. PS