SMT. GUMAN KHANDELWAL, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 577/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 54131 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K L MOOLCHANDAN I; R K KHUNTETA
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH A JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.K.GUPTA AND SHRI N.L.KALRA) ITA NO.577/ JP/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 PAN: ADRPK 6455 F SMT. GUMAN KHANDELWAL VS. THE ACIT A-2, RANA PRATAP NAGAR CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1 JHOTWARA, JAIPUR JAIPUR (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.L. MOOLCHANDANI & SHRI R .K. KHUNTETA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SUNIL MATHUR DATE OF HEARING: 02-08-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: ORDER PER N.L. KALRA, AM:- THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), CENTRAL JAIPUR DATED 15-04-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2.1 THE FIRST AND SECOND GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE PARTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR TAXING RUNNING EXPENSES AND NOT ALLOWING DEPRECIATION IN EXCESS OF NET INCO ME BEFORE ALLOWING DEPRECIATION. 2.2 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. BOTH THESE GROU NDS ARE SIMILAR TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DECIDED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING T WO TAXIES FOR WHOLE OF 2 THE YEAR. FOLLOWING OUR FINDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, WE HOLD THAT IT WILL BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO RESTRICT TH E TAXI INCOME AT RS. 12,000/- AFTER ALLOWING DEPRECIATION AS AGAINST RETURNED LOS S OF RS. 2,90,007/- AFTER DEPRECIATION . 3.1 THE THIRD GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD . CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION AT 20% OF FURNITURE MAKING EXPENSES AT RS. 43,744/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 72,957/- MADE BY THE AO . 3.2 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. FOLLOWING OUR F INDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, WE HOLD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE BUT THE DISALLOWANCE AS CONFIRM ED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS EXCESSIVE. WE THEREFORE, FEEL THAT IT WILL BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS. 7,000/- ONLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26-08 -2011. SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (N.L. KALRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED; 26 /08/2011 *MISHRA COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. SMT. GUMAN KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR 2. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JAIPUR 3. THE LD. CIT BY ORDER 4. THE LD. CIT(A) 5. THE LD.DR 6. THE GUARD FILE (ITA NO.577/JP /11) A.R., ITAT JAIPUR 3 4 5