POONAM A GUPTA, MUMBAI V. JCIT 13(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6687/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3292 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH C, MU MBAI BEFORE SHRI R. C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6687/MUM/2014 FOR AY - 2011-12 MRS. POONAM A. GUPTA, 107, T V INDL. ESTATE, S.K. AHIRE MARG, WORLI, MUMBAI-400025 PAN: AABPG4732E V S. JCIT RANGE- 13(3), ROOM NO. 427, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI-400020. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.L.SHARMA, MS. USHA DALAL (AR) REVENUE BY : SHRI M.C. OM NANGSH EN (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 25.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.09.2016 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-24, MUMBAI DATED 03.07.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 20 10-11). THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AS MANY AS EIGHT GROUNDS OF APP EAL, BUT AS PER OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE ARE ONLY TWO SUBSTANTIAL GROUND RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WHICH ARE REFERRED AS UNDER: (I) IF LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF R S. 17,71,700/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES. (II) IF LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING MOTOR CAR EXPENS ES @ 20%. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILED RET URN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT AY ON 27.09.2011. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO BESIDES OTHER ADDITI ON/DISALLOWANCE MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 17,71, 700/- AND FURTHER DISALLOWED 50% OF MOTOR CAR EXPENDITURE DUE TO PERS ONAL ELEMENT ON DEPRECIATION OF CARS. FELLING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSE E FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE 2 ITA NO. 6687/M/2014 MRS. POONAM A. GUPTA CIT(A) WHEREIN DISALLOWANCE ON MOTOR CAR EXPENSES W AS RESTRICTED TO 20% AND INTEREST DISALLOWANCE WAS UPHELD, THUS THE PRES ENT APPEAL IS FILED BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) OF ASSESSEE AND LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR REVENUE AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FIRST GROUND FOR OUR CONSIDERA TION IS DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES. LD AR OF ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ALLOWING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO PRO VE THE WORKING OF INTEREST EXPENSES. AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ADDITIONAL DOC UMENT FILED BEFORE US WAS NOT PLACED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT PLACED ON RECORD MAY BE ALLOWED TO BE PLAC ED ON RECORD FOR CONSIDERATION WHILE DISPOSING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL . LD DR FOR REVENUE ARGUED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF, ADDITIONAL DOCU MENT IS TAKEN ON RECORD SUBJECT TO THE VERIFICATION BY AO. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD AR FOR PARTIES. CONSIDERING THE CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO ADMIT THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR FOR ASSESSEE AND TO TAKE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF DOCUMENTS ON RECORDS AND RE STORE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL TO THE FILE OF AO. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CON SIDER THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER EXAMINING THE DOCUMENTS PASS THE APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW. THUS GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR ST ATICAL PURPOSE. 5. NEXT GROUND FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS DISALLOWANCE O N MOTOR CAR EXPENSES @ 20%. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT DISALLOWANCE @ 20% IS ON HIGHER SIDE AND PRAYED THAT A REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE MAY BE MA DE AS PER THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIBUNAL. LD. DR FOR REVENUE ARGUED THAT SUB STANTIAL RELIEF WAS GIVEN BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA) AND THE ASSE SSEE DOES NOT DESERVE ANY FURTHER RELIEF IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE. 3 ITA NO. 6687/M/2014 MRS. POONAM A. GUPTA 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF THE PART IES AND NOTICED THAT AO DISALLOWED 50% OF EXPENDITURE AS NO LOGBOOK WAS MAI NTAINED AND MORE THAN ONE CAR WAS USED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) W HILE CONSIDERING THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE USED THREE CARS WHICH INCLUDES ONE HIRED CAR AND TWO CARS FOR HIS OWN BUSINESS AND HOL D THAT THE USE OF TWO CARS ARE NOT WARRANTED AND THE CAR FOR PERSONAL USE IS N OT RULED OUT AND RESTRICTED THE SAME TO 20%, CONSIDERING THAT 50% OF DISALLOWA NCE OF EXPENSE IS AT HIRE SIDE. CONSIDERING THE PECULIARITY OF THE PRESENT CA SE WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY DISALLOWED 20% OF EXPENDITURE DUE TO HE R PERSONAL ELEMENT OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE. THE LD CIT (A) CONSIDERIN G ALL THE FACTS RESTRICTED TO 20% WHICH IS QUITE REASONABLE AND WE DO NOT FIND AN Y SCOPE TO USE OUR DISCRETION FOR FURTHER RELIEF. THUS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS PARTLY A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH SEPTEMBER 2016. SD/- SD/- ( R.C. SHARMA) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 09/09/2016 S.K.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY/