Xplora Design Skool, Ahmedabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 671/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8351 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: B N RAO
• Keywords: Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORESHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 671 /AHD/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 XPLORA DESIGN SKOOL, 3 RD FLOOR, AK PATEL HOUSE, OPP CROSS WORD, MITHAKHALI SIX ROADS, AHMEDABAD PAN : AAAFX 0111 D VS. THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 10 (4) , AHMEDABAD / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : BN RAO, AR REVENUE BY : SONIA KUMAR , SR DR / DATE OF HEARING : 10 / 10 /20 17 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11 /10 /201 7 / O R D E R THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), AHMEDABAD - 5, AHMEDABAD DATED 04 .0 1 .201 6 PASSED FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 . 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOUR GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BUT ITS MAIN GRIEVANCE REVOLVES AROUND A SINGLE ISSUE VIZ . THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,65,399/ - BEING 10% OF THE TO TAL EXPENSES OF RS.26,53,990/ - SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE P&L ACCOUNT TOWARDS VARIOUS EXPENSES. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN IMPARTING VOCATIONAL TRAINING IN THE FIELD OF ANIMAITON AND MULTIMEDIA IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. XPLORA DESIGN SKOOL. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 30.09.2011 DECLARING RS. NIL INCOME WITH A CLAIM OF CARRY FORWARD OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,33,474/ - . THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ITA NO. 671/AHD/ 2016 XPLORA DESIGN SKOOL VS. ITO FOR AY: 2011 - 12 2 ASSESSMENT AND A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 21 .09.20 12 . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSE E FURNISHED THE REQUIRED DETAIL S . WHILE VERIFYING THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.26,53,990/ - HAS BEEN DEBITED IN THE P&L A CCOUNT ON VARIOUS HEADS OF EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.5, 30,798/ - BY DISALLOWING 20% OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.26,53,990/ - AS PERSONAL ELEMENT IN SUCH EXPENSES CANNOT BE RULED OUT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE WE NT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE GAVE PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO 10% OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. 5. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES, I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY SUPPORTING DETAILS FOR CLAIMING THE VARIOUS EXPENDITURES UNDER THE DIFFERENT HEADS. UNDER THIS COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDE NCE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AD - HOC ITA NO. 671/AHD/ 2016 XPLORA DESIGN SKOOL VS. ITO FOR AY: 2011 - 12 3 DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONCURRED WITH THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , BUT MARGINALLY REDUCED THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE. AFTER ANALYZING BOTH THESE ORD ERS, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE , FOR CLAIMING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PRODUCE SUPPORTING MATERIAL EXHIBITING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURES WERE INCURRED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THIS BURDEN. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT; HENCE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11 TH OCTOBER , 201 7 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/ - (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 11 /10 /2017 BIJU T., SR.PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD