DILIP D. DUDANI, MUMBAI V. ACIT RG 19(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6948/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 88693 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILENDRA P YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ K JAIN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Tax effect

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND AMIT SHUKLA, (JM) . . , , ./ I.T. A. NO. 6948 / MUM/20 1 2 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 8 - 09 ) MR.DILIP D . DUDANI, 1105, C WING, OBEROI GARDEN ESTATE, SAKI VIHAR ROAD, CHANDIVILI, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI - 400072 / VS. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - RANGE 19(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 . ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAFPD2946K / A SSESSEES BY SHRI PANKAJ K JAIN / RE VENUE BY SHRI AKHILENDRA P YADAV / DATE OF HEARING : 23.3 . 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 .3. 201 5 / O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20 - 07 - 2012 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) - 30, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES, MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AND MOTOR CAR DEPRECIATION. 2. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO DISALLOWED 20% OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD TELEPHONE, MOTORCAR EXPENSES AND MOTOR CAR DEPRECIATION AND THE LD CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME. THE LD A.R SUBMI TTED BEFORE US COPIES I.T.A. NO. 6948/ MUM/201 2 2 OF APPELLATE ORDERS PASSED BY LD CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04, 2004 - 05 AND 2005 - 06, WHEREIN IDENTICAL DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO WAS RESTRICTED TO 5%. THE LD A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE ORDERS OF LD CIT(A) IN THE ABOVE SAID YEARS AND ACCORDINGLY DID NOT PREFER APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 3. THE LD D.R, HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE MIGHT NOT HAVE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE SAID YEARS ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT. HE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS REASONABLE. 4. HAVING CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04, 2004 - 05 AND 2005 - 06. ACCORDINGLY, WE MODIFY THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) PASSED FOR THE INSTANT YEAR AND DIRECT THE AO TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO 5% OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON TELEPHONE, MOTOR CAR AND DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CAR. IN OUR VIEW, THE SAME WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. 5. IN THE RESULT, TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE AB OVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23RD MARCH, 2015 . 23RD MARCH, 2015 SD SD ( / AMIT SHUKLA ) ( . . / B.R. BASKARAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 23RD MARCH,2015 . . . ./ SRL , SR. PS I.T.A. NO. 6948/ MUM/201 2 3 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI