KARAN YASH JOHAR, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 16(1), MUMBAI

ITA 800/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2587 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N SATHYA MOORTHY
• Assessee Lawyers: MITUL JASOLIA
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E B ENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I .TA NO. 800/MUM/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SHRI KARAN YASH JOHAR, (PROP. M/S. DHARMA PRTODUCTIONS), JAINS ARCADE, 2 ND FLOOR, 14 TH ROAD, KHAR (W), MUMBAI-400 052 / VS. THE ACIT - 16(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAAPJ 7657A ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: SHRI MITUL JASOLIA / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI N. SATHYA MOORTHY / DATE OF HEARING :19.07.2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :28 .09.2016 / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-52, MUMBAI DATED 30.12.2014 PERTAINING TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE HON'BLE CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE @10% MADE BY THE LD. AO OF RS. 1,56,67 1/- ITA NO. 800/M/2015 2 OUT OF RS. 15,66,712/ -[RS. 5,01,289 + 10,65,423] C LAIMED AS VEHICLE RELATED EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION ON VEHICL E. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE SAID DISALLOWANCE IS UNJUS TIFIED AND MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. GROUND NO. 2: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE HON'BLE CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE @10% MADE BY THE LD. AO OF RS. 20,962/ - OUT OF RS. 2,09,616/ - CLAIMED AS COSTUME AND DRESSES E XPENSES. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE SAID DISALLOWANCE IS UNJUSTIFIED AND MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. GROUND NO. 3: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE HON'BLE CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE @10% MADE BY THE LD. AO OF RS. 11,335/ - OUT OF RS. 1,13,353/ - CLAIMED AS TELEPHONE AND MOBILE EXPENSE. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE SAID DISALLOWANCE IS UNJUSTIFIED AND MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. GROUND NO.4: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE HON'BLE CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE @10% MADE BY THE LD. AO OF RS. 28,370/ - OUT OF RS.2,83,700/ - CLAIMED AS SALES PROMOTION EXPENS ES. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE SAID DISALLOWANCE IS UNJUS TIFIED AND MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN SO FAR AS GROUND NO. 1 & 3 ARE CONCERNED, THEY ARE RAISED AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE MADE @ 10% OF VE HICLE RELATED EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLE, TELEPHONE AND MOBILE EXPENSES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2 009-10 THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES ITA NO. 800/M/2015 3 OWN CASE IN ITA NOS. 2591 & 2592/M/2013 DATED 15.4. 2015 AND THE TRIBUNAL RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 5%. A COPY OF THE ORDER IS PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE SAME MAY BE FOLLOWED FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 2 & 4 RELATING TO ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OUT OF COSTUME AND DRESSES EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E AND ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF 10% DISALLOWED OUT OF SALES PROMOTI ON EXPENSES, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THIS ADHO C DISALLOWANCES WERE DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE PRECEDING ASSES SMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, HE SUBMITS THAT THE SAME MAY BE FOLLOWED FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTS THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENC H RESTRICTED THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE RELATED EX PENSES, DEPRECIATION ON CAR, TELEPHONE AND MOBILE EXPENSES TO 5%. THUS, FOR THE REASONS GIVEN THEREIN, FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDER , WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE EXPENSES TO 5%. 6. IN RESPECT OF ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OUT OF COSTUME AND DRESS EXPENSES AND SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES, WE FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DELETED THE DISALLOWANCES. FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES BEING IDENTICAL, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION , WE DELETE THE ITA NO. 800/M/2015 4 ADHOC DISALLOWANCES MADE IN RESPECT OF COSTUME AND DRESS EXPENSES AND SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (C.N. PRASAD ) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ %' /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; (' DATED 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 . % . ./ RJ , SR. PS !'#$#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ) / CIT 5. *+ ,%%-. , -.! , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. , /01 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, *% //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI