Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow V. M/s Motor Sales Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 870/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100399 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J J MEHROTRA
• Keywords: Rule of consistency

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.870/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 12 DCIT, RANGE IV, LUCKNOW VS. M/S MOTOR SALES LTD., 11, MAHATMA GANDHI MARG, LUCKNOW - 226001 PAN:AACCM4307K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY SHRI J. J. MEHROTRA , C. A. REVENUE BY S HRI AMIT NIGAM , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 09/09/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 6 / 1 0/201 5 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LEARNED CIT (A) II, LUCKNOW DATED 28.08.2014 FOR A.Y. 2011 12. 2. AS PER GROUND NO. 1, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENU E IS ABOUT DIRECTION OF CIT (A) TO THE A.O. THAT INCOME FROM LEASED ASSETS AT R S. 115,60578/- BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE SECOND GRIEVANCE AS PER GROUND NO. 2 IS ABOUT DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 522,871/- MADE BY T HE A.O. BY DISALLOWING 15% OUT OF TOTAL WORKSHOP EXPENSES CLAIMED. THE THIRD GRIEV ANCE AS PER GROUND NO. 3 IS ABOUT DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 158,929/- MAD E BY THE A.O. BY DISALLOWING TRAVELLING EXPENSES. THE FOURTH GRIEVANCE AS PER GR OUND NO. 4 IS ABOUT DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 533,777/- MADE BY THE A.O. BY D ISALLOWING 10% OUT OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT PRODUCE BILLS/VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURR ED. 2 3. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSME NT ORDER. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). HE ALS O SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A. Y. 200 8 09 & 2009 10 IN ITA 272 & 273/LKW/2013 DATED 17.06.2015 AND POINTED OUT THAT GROUND NO. 1 IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY PARA 8 OF THIS TRIBUNAL O RDER AND GROUND NO. 2, 3 AND 4 ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY PARA 11 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GON E THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN A SSESSEES OWN CASE SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT AS PER PARA 8 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN LET OUT CONTINUOUSLY FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS AND THE RENTAL INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . BY FOLLOWING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY, IT WAS HELD THAT THE RENTAL INCOME SHO ULD BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO, LEARNED D R OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DIFFERENCE IN FACTS AND HENCE, WE FIND NO R EASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. THEREFORE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL O RDER FOR EARLIER YEARS, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. GR OUND NO. 1 IS REJECTED. 5. WE FIND THAT AS PER GROUND NO. 2 TO 4, THE DISPU TES ARE ABOUT DELETION OF SOME AD HOC DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE A.O. THE SAME WERE DELETED BY CIT (A) BY OBSERVING THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE ON AD HOC BASIS WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THIS FINDI NG OF CIT (A) COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE. PARA 11 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER FOR EARLIER YEARS IS ALSO RELEVANT AND HENCE, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 11. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LO WER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN ANY OF THE V OUCHERS/BILLS RELATING TO ANY PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE. HE HAS SIMPLY MADE A PASSING REFERENCE IN HIS ORDER THAT THE EXPENSES ARE NOT OPEN FOR VER IFICATION, BUT THE PASSING REFERENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT. IF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE ACCOUNTS WITH RESPECT TO THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE SHOULD HAVE PO INTED OUT A SPECIFIC DEFECT OR ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CO MPLETE DETAILS WITH 3 RESPECT TO ANY PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE. HE CANNOT MA KE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE BY SIMPLY MAKING A VAGUE OBSERVATION T HAT THE ACCOUNTS ARE NOT OPEN FOR VERIFICATION. IN EARLIER YEARS ALS O SIMILAR TYPE OF DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT LATER ON DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). NOTHING HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE R EVENUE TO SHOW THAT THEY HAVE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A) AND WHAT HAPPENED TO IT. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AD HOC DISALLOWANCE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED WITH ANY OF THE EXPENSES, HE HAS TO POINT OUT SPECIFIC DEFECT THEREIN AND THEREAFTER TO MAKE DISA LLOWANCE. SINCE THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE WITHOUT ANY DEFECT, WE FIND N O MERIT THEREIN. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 6. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT AN Y DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND HENCE, WE FIND NO REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. THEREFORE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER FOR EARLI ER YEARS, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THESE ISSUES ALSO. GROUND N O. 2 TO 4 ARE ALSO REJECTED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. G ARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 06/10/2015 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGIST RAR