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

ITA 925/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 92523714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWATI RATNA
• Assessee Lawyers: J J MEHROTRA

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. 92 5 /LKW/201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 12 20 13 DCIT RANGE 4 , LUCKNOW VS. M/S MOTOR AND GENERAL SALES LTD. , 11, MAHATMA GANDHI MARG , LUCKNOW 226001 PAN:A ACCM 4306J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI J. J. MEHROTRA, C.A. DEPARTMENT BY SMT. SWATI RATNA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 16/04/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 1 /06/2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. T HIS IS REVENU E S APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) I I LUCKNOW DATED 3 0 .0 9 .201 4 FOR A.Y. 20 12 20 13 . 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED 4 GROUNDS BUT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS REGARDING DELETION BY LEARNED CIT (A) OF SOME AD HOC ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. AS UNDER : - RS. 5 78 , 996 / - OUT OF MISC. EXPENSES, RS. 737 , 322 / - OUT OF REPAIRS & RENEWALS, AND RS. 388 , 482 / - OUT OF TRAVELLING & CONVEYANCE EXPENS ES . 3 . LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A). HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: - I) STATE OF ORISSA VS. MAHARAJA B. P. S INGH DEV, 76 ITR 690 SC) II) ALLIANCE BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS LTD. VS. CIT, 13 MTC 300 (TRIB) III) HONDA SIEL CARS INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT, 13 MTC 427 (TRIB) 2 IV) BHAGIRATHI TEA & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, ITA NO. 721/LKO/2011 DATED 14.06.2012 V) WIDEX INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, 66 DTR 57 (TRIB) (DELHI) VI) COCA COLA INDIA (P) LTD. VS. DCIT, 100 ITR (AT) 149 (PUNE) VII) ITO VS. LAKE PALACE HOTELS & MOTELS (P) LTD., 13 TTJ 216 (JP) VIII) AYUSHAKTI AYURVED P. LTD. VS. ACIT, 4 ITR (TRIB) 537 (MUMBAI) IX) ACIT VS. METALLIZING EQUIPMENT (P) LTD. 25 SOT 16 (JODH) (URO) 4 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT ON PAGE 7 OF HIS ORDER, A CLEAR FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY LEARNED CIT (A) THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT GIVEN ANY ADVERSE FINDING WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF EXPENSES AND HE HAS NOT POINTED OUT EVEN A SINGLE VOUCHER WHICH WAS NOT FOUND FOR VERIFICATION. ON THE BASIS OF THESE F INDINGS, HE DELETED THE ABOVE SAID DISALLOWANCES TOTALING RS. 1 7 , 0 4,8 00 / - . THESE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT (A) COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE. WE, THEREFORE, HAVE NO HESITATION IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) BECAUSE IN THE ABSENCE OF EVEN A SINGLE VOUCHER WHICH WAS NOT FOUND FOR VERIFICATION, THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCES MADE B Y THE AO ARE NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME WERE RIGHTLY DELETED BY LEARNED CIT (A). 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . (ORDER WA S PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 1 /0 6 /201 5 *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. REGISTRAR