Sanjeev Gupta, Sitapur V. Income Tax Officer, Hardoi

ITA 94/LKW/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0568 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MISHRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S UNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 94/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 SANJEEV GUPTA 214, DR. B.D. KAPOOR MARG ARYA NAGAR SITAPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3) HARDOI PAN: ADDPG1448A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SANJAY SAXENA, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI A. K. MISHRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 07 12 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08 12 2017 O R D E R THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), BAREILLY DATED 3/11/2016, INTER ALIA, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BAREILLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCES OF 10% OF EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD 'G ENERATOR & ELECTRIC EXPENSES', ' STAFF WELFARE', 'STATIONERY & COURIER', 'OFFICE EXPENSES', & 'LOADING & UNLOADIN G EXPENSES', AGGREGATING TO RS.1,01,050/ - WHICH HAD BEEN ACTUALLY RE IMBURSED BY ACC LTD. TO THE APPELLANT AND WERE DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. ONLY ON SURMISES. 2 . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE ON AD - HOC BASIS HAVING OBSERVED THAT THE EXPENSES ARE NOT VERIFIABLE AND HE : - 2 - : ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED 10% OF CLAIMED EXPEN SES. THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, AD - HOC DISALLOWANCE IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. 3 . THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS PLACED RELIAN CE UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4 . HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS , I FIND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. MOREOVER, NO INCORRECTNESS IN THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES WAS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, I FIND NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE AD - HOC DISALLOWANCE. ACCORDINGLY, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DELETE THE ADDITION. 5 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION ED PAGE. SD/ - [ S UNIL KUMAR Y ADAV ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 8 TH DECEMBER, 201 7 JJ: 0712 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPOND ENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR