, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI ... , ! '#,% &' BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (( / M.P. NO.200/MDS/2017 (IN I.T.A. NO.2717/MDS/2017) ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S KUMARALAYAM PROPERTIES (P) LTD., NO.41/2-B, 2 ND FLOOR ROYAL COURT, VENKATANARAYANA ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 017. PAN : AACCK 4608 F V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE II(4), CHENNAI. (,-) /PETITIONER) (,.-// RESPONDENT) ,-) 1 2 /PETITIONER BY : SH. K. MEENAKSHISUNDHARAM, I.T. CONSULTANT & PRACTITIONER ,.-/ 1 2 / RESPONDENT BY : MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, JCIT 3 1 4% / DATE OF HEARING : 22.09.2017 5'* 1 4% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.10.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER O F THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 09.03.2017. 2 M.P. NO.200/MDS/17 2. REFERRING TO THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THIS TRIBUN AL IN PARAGRAPH 9 OF ITS ORDER, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FO R THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER ACCEPTED FOR ANY DISALLOWANCE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE A CCEPTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OF THE EXPENDITURE ON OTHER THA N AUDIT FEE AND 30% OF THE AUDIT FEE. THIS WAS MISCONSTRUED AS IF THE ASSESSEE AGREED FOR ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE. THEREFORE, ACCORDI NG TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF T HIS TRIBUNAL. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD. DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A REFERENC E IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE AGREED ONLY FOR 20% EX PENDITURE AND 30% OF AUDIT FEE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROD UCE ANY MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE F OR THE PAYMENT OF AUDIT FEE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE TRIBUNAL RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, HENCE, THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE PLEAD ED FOR RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE TO 20% AND AUDIT FE E AT 30%. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE, THE AS SESSING 3 M.P. NO.200/MDS/17 OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) AND THIS TRIBUNAL. M ERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE PLEADED FOR DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OF THE EXPENDITURE ON OTHER THAN AUDIT FEES AND 30% OF THAT ON AUDIT F EE, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE AUTHORITIES HAVE TO ACCEPT THE PLEADI NG OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE PLEADING OF THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) AN D THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, IT MAY NOT BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE CONFIRMED EITHER BY THE CIT( APPEALS) OR BY THIS TRIBUNAL. HENCE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONS IDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO ERROR MUCH LESS PRIMA FACIE ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 09.03.2017. THUS, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED COURT ON 13 TH OCTOBER, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! '# ) ( ... ) (SANJAY ARORA) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 13 TH OCTOBER, 2017. 4 M.P. NO.200/MDS/17 KRI. 1 ,48( 9(*4 /COPY TO: 1. ,-) / PETITIONER 2. ,.-/ /RESPONDENT 3. 3 :4 () /CIT(A) 4. 3 :4 /CIT 5. (; ,4 /DR 6. <) = /GF.