DCIT 30(2), V. MANIRATNA,

MA 433/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2831 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JEETENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: JITENDRA SINGH
• Section: 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA , J M M A NO. 433 / MUM/20 1 4 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO . 7707 /MUM/20 1 2 ) ( ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 9 - 10 ) DCIT - 30(2), C - 13, ROOM NO.601, 6 TH FLOOR, P RATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, BANDRA - KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI - 51. VS. M/S MANIRATNA, THE JEWEL PARADISE, SHOP NO.7, SHANTI SADAN, MALAD(W), MUMBAI - 64 PAN NO. : A A EFM 5550 F APP LICANT .. RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI JEETENDRA KUMAR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI JITENDRA SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 20 TH FEBRUARY, 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 TH FEBRUARY, 201 5 O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA, AM : TH IS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE AROSE OUT OF ITA NO. 7707 /MUM/20 1 2 , VIDE ORDER DATED 10 - 10 - 2014. 2 . THROUGH TH IS APPLICATION , IT WAS CONTENDED BY LD. DR THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT ADJUDICATED UPON GROUND NO.1, WHICH READS AS UNDER: - 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE AND MOTOR CAR EXPENSES WHEN THE PERSONAL ELEMENT IS INVOLVED IN THESE EXPENSES . LD. DR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED AMOUNTS TO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE AFORESAID ISSUE SHOULD BE DECIDED. 3. WE FOUND THAT THIS GROUND HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, IT AMOUNTS TO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. BOTH THE LD. AR AND LD. DR AGREED THAT BEING A VERY SIMILAR ISSUE, THE SAM E MAY BE DECIDED AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. MA NO. 433 /20 1 4 2 4 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADHOC ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE AND MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 42,666/ - . WE FOUND THAT OUT OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED ON TELEPHONE AND MOTOR CAR EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS DISALLOWED 20% AS WELL AS PAID FBT THEREON . HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS AN ELEMENT OF PERSONAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. VARIOUS COO RDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, IN FOLLOWING CASES, HAVE CONSISTENTLY TAKEN THE VIEW THAT IN CASE EXPENDITURE HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBJECTED TO FBT, FURTHER ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF 20% IS UNJUSTIFIED : - I) HANSRAJ MATHURADAS VS. ITO, ITA NO.2397/MUM/2010, VIDE ORDER DATED 16 - 9 - 2011; II) M/S INDUSTRIAL PACKAGING PRODUCTS VS. ACIT, ITA NO.1452/MUM/2010, VIDE ORDER DATED 20 - 4 - 2011; AND III) ACIT VS. M/S MICRO TURNERS, ITA NO.4569/DEL/2011, VIDE ORDER DATED 15 - 2 - 2013. IN THE INSTANT CASE, UNDISPUTEDLY ASSESSEE HA S PAID FBT ON THE EXPENDITURE SO INCURRED, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED BY RESPECTIVE BENCHES, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 42,666/ - . 5 . IN THE RESULT, TH E MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED , IN THE TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 20 - 02 - 2015 . SD/ - ( AMIT SHUKLA ) SD/ - ( R.C.SHARMA ) JUDICIAL M EMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 20/02/2015 /PKM , PS MA NO. 433 /20 1 4 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / T HE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//