Basant Bihari Lal, Etawah v. Dy.C.I.T., Circle-5, Firozabad

ITA 364/AGR/2011 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 36420314 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AATPL3171A
Bench Agra
Appeal Number ITA 364/AGR/2011
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant Basant Bihari Lal, Etawah
Respondent Dy.C.I.T., Circle-5, Firozabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 20-12-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 20-12-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 20-12-2011
Next Hearing Date 20-12-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 23-09-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA (SMC) BENCH AGRA BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 364/AGRA/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI BASANT BIHARI LAL VS. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-5 PROP. M/S. ANAND INDUSTRIES FIROZABAD. 36 BAJARIA CHHERAHA ETAWAH. (PAN : AATPL 3171 A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI MASROOR HUSAIN ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI A.K. SHARMA JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 20.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.12.2011 ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.07.2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II AGRA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S : 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEALS) IS BAD IN LAW AND FACTS. 2. THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN RESTRICTING THE AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50 000/- (OUT OF RS.4 00 000-00 DISALLOWED BY A.O.). 3. THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF RS.50 000-0 0 ON MERE PRESUMPTION OF PERSONAL USE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF SMALL TIN CONTAINERS RINGS AND LIDS THEREOF IN THE CONCERN UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. ANAND INDUSTRIES ETAWAH AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2006 WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) VIDE INTIMATION DAT ED 10.01.2007. LATER ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER SELECTED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SCRUT INY BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 143(2) ON 30.03.2007. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME SHRI SHARAD ANAND THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE 2 ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS AND FILED THE WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS ALONG WITH OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SCRUTINIZED THE EX PENSES DEBITED IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD FOREIGN TOUR AND FOUND THAT EXPENSES OF RS.1 94 475/- HAVE BEEN INCURRED ON FOREIGN TOUR OF SHRI SHARAD ANAND THE SON OF THE A SSESSEE WHO WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE DISALLOWED THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO VERIFIED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND FOUND THAT SOME OF THE EXPENDITURE DEBITED IN U NDER THE HEADS COMMISSION COURIER CHARGES GENERATOR EXPENSES MISC. EXPENSES PETROL EXPENSES SALARY AND STAFF WELFARE AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES WERE NOT FOUND SUPPORTED BY RELE VANT BILLS/VOUCHERS FOR VERIFICATION. HE IS OF THE VIEW THAT USE OF TELEPHONE AND VEHICLE FOR PERS ONAL PURPOSE CANNOT BE RULED OUT AND HE MADE AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4 00 000/- OUT OF TOTAL CLAIM OF RS.5 94 475/- AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 18.11.2007 U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT 1961. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY WHO VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.07.2011 PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE BY RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE TUNE OF RS.50 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL ELEMENT . THE ASSESSEE IS STILL AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE TO RS.50 000/- OUT OF RS.4 00 000/- DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE FURTHER STA TED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISALLOWED SUCH EXPENDITURE IN THE PAST ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50 000/- MAY BE DELETED. 4. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3 5. AFTER HEARING THE BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES OF RS.4 00 000/- FOR WANT OF BILLS/VOUCHERS. THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT THE USER OF TELEPHONE AND VEHICLE FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES CANNOT BE RULED OUT AND LASTLY HE MADE AD- HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4 00 000/- OUT OF TOTAL CLAI M OF RS.5 94 475/-. BUT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT RELIEF TO THE ASSESS EE BY RESTRICTING THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE TO THE TUNE OF RS.50 000/- BY HOLDING THAT THE DISALLOWANC E MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE AND EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL EL EMENT CANNOT BE RULED OUT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALS O DISCUSSED THE COMPARATIVE POSITION OF VARIOUS PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS AND LASTLY HAS GIVEN SUFF ICIENT RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY RESTRICTING THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE TO THE TUNE OF RS.50 000/-. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED IN THE WELL REASONED ORDER O F THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THEREFORE I UPHOLD THE SAME BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.12.2011. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20 TH DECEMBER 2011 *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) BY ORDER 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. DR ITAT AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY