Anupam Mathur New Delhi

0
4
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
FullScreen Mode
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH : ‘A’ NEW DELHI DELHI BENCH : ‘A’ NEW DELHI DELHI BENCH : ‘A’ NEW DELHI DELHI BENCH : ‘A’ NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A No. 1145/Del/2012

Asstt. year – 2008-09

Anupam Mathur, Vs. ITO

Prop. M/s. Avion Travels, Ward-39(3)

2E-14, Jhandewalan Ext., New Delhi.

New Delhi

AAIPM7148P

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by: Shri Ashok Malik, CA

Respondent by: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey, Sr. DR

ORDER

PER RAJPAL YADAV, JM:

The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of Ld. CIT(A)

dated 28.12.2011 passed for asstt. Year 2008-09. The following grounds of

appeal projects the grievance of the assessee as under :-
———————Page 2———————

ITA No. 1145/Del/2012 2

Asstt. year 2008-09

1. “The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred on the facts of the
case and in law in upholding the more disallowance of
`19,874/- out of the vehicle expenses.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred on the facts of the case
and in law in upholding more disallowance out of the
telephone expenses amounting to ` 8974/-

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred on the facts of the case
and in law in upholding the disallowance of ` 25,000/-
out of the business promotion festival expense, repair
and maintenance and staff welfare without pointing out
which expense are not related to the business.”

2. With the assistance of Ld. Representative, we have gone through

the records carefully. On perusal of the asstt. Order, it reveals that

assessee is a travel agent and earned income from travel agency. He has

filed his return of income on 26.9.2008 declaring an income of `

12,24,760/-. The assessee has debited a sum of ` 1,89,055/- under the

head car expenses and claimed depreciation at ` 9693/-. Ld. AO

th
disallowed 1/5 of these expenses on the ground that possibility of user of

the car for personal, as well as for the use of family members cannot be

th
ruled out. He observed that assessee disallowed 1/10 in the return of

th
income. The AO further disallowed 1/10 . In other words, a sum of `

th
39,749/- i.e. 1/5 of the total has been disallowed by the AO. Similarly,

assessee has debited a sum of ` 1,34,621/- under the head “telephone

th
expenses”. AO has disallowed 1/6 . Assessee has incurred various

expenses on business promotion, festival expenses, repair and

maintenance, staff welfare of an estimate basis AO has disallowed `

25,000/-.
———————Page 3———————

ITA No. 1145/Del/2012 3

Asstt. year 2008-09

3. Appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. Ld.

Counsel for the assessee submitted that in asstt. Year 2006-07 an asstt.

order was framed u/s 143(3). The AO has accepted the disallowance on

th
telephone expenses at 1/10 . In this year, he has not assigned any reason

th
for making disallowance at 1/6 . Similarly, he pointed out AO has not

assigned any specific reason for making addition at ` 25,000/- out of

various expenses . He relied upon the following decisions :-

Aggarwal Trading Co vs. ITO 111 TTJ 589

Gold Crest Export vs. ITO (Mum) 134 TTJ 355

Season Catering PVt. LTd. vs. DCIT 134 TTJ 554

ACIT vs. Allied Construction 106 TTJ 61

Monarch Foods Ltd. vs. ACIT 54 TTJ 405

Hughes Escorts Communication Ltd. vs. JCIT 106 TTJ (Del) 1065

4. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of Ld. AO. On due

consideration of the facts and circumstances, we find that in asstt. Year

th
2006-07 also disallowance out of car expenses has been made at 1/5 .

The assessee is not maintaining any details in the shape of log book which

can demonstrate the actual user of the car. The assessee has also not

demonstrated before the AO that family members are having other cars

which were used for personal purposes. In these circumstances, AO has

rightly made disallowance an estimate basis and the addition of ` 19874/-
———————Page 4———————

ITA No. 1145/Del/2012 4

Asstt. year 2008-09

apart from the amount assessee himself disallowed is, therefore, upheld.

As far as disallowance of telephone expenses is concerned, in asstt. Year

th
2006-07, AO has accepted the disallowance at 1/10 . We do not see any

th
logic to make disallowance on 1/6 in this year. We direct the AO to

th
restrict the disallowance out of telephone expenses at 1/10 . As far as

adhoc addition of ` 25,000/- is concerned, we are of the view that

assessee cannot draw benefit of the judgment before us because he failed

to produce complete books of accounts i.e bills, vouchers in support of the

claim of the expenses. Ld. AO has rightly made an addition of ` 25,000/-

because assessee has claimed expenses of more than 3 lacs under

different heads. A nominal disallowance at less than 10% is not on the

higher side. Hence, this ground of appeal is also rejected.

5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

th
Order pronounced in the open court on 11 May, 2012.

Sd/- sd/-

[SHAMIM YAHYA] [RAJPAL YADAV]

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 11.5.2012

Veena

Copy forwarded to: –
1. Appellant

2. Respondent

3. CIT

4. CIT (A)
———————Page 5———————

ITA No. 1145/Del/2012 5

Asstt. year 2008-09

5. DR, ITAT

TRUE COPY By Order,

Deputy Registrar,

ITAT

NO COMMENTS

LEAVE A REPLY