AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 34 (in short, the “CIT(A)”) Delhi’s dated 19.11.2019 passed in DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2019-20/1020721606(1), involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
This assessee’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds:
“1.On the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order has been issued in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to adjudicate the factual ground no. 1, 2, 4 & 5 raised by the Appellant and mechanically remanded the matter back to the Ld. AO for fresh assessment on these grounds, without considering the fact that the impugned assessment order has been completed on the similar direction of the hon'ble ITAT.
2.On facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeal) has erred in law in set aside the adhoc disallowances out of expenses ignoring the fact that the books of accounts have been accepted as complete and correct and the assessment is completed u/s 143(3) of the Act.
3.On facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in law in not adjudicating ground that Id. assessing officer, has erred in law in not following the directions of the hon'ble ITAT given in the order dated 31/07/2019, while deciding on the issues set aside by the Hon'ble ITAT for fresh adjudication.
4.On facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in law in not adjudicating the ground that the learned assessing officer has erred in law in making the adhoc disallowance @25% amounting to Rs. 8,56,515/- out of expenses debited under different heads Business Promotion, Staff Welfare Expenses, Printing & Stationery, Diwali, Misc. Expenses, Tour & Travels, Telephone Expenses on presumption ignoring the details submitted.
5.On facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in law in not adjudicating the ground that the learned assessing officer has erred in law in making the adhoc disallowance amounting to Rs. 76,07,373/ out of expenses debited under different head Petrol, Diesel and CNG, Depreciation Claimed on Car and Vehicle Repair & Maintenance on presumption, ignoring the submission and without having any adverse material on record.
6.On facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in law in dismissing the ground that the learned assessing officer has erred in law in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, ignoring the fact that no such direction was given by the Hon'ble ITAT in the order dated 31/07/2019.
7.On facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in law in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of interest paid on housing loan claimed u/s 24(b) of the Act.
8.That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
Learned counsel fairly submits that the assessee no more wishes to press its seventh substantive ground keeping in light the smallness of the amount involved therein subject to a caveat that the same is not treated as a precedent. Dismissed as not pressed in very terms.
Next comes the sole substantive issue on merits between the parties wherein the assessee is aggrieved against the learned lower authorities’ respective assessment and lower appellate findings inter alia disallowing his business promotion, staff welfare, printing and stationery as well as Petrol, Diesel, CNG etc involving varying sums. The Revenue could hardly dispute that all these expenses are indeed incurred on day to day basis wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business only u/s 37(1) of the Act. The fact also remains that it was the assessee bounden duty to plead and prove the same by way of his cogent supportive material in both the lower proceedings. Be that as it may, we find only a part merit in the assessee’s case that such a expenditure could not have been disallowed at an exorbitant rate of 25% as is done in both the lower proceedings. We thus deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice that the lumpsump disallowance at the rate of 2% only in the assessee’s hands under all these heads will meet the needs of justice with rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. The Necessary computation to follow as per law.
No other ground or argument have been pressed.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.