Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
ITA No.: 725/Ahd/15 Assessment year: 2006-07 Page 1 of 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Justice P P Bhatt, President and Pramod Kumar Vice President]
ITA No.: 725/Ahd/15 Assessment year: 2006-07 Navdurga Specific Family Trust ……………...………..Appellant Natraj Industrial Estate, Sanand Ahmedabad 382 110 [PAN: AAATN0704A] Vs.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6, Ahmedabad ……………..…........Respondent
Appearances by Himnshu Shah, for the appellant Lalit P Jain for the respondent
Date of concluding the hearing : December 5, 2018 Date of pronouncement : March 4, 2019
O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, VP: This appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 25th February 1. 2016 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2006-07.
Ground no. 1 is general in nature and does not call for any specific adjudication as such.
In ground no. 1, the assessee has raised grievance against learned CIT(A)’s upholding the disallowance of Rs 1,16,048 on account of Kasar Expenses.
This expense of Rs 1,16,048 was declined as the complete details of the expenses were not available. All that the details said was “debit balance written off due to tube well failed during the year”. The position is the same even before us. Barring for a bland statement that these expenses pertained to repairs of tube well, no specific details are placed on record. There is thus no occasion to revisit the conclusions arrived at by the authorities below. We confirm their action and decline to interfere in the matter.
Ground no. 1 is thus dismissed.
In ground no. 2, the assessee is aggrieved that the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition made for repairing expenses of Rs 91,800 treating as capital expenses.
ITA No.: 725/Ahd/15 Assessment year: 2006-07 Page 2 of 2 7. This disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the expense was capital in nature as it was for purchase of a part of the machinery. In appeal, CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance by observing that the bill for purchase just mentions about corrugated flat roll, and that does not establish that it is a revenue expense. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before us.
Having heard the rival contentions and having perused the material on record, we are inclined to uphold the plea of the assessee inasmuch as the bill does indeed show that it is for replacement of a part which is thus clearly a revenue expense. The expense was necessary to keep the machinery in a working condition. The disallowance was thus indeed unwarranted and we delete the same.
Ground no. 2 is thus allowed.
In ground no. 3, the assessee is aggrieved that the expense of R 16,350 for purchase of a mobile phone was treated as capital expenditure.
The authorities below have held that the expense on purchase of a mobile phone cannot but be a capital expenditure as a mobile phone, by any stretch of logic, is to be treated as capital asset. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us.
Having heard the rival submissions and having perused the material on record, we are inclined to uphold the plea of the assessee as the expenditure on mobile phone is a very modest amount which can buy a basic phone with very limited useful life and is essentially subject to very rapid obsolescence. The disallowance is deleted.
Ground no. 3 is thus allowed.
No other ground was pressed before us.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on the 4th day of March, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- Justice P P Bhatt Pramod Kumar (President) (Vice President) Ahmedabad, dated the 4th day of March, 2019 + Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) Guard File By order True Copy Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad