PURNIMA SAHU,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of

the CIT(A)-2 Bhubaneswar dated 23.3.2018 for the assessment

year 2013-14.

outstanding demand till disposal of the appeal of the assessee

filed before the Tribunal.

P a g e 1 | 4

the stay petition and requested to dispose of the appeal filed by

the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar.

assessee and proceed to adjudicate the appeal filed by the

assessee against the order of the CIT(A).

appeal that the CIT(A) is not justified in estimating the

disallowance at 20% of the total expenses in respect of business

promotion expenses and making & repairing charges.

authorities below are not justified in estimating the disallowance

at 20% of the total expenditure claimed by the assessee. He

submitted that the assessee has maintained proper books and

accounts and vouchers in respect of all expenses. He submitted

that the assessee has also produced ledger accounts before the

Assessing Officer but he ignored the same without any basis and

passed the assessment order without affording proper opportunity

of hearing. He submitted that TDS has been deducted and paid

for the total amount. Hence, he submitted that the estimation of

disallowance is not just and proper.

P a g e 2 | 4

authorities.

of lower authorities, we find that the assessee is an individual and

derives income from jewellery business. The assessee had claimed

business promotion expenses of Rs.4,22,209/- but the AO

disallowed 20% of the expenses. Similarly, as against claim of

Rs.29,37,698/- out of repairing and making charges, the assessee

could not submit any documentary evidence in respect of claim of

Rs.2,77,239/-, therefore, the AO disallowed the same. On appeal,

the action of the AO was upheld.

books of account while estimating the disallowance. We also find

that the Assessing Officer has not given any reason for disallowing

the expenses. Simultaneously, we observe that considering the

nature and volume of business activities, we concur with the views

of the Assessing officer that the genuineness of the expenditure

cannot be accepted outrightly. Therefore, under the totality of the

facts and circumstances of the case and the turnover of the

assessee, the estimation at 20% determined by the AO is on

higher side. Hence, in order to render justice, we restrict the

P a g e 3 | 4 disallowance to 10% in respect of business promotion expenses

and in respect of making & repairing charges, the estimation is

restricted to 50% which comes to Rs.1,38,620/-.

stay petition is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 01/07/2019.

Sd/- sd/- (Chandra Mohan Garg) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Cuttack; Dated 01/07/209 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Purnima Sahu, Plot No.203 & 204, Kharvel Nagar, Unit-III, Bhubaneswar

By order

Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

P a g e 4 | 4