No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
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.
The assessee has also filed stay petition for grant of stay of
outstanding demand till disposal of the appeal of the assessee
filed before the Tribunal.
P a g e 1 | 4
S.P.No.05/CTK/2019 ITA No. 27/ CTK/2019 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 14
At the time of hearing, ld A.R. of the assessee did not press
the stay petition and requested to dispose of the appeal filed by
the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar.
In view of above, we dismiss the stay petition filed by the
assessee and proceed to adjudicate the appeal filed by the
assessee against the order of the CIT(A).
The sole grievance of the assessee raised in the grounds of
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.
At the time of hearing, ld A.R. submitted that both the
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
S.P.No.05/CTK/2019 ITA No. 27/ CTK/2019 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 14
On the other hand, ld D.R. justified the orders of lower
authorities.
After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the orders
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.
We find that that the Assessing officer has not rejected
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
S.P.No.05/CTK/2019 ITA No. 27/ CTK/2019 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 14
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/-.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and
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
The respondent: DCIT, Circle 4(1), Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT- 2, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//
By order
Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack
P a g e 4 | 4