THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT 2 vs. M/S PARTH PROTEINS PVT LTD

C/TAXAP/218/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 218 of 2019 ============================================= THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT 2 Versus M/S PARTH PROTEINS PVT LTD ============================================= Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C. RAO

Date : 25/06/2019

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act, 1961”) is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated 26.11.2018 in C.O. No.454/Rjt/2005 for the Assessment Year 1998-99. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following questions as the substantial questions of law in its memorandum of the Tax Appeal : “[A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.32,224/- made on account of telephone expenses? Page 1 of 4

C/TAXAP/218/2019 ORDER [B] Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.16,875/- made on account of motor car expenses and depreciation?” 3. So far as the first question proposed by the Revenue is concerned, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are as under: “30. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record and find that the CIT(A) has observed that the personal use of telephone by Directors of the company is imperative, further the expenditure is neither authorized by AGM nor is shown as perquisite in the hands of appellant whereas the ld.Counsel relying on the case of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engineering and Company 253 ITR 749 submitted that the disallowance upheld by the CIT(A) are required to be deleted, accordingly same is deleted. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 4. Thus, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engineering Company vs. CIT reported in 253 ITR 749. 5. So far as the second question as proposed by the Revenue is concerned, the findings recorded by the Tribunal Page 2 of 4

C/TAXAP/218/2019 ORDER are as under : “32. We have heard the rival submissions and the AO disallowed Rs.25,312/- out of Motor Car Expenses and Depreciation. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition to the expenditure of 1/6th total car expenses, accordingly, the disallowance out of Motor Car Expenses were reduced from Rs.25,312/- to Rs.16,875/-. However, the ld.Counsel for the assessee relying on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engineering and Company vs. CIT 253 ITR 749 submitted that no disallowance on account of personal use can be made in the case of company. We are therefore of the considered opinion that following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court the disallowance upheld by the CIT(A) are required to be deleted, accordingly same is deleted. The ground of appeal of the assessee is therefore allowed.” 6. Once again the Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engineering Company (supra). 7. Having heard Ms. Bhatt, the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned order. Page 3 of 4

C/TAXAP/218/2019 ORDER None of the questions proposed by the Revenue could be termed as the substantial questions of law involved in the present Tax Appeal. 8. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (A. C. RAO, J) Dolly Page 4 of 4