SRI. MORAPAKKAM JOSIAM ARAVIND,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 467/BANG/2020Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 October 2021AY 2016-173 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of expenditure. Both parties conceded that the issue was covered by a previous order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed certain expenditures amounting to Rs. 30,08,729 under Section 57 of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses, and the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance of expenditure claimed by the assessee under Section 57 of the IT Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 57

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE

Before: Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM

Hearing: 12.10.2021Pronounced: 12.10.2021

O R D E R

Per George George K, JM

1.

This appeal in the instance of the assessee directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 04.12.2019. The relevant assessment year is 2016-2017.

2.

There is a delay of 60 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay, wherein it was submitted that the assessee has changed his Counsel and the present Counsel could not prepare the appeal papers due to Covid-19 pandemic followed by nationwide lockdown. On perusal of the reasons stated for belated filing of the appeal, we noticed that no latches can be attributed to the assessee and there is sufficient cause in filing this appeal belatedly. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits.

. Sri.Morapakkam Josiam Aravind

2. The solitary issue raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the disallowance of expenditure claimed u/s 57 of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs.30,08,729.

3.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The assessee is an individual. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee u/s 57 of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs.30,08,729, which includes PMS charges, salaries and bonus, professional charges, vehicle maintenance, computer maintenance etc.

4.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the A.O. by following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2012-2013 in (order dated 20.04.2018), which the CIT(A) has elaborately discussed in his order. For the sake of brevity, the same is not reproduced again.

5.

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

6.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. At the time of hearing before us, both the parties fairly conceded that the impugned issue is covered against the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2012-2013 (supra). In view of the submissions made by both the parties and in the facts

. Sri.Morapakkam Josiam Aravind and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Hence, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 57

All 1,225 judgments and leading authorities on Section 57 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →