SALES EMPORIUM (ULG),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 41(2),/NOW WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA

ITA 2453/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 April 2019AY 2009-103 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 found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, considering the disallowances made for both assessment years to be reasonable. Therefore, the disallowances were confirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming ad-hoc disallowances of various expenses for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The disputed expenses included motor car expenses, sales promotion expenses, retainership fee, telephone expenses, and delivery/installation expenses.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity and reasonableness of ad-hoc disallowances of various business expenditures claimed by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy

Sales Emporium (ULG).............….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…..……………….......Appellant 85-D, Ultadanga Main Road Kolkata – 700 067 [PAN : AAKFS 8098 N] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(2)/Now 44(2) Kolkata....................................….…............Respondent Appearances by: Shri V.N. Dutta, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri A.K. Bandopadhyay, D/R (ITAT), appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : March 25th, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : April 26th , 2019 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :-

Both these appeals are filed by the assessee directed against the common order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 13, Kolkata [“ld. CIT(A)”], passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), both dt. 19/09/2018, for the Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11.

The issues in dispute for both the Assessment Years, are adhoc disallowances of expenditure claimed by the assessee under various heads. For the Assessment Year 2009-10, the following adhoc disallowances are disputed:- For that the disallowance of entire amount of Motor Car expenses of Rs.51,114/- 28,486/- and its depreciation of Rs.37,373/- and insurance of Rs. 3,702/- is neither tenable in law nor in facts. For that the confirmation of Rs,4,44,0001- under the head Sales Promotion Expenses 1,37,196/- is unjustified, uncalled for and bad in law For that the disallowance of "Retainers hip fee" ofRs.2,50.720/- is unjustified, 77,472/- unwarranted and bad in law For that the disallowance of Rs.34,0001- under the head telephone expenses is 10,506/- unjustified, uncalled for and bad in law For that the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 70, 175/- under head Delivery and 21,684/- installation Expenses id unjustified and uncalled for.

Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sales Emporium (ULG) For the Assessment Year 2010-11, the following adhoc disallowance are disputed:- For that the confirmation of Rs,4,44,000/- under the head Sales Promotion Expenses is 1,37,196/- unjustified, uncalled for and bad in law For that the disallowance to the extent of Rs.1,02,686/- under head Delivery and 31,730/- installation Expenses is unjustified and uncalled for For that the disallowance of entire amount of Motor Car expenses of Rs.3,620/- is unjustified and uncalled for For that the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, add, delete or substitute any other 1,119/- grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.

3. After hearing rival contentions, I see no reason to interfere with the reasoned order of the ld. CIT(A). The disallowances made for both the Assessment Years, under each of the heads stated above are reasonable and call for no interference. Hence I confirm the same.

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Kolkata, the 26th day of April, 2019.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →