What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal reduced the disallowances for the four expense heads by 50% each, as the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence and the lower authorities did not provide comparable instances. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the tax liability.

The assessee appealed against disallowances made by the Assessing Officer for carriage forward expenses, motor car expenses, telephone charges, and welfare expenses. The assessee initially did not press a ground related to a small disallowance of interest on property tax.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer for various expenses were justified, and if not, to what extent they should be reduced.

Mahendra Kumar Surana vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’s order dated 29.08.2018 passed in case No.1118/CIT(A)-13/W-45(1)/Kol/2014-15, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

The assessee’s fair enough at the outset in not pressing for his third substantive ground seeking to delete disallowance of ₹530/- on account of interest of property tax in view of smallness of amount involved.

Coming to next four substantive grounds involving carriage forward expenses, motor car expenses, telephone communication charges and welfare expenses disallowance @ 10% ini first and fourth of 20% in second and third heads involving sums of ₹22,641/-, ₹16,439/-, ₹19,110/- & 17,199/-; respectively. I find that neither

ITA No.2064/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 Mahendra Kr. Surana Vs. ITO Wd-45(1), Kol. Page 2 the assessee has been able to prove its case by way of cogent supportive evidence nor lower authorities have drawn any comparable instance in any preceding or succeeding assessment year regarding the very heads. I take into account all these facts and circumstances to reduce all four instant disallowance(s) to that 50% of the amount involved only. The Assessing Officer is directed to frame the consequential computation. It is made clear that instant estimation shall not be treated as precedent in any other assessment year.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in open court on 28/02/2019 (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member Kolkata, *Dkp/Sr.PS "दनांकः- 28/02/2019 कोलकाता आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant-Mahendra Kr. Surana C/o D.J. Shah & Co. Kalyan Bhavan 2 Elgin Road, Kolkata-20

""यथ"/Respondent-ITO Ward-45(1), 3, Govt. Place (W), Kolkatka-001 3. संबं"धत आयकर आयु%त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु%त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. &वभागीय ")त)न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड+ फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता ।

MAHENDRA KUMAR SURANA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 45(1), KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments