NAMBIATTUKUDI RAPPEL JOY,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, ALUVA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 90/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 October 2024AY 2017-2018Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no basis for the 80% disallowance and, in the absence of comparable cases, restricted the disallowance to 20% of the claimed expenses.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned disallowances of 80% of salary and transportation expenses. The lower authorities had accepted 20% of these claims.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of 80% of salary and transportation expenses by the lower authorities was justified without providing a basis.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 19.08.2024Pronounced: 23.10.2024

O R D E R Per Bench This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2017-18 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057759832(1) dated 07.11.2023 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceed exparte.

2.

Learned Sr. D.R. invited our attention to the lower appellate discussion in pages 2 & 3 wherein CIT(A)-NFAC has confirmed the assessment findings, inter alia, disallowing assessee’s 80% salary and equal percentage of transportation Nambiattukudi Rappel Joy charges amounting to Rs.5,17,200/- and Rs. 11,20,048/- respectively. She vehemently supported the same that it was the assessee’s onus only to plead and prove all the relevant facts under these heads of salary and transportation, etc. She could hardly rebut the fact that both the lower authorities are very fair in accepting 20% of the corresponding claims. Meaning thereby that the impugned expenses stand accepted in principle and the only exception thereto is that of the estimated disallowance in which forms the subject matter of adjudication before us.

3.

We find that both the lower authorities have not given any basis for rejecting the assessee’s impugned claims @ 80%. The fact also remains that it was the assessee onus only to support the same by filing cogent evidence(s) including recipients’ details etc. Be that it may, in light of the fact that there are no comparable cases quoted in the lower authorities’ respective findings, we deem it appropriate to restrict the impugned disallowance(s) @ 20% subject to rider that it shall not be treated as a precedent. Ordered accordingly.

4.

Delay of 30 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned as per assessee’s pleadings in condonation petition.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →