What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed its co-ordinate bench's decision in preceding years. It restricted the disallowance on vehicle and telephone expenses to 5% and deleted the disallowances on costume and sales promotion expenses.

The assessee appealed against ad-hoc disallowances made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the CIT(A) on vehicle expenses, costume expenses, telephone expenses, and sales promotion expenses for AY 2010-11. The assessee argued that similar issues in preceding years were decided by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether ad-hoc disallowances on various expenses are justified, and if so, to what extent, considering the Tribunal's decisions in preceding assessment years.

Karan Yash Johar vs ACIT | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E ” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJENDRA & SHRI C.N. PRASAD

For Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy

Hearing: 19.07.2016

आदेश / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-52, Mumbai dated 30.12.2014 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11.

The assessee has raised the following grounds:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in confirming the adhoc disallowance @10% made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 1,56,671/- out of Rs. 15,66,712/ -[Rs. 5,01,289 + 10,65,423] claimed as vehicle related expenses and depreciation on vehicle. The appellant prays that the said disallowance is unjustified and may please be deleted.

Ground No. 2:

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in confirming the adhoc disallowance @10% made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 20,962/- out of Rs. 2,09,616/ - claimed as costume and dresses expenses. The appellant prays that the said disallowance is unjustified and may please be deleted.

Ground No. 3:

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in confirming the adhoc disallowance @10% made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 11,335/- out of Rs. 1,13,353/ - claimed as telephone and mobile expense. The appellant prays that the said disallowance is unjustified and may please be deleted.

Ground No.4:

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in confirming the adhoc disallowance @10% made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 28,370/- out of Rs.2,83,700/ - claimed as sales promotion expenses. The appellant prays that the said disallowance is unjustified and may please be deleted”.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in so far as ground No. 1 & 3 are concerned, they are raised against confirming the adhoc disallowance made @ 10% of vehicle related expenses and depreciation on vehicle, telephone and mobile expenses. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in the immediately preceding Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2009-10 the issue has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in & 2592/M/2013 dated 15.4.2015 and the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 5%. A copy of the order is placed on record. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the same may be followed for this Assessment Year also. In respect of ground No. 2 & 4 relating to adhoc disallowance of 10% out of costume and dresses expenses claimed by the assessee and adhoc disallowance of 10% disallowed out of sales promotion expenses, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that this adhoc disallowances were deleted by the Tribunal in the preceding Assessment Years. Therefore, he submits that the same may be followed for this Assessment Year also.

The Ld. Departmental Representative supports the orders of the authorities below.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the Co- ordinate Bench decision in assessee’s own case for the earlier Assessment Years and find that the Co-ordinate Bench restricted the adhoc disallowance in respect of vehicle related expenses, depreciation on car, telephone and mobile expenses to 5%. Thus, for the reasons given therein, following the said order, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the expenses to 5%.

In respect of adhoc disallowance out of costume and dress expenses and sales promotion expenses, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench deleted the disallowances. Facts and circumstances being identical, respectfully following the said decision, we delete the adhoc disallowances made in respect of costume and dress expenses and sales promotion expenses.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.

KARAN YASH JOHAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 16(1), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments