POONAM A GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 13(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6687/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 September 2016AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the first ground, remanding the issue of interest expenses to the AO for reconsideration with additional evidence. The second ground regarding motor car expenses was dismissed as the 20% disallowance was deemed reasonable.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which upheld the disallowance of interest expenses and restricted motor car expenses disallowance to 20%. The AO had initially disallowed interest expenses and 50% of motor car expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of interest expenses was justified and whether the disallowance of motor car expenses at 20% was excessive.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH “C”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R. C. SHARMA & SHRI PAWAN SINGH

For Appellant: Shri A.L.Sharma, Ms. Usha
For Respondent: Shri M.C. Om Nangshen
Hearing: 25.08.2016Pronounced: 09.09.2016

Assessee by : Shri A.L.Sharma, Ms. Usha Dalal (AR) Revenue by : Shri M.C. Om Nangshen (DR) Date of hearing : 25.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 09.09.2016 O R D E R

PER PAWAN SINGH, JM:

1.

The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order of CIT(A)-24, Mumbai dated 03.07.2014 for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11). The assessee has filed as many as eight Grounds of appeal

, but as per our considered opinion, there are only two substantial Ground raised in the present appeal, which are referred as under: (I) If Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 17,71,700/- on account of interest expenses. (II) If Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing Motor car expenses @ 20%.

2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income for the relevant AY on 27.09.2011. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and while framing the assessment, the AO besides other addition/disallowance made the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs. 17,71,700/- and further disallowed 50% of Motor Car expenditure due to personal element on depreciation of Cars. Felling aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) wherein disallowance on Motor car expenses was restricted to 20% and interest disallowance was upheld, thus the present appeal is filed before us.

3.

We have heard the ld Authorised Representative (AR) of assessee and ld Departmental Representative (DR) for Revenue and perused the material available on record. First Ground for our consideration is disallowance of interest expenses. Ld AR of assessee argued that the assessee has filed an application for allowing additional evidence to prove the working of interest expenses. AR further argued that the additional document filed before us was not placed before the lower authorities. AR further argued that the additional document placed on record may be allowed to be placed on record for consideration while disposing of the present appeal. Ld DR for Revenue argued that he has no objection if, additional document is taken on record subject to the verification by AO.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions of the ld AR for parties. Considering the contention of both the parties, we deem it appropriate to admit the contention of the ld AR for assessee and to take the additional evidence in the form of documents on records and restore this Ground of appeal to the file of AO. The AO is directed to consider the documentary evidence placed on record by the assessee and after examining the documents pass the appropriate order in accordance with law. Thus Ground No.1 raised in the present appeal is allowed for statical purpose.

5. Next Ground for our consideration is disallowance on Motor car Expenses @ 20%. AR of the assessee argued that disallowance @ 20% is on higher side and prayed that a reasonable disallowance may be made as per the discretion of the Tribunal. Ld. DR for Revenue argued that substantial relief was given by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and the assessee does not deserve any further relief in the facts and circumstances of the case.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →