MANTRI REALITY LTD ( FORMERLY M/S ANJIR PROPERTIES P.LTD),MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2089/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 April 2016AY 2003-045 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 upheld the disallowances of legal fees, site development expenses, stamp duty and registration charges, sales promotion expenses, and travelling expenses. The assessee failed to discharge the onus to justify these claims.

What were the facts?

The assessee company appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming various disallowances. The assessee failed to appear or provide necessary documentation before the lower authorities and the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowances of various expenses were justified, given the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence and documentation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH & SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTNT MEMBER)

For Respondent: Shri K.V. Vispute

Date of hearing : 27-04-2016 Date of pronouncement : 29-04-2016 ORDER

PER ASHWANI TNEJA, AM

1.

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income-tax{Appeals)-5, Mumbai [hereinafter called "CIT{A)" dated 07-12-2012 passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 30-03-2006 for Assessment Year 2003-04 raising the following grounds of appeal:

2 ITA 2089/Mum/2013 "The appellant Company prefers an appeal against an order dated 27112/2012 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) 5, Mumbai on following amongst other grounds each of which are without prejudice to any other :- 1.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Legal fees of Rs.5,OO,OOOl- and Site development expenses of Rs. 26,12,225/- on holding such as Contingent liability on ignoring the vital fact that the appellant followed Project completion method and recorded the ascertained liability related to the completed project; 2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. C/T(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of stamp duty and registration charges of Rs4,23,387/- under the reason that appellant was not required to incur such expense; 3.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. C/T(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of sales promotion expenses of Rs.2,76,332/- on holding such as personal expenses of the directors; 4.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. C/T(A) erred in confirming the trovelling expenses of Rs.82,159/- on holding such as personal expenses of the directors.”

3.

It is noted that this appeal has been fixed for hearing on various occasions on which adjournment has been sought by the assessee's counsel. On the last date of hearing, i.e. on 16-09-2015 also request for adjournment was filed on behalf of the assessee and accordingly this case was adjourned for 27-04-2016. On the date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is further noted by us that before the ld. CIT(A) also no representation was made properly by the assessee despite the fact that Id.CIT(A) did fix the hearing on more than 12 occasions. It is noted that none appeared on behalf of the assessee on 11 out of 12 occasions before the CIT(A). Under these circumstances we have no option but to decide the appeal exparte on the basis of records available before us.

3 ITA 2089/Mum/2013 Ground No.1: 4. This ground deals with disallowance of legal fee of Rs.5 lakhs and site development expenses of Rs.25,12,225 by holding the same as contingent liability.

5.

It is noted that proper details were not given by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Even before the CIT(A) none had appeared and no details, submissions or documentary evidences were submitted to negate the observations of the Assessing Officer. Relevant observations of ld.CIT(A) are reproduced hereunder for the sake of ready reference; “4.1 various reasons have been given by the AO for disallowing the same. The same be read as a part of this order also and the same are not being repeated for the sake of brevity. The AO has stated that assessee has not furnished the details of the outstanding expenditure incurred which have been adjusted against the provisions for outstanding liability. The appellant has failed to discharge the onus to prove that the liability for which the provisions has been made is an ascertained liability.

4.2 Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances the disallowance of provisions for outstanding liability amounting to Rs. 31,12,225/- made by the AO is upheld.”

6.

We find that there is nothing even before us so as to reverse the action of lower authorities. Nothing has been brought to justify these claims. Under these circumstances disallowance made by the Assessing Officer cannot be disturbed and, therefore, order of the ld.CIT(A) is upheld and accordingly, ground No.1 is dismissed.

7.

Ground No.2 : In this ground, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of stamp duty and registration charges of Rs. 4,23,387. In this case also position remains the same as no representation was made before the Id.CIT(A). Relevant part of order of CIT(A) is reproduced below:

4 ITA 2089/Mum/2013

“5.1. The AD has stated that the stamp duty and registration charges relate to Flat No 301 which have been paid by the assessee as per mutual agreement, The AD stated that the assessee is a builder and the stamp duty and registration charges are normally paid by the buyer and not the builder. No copy of mutual agreement was filed. The assessee failed to discharge the onus. The Assessing Officer therefore held that the payments were for extraneous consideration.

5.2 In view of the facts stated by the A.D., the disallowance made by the A.O. is upheld.”

8.

Now before us also nothing has been brought to justify the claim and, therefore, we find it appropriate to uphold the order of the lower authorities on this issue and, therefore, ground No.2 is dismissed. Grounds No.3 & 4 : These grounds pertain to disallowance of sales 9. promotion expenses and travelling expenses. 10. It is noted that position with respect to these two grounds is also similar as in the above said grounds. Nothing has been brought even before us tojustify the claim made by the assessee. Under these circumstances, we have no other option but to uphold the orders of the lower authorities. Grounds 3 & 4 are dismissed. 11. As a result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing. Sd/- Sd/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (ASHWANI TANEJA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 29th April, 2016 Mumbai, Dt : Pk/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →