Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Joginder Singh,
आदेश / O R D E R
The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10/11/2010 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. The only ground raised in this appeal pertains to confirming disallowance of Rs.1,40,500/- being electricity expenses of the office used by the firm to carry out its business activities.
During hearing of this appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri, Hemant J. Vora, advanced arguments, which is identical to the ground raised by contending that the office premises was actually used by the assessee firm for its business purposes and electricity expenses were paid. My attention was invited to pages 26 to 28 of the paper book containing bills issued by BMEST undertaking. This factual matrix was not contradicted by the ld. DR, Shri V.S. Jadhav, though, he defended the addition made by the Assessing Officer by contending that the addition was rightly made as at the relevant time, necessary document of payment of electricity charges was not produced by the assessee.
2.1. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm, engaged in the business of outdoor advertising declared income of Rs.3,09,227/- in its return filed on 31st October, 2004. As per the assessee, the assessee firm is assessed to tax for the last about 34 years and is in exclusive possession of hoarding sites on permanent steel holding structure and permanently embedded in buildings. The said hoarding structures are primarily revenue generating asset of the assessee firm. The assessee incurred office electricity expenses amounting to Rs.1,90,234/-, paid to BEST undertaking by account payee cheque for office premises no. 4, 7, and 14, used by the assessee for business purposes. Office premises no.4, as explained by the ld. counsel for the assessee belongs to the assessee firm and premises no. 7 & 14 belongs to partners of the firm. The Assessing Officer disallowed adhoc 75% of the same, which is under challenge before this Tribunal. Totality of facts and the circumstances, clearly indicates that the premises were used by the assessee firm for business purposes, therefore, the charges like electricity has to be incurred. Since, the assessee, paid the amount through cheque and duly received by the BEST undertaking, therefore, there is no question of disallowing the same. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue, evidencing that double deduction was claimed by the assessee or by the partner. I am satisfied with the evidence filed by the assessee, therefore, the addition so sustained is deleted. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, allowed.
Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
This order was pronounced in the open in the presence of ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 14/01/2016.