MANA CONSTRUCTIONS,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK RIPOTE
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-
2015, arises against the CIT(A)-2, Nagpur’s Order in Appeal
No.CIT(A)-2/ 10577/2016-17, dated 30.01.2020, involving
proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short
“the Act”).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the
assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant
appeal challenges correctness of the CIT(A)'s action partly
2 ITA.No.69/NAG./2020
affirming the assessment finding disallowing sales promotion
expenditure of Rs.3,50,000/- to Rs.3 lakhs vide following
detailed discussion :
3 ITA.No.69/NAG./2020
Learned counsel vehemently argued during the
course of hearing that both the lower authorities have erred in
law and on facts in disallowing the assessee’s sales promotion
expenditure representing various payments made to Hotel
Radisson Blu Hotel, Nagpur. He sought to buttress the point
that the assessee had duly placed on record all the relevant
photographs, paper advertisements, minutes of meeting and
attendance of the agents etc. before the lower authorities. We
are of the considered opinion that mere filing of such
documentary evidences hardly comes to assessee’s rescue
once it has failed to prove that the impugned expenditure had
been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its
business. We thus find merit in the CIT(A)'s foregoing detailed
discussion that the assessee could not discharge it’s
corresponding onus in respect of the impugned sales
promotion expenditure claim. This is indeed coupled with the
fact although not strictly relevant; that the Assessing Officer
had disallowed various expenses totalling to Rs.50,67,769/-
under various heads of petty contract expenses, work
expenses and business promotion expenditure which have
been confirmed to the extent of Rs.3 lakhs only in the CIT(A)'s
lower appellate discussion. Faced with the situation, we find
merit in the Revenue’s vehement arguments in supporting
both the learned lower authorities action making the
impugned disallowance.
4 ITA.No.69/NAG./2020
This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.09.2023.
Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Pune, Dated 28th September, 2023
VBP/-
Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A)-4, Nagpur. 4. The PCIT-3, Nagpur. 5. D.R. ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. 6. Guard File.
//By Order//
//True Copy //
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.
S.No. Details Date 1 Draft dictated on 25.09.2023 Sr.PS 2 Draft placed before author 26.09.2023 Sr.PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Author .09.2023 J.M. 4 .09.2023 A.M. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS .09.2023 Sr.PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on .09.2023 Sr.PS 7 Date of uploading of Order .09.2023 Sr.PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk .09.2023 Sr.PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order
