Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 1089 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of carriage Inward expenditure - Held that:- Assessing Officer was not correct in disallowing 10% of such expenditure. We have gone through the submissions of the assessee and orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure on adhoc basis without pointing out any specific instances, where supporting bills are not available. On perusal of financial statement filed by the assessee, we find that the expenditure claimed is very less when compared to related turnover. The assessee is into the business of trading in fertilizers which requires lot of carriage inward expenditure, as the goods are bulky and which needs to be transported to various places. Considering the nature and size of business, we are of the opinion that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is at higher side. During the course of hearing, the Authorised Representative of the assessee requested for scale down the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand did not object for the proposal. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, we direct the Assessing Officer to disallow 5% of carriage inward expenditure. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to disallow 5% of expenditure under the head carriage inwards. Disallowance of depreciation on motor cycles - Held that:- During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee could not produce bills in support of the capital expenditure. The assessee’s contention is that it has bills in support of the fixed assets, however could not produce before the Assessing Officer by oversight. The CIT(A) held that even during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee could not furnish bills in support of the expenditure. Even before us, the facts remained same. The assessee could not furnish any bills in support of the expenditure claimed. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A)
|