9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act"), against the order dated October 31, 2012, annexure A.3 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, Bench "D" in I. T. A. No. 734/DEL/2011 for the assessment year 2004-05, claiming the following substantial questions of law : "I. Whether, under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in concurring with the authorities below and thereby upholding the disallowance of Rs. 2,50,000 out of advertisement and sales promotion expenses having incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes being allowable under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e perverse and against the evidences on record thus unsustainable in law ? V. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has misdirected itself in being influenced by irrelevant factors and applying erroneous criteria while deciding the issue under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" 3. Briefly, the relevant facts as narrated in the appeal are that the assessee is a firm based at Karnal. It is engaged in getting shoes manufactured from outside parties and paying for job charges. On October 29, 2004, the assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2004-05 declaring an income of Rs. 2,60,40,244 which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on March 31, 2005. Notice under section 143(2) of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, the aforesaid disallowances were upheld. Still not satisfied, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated October 31, 2012, annexure A.3, these disallowances were maintained. Hence, the present appeals. The details of expenses under different heads which were disallowed in these appeals in a tabulated form are as under : Liberty Footwear Co., Railway Road, Karnal I. T. A. No. 112 of 2013 I. T. A. No. 113 of 2013 I. T. A. No. 115 of 2013 I. T. A. No. 116 of 2013 (i) Advertisement and sales promotion Expenses Rs. 2,50,000 (ii) Written off assets and receivables Rs. 15334 and Rs. 19,254 (iii) 1/4th car expenses Rs. 68,462, Rs. 15760 (i) Advertisement Expenses Rs. 2,01,648 (ii) Business Promotion expens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the said finding, which was affirmed by the Tribunal. 9. Disallowance of assets written off at Rs. 15,334 and receivables written off at Rs. 19,254 was made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that no proof had been furnished by the assessee. The Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance. The Tribunal while affirming the finding recorded as under : "15. We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case. Since the assessee did not furnish any details and evidence regarding the assets written off and receivables either before the Assessing Officer or the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear, no such disallowance was made. Since the assessee itself in terms of the agreement leased out all its assets to Liberty Shoes Ltd. while no material has been placed before us in order to controvert the findings of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) nor any evidence reflecting use of the aforesaid premises by the assessee so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals). Accordingly, ground No. 5 in the appeal for the assessment year 2005-06 in case of Liberty Footwear Co. is dismissed." I. T. A. No. 115 of 2013 12. The findings regarding disallowance of depreciation on car, car expenses and advertisement expe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is no material before us that the assessee is the owner of the said properties nor any such claim was made before us nor appears to have been made before the lower authorities. Since the learned authorised representative on behalf of the assessee did not dispute the aforesaid findings of facts recorded by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) nor placed before us any material, controverting the aforesaid findings of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) or suggesting that payment of property tax was liability of the assessee, so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter, we are not inclined to interfere. Accordingly, ground No. 3 in the appeal in the case Liberty Footwear Co. for the assessment year 2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
