TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d CIT (A) with a clear finding that simply because the name of a doctor is missing from the list submitted to DCI/MCI, salary paid cannot be disallowed. This order of learned CIT (A) in that year was confirmed by the tribunal. In the present year also, the basis of disallowance by the A.O. and deletion by CIT (A) is same. In the present year also, Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any specific defect in the order of learned CIT (A) on this issue - Decided against revenue. Non deduction of TDS - OPD charges paid to 2 doctors - Held that:- A clear finding is given by CIT (A) that no TDS was to be deducted in these two cases because in the first case, the income was below taxable limit and in the second case, TDS is not required to be deducted from reimbursement of expenses. This finding of learned CIT (A) could not be controverted by learned DR of the revenue - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of traveling expenses - difference in payment of salary - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Finding is given by CIT (A) that the assessee had explained before the A.O. that there is a mistake in the auditor’s report regarding figure of salary to Shri Anurag Singha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar disallowance was made in A.Y. 2007 - 08 also by making similar observations by the A.O. and were deleted in that year by learned CIT (A). This order of learned CIT (A) in that year was confirmed by the tribunal. In the present year also, the basis of disallowance by the A.O. and deletion by CIT (A) is same. In the present year also, Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any specific defect in the order of learned CIT (A) on this issue and no difference in facts could be pointed out by him - Decided against revenue. Loss on sale of Maruti - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- The same was deleted by earned CIT (A) by observing that since the loss is suffered on a business asset, the same is allowable. Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any specific defect in the order of learned CIT (A) on this issue. - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of Depreciation - CIT(A) allowed claim - Held that:- The A.O. asked the assessee to furnish date of completion of building. The A.O. noted that no explanation was furnished and therefore, the A.O. disallowed the depreciation. The same was deleted by earned CIT (A) without giving a finding that the building was comple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,25,707/- u/s 40A(3) without taking into consideration the real facts and documentary evidence as mentioned by the assessing officer in the assessment order. (5) That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bareilly has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 5,11,227/- rightly made by the assessing officer on account of Surplus/Deficit as per Cash System. (6) That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bareilly has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 21,480/- made by the assessing officer on account Capital Expenditure u/s 40A (3). (7) That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bareilly has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 36,350/- rightly made by the assessing officer on account of loss on sale of Maruti. (8) That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bareilly has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 46,00,092/- rightly made by the assessing officer on account of Depreciation. (9) That the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bareilly is erroneous in law and on facts may be cancelled and the order of the Assessing Officer may be resto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh the tribunal order in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2007 - 08 and find that the assertion of the assessee is correct. The issue involved in Ground No. 1 here was decided by the tribunal on this basis that the assessee was following cash system of accounting till A.Y. 2006 - 07 and the same was changed to mercantile system from A.Y. 2007 - 08. In that year, the tribunal approved the change in accounting system. In the present year, it is observed by the learned CIT (A) that this addition is on hypothetical basis as there is no change in accounting system in the present year. This finding of learned CIT (A) could not be controverted by the learned DR of the revenue and hence, we find no reason to interfere in the order of learned CIT (A) on this issue. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 is rejected. 6. Regarding Ground No. 2 also, we find that similar disallowance was made in A.Y. 2007 - 08 by making similar observations by the A.O. and were deleted in that year by learned CIT (A) with a clear finding that simply because the name of a doctor is missing from the list submitted to DCI/MCI, salary paid cannot be disallowed. This order of learned CIT (A) in that year was confirmed by the tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to the nature of expenses, its magnitude and volume and the nature of charitable activities in which the assessee is engaged, some vouchers may not be available. Learned CIT (A) has given a categorical finding that for expenses such as Mess, Generator, Staff Welfare and travelling etc., self made vouchers are also sufficient if the volume is small of such self made vouchers. Thereafter, he deleted this addition by observing that since no claim of bogus expenditure has been found by the A.O., addition is not justified. We do not find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT (A) on this issue in the facts of the present case because the activities of the assessee are charitable and considering the nature and volume of expenses. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of learned CIT (A) on this issue. Accordingly, on this issue also, Ground No. 3 is rejected. 10. Regarding fourth issue in Ground No. 3 of ₹ 53,850/-, we find that this addition was made by the A.O. on this basis that these expenses are of capital nature. sufficient supporting are not available. This finding is given by CIT (A) that the assessee had explained that looking to the nature of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the present year. This finding of learned CIT (A) could not be controverted by the learned DR of the revenue and hence, we find no reason to interfere in the order of learned CIT (A) on this issue. Accordingly, Ground No. 5 is rejected. 13. Regarding Ground No. 6, we find that similar disallowance was made in A.Y. 2007 - 08 also by making similar observations by the A.O. and were deleted in that year by learned CIT (A). This order of learned CIT (A) in that year was confirmed by the tribunal. In the present year also, the basis of disallowance by the A.O. and deletion by CIT (A) is same. In the present year also, Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any specific defect in the order of learned CIT (A) on this issue and no difference in facts could be pointed out by him. Hence, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present year. Accordingly, Ground No. 6 is also rejected. 14. Regarding Ground No. 7, we find that this disallowance is in respect of loss on sale of Maruti Car. The same was deleted by earned CIT (A) by observing that since the loss is suffered on a business asset, the same is allowable. Learned DR of the revenue could not point out a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at ₹ 12,76,355 on account of salary expenses. (4) That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bareilly has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 8,000 on account of unexplained waive off. (5) That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bareilly has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 35,464/- made by the assessing officer on account of Surplus/Deficit as per Cash System Accounting. (6) That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bareilly has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 54,40,659/- made by the assessing officer out of Revenue Expenses in cash having no supporting vouchers or any evidence. (7) That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bareilly has erred on facts and in law in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 82,481/- on account of written off bad debts. (8) That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bareilly has erred on facts and in law in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 2,09,703/- made by the assessing officer on account of salary made without deducting TDS. (9) That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bareilly has erred on facts and in law i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per Cash System Accounting. 35,464 Para 33 to 35, Pages 25 to 26 6 Revenue Expenses in Cash having no supporting 54,40,659 Para 47 to 48, Page 30 7 Written Off Bad Debts 82,481 8 Salary paid without TDS 2,09,703 Para 18 to 19 36 to 37, Pages 11 to 12 27 9 Difference in Salary Form 16 27,800 Para 38 to 39, Pages 28 10 Capital Expenditure in Cash having no supporting 4,53,596 Para 47 to 48, Pages 30 11 Capital Expenditure u/s 40A (3) 4,79,338 Para 16 to 17, Pages 10 to 11 19. We have gone through the tribunal order cited by the assessee. We find that all these issues were decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee in A.Y. 2007 - 08. No difference in facts could be pointed out by learned DR of the revenue and hence, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,89,340/- made by the assessing officer on account of capital expenses disallowed without voucher or evidence. (10) That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bareilly has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 3,93,777/- made by the assessing officer on account of profit on sale and purchase of medicine. (11) That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bareilly has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 29,23,336/- made by the assessing officer on account of variation as per comparative Analysis of Surplus/Deficit. (12) That the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bareilly is erroneous in law and on facts may be cancelled and the order of the Assessing Officer may be restored. (13) Any other grounds of appeal may be taken at the time of hearing of appeal. 22. We have gone through the tribunal order cited by the assessee. We find that in this year also, all these issues were decided by the tribunal in favour of the assessee in A.Y. 2007 - 08 and no difference in facts could be pointed out by learned DR of the revenue and hence, we do not find any reason to take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
