9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Y 2008-09 are that the assessee in the relevant assessment year was engaged in the business of manufacturing of auto parts. It had filed its return of income declaring income of Rs. 2,22,58,723/-. The assessment was completed after making following disallowances/ additions: Disallowance of expenses u/s 14A Rs. 1,05,29,574 Disallowance of depreciation on computer accessories Rs. 44,325 Disallowance of excise duty and sales tax loss Rs. 2,36,797 Disallowance/ addition on account of Sales tax paid Rs. 9,78,958 Fine and penalty Rs. 1,69,915 Adhoc disallowance of various expenses Rs. 5,00,000 2.1. In appeal, ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's claims. Aggrieved, the revenue as well as the assessee are in cross appeals b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion is squarely covered by various decisions of different High Court including the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. (order dated 31-8-2010 in ITA no. 1266/2010), allowing depreciation on computer accessories and peripherals @ 60%. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) on the issue in question. Ground is dismissed. 6. Apropos ground no. 2 the AO noticed that assessee had debited in its P&L A/c under the head "Excise duty and Sales-tax loss" A SUM amounting to Rs. 2,36,797/-. The assessee explained that the amount represented the interest on payment of excise duty on supplementary bills. The AO concluded that these were penal in nature a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Rs. 239 crores it is hardly 0.04% of the turnover that the appellant has not been able to procure 'C' Forms and hence paid Rs. 91781958 extra to Sales tax deptt. Therefore, considering the nature and also the commercial expediency the same, I hold that it is not penal in nature but represents the difference of Sales Tax payable for non submission of Form 'C' and VAT D1. Accordingly, I hold that above disallowance is deleted and the appellant gets a relief of Rs. 9,78,958." 7.2. Nothing has been brought on record to controvert the findings of ld. CIT(A). The deposit of the sales-tax was on account of non-submission of form C and VAT D1 and, therefore, this could not be held to be penal in nature. We concur with the fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to interest on Excise Duty on supplementary bills therefore, the same is prayed to be deleted in full. Similar addition was made in Assessment Year 2007- 08 and was deleted by the Hon'ble ClT(A)XXVII vide order dated 11th October, 2010 in appeal NO.168 by 2009-10." 8.3. The above submissions have not been controverted by the department. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) has rightly referred to his findings qua the issues raised in ground nos. 2 & 3 above. Ground is rejected. 9. Apropos ground no. 5 the AO noticed that assessee had incurred certain expenses which were disproportionate as compared to preceding year with regard to sales disclosed. He has given following details: Head 2007-08 (in Rs.) 2008-09 ( in Rs.) Sales 2396355768 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnished by the assessee before the AO, I find no reason to confirm the addition of Rs. 5,00,000 and is therefore deleted." 9.3. Having heard both the parties, in our considered opinion, this being purely ad hoc disallowance made by AO without referring to any specific item of expenditure has been rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A) We uphold the action of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue in question. Ground is dismissed. Assessee's appeal (ITA no. 2446/Del/2012 - 2008-09): 10. The sole effect ground raised is as under: "The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Officer u/s 14A amounting to Rs. 54,57,509/-. The order passed by the Ld. Officer is arbitrary, unlawful, unjustified and not founded on f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for AY 2009-10 is contained in which various issues have been considered having regard to the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Relexo Footwears Ltd. 293 ITR 231; and Jay Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. CIT 311 ITR 405, he submitted that AO has to take into consideration that the investment made in AY 2008-09 did not yield exempt income. 11.4. We have considered the submission of both the parties. The main thrust of the assessee's submission is with regard to the computation of correct disallowance and, therefore, we admit the paper book filed by assessee and restore the matter to the file of AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Revenue's appeal (ITA no. 2446/Del/2012 - 2007-08): 12. Following ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
