TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue. Therefore, we do not deem it necessary to explore the service of notice upon the assessee by other modes. We are deciding appeal of the revenue ex parte qua the assessee. 2. In the first ground of appeal it is pleaded by the revenue that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 11,52,901/- added by the AO by making a disallowance out of bad debt claim. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed its return of income on 29th June 2006 declaring an income of ₹ 1,64,80,293/-. The assessment was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 on 18.12.2007. The AO thereafter issued notice u/s 143(2) on 29.9.2008, Shri Ravinder Aggarwal , Chartered Accountant appeared from time to time and filed deta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Ld. CIT(A). The view of the Ld. CIT(A) is directly in consonance with various authoritative pronouncement referred by Ld. CIT (A) in impugned order, namely CIT Vs. Autometers, Suresh Gaggal Vs. ITO etc. There is no dispute in the preposition that after 1.4.89 assessee is not supposed to bring demonstrative proof on the record to show that debts have actually become bad. The requirement is that such debts have been written off in the accounts as irrecoverable. In view of the above discussion ground No. 1 raised by the revenue is rejected. 5. In the next ground of appeal the grievance of revenue is that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 50,000/- out of telephone expenses. The brief facts of the case are tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal expenditure and therefore it cannot be disallowed. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance after considering the facts and circumstances. 8. On due consideration of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in the light of judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nestle India reported in 296 ITR 682 wherein it has been held that payment made as club membership fees is allowable business expenditure. We do not see any reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A). The AO has not discussed the nature of payment . He treated it as personal expenses. Ld. CIT(A) has held that in case of company there cannot be any personal expense. Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the above. 9. In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
