TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is not made by the AO on estimate basis but this is on the basis of actual basis between investment declared by the assessee and valued by the registered valuer as per the valuers report submitted by the assessee itself. This addition was deleted by the CIT(A) on this basis that the addition was made by the AO subject to rectification as per outcome of DVO’s report. This is not the case of the Ld. CIT(A) that DVO has determined the value of the property at or near to the value of investment shown by the assessee. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is also not sustainable. - Decided in favour of revenue. Disallowance of brokerage expenditure and staff welfare expenses - Held that:- Regarding disallowance of ₹ 10,000/- deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) out of staff welfare expenses, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue also because AO estimated ₹ 20,000/- as disallowable for the reason that the expenses is not fully verifiable and as against this, it was estimated by the Ld. CIT(A) that disallowance of ₹ 10,000/- out of staff welfare expenses i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenses as the same were not fully verifiable. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any one or more of the grounds of appeals, as stated above, as and when need to do so arises with the prior permission of, the Court. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee in the CO are as under: 1. That the learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of brokerage expenditure of ₹ 50000/-. 2. That the learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the written submission that the brokerage of ₹ 374400/- was paid to Suman Bhattacharya through cheque and tax deducted U/s 194H was deposited in the Government account (Ground No. 4 Page 6 of CIT order) 3. That the brokerage expenditure of ₹ 50000/- may kindly be deleted. 4. Ld. DR of the Revenue supported the assessment order, whereas Ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of Ld. CIT(A) regarding the issues raised by the Revenue in its appeal. 5. Regarding the issues raised by the assessee in the CO, he reiterated the same contentions which were raised before the CIT(A). He also submitted that on pages 1 to 3 of the paper book are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndrawati Vs. CIT 164 Taxman 24 (Alld.). In this case, it was held by the Hon ble Allahabad High Court that if a new claim is before the Tribunal, which was not raised before the AO or CIT(A), the Tribunal was perfectly justified to refuse to entertain such claim. In the present case, it is not the case that a new claim has been raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal. In fact in the present case, the AO has assessed the interest income of ₹ 64,45,020/- as income from other sources by following the judgment of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Indo Gulf Fertiliser and Chemicals Corporation Ltd. reported in 280 ITR 621 (All). The Ld. CIT(A) has held that the AO was not justified in treating the interest income as income from other sources because the assessee has correctly claimed and shown interest income under the head of business income continuously in past years. Hence, it is seen that no reasoning is given by Ld. CIT(A) as to how the judgment of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Indo Gulf Fertiliser and Chemicals Corporation Ltd. (Supra) followed by the AO is not applicable. As per this judgment of the Hon ble Allahab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and valued by the registered valuer as per the valuers report submitted by the assessee itself. This addition was deleted by the CIT(A) on this basis that the addition was made by the AO subject to rectification as per outcome of DVO s report. This is not the case of the Ld. CIT(A) that DVO has determined the value of the property at or near to the value of investment shown by the assessee. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is also not sustainable. We, therefore, reverse his order on this issue also and restore that of the AO. Ground No.2 of the Revenue is also allowed. 9. Ground No.3 of the Revenue s appeal and all the grounds raised by the assessee in the CO are interconnected. The facts are that as per paras 5 6 of the assessment order, the AO made disallowance of ₹ 1.00 lakh out of brokerage expenditure of ₹ 3,74,400/- and ₹ 20,000/- out of staff welfare expenses of ₹ 2,18,187/-. When the assessee carried out the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) held that the disallowance of ₹ 50,000/- is reasonable out of commission expenditure and disallowance of ₹ 10,000/- is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
