9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of motor car amounting to Rs. 6,47,464/- as trading profit, against assessee's claim on sale of fixed assets of Rs. 14,97,140/- is erroneous in law as well as on the facts of the case. 03) That the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-C-I, confirming the disallowance made by Assessing Officer in respect of traveling expenses is erroneous in law as well as on th4 facts of the case. 04) That the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal)-C-I, confirming the disallowance made by Assessing Officer on account of Sundry Balance being written off amounting to Rs. 2,87,472/- u/s 36(2) of the Income Tax Act is erroneous in law as well as on the facts of the case. 05) That the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal)-C-I, confirming the disallowance made by Assessing Officer on account of claim written off amounting to Rs. 27,000/- is erroneous in law as well as on the facts of the case. 06) That the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal)-C-I, confirming the addition made by Assessing Officer on account of Short Term Capital Gain u/s 50(2) amounting to Rs. 18,10,318/- is erroneous in law as well as on the facts of the case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neither the road tax were paid nor the car were insured. The AO has discussed the issue in detail in para 3 of & 4 the order. Accordingly the profit on the car sold has been treated as business income and the balance unsold car as closing stock. In result the short term capital gain declared by the assessee was recalculated and since the block ceased to exist after readjustments the depreciation claimed on motor car of Rs. 33,470/- was disallowed. 4.2 Considering above, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the AO. There is no dispute that the assessee is a dealer of car and spares. Further during the year the addition made in fixed asset on account of purchase of motor car were sold off without using it. Taking all the factors into consideration as discussed by the AO, it is apparent that the vehicles in question were not purchased for investment or business use of the appellant. Considering above it is held that the AO has rightly calculated the profit on sale of the vehicle as business income. Hence the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 33,470/- and addition of Rs. 6,47,464/- on account of trading profit on sale of car is confirmed. Accordingly ground no 2 and 3 taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ooks of the assessee. The assessee sold 4 new cars from the block of assets and reduced the block by the amount of sale consideration. Accordingly the assessee claimed depreciation on the WDV of the block of assets. However the AO rejected the accounting treatment in the books of the assessee for buying the cars and showing in the block of assets. Accordingly the AO treated the purchase and sale transaction as trading transaction. (For details refer ground no. 2 supra). As a result the block of assets ceased to exist in the books of accounts of assessee, so the depreciation for an amount of Rs. 33,470.00 was disallowed. In view of above the depreciations claimed by assessee for an amount of Rs. 33,470/- was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 11. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who upheld the action of Assessing Officer. 12. Now, being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred second appeal before us. This ground of appeal is consequential to the first ground of appeal raised by the assessee. As the first ground of the assessee has been allowed by us in assessee's favour, therefore now this ground being conse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. CIT(A) assessee preferred second appeal before us. 17. Now, being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee preferred second appeal before us. This ground of appeal is consequential to the first ground of appeal raised by the assessee. So the first ground of the assessee has been allowed by us in assessee's favour, therefore now this ground being consequential, we allow in favour of assessee. 18. Ground No. 3 raised by assessee in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO by disallowing travelling expenses for an amount of Rs. 28,276/-. 19. During the year, Director of the assessee-company along with his wife had travelled to neighboring country (Nepal). On question by AO assessee could not produce the supporting evidence that the said expenses were incurred in connection with its business. Accordingly, AO disallowed the same and added it to the income of assessee. 20. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the action of AO. 21. Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee preferred second appeal before us. 22. We have heard rival submissions of both the parties and perused the materials available o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the income when it was offered for taxation. Therefore, AO disallowed the same and added it to the income of assessee. 30. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who upheld the action of AO. 31. Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee preferred second appeal before us. 32. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Before us the Ld. AR could not produce anything that the claimed written off has been declared as income in the earlier years. The assessee also failed to justify the claimed written off in the books before the lower authorities that when it was treated income. On the other hand the ld. DR relied on the orders of Authorities Below. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of Authorities Below. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee is dismissed. 33. In the result, assessee's appeal is partly allowed. Coming to ITA No.794/Kol/2011 for A.Y. 04-05. 34. Sole ground raised by assessee in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO on account of sundry balance written off amounting to Rs. 3,99,730/- u/s. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
