TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A):- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the LD. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of ₹ 1,89,47,950/- on account of loss on sale of repossessed assets ignoring that such a loss cannot be treated as revenue loss. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of ₹ 72,418/- on account of disallowance of extra depreciation on computer peripherals/accessories ignoring that as per the IT Rules 60% depreciation is allowable only on computer and computer software and not on computer peripherals and accessories. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the judgement cited. We find that the issue in controversy has already been decided in favour of the assessee. In this case, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee in respect of the loss on sale of repossessed assets. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim applying the decision of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Motor General Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax 226 ITR 137. The Hon ble High Court of Delhi in ITA No. 1712/2010 and ITA No. 1714/2010 in assessee s own case, has held that the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Hon ble ITAT rightly held that the judgement of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in Motor and General Sales Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was not applicable to the facts of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court rendered in ITA No. 1712/2010 ITA NO. 1714/2010 in assessee s own case, this ground of the revenue s appeal is rejected. 9. In the result, the revenue s appeal is dismissed. Now, we take up ITA NO. 5506/Del/2010 (Assessee s appeal). 10. The assessee has raised following grounds :- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-IV is erroneous, bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), has not judicially considered the reply and submissions made by the appellant in the right ernest, which is highly biased and pro revenue. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), without understanding the working of the business model a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irmation of adhoc disallowance of ₹ 2,97.018/-. Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee company was formed mainly for financing vehicles manufactured by Maruti Pvt. Ltd. He submitted that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had submitted replies on various issues in addition to oral submission in response to inquiry made at that time. He submitted that at the time of the assessment, the assessee had produced its books of accounts, vouchers and such details as were required by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Assessing Officer had made adhoc disallowance @ 10 % which is not permissible under the law. He submitted that the payments were made to various dealers by way of reimb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgement is not an arbitrary power. It is an assessment on the basis of best judgement, in other words, that the assessment must be based on some relevant material. It is not a power that can be exercised under the sweet will and pleasure of the concerned authority. 13. We have heard the rival contentions perused material available on record and the judgement cited. 14. We find that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the expenses on the basis that the assessee could not submit the details in respect of purpose of payment with evidence. However, the Assessing Officer has not given the reason as to how only 10% expenses are to be disallowed. While confirming the addition, Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the issue which needs consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is settled position of law that it is incumbent upon the assessee to demonstrate with supporting evidence that the expenditure as claimed was incurred for business purpose. In the present case, neither the Assessing Officer nor Ld. CIT(A), has given a finding as to how the details filed by the assessee are not complete to arrive at a conclusion that the expenditure as claimed is not allowable. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has not rejected the Books of accounts and invoked provisions of section 144 of the Act for making best judgement assessment. Further, the contention of Ld. DR that the Assessing Officer has restricted the disallowance to 10% after having considered the nature of business being carried out by the assessee and on the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
