9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition of Rs. 20,000/- out of exhibition expenses. The assessee had claimed expenses of Rs. 5,47,092/- under the head 'exhibition expenses'. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had debited expenses of Rs. 66,498/- on 31.1.2008 in cash. The assessee explained that the same were spent for Delhi exhibition but did not give any documentary evidence regarding it. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence, an amount of Rs. 66,498/- was added to the income of the assessee. 5. The assessee submitted before the learned CIT (Appeals) that the Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate the fact that it is not possible to get each and every voucher of expenses incurred during the course of exhibition. The Assessing Officer did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is. However, the learned CIT (Appeals) found that the assessee has not maintained any call details/log book, etc. Therefore, personal use of these items cannot be ruled out and accordingly, dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee. 9. After considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that the addition is excessive in nature. The nature of business of the assessee is manufacturing of potato chips and assessee filed the return of income at Rs. 1,61,877/-. It is also admitted fact that the assessee has not maintained any details of these expenses. Therefore, personal usage of these items cannot be ruled out. However, considering the nature of the business of the assessee and return of income so filed, I reduce the addition to R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preciating the fact that the assessee is entitled to set off of unabsorbed business losses of the earlier years, irrespective of the fact that whether the income-tax return for the current relevant assessment year have been filed or not. 11. The assessee raised additional ground of appeal on which Remand Report from the Assessing Officer was called for. The Assessing Officer submitted that the due date of filing of the return for assessment year under appeal was 30.9.2008 but the assessee filed return belatedly on 18.2.2009. Therefore, the benefit of carry forward of losses cannot be allowed to the assessee. The assessee in further submission submitted that the assessee is entitled to unabsorbed losses of the earlier years and relied on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nabsorbed losses of the earlier years was raised before the learned CIT (Appeals) being an appellate authority, therefore, the learned CIT (Appeals) should not have rejected the claim of the assessee merely because the assessee failed to claim set off of losses in the return of income. Thus, the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) cannot be sustained in law. The learned counsel for the assessee also filed assessment order for preceding assessment year 2007-08 dated 30.12.2009, in which the Assessing Officer at the end of the assessment order noted that "balance net loss to be carried forward on account of depreciation of Rs. 37,55,835/-. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Haryana Hotels Ltd., 276 ITR 521 (P&H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
