TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 810/- on account of renovation expenses of the premises for his hospitality business wherein renovation was carried out by the assessee . The assessee could not file the evidences before the A.O to substantiate its claim that these are revenue expenses allowable under the Act. The assessee has furnished additional evidences before learned CIT-A who has refused to admit the same . After considering the material on record and hearing the parties , We are of the considered view that evidences which were filed before the learned CIT-A need to be admitted and adjudicated on merits in accordance with law to sub-serve the interest of substantial justice. Thus, we hereby direct to admit these additional evidences filed by the assessee before learned CIT(A) Disallowance of provision of bonus - Held that:- We did not find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT-A in dismissing the ground of appeal as not been pressed by the assessee because in any case assessee has itself submitted that assessee will claim these expenses in A.Y 2010-11 based on actual payments for the bonus made to the employees in the month of October 2009 which in our considered view is in consonance with provisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereinafter called the AO ) u/s 143(3)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act ). 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the memo of appeal filed with the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter called the tribunal ) read as under:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in completing the assessment U/S 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without taking the account of facts available, and detailed explanations submitted duly placed on records by the appellant, in the course of assessment proceedings. The assessing officer has also made presumptive and arbitrary disallowances/ additions. 2. The learned assessing officer had made disallowances for loss on sale of motor car of ₹ 26686/-stated to have wrongly debited to profit and loss Account even the block of motor cars does not ceased to exists as on 31/03/2009, which is added back to assessee income, however the assessing officer did not allowed mandatory depreciation as per revised calculation which is available to the appellant at the time of sale of motor car in such circumstances. 3. Further the assessing officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard by you. 3. The assessee in this case filed an appeal late by 42 days with the tribunal beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3) . It is the submission of ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee filed an appeal late by 42 days as the CA of the assessee Shri. V.A Mishra who was looking after the affairs of the assessee could not file an appeal in time because he was busy in scrutiny assessments conducted by Revenue and also he was busy in audits. The said Chartered Accountant has given an affidavit to that effect which is placed in file. The Director of the assessee company has also filed an affidavit confirming that the delay in filing an appeal with the tribunal was mainly on account of negligence of the assessee s counsel CA Shri. V.A Mishra, being occupied in other professional engagements. The affidavit of Director is also placed in file. The learned DR objected to condonation of delay in filing of this appeal late by 42 days beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act. Thus, keeping in view interest of substantial justice vis-a-vis technicalities and in the light of decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector , Land Acquisition v. Mst. K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter crediting sale proceeds of the motor car sold during the year and to that extent depreciation need to be re-worked to be allowed in accordance with provisions of Section 32 . Thus, this matter needed to be restored to the file of the A.O for re-computation of depreciation in accordance with law after necessary verifications and examination. Needless to say that the AO shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in denovo proceedings in accordance with principles of natural justice in accordance with law. We order accordingly. 5.1. The next issue is w.r.t. disallowance of Renovation expenses. The A.O observed that the assessee has debited ₹ 95,94,810/- in Profit and Loss account on account of office renovation expenses . The assessee was asked to explain the same and the assessee submitted as under:- Renovation expense amounting to ₹ 95,94,810 was incurred for hospitality business which the company intended to start as a diversification of business. The company undertook the renovation of a premises taken on lease under the name and style of Pearl Hospitality as a brand name to denote the hospitality business. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the A.O for the denovo adjudication of the issue on merits in accordance with law after verification of evidences by the AO. our attention was drawn to page no. 68 of the paper book wherein reply was submitted before the A.O and it was submitted that evidence could not be submitted before the A.O which were later submitted before learned CIT-A but learned CIT-A did not admitted those additional evidences. 5.6 The Ld. DR fairly submitted that if the evidences are allowed to be admitted by tribunal then the matter can be restored to the file of the A.O for verification of these evidences and re-determination of the issue on merits after verification of the evidences. 5.7 We have considered rival contention and perused the material on record . We have observed that the assessee has incurred expenses of ₹ 95,94,810/- on account of renovation expenses of the premises for his hospitality business wherein renovation was carried out by the assessee . The assessee could not file the evidences before the A.O to substantiate its claim that these are revenue expenses allowable under the Act. The assessee has furnished additional evidences before learned CIT-A who has refused to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income-tax deducted at source for the period April to February 2009 was not paid before 31.03.2009 , but was paid on 29-09-2009 and hence it violated provision of Section 40(1)(ia) but it was claimed that the same was paid before filing of return of income . We have observed that the assessee has itself submitted before learned CIT-A that assessee has claimed these expenses on which income-tax was deducted at source which was paid late beyond the period prescribed u/s 40(a)(ia) , in AY 2010-11 and thus, the claim of expenses can be allowed in A.Y 2010-11 after verification by the AO . The learned CIT-A has dismissed this ground on the basis of submissions made by the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the decision of learned CIT-A in dismissing this ground as in any case there will be no prejudice to the assessee as the same expenses shall be allowed in the subsequent year i.e. 2010-11 in which assessee has paid the TDS to the credit of Central Government , after due verification and examination by the AO. We dismiss this ground. 8.1 The next ground raised by the assessee was w.r.t. non granting of total TDS receivable by the assessee, wherein the assessee has been allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
