TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee nor the Revenue has brought out any material on record or evidence to prove that there have been new development in the transactions of the assessee. In absence of these, addition on this issue cannot be sustained. Further, we observe that there has been no enquiry conducted by the Revenue Authority. AO should conduct further about the matter through proper verification which he has not done. - Decided in favour of assessee Ad-hoc disallowance made @20% under the heads of i) Travelling Expenses ii) Vehicle Expenses and iii) Repair and Maintenance Expenses - Held that:- On perusal of the order of the CIT(Appeals) on this issue, we find that he is simply accepted the version of the Ao and has not come out with specific findings as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Revenue : Smt. Anubhaa Goel ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur dated 04.11.2015 for the assessment year 2011-12 as per following grounds of appeal on record: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of ₹ 10,07,000/- made out of Commission on sales by the Assessing Officer by ignoring explanation of the appellant and without considering the facts of the case properly and judicially. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of ₹ 4,65,000/- m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowance on various heads and ground No.1 relates to disallowance made out of commission on sales. 5. With regard to ground No.1, it is observed by the Assessing Officer in his order that the transactions have not been proved to be carried out by the HUF. Neither the funds of the HUF were utilized nor can personal efforts of a HUF be imagined to have taken place. The brokerage exercise is one which needs personal efforts of a person. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the transactions were not proved to have been done and there was no explanation as to how the HUF can carry out the profession of commission. It is impossible to imagine that a HUF can carry out the detailed exercise of contacting the buyers and sellers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... past years, since the commission has been paid, was accepted in A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10 which are annexed at page 10-12 of the paper book. 7.1 The Ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported as 193 ITR 321 (SC) and submitted that rule of consistency and status quo is to be maintained so far as the tax proceedings are concerned. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has placed reliance on the orders of the lower Authorities. 9. We have perused the case record and analyzed the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that Revenue Authority has accepted total turnover of the assessee and turnover is increased by 37%. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. On these reasoning in the absence of any material change justifying the Revenue to take a different view of the matter and if there was not change it was in support of the assessee. Further, the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Neo Poly Pack ( P.) Ltd. reported as 245 ITR 492 ( Del.) has held that it is true that each assessment year being independent of each other, the doctrine of res-adjudicata does not strictly apply to the income tax proceedings, but where an issue has been considered and decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue has held as under : Regarding the disallowance of expenses, Ground No.3, 4 and 5 relate to the disallowance of part claim on account of travelling , vehicle maintenance repair and repair and maintenance expenses. The AO has noted that the expenses were not verifiable and some of these were vouched by self made vouchers. Personal component cannot be ruled out but it could not be distinguished. Appellant has contended that GP and NP of business are comparable to last years results therefore the AO should not have disallowed these claims. In this regard, the AO has noted that similar disallowances were made in the last years also. Appellant in his submissions has not addressed the observation of the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
