TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appropriate action under section 69 of the act against the person who has not been able to explain the investment. In the case at hand, the assessee has discharged its onus satisfactorily by furnishing all the relevant evidences. Therefore, when the firm is disclosing capital introduction by the partner providing names and PAN nos of contributing partners, then no addition can be made in the hands of the firm - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance under various heads of expenses - adhoc disallowance by disallowing 20% of the expenses - HELD THAT:- The onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of expenses claimed by furnishing relevant bills and vouchers. When the assessee is unable to produce the bills and vouchers, the Assessing Officer can make reasonable addition, as he deems proper. In this case, the assessee has produced ledger copies in support of various expenses incurred by him. The assessee is in the business of hotel and textile business and is bound to incur the above expenditure for smooth running of the hotel and textile business but has to keep the bills and vouchers for claiming the deduction, which is lacking in this case. However, keeping in m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20,00,000/- 3. Shri Manish Kr Sahoo 3,00,000/- 3,00,000/- 4. Shri Avinash Sahoo 3,50,000/- 3,50,000/- 4. The Assessing Officer accepted the capital introduction in cheques and disallowed the capital introduction of ₹ 60,00,000/- received in cash, which was confirmed in first appeal by the ld CIT(A). 5. Ld A.R. submitted that all the partners who have introduced the amount in assessee firm are assessed to income tax in their individual capacity. He submitted that the names and address, PAN of the partners have been filed before the departmental authorities. He submitted that the partners have disclosed the aforesaid investment in the assessee s firm in their respective income tax returns. The capital introduction is owned by the partners, therefore, the addition cannot be added in the hands of the assessee firm. In support of this, reliance has also been placed on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Metachem Industries, 245 ITR 160 II) CIT vs. Burma Electro Corporation, 252 IT 344 (P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 646/-. 10. Ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has incurred ₹ 92,33,232/- consisting of ₹ 38,32,750/- as bed tea breakfast expenses, ₹ 2,74,727/- as electrical maintenance, ₹ 27,94,015/- as lundry expenses, ₹ 10,61,683/- as referral charges, ₹ 9,30,578/- as room service restaurant and ₹ 3,39,479/- as mandap expenses. He submitted that the Assessing Officer although not doubted the expenses incurred but made adhoc disallowance by disallowing 20% of the expenses, which is not correct and the adhoc addition be deleted,. 11. Replying to above, ld DR submitted that when the assessee was unable to furnish the relevant bills and vouchers and other related documents in support of the claim, the AO was correct in making adhoc disallowance. He submitted that for making the disallowance, the AO has referred several judicial pronouncements as stated in the assessment order. Hence, he urged to confirm the orders of lower authorities. 12. On consideration of the rival submissions, we observe that the assessee has incurred ₹ 92,33,232/- under various heads of expenses and claimed the same as deduction. The Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as follows: (5) The pronouncement may be in any of the following manners: -(a) The Bench may pronounce the order immediately upon the conclusion of hearing (b) in case where the order is not pronounced immediately on the conclusion of the hearing, the Bench shall give a date of pronouncement. In a case where no date of pronouncement is given by the Bench, every endeavour shall be made by the Bench to pronounce the order within 60 days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do on the ground of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the case, the Bench shall fix a future day for pronouncement of the order, and such date shall not ordinarily be a day beyond a further period of 30 days and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given on the notice board. As such, ordinarily , the order on an appeal should be pronounced by the Bench within no more than 90 days from the date of concluding the hearing. It is, however, important to note that the expression ordinarily has been used in the said rule itself. This rule was inserted as a result of directions of Hon ble High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in an unprecedented order in the history of India and vide order dated 6.5.2020 read with order dated 23.3.2020, extended the limitation to exclude not only this lockdown period but also a few more days prior to, and after, the lockdown by observing that In case the limitation has expired after 15.03.2020 then the period from 15.03.2020 till the date on which the lockdown is lifted in the jurisdictional area where the dispute lies or where the cause of action arises shall be extended for a period of 15 days after the lifting of lockdown . Hon ble Bombay High Court, in an order dated 15th April 2020, has, besides extending the validity of all interim orders, has also observed that, It is also clarified that while calculating time for disposal of matters made time-bound by this Court, the period for which the order dated 26th March 2020 continues to operate shall be added and time shall stand extended accordingly , and also observed that arrangement continued by an order dated 26th March 2020 till 30th April 2020 shall continue further till 15th June 2020 . It has been an unprecedented situation not only in India but all over the world. Government of India has, vide notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
