TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout specifying the instances where the vouchers were found to be incomplete or missing. Therefore, respectfully following the binding precedence, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. Grounds of appeal are allowed. - ITA No. 1655/DEL/2021 - - - Dated:- 7-6-2022 - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Devashish Bhadouria and Shamsher Singh, Advs For the Respondents : Om Prakash, Sr. DR ORDER Per Kul Bharat, JM This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 15.09.2021, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and presumptions and not hard rock of facts and liable to be annulled in toto. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has committed manifest error of law, facts and evidences by ignoring and not passing the speaking and reasoned order on the ground raised by appellant that on the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned assessment order passed of Learned Assessing Officer is not in conformity with the spirit of law and the judgment of various Courts. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has committed manifest error of law in disposing the appeal in a very casual and summary manner without affording any opportunity of hearing to appellant before disposal of the appeal. 6. That the appellant craves leave for reserving the right to alter, add or for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Less: Depreciation u/s 32 : Rs. 1,07,96,337/- Total taxable income : Rs. 37,66,983/- Less: Unabsorbed Depreciation : Rs. 37,66,983/- Total taxable income : Nil 8. Assessed at an income of Rs. Nil. Issue notice of demand and challan. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who sustained the addition. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proportionate basis in P I Account as has wrongly been alleged by the Ld. A.O. 6. That the Ld. A.O. neither rejected books of accounts nor pointing out any defects in books of accounts, bills and vouchers maintained for impugned expenses. 7. That the A.O. Ld. CIT (Appeal) has not pointed out any expenditure of personal nature relating to partner or employee of the assessee firm. The expenditure were used exclusively for business purposes. 8. That a perusal of Page No. 8 of Audit Report dated 26-10-2017 for A.Y. 2017-18 shows that in current year net profit with reference to turnover has been increased to 5.30% as against 1.35% of preceding year (i.e. A.Y. 2016-17). 9. That the Ld. A.O. did not provide any opportunity to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bills and vouchers. However, the Assessing Officer has not pointed out as to which bills and vouchers were found to be wanting. Learned counsel for the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Tripat Kaur Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 3244/Del/2012 dated 07.09.2012, wherein the Tribunal has held as under: 6. We have heard the rival contentions in light of the material produced. We find that the addition on account of travelling expenses was totally based on surmises and conjectures. Assessing Officer has not brought on record any cogent basis as to why this expenditure was to be disallowed. It is not the case that expenditure was considered to be bogus or any shortcoming in the vouchers in this regard was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
