TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 2,00,093/- on the motor car. Revenue has failed to bring any evidence to show that this motor car was not used for business purposes. Giving a general remark that it was used by the partner will not be sufficient to hold the disallowance. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and being fair to both the parties, we confirm disallowance of motor car expenses only to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- and delete the remaining disallowance confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Hence, this ground is partly allowed. Disallowance at the rate of 10% on the telephone expenses, conveyance charges and general expenses - HELD THAT:- Firstly, the actual expenditure incurred during the year on these three heads is at Rs. 3,94,966/- and out of this sum Rs. 2,84,147/- was not claimed in the profit loss account. The balance amount claimed as an expenditure during the year is only Rs. 1,10,819/- and, therefore, 10% of it i.e. 11,082/- is confirmed and the remaining disallowance is deleted. Hence, ground no. 3 is partly allowed. Disallowance on account of interest on service tax, TDS, penalty for P. tax - HELD THAT:- On examining the facts of the case, we find that the actua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short AY ) 2014-15 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) by Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short ld. CIT(A) ] dated 17.08.2021 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 16.12.2016. 2. Registry has informed that the appeal is time barred by 59 days. Condonation application has been filed by the assessee. Perusal of the same shows that the delay was on account of COVID-19 restrictions. We, therefore, in view of the judgment of The Hon ble Supreme Court vide Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 find that the limitation period in filing appeal between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 has been excluded for calculating the limitation period in filing appeal under this period. Since the period of limitation in the course of the assessee falls during this period, the same deserves to be extended and we, therefore, condone the delay of 59 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: 1. For that in the facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sallowance is uncalled for hence the same be deleted. The expense was not claimed as an expenditure and was transferred to Work in progress account. The correct amount was Rs.1,62,372 and not Rs.2,39,354 as stated in the assessment order. The addition to the income made by the assessing officer and partly upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal was factually incorrect and hence the same be deleted. 6. For that the assessing officer be directed to start the computation of income by considering the returned loss of Rs. 1,32,760 which was not done in the assessment order. 7. For that the interest computed u/s 234 A/B/C of the IT Act 1961 is over charged and wrongly calculated and or is not applicable to the assessee case hence the interest be deleted and or correctly computed. 8. The appellant craves leave to produce additional evidences in terms of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963. 9. The appellant craves leave to press new, additional grounds of appeal or modify, withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Limited Liability Partnership (in short ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee, had made these disallowances which are prima facie ad-hoc in nature. 11. Ground no. 1 being general in nature and no specific arguments made by the assessee is dismissed. Ground no. 2 12. This ground relates to disallowance of motor car expenses at Rs. 3,33,773/-. We find that the assessee has only claimed motor car expenses at Rs.72,250/- during the year in the profit loss account and depreciation of Rs. 2,00,093/- on the motor car. Revenue has failed to bring any evidence to show that this motor car was not used for business purposes. Giving a general remark that it was used by the partner will not be sufficient to hold the disallowance. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and being fair to both the parties, we confirm disallowance of motor car expenses only to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- and delete the remaining disallowance confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Hence, this ground is partly allowed. Ground no. 3 13. This ground relates to disallowance of Rs. 74,398/- made by the ld. AO at the rate of 10% on the telephone expenses, conveyance charges and general expenses is in dispute before us. Firstly, the actual expenditu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
