9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 1099 - AT - Income TaxAddition being 20% of the expenses debited under the head Computer Expenses - Disallowance on the ground that assessee did not produce proper details - HELD THAT - The lower authorities have not pointed out any defect in the various details filed by the assessee. It also appears to us that the lower authorities have not gone through the details that pertain to the major amount of the computer, printing and stationery expenses. CIT(A) also without going through the details filed before the A.O. has simply rejected the details filed by the assessee before him on the ground that assessee has not filed any application for admission of additional evidences. When all these details are already on the record of the A.O, therefore, there is no necessity on the part of the assessee to file any application for admission of additional evidence. CIT(A), in the instant case has neither perused the details filed before the A.O. nor applied her mind. We, therefore, set aside the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to delete the addition. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.
Issues:
- Disallowance of 20% of computer expenses by Assessing Officer - Confirmation of disallowance by Ld. CIT(A) - Appeal by the assessee challenging the decision of Ld. CIT(A) - Arguments presented by both sides before the Tribunal - Tribunal's decision and reasoning for allowing the appeal The case involved the disallowance of 20% of computer expenses amounting to &8377; 8,04,179/- by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) during the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2012-2013. The A.O. disallowed the amount due to the lack of proper bills produced by the assessee, resulting in a revised total income of &8377; 1,37,55,750/-. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the A.O.'s decision, emphasizing the absence of proper details and the presence of cash payments under this head. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the grounds of appeal, upholding the disallowance. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the Ld. CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable opportunity to produce ledger accounts for confirmation of details and modes of payment to vendors. The assessee contended that the disallowance was arbitrary and no third-party confirmations were requested by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal considered the arguments of both sides, reviewed the A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) orders, and examined the details submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided detailed breakdowns of the computer expenses to the A.O., including vendor-wise information, TDS deductions, and relevant invoices. Most payments were made through the banking channel after TDS deduction. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not identified any defects in the details submitted by the assessee. It was observed that a significant portion of the expenses related to printing and stationery for conducting exams for Government bodies. The Tribunal concluded that the disallowance made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) was arbitrary and not sustainable in law. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and directing the A.O. to delete the addition of &8377; 8,04,179/- to the total income. The Tribunal emphasized that since all relevant details were already on record with the A.O., there was no requirement for the assessee to file an application for additional evidence. The grounds raised by the assessee were accepted, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.
|
