2002 (10) TMI 246 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance under section 40(b) on account of fixed conveyance allowance paid to partners.
2. Disallowance under the head salary.
3. Disallowance under the head washing charges.
4. Disallowance under various heads such as building repairs, electric repairs, sanitary repairs, white-washing, furniture repairs, coolie commission, staff welfare expenses, daily wages, telephone charges, lodge expenses, vehicle expenses, and depreciation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Disallowance under Section 40(b) on Account of Fixed Conveyance Allowance Paid to Partners:
The Revenue's appeals disputed the deletion of disallowance made by the AO under section 40(b) on account of fixed conveyance allowance paid to partners. The Tribunal found that the conveyance allowance paid to partners was in the nature of reimbursement for petrol expenses incurred by the partners in the discharge of their duties for the conduct of the firm's business. It was not considered as salary or remuneration to the partners. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s action.

2. Disallowance under the Head Salary:
The Revenue's appeals also disputed the relief allowed by the CIT(A) out of the disallowance made by the AO under the head salary. The Tribunal noted that the AO had relied on statements recorded at the back of the assessee without giving an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal held that such statements could not be relied upon against the assessee. However, the Tribunal found that there were discrepancies in the salary register and the amount debited to the salary account. Considering all facts and circumstances, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow 50% of the disallowance and sustain the balance.

3. Disallowance under the Head Washing Charges:
The Revenue's appeals disputed the relief allowed by the CIT(A) out of the disallowance made by the AO under the head washing charges. The Tribunal found that the AO had noted the absence of supporting vouchers and the presence of blank signed vouchers. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow 50% of the disallowance and sustain the balance, finding it to be proper and justified.

4. Disallowance under Various Heads:
- Building Repairs, Electric Repairs, Sanitary Repairs, White-Washing, Furniture Repairs: The Tribunal noted that the AO found the assessee was not having complete vouchers for these expenses and that blank signed vouchers were found during the search. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the disallowance, finding it to be proper and justified.

- Coolie Commission: The Tribunal found that the AO had not pointed out any specific defects in the assessee's accounts pertaining to coolie commission charges. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A).

- Staff Welfare Expenses, Daily Wages, Telephone Charges, Lodge Expenses: The Tribunal noted that the AO found the assessee was not having complete vouchers for these expenses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the disallowance, finding it to be proper and justified.

- Vehicle Expenses and Depreciation: The Tribunal found that personal and non-business use of the vehicle could not be ruled out. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the disallowance, finding it to be proper and justified.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions in most instances, finding the disallowances and reliefs granted to be proper and justified based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complete and proper documentation to support the claims made by the assessee.