9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 624 - AT - Income TaxAllowability of depreciation - proof of property usage for business purposes - Held that - The assessee purchased the property during impugned AY and this was the first year of claiming depreciation & other expenses against the same. The assessee, although claimed depreciation and repair charges against the same but could not prove the factum of usage thereof for business purposes in any manner and therefore, failed to discharge the onus of substantiating the same. No cogent evidences could be furnished by assessee to prove the fact that the said premise was used for the business purposes of the assessee and therefore failed to fulfill the primary conditions of Section 32 & Section 37. The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly distinguished the facts of AY 1995-96 to 1997-98 since in those years, it was found that the said premises was being used for the purpose of compiling various representations to be filed before various government agencies. Therefore, finding no substance in assessee s Ground. Charging of interest u/s 234A/B/C - Held that - Uphold charging of interest u/s 234 and restore the issue on similar line to the file of Ld. AO for re-computation of interest u/s 234. charging of interest u/s 220(2) - Held that - Upon perusal of the same, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has clinched the issue in right perspective on the facts of the case and the same is quite logical and fair one. From the chronology of event, we find that only the original assessment order was set aside by the Tribunal whereas the reassessment order remained intact. Therefore, the peculiar situation gave rise to separate periods for the purpose of computation u/s 220(2). CIT(A) understood the same in the context of judicial pronouncements as well as statutory provisions including CBDT circular and the same being, quite fair and logical, require no interference on our part. Hence, while confirming the same, we dismiss, this ground of assessee s appeal. Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - AO has already adjusted the total expenses claimed by the assessee for various disallowances already made and arrived at the impugned disallowance. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the span during which the related transactions were carried out, computed the same at 1/12th, which was quite fair and reasonable and do not require our interference at all. Therefore, finding no reason to interfere with the same, we dismiss this ground of assessee s appeal. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Estimated expenditure against the income earned by the assessee - Held that - The assessee earned profit on sale of Shares as ₹ 6,41,459/-, against which Ld. AO has allowed estimated expenditure of 10% i.e. 64,145/- in the absence of proper books of accounts. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same, against which the assessee has raised this ground. On factual matrix, we find the same to be fair and logical estimation since no books were maintained by the assessee and therefore, see no reason to interfere with the same. Sale price of 7500 shares of ACC sold by the assessee - Held that - Find that the assessee, to some extent, could substantiate the reflected sale price whereas Ld. AO without controverting the same in any manner with any cogent material, took the average of prevailing price of 14/09/2009 and applied the same and added the differential amount to the income of the assessee, which was not fair and proper. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the addition has been made merely on the basis of doubts, conjectures and surmises without supporting the same with any cogent material. Hence, finding the stand of Ld. CIT(A) fair and reasonable, we see no reason to interfere with the same and inclined to dismiss revenue s appeal qua this ground.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation and repair/maintenance expenses. 2. Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. 3. Applicability of Section 220(2) interest. 4. Disallowance under Section 14A. 5. Addition on account of suppression of sale price of shares. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Depreciation and Repair/Maintenance Expenses: The assessee's appeals for AY 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 contested the disallowance of depreciation and repair expenses for properties at Worli and Bandra. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the business use of the properties. The Tribunal found no significant evidentiary value in the minutes of Board Meetings held at the premises and dismissed the grounds related to depreciation and repair expenses. 2. Levy of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C: The Tribunal upheld the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, citing the mandatory nature of these provisions as per the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Anjum H. Ghaswala. However, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground for statistical purposes, directing the AO to recompute the interest after considering the tax deductible at source. 3. Applicability of Section 220(2) Interest: For AY 1992-93, the assessee contested the charging of interest under Section 220(2). The CIT(A) ruled that interest should be charged from the date of reassessment (20/03/2003) and not from the original assessment date (31/01/1995). The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision logical and fair, confirming that interest under Section 220(2) should be computed from the reassessment date. 4. Disallowance under Section 14A: For AY 1992-93, the Tribunal addressed the disallowance of ?99,225 under Section 14A. The CIT(A) had restricted the disallowance to 1/12th of the total expenditure, considering the short span during which tax-free income was earned. The Tribunal found this approach fair and reasonable, dismissing the assessee's ground. 5. Addition on Account of Suppression of Sale Price of Shares: The revenue's appeal for AY 1991-92 contested the deletion of an addition of ?30 Lacs related to the suppression of the sale price of ACC Limited shares. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation and supporting evidence, including confirmations from the broker firm. The Tribunal found that the addition by the AO was based on doubts and conjectures without cogent material. Hence, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the revenue's appeal. Conclusion: The Tribunal's judgment addressed multiple issues across different assessment years, primarily focusing on the disallowance of depreciation and repair expenses, levy of interest under various sections, and the addition on account of suppressed sale prices. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions in most cases, emphasizing the need for sufficient evidence to substantiate claims and the mandatory nature of interest provisions. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
|
