9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was made under s. 143(3) vide order dt. 31st Oct., 2002. The AO completed the assessment at an income of Rs. 3,27,960. 4. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) but did not succeed. Hence, this appeal. 5. The first ground of appeal raised by the assessee is about not giving the reasonable opportunity to the appellant by CIT(A). At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee stated before us that he was not serious about this ground of appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed as not pressed. 6. The second ground of appeal is relating to disallowance of Rs. 95,806 out of brokerage and commission expenses. The assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 5,74,414 under the head 'brokerage and commission'. On scrutiny, it was fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee maintained books of account on mercantile basis and the said expenses pertaining to earlier years could not be allowed in the year under appeal. 9. We have examined the bills of the parties which were not accepted and disallowance was made. The bills are as under: Party's name Amount Date of bill M/s Swastik Trading Co., Ahmedabad 7,856 1-7-2000 M/s Deewan Sales, Bilaspur 63,093 Nil M/s Dhalu Mal Dhaman Das 24,867 20-3-2001 10. Admittedly, the bills in respect of the aforementioned parties relate to the expenses of the preceding year and not to the year under appeal. The claim of the assessee is that the brokerage in respect of sales of pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decide this issue afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to establish the claim. 11. The next ground of appeal is relating to disallowance of Rs. 51,374 on account of machinery repair and maintenance expenses. On scrutiny of account, it was observed by the AO that the assessee had debited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh on account of annual service contract charges relating to machinery. In addition to that a sum of Rs. 1,374 was found to have been debited on account of purchase of spares, etc., pertaining to the previous year 1999-2000. The assessee has annual contract for maintenance of machinery with M/s Buhler (India) Ltd., New Delhi. The said company had raised debit note on 12th Jan., 2000 being debit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was claimed that M/s Jitendera Trading Company, Ahmedabad, had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,08,642 on behalf of the assessee and since the advertisement material purchased was utilised in the year under appeal, the deduction was claimed accordingly. The expenditure was as under: Sr. No. Name of party Nature of expenses Amount 1. Visu Advertisement Cable TV 15,000 2. Shyam Advertising Depot Key chain 2,832 3. Azure Fabrics (P) Ltd. Blanket 55,800 4. Harsh Bullion Gold 1,08,642 13. The AO made enquiry from Azure Fabrics (P) Ltd. in order to verify the correctness of the bills, etc., iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bill of Vishu Advertisement. A bill of Rs. 2,832 from Shyam Advertising Depot is dt. 23rd Dec., 1999 on account of key rings. Bill dt. 25th March, 2000 from Azure Fabrics (P) Ltd. is in the name of P.K. Overseas C/o Jitendera Trading Company. The company has denied having any dealing with the assessee. The genuineness of the bill is in doubt and, therefore, it will be for the assessee to establish that the bill issued by Azure Fabrics (P) Ltd. was genuine and also to establish how the blankets had been used by the assessee for the purposes of advertisement of rice. There are four bills from Harsh Bullion for gold and silver articles. These bills pertain to the preceding year and there is no satisfactory explanation as to how the purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is covered against the assessee by the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 387 (Bom). Hence, no interference is called for. 21. The next ground of appeal is relating to deduction under s. 80HHC of Rs. 40,278. The claim has been denied by the AO on the ground that the audit report in Form No. 10CCAC was required to be filed along with the return but the same has been filed during the course of assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance. The issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Punjab Financial Corporation (2002) 172 CTR (P H) 561 : (2002) 254 ITR 6 (P H) and in the case of CIT vs. Maha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
