9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht in deleting this disallowance in the year under consideration i.e. 2006-07 – In favor of assessee - I.T.A.No.661/Del/2010 - - - Dated:- 8-6-2012 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JJ. Appellant by: Shri S. Mohanthy, DR Respondent by : None O R D E R PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 27.11.09 of the CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi, by which he partly allowed the appeal of the assessee pertaining to AY 2006-07. 2. The grounds of appeal read as under:- 1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unvouched expenses. 2. Ld. CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 80IC of the Act, operation software expenses and other unvouched expenses and deleted the relevant additions made by AO. Finally, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Hence, this appeal by the Revenue before this Tribunal. Ground No. 1 5. Ld. DR submitted that the AO rightly made the addition on account of unvouched other expenses to cover the possible leakage in respect of unvouched expenses but the ld. CIT(A) deleted it on baseless and imaginary approach, ignoring the fact that the assessee could not submit reliable vouchers and account relevant to the expenses. The AR contended the above submissions and supported the order of the CIT(A). The AR submitted that the total expenditure was Rs.24,56,543 but the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee claimed expenditure of Rs.5,00,000 on operating software but when the assessee was asked to furnish details, he did not submit the same. Accordingly, the AO rightly held that the same expenditure was of capital nature and its claim as revenue nature expenditure cannot be accepted. The assessee s representative supported the impugned order and replied by submitting that the same operating expenditure was allowed as revenue expenditure in AY 2005-06 by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, as per principle of consistency, the ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting this disallowance in the year under consideration i.e. 2006-07. 9. We have considered rival arguments of both the parties on ground no.2 in the light of facts and circumstances of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
