9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... @ of 20% - Held that:- It is noted that on this issue requisite details and evidences have been furnished by the assessee before the lower authorities. There were no basis to make an ad-hoc disallowance as per law and therefore, ad hoc disallowance of ₹ 1,99130/- is directed to be deleted. - ITA No.3255/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 24-6-2016 - Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member For The Appellant : Shri D. C. Jain (AR) For The Respondent : Shri K. Ravi Kiran (DR) ORDER Per Ashwani Taneja (Accountant Member): This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai- 36 {(in short CIT(A) }, dated 04.09.2013 passed ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -36 erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 1,99, 1 30 @ 20% of certain expenses. ii. The said CIT (A) - 36 erred in observing that sufficient evidence to prove that these expenses were submitted before the CIT(A) -36 ii. The appellant submits that the disallowance of ₹ 1,99.130 ought to have been deleted, since all the details of expenses were submitted during the course of hearing. 4. DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF ₹ 59,800/= i.The CIT(A)- 36 erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation on the addition of fixed assets made during the year under assessment; ii.The appellant submits that the disallowance of ₹ 59,8001= ought to have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. That the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36 was served on the appellant on 29th August, 2013 on the following address; Gala no.16, Sardar Pratap Singh Industrial Estate, L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup (W), Mumbai-400078. 4. That however, the said order was not made available to me by the other partner Mr. Manvier Sigh Kaushal, since there was dispute between Mr. Manvir Kingh Kaushal and Mr. Surinderpal Singh Kaushal (My spouse). 5. That Mr. Manvir Singh Kaushal and Mr. Surinderpal Singh Kausahl (Both are brother) were carrying on business in partnership under the firm viz. Kaushal Equipment Manufacturers and Kaushal Industries. 6. That a dispute arised between these brother and has now reached to such a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling the present appeal and the same is herby admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Ground Nos. 1 2: These grounds deal with the disallowance of purchase of ₹ 9,42,532/- and professional/ technical fee for ₹ 1,50,000/-. It was submitted that requisite evidence to substantiate these expenses in the form of bills and other evidences could not be produced before the lower authorities due to the family disputes between the partners. The Ld. Counsel submitted before us a bunch of the evidences along with petition for admission of additional evidences and requested for one more opportunity before the AO to substantiate its claim. 4.1. Per contra, Ld. DR fairly submitted that in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
