9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ility of the Appellant as a result of the disallowance should be restricted to 50% of liability arising from the impugned order of the ITAT. It is ordered accordingly. With the Appellant assessee already having paid 50% of the said liability pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, no further amount will be required to be paid by the Assessee. The impugned order of the ITAT stands modified in the above terms and the question of law framed is answered accordingly. - ITA No.151 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 4-1-2022 - THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. S. MURALIDHAR And JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK For the Appellant : Mr.B.Panigrahi, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.T.K.Satpathy, Sr. Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department ORDER 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the ITA No.151 of 2004. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per the rules. 4. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the Appellant and the T.K.Satpathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. 5. The limited question for consideration is about the extent of disallowance of expenditure claimed by the appellant-assessee. It has been noted by the ITAT in Para-2.2 of the impugned order that for the earlier AY 1993-94 against the expense of ₹ 43,39,111 claimed by the Assessee, the Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed ₹ 8,64,822/- which was found by the CIT (A) in appeal to be excessive. Accordingly, the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmises and conjectures. There is no reason given for restricting the disallowance to 5% of the expenses claimed and thereby arriving at the figure of ₹ 2,56,000 for the AY in question, except stating that the disallowance sustained by the learned CIT (A) is on the lower side . The ITAT could have followed the approach for the AY 1993-94 where the disallowance was restricted to around 1.5% of the expenses claimed by the Assessee, and which was upheld by the ITAT itself. 8. Having considered the entire matter, the Court is of the view that the Income Tax liability of the Appellant as a result of the disallowance should be restricted to 50% of liability arising from the impugned order of the ITAT. It is ordered accordingly. With the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
