9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial and/or basis which would justify the disallowance of the expenses so carried out by the A.O - ad-hoc disallowance of expenses by the A.O is not backed by any supporting material but is merely guided by general observations on his part. We are unable to comprehend as to on what basis part of the expenses had been disallowed by the A.O, while for the remaining part has been allowed. Apart from that, we find there is no whisper in the body of the assessment order about any such specific expenses which as per the AO could not be verified, or, were not supported by bills or vouchers. In our considered view, such disallowance of expenses on an ad-hoc basis, i.e, de hors any supporting material can by no means be permitted. We find substant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- out of claim sampling expenses of ₹ 25,15,902/- ₹ 1,50,000/- out of claim of travelling expenses of ₹ 15,30,110/- ₹ 50,000/- out of vehicle running expenses of ₹ 4,56,974/- ₹ 75,000/- out of general expenses of ₹ 5,19,795/- ₹ 40,000/- out of repair and maintenance of ₹ 3,83,256/- ₹ 85,000/- out of claim of communication expenses of ₹ 8,59,831/- ₹ 60,000/- out of claim of depreciation of vehicles covered by ₹ 3,55,605/- not adjudicated. ₹ 70,000/- out of sales promotion exp. And printing and stationery Exp. 3. That any other relief/deduction which the Hon ble Tribunal may deem fit be granted to your appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r before the CIT(Appeals) but without any success. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 5. At the very outset of hearing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short AR ) for the assessee, submitted, that the Assessing Officer had grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in disallowing expenses on an ad-hoc basis. Elaborating on his aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the Assessing Officer while disallowing certain expenses on an ad-hoc basis had failed to point out any basis which could justify the respective disallowance so made by him. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR to the observations of the Assessing Officer recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , and rightly so, the disallowance of certain expenses on an ad-hoc basis by the Assessing Officer is merely backed by general observations and not on the basis of any material which would support the same. Admittedly, an assessee remains under a statutory obligation to substantiate that his claim for deduction of expenses falls within the four corners of Sec. 37(1) of the Act. As such, any expenditure which does satisfy the mandate of Sec. 37(1) of the Act can justifiably be disallowed by the A.O. But then, an A.O cannot carry out disallowance of expenses on an arbitrary basis, and is obligated to support the same on the basis irrefutable observations a/w corroborative material which would substantiate to the hilt that the assessee s claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd substantial force in the claim of the ld. A.R that devoid of any specific infirmity qua the assessee s claim for deduction of the aforesaid expenditure by the lower authorities, the disallowance of a part of the same in a most arbitrary and a whimsical manner, i.e, on an ad- hoc basis could by no means be held to be justified. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the order of the ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Animesh Sadhu Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Hoogly, ITA No. 11/Kol/2013, dated 12.11.2014 and that of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of ACIT, New Delhi Vs. M/s Modi Rubber Ltd. ITA No. 1952/Del/2014, dated 15.05.2018. Accordingly, in the totality of the facts involved in the case before us, we are unable to concur with the disallowance of the expen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
