9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the disallowance made by the ld. AO. Considering these facts on record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding given by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, this ground of appeal of assessee is dismissed. Disallowance on professional fees paid by the assessee - Proof of allowable business expenditure - HELD THAT:- AO enquired about the nature of services rendered in respect of these payments as well as details of TDS thereon which remained unverified as to whether it relates to assessee s business or to earning of rental income or for acquisition of property. CIT(A) gave relief and allowed 50% of the said professional fees on estimate basis. In our view, Ld. CIT(A) has given appropriate relief to the assessee in absence of any details towards nature of service, TDS etc. and we have no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, ground taken by the assessee in this respect is dismissed. Disallowance towards business promotion expenses and telephone expenses - From the perusal of the observations made by Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) that these expenses could not be verified in absence of bills furnished by the assessee, we do not find any reason to interfere wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred to as the Act ), dated 31.12.2007, 30.12.2008 and 09.02.2009 respectively. 2. In all the three appals, there is a common ground in respect of denial of exemption on agriculture income while computing the total income of the assessee except variance in amount. Also, there is a ground common for AY 2005-06 and 2007-08 in respect of disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act. All other grounds are specific to AY 2005-06. 3. We will take the lead case as one for AY 2005-06 in ITA No. 934/Kol/2019 results of which will apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the above stated common ground in the other two assessment years. So grounds in respect of AY 2005-06 are reproduced as under: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Rs.29,274/ the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing a sum of Rs. 80,000/ paid for flat no. 5DB Mani Tower under section 40A(2)(b). 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Rs. 75,557/ the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance to the extent of 50% of the professional fee amounting to Rs. 2,06,483/ while computing the total income of the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed by the assessee to which submissions were made. However, Ld. AO did not find favour with the submissions made by the assessee and completed the assessment by making certain additions/disallowances. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who gave partial relief on certain additions/disallowances made by the Ld. AO. For the remaining additions/disallowances sustained, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the grounds listed above. 6. In the present appeal before us, none represented the assessee at the time of hearing. However, in the past, a letter dated 24.05.2022 was filed from the office of the Authorised Representative M/s. A. K. Tulsiyan Associates, Chartered Accountants. In the said letter, it is stated that the assessee has been allowed to carry on the business as a going concern under a new management namely, Progressive Star Finance Pvt. Ltd. (PSFPL) for which Ld. National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has passed its order dated 03.03.2022. Owing to take over of the assessee by new management of PSFPL, time was sought by the Ld. AR to prepare the case and represent the matter before the Bench. Subsequently, adjournment applications w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as well as details of TDS thereon which remained unverified as to whether it relates to assessee s business or to earning of rental income or for acquisition of property. In the course of First Appellate Proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) gave relief and allowed 50% of the said professional fees on estimate basis. In our view, Ld. CIT(A) has given appropriate relief to the assessee in absence of any details towards nature of service, TDS etc. and we have no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, ground taken by the assessee in this respect is dismissed. 10. In respect of ground nos. 3 and 4 relating to disallowance of Rs.1,52,722/- towards business promotion expenses and Rs.11,739/- towards telephone expenses, there is nothing corroborative placed on record owing to which Ld. AO disallowed 40% of the business promotion expenses and one fourth of the mobile telephone expenses. From the perusal of the observations made by Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) that these expenses could not be verified in absence of bills furnished by the assessee, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, both the grounds taken by the assessee in this r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
