9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law as well as on facts. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the following additions/disallowances: A. Rs. 1,50,000/- out of claim of Travelling Expenses of Rs. 14,49,603/- B. Rs. 50,000/- out of claim of communication expenses of Rs. 8,36,570/- C. Rs. 50,000 out of Vehicle Running Expenses of Rs. 3,96,347/- D. Rs. 30,000/- out of claim of depreciation of Vehicles covered by Rs. 7,59,509/- 3. That any other relief/deduction which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit be granted to your appellant. 4. That the appellant craves leave to urge, add, amend, alter, enlarge, modi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore him i.e, to the extent it had assailed the disallowances of expenses, sustained the same. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and material available on record. On a perusal of the assessment order, we find that the A.O. had on an ad-hoc basis disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- out of the assessee's claim for deduction of travelling expenses of Rs. 14,40,603/-. On a perusal of the records, we find that the aforesaid disallowance was made by the AO for three fold reasons, viz. (i) that the assessee company had incurred most of the expenses in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sayaji Iron And Engg. Co. Vs. CIT (2002) 253 ITR 749 (Guj). We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations vacate the ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 1,50,000/- made by the A.O out of travelling & conveyance expenses. 8. As regards the disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- out of the assessee's claim for deduction of vehicle running and maintenance expenses of Rs. 3,96,347/-, we find that the reasons leading to the aforesaid ad-hoc disallowance are no better than those as were there before us as regards its claim for deduction of travelling expenses. On a perusal of the assessment order, we find that the A.O had made an ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- out of vehicle running and maintenance expenses, for the reason that the assessee had incurred th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounting to Rs. 7,59,509/- is concerned, we are of the considered view that now when for the reasons discussed by us hereinabove the disallowance of vehicle running and maintenance expenses had been ruled out by us, therefore, backed by the said reasoning no part of ad-hoc disallowance of depreciation on account of personal usage of the vehicles by the directors can be sustained.
11. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations vacate the disallowance aggregating to Rs. 2.30 lac made by the A.O and accordingly, set-aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) who had sustained the same.
12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.
Order pronounced in open court on 10th day of May, 2022. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
