Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Attachment on Cash Credit of Assessee under GST Act: Delhi HC directs Bank to Comply Instructions to Vacate
 Income Tax Addition Made Towards Unsubstantiated Share Capital Is Eligible For Section 80-IC Deduction: Delhi High Court
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA

Acit, Circle 50(1), New Delhi vs. M/s. S.S. Brothers, Sf-3, 7a/42, Western Chambers, Wea, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 5
May, 07th 2019

Subject: Sr. DR relied upon the Order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal.

Referred Sections:
Section 40A(2)(b)
Section 145(3) of the Act.


Referred Cases / Judgments
CIT Vs. Smt. Poonam Rani

 

                  IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

                       DELHI BENCH "A", NEW DELHI



                 BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                   AND

           SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                           I.T.A. No. 5902/DEL/2015
                                 A.Y. : 2011-12
ACIT, CIRCLE 50(1),                  VS.   M/s. S.S. BROTHERS,
NEW DELHI                                  SF-3, 7A/42,
                                           WESTERN CHAMBERS, WEA,
                                           KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI ­ 5
                                           (PAN:AANFS2475A)
(ASSESSEE)                                 (RESPONDENT)


           Revenue by                 :   Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR.
            Assessee by               :   Shri R.K. Kapoor, FCA


                                    ORDER
PER H.S. SIDHU : JM


     The Revenue has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order

of the Ld. CIT(A)-20, New Delhi relevant to assessment year

2011-12.


2.   The grounds raised in the appeal read as under:-


            i)      The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of

                    Rs. 50,12,111/- on account of variation in NP rate

                    w.r.t. previous AY 2009-10 in which turnover and


                                     1
                 nature   of   business        /market   condition   was

                 approximately the same. The ld. CIT(A) has erred

                 in ignoring the various facts of the case that the

                 assessee has inflated the direct cost including

                 purchases and non maintenance of stock register

                 etc.


          ii)    The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition

                 of Rs.   19,07,170/-     to    Rs. 5,00,000/-   without

                 appreciating the fact that the assessee did not

                 produce proper bills and vouchers of the expenses

                 during the assessment proceedings.


          iii)   The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of

                 Rs. 7,76,710/- without considering the facts and

                 circumstances of the case that the assessee failed

                 to substantiate   the bills / vouchers and prpose of

                 travelling in this regard.


                 The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend

          any / all the grounds of appeal before or during the

          course of hearing of the appeal.


3.   The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return on

29.9.2011 declaring income at Rs. 70,14,670/-. The return of the

                                   2
assessee was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

(in short "Act"). Subsequently, the case   was selected for scrutiny

under Compulsory Selection. First notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was

issued on 25.9.2012 which was served upon the assessee within the

stipulated statutory period. Further, notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act

alongwith   detailed questionnaires were issued and served on the

assessee. In response to the same, the AR          of the assessee

attended the assessment     proceedings from time to time       and

requisite information has been filed.      Assessee is a firm and

engaged in the business of traders of raw and frozen meant an

export of frozen buffalo meat business. The firm comprising three

partners i.e. Sh. Mohd. Saleem Quereshi, Mohd. Shakir Qureshi and

M/s Al Nasir Export Private Limited having profit sharing ratio of

60%, 30% and 10% respectively. The assessee was asked to

submit comparative chart of GP /NP ratio for the current assessment

year and the previous assessment years. The assessee submitted

the chart for the assessment year 2009-10 to 2011-12. During the

year under consideration, the assessee has shown net profit of Rs.

5,73,93,097/- on gross receipts of Rs. 1,22,24,66,182/- thereby

showing net profit rate of 0.47%.    The Assessee was required to

explain the reason for low NP and GP shown by the assessee and in

response to the same the assessee filed its reply, which was


                                 3
considered by the AO but not acceptable. The AO observed that

even during the Assessment year 2009-10, when the turnover of

the assessee was comparable with the current AY assessee was

showing the ratio of total direct expenses with respect to turnover

to the tune of 91.86% against 95.98% during         the AY 2011-12.

Hence, 0.41% of the total turnover was disallowed on account of

excess unexplained direct expenses claimed by the assessee and

addition of Rs. 50,12,111/- was added.     Further, the AO made the

addition of Rs. 19,02,170/- being 10% of expenses on account of

unexplained expenses for none maintenance of proper bill and

vouchers.   AO further observed that      though the assessee had

produced the bills of inland travelling totaling to Rs. 26,86,642/-.

The business activities of the assessee are concentrated in the

surrounding areas of Delhi. But the bills of domestic travel were to

several places. But the purpose of the so called business visits could

not be explained by the assessee. No purpose or proof of foreign

travelling expenses of Rs. 4,20,200/- could be furnished by the

assessee.   Therefore, in order to prevent leakage of revenue on

account of personal     usage, ¼ of the said expenses i.e. Rs.

7,76,710/- was disallowed and added back to the income of the

assessee u/s. 37(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO completed the

assessment at Rs. 1,49,45,660/- u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order


                                  4
dated 30.4.2014. Against the assessment order dated 30.04.2014,

assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his

impugned order dated 27.08.2015 has deleted the part additions.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi the Revenue

is in appeal before the Tribunal.







4.   Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the Order of the AO and reiterated the

contentions raised in the grounds of appeal. She stated that even

during the Assessment year 2009-10, when the turnover of the

assessee was comparable with the current AY assessee was showing

the ratio of total direct expenses with respect to turnover to the

tune of 91.86% against 95.98% during             the AY 2011-12. Hence,

0.41% of the total turnover was rightly disallowed on account of

excess unexplained direct expenses claimed by the assessee and

addition of Rs. 50,12,111/- was added.           She further stated that

with regard to addition of Rs. 19,02,170/- being 10% of expenses

on account of unexplained expenses, this was made due to               none

maintenance of proper bill and vouchers. As regards addition out of

travelling expenses is concerned, she stated that though the

assessee had produced the bills of inland travelling totaling to Rs.

26,86,642/-.   The    business      activities   of   the   assessee    are

concentrated in the surrounding areas of Delhi. But the           bills of

domestic travel were to several places. But the purpose of the so

                                     5
called business visits could not be    explained by the assessee. No

purpose or proof of foreign travelling expenses of Rs. 4,20,200/-

could be furnished by the assessee. Therefore, in order to prevent

leakage of revenue on account of personal         usage, ¼ of the said

expenses ie.. Rs. 7,76,710/- was rightly disallowed and added back

to the income of the assessee u/s. 37(1) of the Act by the AO.


5.   On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied

upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and in support of his contention,

he filed the Synopsis in the case, which read as under:-


                "This is an appeal filed by the Department against
                the Order of the learned CIT(A) granting a relief to
                the assessee on certain additions made by the
                Assessing Officer.

                Our ground-wise submissions on each of the ground
                of assessee raised are as under:

                GROUND NO. 1 - RELIEF OF RS.50,12,111/- ON
                ACCOUNT OF ADDITION MADE DUE TO ALLEGED
                LOW GP RATE :

                      The Assessing Officer has discussed this issue
                at Pages 1 to 6 of his Order. The assessee was
                required to submit the Comparative Chart of GP/NP
                for the year under consideration as compared to
                previous   two       assessment    years.   This   was
                accordingly submitted as noted by the Assessing

                                  6
Officer at top of Page-2. The GP rate of the
assessee during the year under consideration was
11.16%        as    compared       to   11.39%     with       the
immediate       preceding     Assessment        Year    and    @
11.57% with Assessment Year 2009-10. Since there
was a reduction in the GP rate by 0.41% as
compared to the Assessment Year 2009- 10, the
Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain
the reasons for drop in the GP rate although the
drop in GP rate was not very substantial as
compared to the earlier years.

        The assessee amongst others explained that
the   sales     composition    during     the    year    under
consideration was different in as much as the
assessee had to make substantial purchase of
frozen meat as against the raw meat in the earlier
years     for      meeting   its    export      commitments,
therefore there was slight drop in the GP rate.

        The Assessing Officer further noticed that the
major difference occurred at the stage of direct
expenses which includes purchases. The Assessing
Officer noticed in Para-4, Page-4 of his Order that
ratio of direct expenses as compared to turnover in
Assessment Year 2009-10 was 91.86% and during
the year under consideration it was 95.98%. This
variation of increased direct cost was attributed
towards purchase of frozen meat from one related
concern by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing


                      7
Officer further alleged that Stock Register is not
maintained by the assessee. The Assessing Officer
further noticed that purchase of raw material was @
Rs.82 to 85 per kilogram whereas the purchases
from the related parties have been made at higher
prices.

     Thereafter, the Assessing Officer alleged the
violation of provisions of section 40A(2)(b) and
made the addition to the total income @ 0.41% of
its turnover of the current year by comparing the
GP rate of Assessment Year under consideration
2011-12 with Assessment Year 2009-10.

     Before the learned CIT(A) all the contentions
pertaining to this issue were explained. It was
explained that there was a material change in the
composition of products purchased and sold by the
assessee during the year under consideration as
compared with the preceding years. It was also
explained that the purchase price of the products
depends upon the demand and supply and at times
raw material has to be purchased from known
sources depending upon commitments of export
orders. Further, complete quantitative details of raw
material purchased and sold and produced during
the year was provided with the contention that
same was also available in the Tax Audit Report. No
discrepancies whatsoever has been pointed out by
the Assessing Officer and only an allegation has


                 8
been made that quantitative details stock register
has not been kept. A copy of quantitative tally
which reconciles with Tax Audit Report was also
filed before AO & CIT(A) is also being filed as
Annexure-1. It was also explained that entities from
whom the purchase of frozen meat has been made
by the assessee, which are sister concern, are also
being assessed with the same Officer and they are
being taxed at the same rate at which the assessee
is being taxed and therefore no reason for the
assessee to pay higher price to such parties. It was
also explained that while making the addition, the
Assessing Officer has considered freight outward as
direct cost, which is wrong and should have been
considered as indirect cost. If so done, the direct
cost to turnover of the assessee during the year is
92.66% as against 93.56% in the Assessment Year
2009-10 and the difference is less than 1% as
compared to the difference of more than 4% by the
Assessing Officer in Para- 4, Page-4 of his Order.

     The learned CIT(A) called for a Remand
Report against all the submissions made by the
assessee and he has reproduced Remand Report of
the Assessing Officer although copy of such Remand
Report was not provided to the assessee.

     Amongst various submissions made by the
assessee, certain legal proposition and case laws
were also submitted with additions to the declared


                 9
income of the assessee cannot be made merely on
the ground of low GP without bringing nothing more
on   record.   Some   of   the   case   laws   on   this
proposition are noted at Page-9 of CIT(A) Order.

     After considering all the submissions of the
assessee, Order of assessment as well as Remand
Report of the Assessing Officer, the learned CIT(A)
concluded the issue as per his judgement in Para
4.5, Page-13 of his Order. The learned CIT(A) has
accepted that merely because there was some
change in the direct cost as compared to the
previous year, the addition cannot be made to the
income of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) has
also accepted the proposition that freight outward
cannot be considered as direct cost as has been
done by the Assessing Officer. When so done, the
difference in the direct cost, which is one of the
main reason for the Assessing Officer to make the
addition, is not justified and therefore the addition
has been deleted by the CIT(A).

     Apart from the judgements, we wish to rely
upon a judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court as
reported in 326 ITR 223 in the case of CIT Vs. Smt.
Poonam Rani wherein the Hon'ble High Court has
held that the fall in gross profit ratio in the absence
of any cogent reasons cannot be itself to be a
ground to held that proper income of the assessee
cannot be deduced from the accounts maintained


                 10
by the assessee. Hon'ble High Court at Page 225
held as under:-

     "If the stock register was not maintained by
     the assessee that may put the Assessing
     Officer on guard against the falsity of the
     return made by the assessee and persuade
     him to carefully scrutinize the account books
     of the assessee. But the absence of one
     register alone did not amount to such a
     material as would lead to the conclusion that
     the    account     books     were      incomplete    or
     inaccurate. Similarly, a low rate of gross
     profit, in the absence of any material pointing
     towards falsehood of the account books, could
     not by itself be a ground to reject the account
     books    under     section   145(3)      of   the   Act.
     Whether fall in gross profit stood explained by
     the assessee or not was a question of fact.
     Both    the   Tribunal     and   the    Commissioner
     (Appeals) having accepted the explanation
     given by the assessee and the finding of fact
     recorded by them having not been shown to
     be perverse in any manner, no substantial
     question of law arose to interfere with. "

     A copy of said judgment is enclosed herewith
for your honour's ready reference and records as
Annexure-2.




                   11
     It would be noted that in the said case, the
Assessing Officer had even rejected the books of
accounts maintained because the GP rate was 1.4%
during the year as against 5.91% in the preceding
year. When the facts of the assessee's case are
compared with this judgement, the assessee's case
stand on much stronger footing in as much as the
drop in GP rate from the immediate preceding year
is 0.23% which has been ignored by the Assessing
Officer and the Assessing Officer has proceeded to
compare the GP rate of Assessment Year 2009-10
where   also    the    difference   was   only   0.41%.
Moreover, books of accounts of the assessee have
not been rejected by the Assessing Officer in
assessee's case and he has merely disbelieved the
explanation given by the assessee on conjecture
and surmises.

     Similarly, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the
case of Pr. CIT v. British Health Products India Ltd.
as reported in (2017) TIOL-2296-HC- Rajasthan-IT
has held that when there is decline in GP ratio and
assessee furnishes no reasons for such decline still
it is not a good case to make addition. A copy of
this judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court is
also enclosed as Annexure-3.

     As against the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble
Rajasthan High Court, the facts of the assessee is
much stronger as firstly, the decline in a GP ratio


                  12
was   just   0.23%     as   compared       to   immediate
preceding year and 0.41% as compared to year
preceding the immediate year. Such difference was
also wrongly calculated as pointed out earlier.
Secondly, the assessee had explained the reasons
for the decline in GP rate which has not been
properly appreciated by the AO and addition has
been made by the AO on surmises and conjectures,
it is respectfully submitted. The order of the CIT(A)
is on correct appreciation of facts and law is prayed
to be upheld.

      It is respectively submitted that the Order of
the   CIT(A)    granting    the   relief   is   based   on
appreciation of all the facts on record and the same
may please be upheld especially in view of legal
position of case laws given above.

GROUND NO. 2 - AD-HOC ADDITION OF 10% OF
CERTAIN EXPENSES

      The Assessing Officer has discussed this issue
at Page-6 of his Order. The Assessing Officer
observed that some of the expenses identified in
the Order, the assessee failed to file the bills and
vouchers. The Assessing Officer estimated 10% of
such expenses towards leakage of possible revenue
on account of non-maintenance of proper details
etc. and made additions.

      The    learned   CIT(A)     observed      that    the
Assessing Officer did not point out any specific
                  13
                  details which the assessee has not produced.
                  Comparative Chart of expenses incurred during the
                  year under consideration as compared to earlier
                  year was also submitted to claim that expenses on
                  these heads were not higher as compared to earlier
                  years. It was also submitted that no disallowance
                  can be made without pointing out any specific
                  defects in the books of accounts. The comparative
                  expenses for A. Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 are as
                  under:-

                        AY 2010-11                                         AY 2011-12
Particulars             Amount                              Amount
                                            Ratio to Sale                        Ratio to Sale
Turnover (FOB)          55,13,25,576.00                     1,21,63,22,475.00

Travelling                12,15,626.00      0.220%          31,06,842.00         0.255%
General Expenses          43,63,617.00      0.791%          25,00,000.00         0.206%
Vehicle Running and       21,43,051.00      0.389%          24,13,651.00         0.198%
Maintenance
Repair & Maintenance exp. 18,74,130.00      0.340%          15,31,490.00         0.126%
Genset Running expenses 1,00,86,000.00      1.829%          1,25,76,564.00       1.034%



                        It would be noticed that expenses of all the
                  heads have reduced in any case are not abnormally
                  higher which could trigger any adhoc disallowances
                  as made by the Assessing Officer.

                        The   learned        CIT(A)    after    considering      the
                  submissions     of        the   assessee,      restricted      the
                  disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of
                  Rs.5,00,000/- and granted the relief for the balance
                  amount.

                                       14
     It is submitted that the Order of the learned

CIT(A)     in    restricting   the     disallowance     to

Rs.5,00,000/- which has been accepted by the

assessee, is very reasonable especially when it is

clear that expenses of these heads during the year

under consideration are very much comparable

rather less than as compared to the earlier years.

The same is prayed to be upheld.


GROUND NO. 3 - DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,76,710/-

OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES


     The    Assessing     Officer    has   discussed   this

matter at Page-6 and 7 of his Order. The Assessing

Officer has made the disallowance by observing that

although the business of the assessee is centred

around     New    Delhi    area,     the   assessee    has

undertaken travel to certain other places including

foreign travel. He therefore disallowed 25% of

travelling expenses out of the total travel expenses

incurred by the assessee during the year under

consideration.




                   15
     Before the CIT(A), detailed submissions were

made as also reproduced in his Order. It was

explained     that        the   foreign   travel    expenses

represent the travel undertaken by the assessee to

those countries where exports takes place.


     Total business of the assessee and sales are

mainly export sales and foreign travelling incurred

as observed by the Assessing Officer was only

Rs.4,20,200/-. It was also explained that no defect

has been pointed out by the Assessing Officer in its

books and the addition has been made merely on

conjecture and surmises.


     The learned CIT(A) appreciating all these facts

has deleted the addition, which is prayed to be

upheld.







     It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal of the

Department may kindly be dismissed because the

learned     CIT(A)    has       granted   relief   after   due

appreciation of the facts and law on the issues

involved.


     Pray accordingly."

                     16
6.   We have heard both the parties and perused the records,

especially the impugned order as well as the Synopsis filed by the

Assessee's AR. We find that with regard to deletion of addition of

Rs. 50,12,111/- on account    of variation in NP rate is concerned,

the assessee was required to submit the Comparative Chart of

GP/NP for the year under consideration as compared to previous

two assessment years. This was accordingly submitted as noted by

the Assessing Officer at top of Page-2 of his order. The GP rate of

the assessee during the year under consideration was 11.16% as

compared to 11.39% with the immediate preceding Assessment

Year and @ 11.57% with Assessment Year 2009-10. Since there

was a reduction in the GP rate by 0.41% as compared to the

Assessment Year 2009-10, the Assessing Officer required the

assessee to explain the reasons for drop in the GP rate although the

drop in GP rate was not very substantial as compared to the earlier

years. The assessee amongst others explained that the sales

composition during the year under consideration was different in as

much as the assessee had to make substantial purchase of frozen

meat as against the raw meat in the earlier years for meeting its

export commitments, therefore there was slight drop in the GP rate.

The Assessing Officer further noticed that the major difference

occurred at the stage of direct expenses which includes purchases.


                                 17
The Assessing Officer noted in Para-4, Page-4 of his Order that ratio

of direct expenses as compared to turnover in Assessment Year

2009-10 was 91.86% and during the year under consideration it

was 95.98%. This variation of increased direct cost was attributed

towards purchase of frozen meat from one related concern by the

Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer further alleged that Stock

Register is not maintained by the assessee. The Assessing Officer

further noticed that purchase of raw material was @ Rs.82 to 85 per

kilogram whereas the purchases from the related parties have been

made at higher prices. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer alleged the

violation of provisions of section 40A(2)(b) and made the addition to

the total income @ 0.41% of its turnover of the current year by

comparing the GP rate of Assessment Year under consideration

2011-12 with Assessment Year 2009-10. Before the learned CIT(A)

all the contentions pertaining to this issue were explained. It was

explained that there was a material change in the composition of

products purchased and sold by the assessee during the year under

consideration as compared with the preceding years. It was also

explained that the purchase price of the products depends upon the

demand and supply and at times raw material has to be purchased

from known sources depending upon commitments of export orders.

Further, complete quantitative details of raw material purchased and


                                 18
sold and produced during the year was provided with the contention

that same was also available in the Tax Audit Report. No

discrepancies whatsoever has been pointed out by the Assessing

Officer and only an allegation has been made that quantitative

details stock register has not been kept. A copy of quantitative tally

which reconciles with Tax Audit Report was also filed before AO &

CIT(A). It was also explained that entities from whom the purchase

of frozen meat has been made by the assessee, which are sister

concern, are also being assessed with the same Officer and they are

being taxed at the same rate at which the assessee is being taxed

and therefore no reason for the assessee to pay higher price to such

parties. It was also explained that while making the addition, the

Assessing Officer has considered freight outward as direct cost,

which is wrong and should have been considered as indirect cost. If

so done, the direct cost to turnover of the assessee during the year

is 92.66% as against 93.56% in the Assessment Year 2009-10 and

the difference is less than 1% as compared to the difference of

more than 4% by the Assessing Officer in Para- 4, Page-4 of his

Order. The learned CIT(A) called for a Remand Report against all

the submissions made by the assessee and he has reproduced

Remand Report of the Assessing Officer although copy of such

Remand Report was not provided to the assessee. Amongst various


                                  19
submissions made by the assessee, certain legal proposition and

case laws were also submitted with additions to the declared income

of the assessee cannot be made merely on the ground of low GP

without bringing nothing more on record. Some of the case laws on

this proposition are noted at Page-9 of the Ld. CIT(A) Order. After

considering    all   the   submissions   of   the   assessee,   Order   of

assessment as well as Remand Report of the Assessing Officer, the

learned CIT(A) concluded the issue as per his decision in Para 4.5,

Page-13 of his Order and has accepted that merely because there

was some change in the direct cost as compared to the previous

year, the addition cannot be made to the income of the assessee.

The learned CIT(A) has also accepted the proposition that freight

outward cannot be considered as direct cost as has been done by

the Assessing Officer. When so done, the difference in the direct

cost, which is one of the main reason for the Assessing Officer to

make the addition, is not justified and therefore the addition has

rightly been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any

interference on our part, hence, we uphold the action of the Ld.

CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground no. 1 raised by

the Revenue.


6.1   As regards restricting the addition of Rs.19,07,170/-             to

Rs.5,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee did

                                    20
not produce proper bills and vouchers of the expenses during the

assessment proceedings. We find that the assessee firm is a big

exporter of meat having a turnover of over Rs. 122 crore and

several units have to run round the clock besides the product is

perishable in nature and hence the entire facilities also have to run

round the clock the asseseee has also put forward its point that it

has incurred less expenses on such items as compared to earlier

years. The AO has not quantified the amount for which bill s/

vouchers were not produced but only disallowed 10% of the

expenses claimed under the head on adhoc basis. Hence, on

reasonable basis, the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to a

lump sum of Rs. 5 lacs to cover such bills / vouchers not produced

during assessment proceedings. The total disallowance on account

of Gen Set running expenses, general expenses. Vehicle running

and maintenances expenses and office repair and maintenance

expenses and accordingly, the assessee's ground was partly

allowed, which does not need any interference on our part, hence,

we uphold action of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the ground raised by

the Revenue.


6.2   As regards ground relating to deletion of disallowance of

Rs.7,76,710/- from travelling expenses is concerned, we find that

assessee's firm being one of the leading meat exporter is required

                                 21
to incur expenses on account of travels of its employees and

partners both inland and abroad. The expenses claimed seem to be

quite reasonable for a firm earning a turnover of over Rs. 122

crores. Therefore, the AO was    not justified in disallowing 1/4th of

such expenses without any valid reason. Therefore, the addition of

Rs. 7,76,710/- on account of travelling expenses          was rightly

deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on

our part, hence, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue

in dispute and reject the ground raised by the revenue.


7.   In the result, the Revenue's Appeal stands dismissed


     Order pronounced on 07/05/2019.


     Sd/-                                               Sd/-




[PRASHANT MAHARISHI]                             [H.S. SIDHU]
 ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                             JUDICIAL MEMBER

Date 07/05/2019
SRBHATNAGAR



Copy forwarded to: -

1.   Assessee -
2.   Respondent -
3.   CIT
4.   CIT (A)
5.   DR, ITAT              TRUE COPY
                                                        By Order,

                              Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches

                                 22

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting