I.T.A. No. 54(Asr)/2013, (Assessment Year: 2007-08). Case: Sh. Ritesh Wadhwa Vs Dy. Commr. of Income-Tax. ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | I.T.A. No. 54(Asr)/2013, (Assessment Year: 2007-08) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sh. P.N. Arora, Advocate and For Respondents: Sh. R.L. Chhanalia, DR |
| Judges | H.S. Sidhu, Member (J) and B.P. Jain, Member (A) |
| Issue | Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 41, 41(1) |
| Judgement Date | May 20, 2013 |
| Court | ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
(ITAT Amritsar Bench)
-
This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the CIT(A), Amritsar, dated 16.11.2012 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
-
That the assessment order as well as the order of the Ld. CIT(A) are both against the facts of the case & untenable in law.
-
That the Assessing Officer has grossly erred in making an addition of Rs. 17,30,995/- by invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Ld. A.O. did not appreciate that the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act, are not at all applicable in this case. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the order of the A.O.. That the authorities bellow did not appreciate that this case does not fall within the mischief of section 41(1) and as such the addition made may be deleted.
-
That the authorities below did not appreciate that the disallowance/addition made u/s. 41(1) of the Act, comprises of the following trade creditors:
That the addition is not at all called for and the same may be deleted. Alternatively, the addition made is very high & excessive.
-
That again, the A.O. was not justified in disallowing a sum of Rs. 162097/- towards traveling expenses. These expenses are clearly allowable. The authorities below did not appreciate that these expenses clearly related to business of party decorations and these expenses are necessary for carrying on the business and should have been allowed in toto. That further the CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the same. Alternatively, the addition made is very high & excessive. Again, the A.O. has grossly erred in making disallowance of 1/5th expenses out of Telephone, Car depreciation & Car expenses at RS. 22,359/-. All these expenses were incurred during the course of business and these should have been allowed in toto. That the CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the order of the A.O.. Alternatively, the disallowance made is very high & excessive.
Any other ground of appeal which may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.
Ground No. 1 is general in nature and therefore, do not require any adjudication.
-
As regards grounds No. 2 & 3, the brief facts are that the A.O. observed that the following trade creditors were outstanding for more than three years and are stagnant creditors without any transaction. With regard to the confirmation filed by the assessee, there was no corroborative postal or courier envelop...
To continue reading
Request your trial