Tribunal affirms CIT(A)'s decisions on disallowances & additions, rejecting assessee's appeal.

Smt. Manisha Gupta Prop. M/s Kamna Traders Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Meerut

Smt. Manisha Gupta Prop. M/s Kamna Traders Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Meerut - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of vehicle running and maintenance expenses.
2. Disallowance of traveling and conveyance expenses.
3. Disallowance of depreciation on car.
4. Disallowance of telephone expenses.
5. Addition on account of household expenses.
6. Disallowance of various expenses due to lack of supporting bills and vouchers.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Vehicle Running and Maintenance Expenses:
The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs. 43,760/- claimed under vehicle running and maintenance expenses, treating them as capital in nature since they were not current repairs. The CIT(A) allowed expenses on seat covers and central locking system as current repairs but upheld the disallowance for expenses on Deck, fittings of speaker, and air conditioners as capital in nature. The Tribunal upheld this decision, agreeing that these expenses were capital in nature.

2. Disallowance of Traveling and Conveyance Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 7,500/- for personal use of the car as no log book was maintained, and the assessee did not claim to have a separate car for personal use. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, noting that no detailed working was provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found the disallowance reasonable, given the lack of evidence for exclusive business use.

3. Disallowance of Depreciation on Car:
The AO disallowed Rs. 11,194/- of depreciation on the car for personal use. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, stating that depreciation is a statutory allowance and must be fully allowed as per prescribed rules. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) and deleted the disallowance.

4. Disallowance of Telephone Expenses:
The AO disallowed 25% of telephone expenses, amounting to Rs. 8,111/-, for personal use. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, noting that the assessee did not provide a working basis for the claimed expenses. The Tribunal found the disallowance reasonable, given the lack of evidence for exclusive business use.

5. Addition on Account of Household Expenses:
The AO added Rs. 36,000/- to household expenses, estimating them at Rs. 60,000/- based on the assessee's status and family composition. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, noting that the withdrawals were not substantiated with supporting evidence. The Tribunal found the addition justified, as the assessee did not provide any evidence regarding household expenses or sources of meeting them.

6. Disallowance of Various Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 55,185/- for various expenses due to lack of supporting bills and vouchers. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, finding it reasonable given the lack of proper details. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the books of account were not required to be rejected as the trading results were not disputed. The estimated disallowance was found fair and reasonable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings on all disallowances and additions, dismissing the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal found the disallowances reasonable and justified, given the lack of supporting evidence and proper details provided by the assessee.