Appeals partly allowed, enabling re-adjudication, with some disallowances upheld and claims dismissed. Order dated 23rd March, 2018.

The tribunal partly allowed both appeals, providing opportunities for re-adjudication while maintaining certain disallowances and dismissing claims based on legal precedents. The order was pronounced on 23rd March, 2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 7,33,565/- on account of legal expenses.
2. Adhoc disallowance against telephone expenses, motor expenses & depreciation, and sundry expenses.
3. Allowance of brought forward losses of AY 2007-08.
4. Additional additions of Rs. 14,12,500/- for AY framed u/s 143(3) read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 7,33,565/- on Account of Legal Expenses:
The first issue under appeal is the addition of Rs. 7,33,565/- on account of legal expenses. The Ld. AO opined that these expenses were not incurred for the purpose of business and the TDS deducted was not deposited within the stipulated time. The Ld. AR pleaded for the admission of additional evidences to support the claim. In the interest of natural justice, the issue was remitted back to the file of Ld. AO with directions for the assessee to substantiate the claim and demonstrate compliance with TDS provisions. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 were allowed for statistical purposes.

2. Adhoc Disallowance Against Telephone Expenses, Motor Expenses & Depreciation, and Sundry Expenses:
Ground Nos. 3 & 4 contested the adhoc disallowance against telephone expenses, motor expenses, depreciation, and sundry expenses debited to the Profit & Loss Account. The tribunal found the disallowance rates of 10% & 20% reasonable and did not interfere with the same, hence these grounds were dismissed.

3. Allowance of Brought Forward Losses of AY 2007-08:
Ground Numbers 5 & 6 pleaded for the allowance of brought forward losses of AY 2007-08. The assessee claimed a brought forward business loss of Rs. 42,72,212/- but failed to furnish sufficient documentary evidence, leading to the denial of the claim. The Ld. CIT(A) noted the correct figure of brought forward losses as Rs. 26,93,383/-. The tribunal found that the losses incurred by the firm could not be set-off by the assessee in an individual capacity, as the firm and individual are separate legal entities. The tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pramod Mittal Vs. CIT, which clarified that losses of a dissolved firm could not be set-off by an individual partner. Consequently, this ground of the assessee’s appeal was dismissed.

4. Additional Additions of Rs. 14,12,500/- for AY framed u/s 143(3) read with Section 148:
The assessee contested the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming additional additions of Rs. 14,12,500/- for the AY framed u/s 143(3) read with Section 148. The Ld. AR pointed out that the assessee did not have professional representation before the Ld. CIT(A) and thus deserved another opportunity. Despite repeated non-compliance and frequent adjournments by the assessee, the tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, remitted the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate the case, failing which Ld. CIT(A) could dispose of the matter based on available records. This appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Conclusion:
Both appeals were partly allowed in terms of the above order. The tribunal provided opportunities for re-adjudication in the interest of natural justice while maintaining certain disallowances and dismissing claims based on legal precedents. The order was pronounced in the open court on 23rd March, 2018.

---