1983 (10) TMI 111 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal allows appeal on trading account & interest charge, disallows some expenses under section 217(1A)

SINGHVI RADIOS. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER

SINGHVI RADIOS. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER - TTJ 018, 073, Issues:1. Justification of addition in trading account2. Disallowance of certain expenses3. Charging of interest under section 217(1A) of the ActIssue 1: Justification of addition in trading accountThe appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the addition of Rs. 10,000 in the trading account. The assessee, engaged in various businesses, disclosed sales and gross profits for the relevant year. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) made a lump sum addition of Rs. 10,000 due to the absence of quantitative details and closing stock information. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, stating that without proper stock taking, gross profit could be manipulated. However, the appellant argued that the ITO should not have rejected the books' results without specific defects, especially as the profit rate was higher than in previous years. The Appellate Tribunal found the disclosed trading results reasonable, noting the improved gross profit rate and sales compared to earlier years. Therefore, the adhoc addition of Rs. 10,000 was deemed unjustified and deleted.Issue 2: Disallowance of certain expenses(a) Cost of stamps for partnership deed: The ITO and CIT(A) considered these expenses as capital expenditure and disallowed them. The appellant contended that the stamps were for a partnership deed and should be treated as a revenue expense. However, the Tribunal disagreed, upholding the disallowance.(b) Donation: A donation of Rs. 502 was made for a celebratory event, aiming to maintain business relations. The appellant argued that since it was related to business interests, the donation should be allowed as a business expenditure. The Tribunal agreed, allowing the donation as a business expense.(c) Car expenses and depreciation: A quarter of car expenses and depreciation were disallowed, which the appellant claimed was excessive. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, noting that partners did not own a car, and a similar disallowance was made in previous years.Issue 3: Charging of interest under section 217(1A) of the ActThe last ground of appeal was against the charging of interest under section 217(1A) of the Act. The appellant argued that interest was levied without proper findings in the assessment order, citing legal precedents to support their claim. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that interest cannot be demanded without it being part of the assessment order. As the ITO did not issue directions for charging interest under section 217(1A), the levy of interest was deemed irregular and subsequently cancelled.In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the appellant on the issues related to the addition in the trading account and the charging of interest under section 217(1A) of the Act. However, certain expenses were disallowed as capital expenditures or deemed excessive, as per the Tribunal's decision.