TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1922
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....308/- made on account of Diwali expenses completely ignoring the fact that the onus was on assessee to establish that it was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 3. That the Ld.CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,000/- made on account of unverified expenses claimed as freight and vehicle running completely ignoring the fact that the onus was on assessee admitted the additional evidences without providing AO any opportunity of rebuttal under Rule-46A. 4. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,71,929/- made on account of incorrect claim of depreciation on commercial vehicle without verifying the claim of the assessee that whether these vehicles were acquired between 01.10.1998 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d fit to be set aside as she was completely over looked the reasons mentioned in the assessment order for make in additions. 11. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other." 3. The assessee is a proprietor of the business known as M/s Choudhary Rubber and Chemical Company and deals in sale/purchase of chemicals and raw rubber on wholesale basis. The assessee converted their business from proprietary concern to Pvt. Ltd. Company known as M/s Choudhary Rubber and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 1/1/2009 by virtue of Business Transfer Agreement executed on 1/1/2009. The assessee claimed business income from his proprietary concern, salary income from M/s Choudhary Rubber and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd in which he is a Director, hou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Officer rightly disallowed Rs. 1,62,332/- which is 10% of expenses on vehicle maintenance, sales promotion, staff welfare, travelling and conveyance and telephone. The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The CIT(A) held that the element of personal use cannot be completely rules out, therefore, he sustain the disallowance to the tune of Rs. 81,166/-. It can be seen that the Assessing Officer made disallowance only on the estimated basis. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Ground No. 1 of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 7. As relates to Ground No. 2, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 27,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that the CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,71,929/- made on account of incorrect claim of depreciation on commercial vehicle without verifying the claim of the assessee that whether these vehicles were acquired between 01.10.1998 and 31.03.1999 and put to use before 01.04.1999 as per the provision of third provision to section 31(1) of the IT Act. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,71,929/- made on account of incorrect claim of depreciation on the basis of additional evidence submitted by the assessee without providing opportunity of rebuttal to the AO under the Rule 46A. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in admitting evidence in contravention of judgment of Hon'ble Delh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apital Gain on sale of shares on the basis of additional evidence submitted by the assessee without providing opportunity of rebuttal to the AO under Rule 46A. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in admitting evidence in contravention of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi high Court in the case of CIT v. Manish Build Well Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 204 TAXMAN 106 that additional evidence can be produced at first appellate stage only when conditions stipulated in Rule 46 A are satisfied. The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the CIT (A) and submitted that all the documents were produced before the Assessing Officer. 15. We have heard both the parties and perused all the records. The persula of the records show that the assessee furnished all the releva....