AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 1166
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals):XVI, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of the salary of Rs.84,000/- paid to Mr.Jashwantlal N.Shah, father of the Appellant, in total disregard of the facts of the case and merely relying on the statement of Ms.Ragini Thakkar, a junior most employee of the Appellant, which was recorded to ascertain the genuineness of the salary paid to her and has in the process failed to appreciate the services rendered by Mr. Jashwantlal N. Shah. (b) While confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that (i) no effort was made by the Assessing Officer to ascertain the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the assessee. The Assessing Officer has also mentioned that several notices were issued u/s.143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 to explain the genuineness of the payment of salary of Rs.84,000/- paid to the said person. In the absence of any evidence and considering the report of the Inspector as well as the statement of the Accountant, the said claim was held as a bogus claim and, accordingly, disallowed. 3. When the matter has gone in appeal before the first appellate authority, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has reproduced the statement of Mrs.Ragini Thakkar, Accountant and, thereafter, affirmed the addition vide paragraph No.4.3; reproduced below:- "4.3. As regards the contention of the Authorised Representative that Mrs Ragini Thak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....register, a salary of Rs.6,000/- monthly was paid to him but from the side of the Revenue Shri Shelley Jindal, CIT-Learned Departmental Representative has vehemently objected the said evidence on the ground that the salary register can be said to be a concocted evidence because the assessee has not furnished any other document or evidence to establish the nature of duty of the said person or the services rendered by him for which he was entitled for the payment of salary. Considering the findings on fact as recorded by the Assessing Officer based upon the enquiry of the Inspector as well as the statement recorded of the Accountant, we hereby uphold the disallowance made u/s.40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. It has also been argued before us ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1,16,106/- --------------- (b) The ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the Assessing Officer disallowed the various expenses on two wheelers aggregating to Rs.1,16,106/-. (i) merely relying on the statement of Ms.Ragini Thakkar which was recorded for ascertaining the genuineness of salary paid to her and (ii) no show cause notice was even issued to the Appellant before rejecting the various claims pertaining to two wheelers. 5.1. The above grounds 2(a) and (b) are also narrative as well as argumentative in nature cannot be said to be as prescribed in Rule-8 of ITAT Rules, 1962. However, the only grievance is in respect of disallowance of Rs.1,16,106/- pertaining to the expenditure on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aintenance is concerned, it was informed that for running around of the staff, the appellant has provided two wheelers to the staff members. Our attention has been drawn on the depreciation chart to demonstrate that as many as five scooters are meant for the purpose of the staff to run around for business purposes. It has also been contested that the view taken by the Revenue Authorities that the staff members were using their own vehicles for coming from the residence to office has not relevance because the fuel expenses as claimed was in the normal course of business and in connection with the two wheelers provided to the staff as is evident from the facts of the case. We find force in this argument because the Assessing Officer has not c....