TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 884
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Income Tax Act (here in after "Act") by the ITO, Ward-1, Pali. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - "1. The ld. CIT A is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 300528/- relating to form fees which was deposited for obtaining the wine shop through government. 2. The Ld. CIT A has erred in non-accepting the theory of commercial expediency without giving any reason in his order. 3. The appellate craves leaves to add, alter, modify or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing." 3. Brief fact of the case is that in respect of the amount debited before us is that the assessee has incurred aforesaid Form Fee Expenses of Rs. 3,00,528/- towards....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... financial year 2016-17 which is under consideration. Further the assessee has not submitted any details regarding corresponding 20 Application forms for the allotment of new liquor shops. During the appellate proceedings the assessee states that the said payments were made through proper banking channel as Excise department in Rajasthan only accepts online payment through banking channel. Further the assessee states that the allotment of Wine shop is based on lottery system and desirous applicants filed many application forms in order to participate in the lottery and this is a business practice of the assessee was very much looked into by the Assessing Officer but the very basic question of details of 20 applications/applicants were not p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... WS 01 to 22 Written submission before AO PB PN. 01 to 03 Bank statement and ledger copy PB PN. 04 to 05 Profit and loss A/c for FY 2017-18 PB PN. 06 to 06 Profit and loss A/c for FY 2018-19 PB PN. 07 to 07 Part submission before CIT(A) PB PN. 08 to 30 The assessee heavily relied upon the written submission filed before the ld. AO and has also submitted the brief submission dealing with the facts of the disputed addition. The submission so made and relied by the ld. AR of the assessee is reproduced herein below : "In continuation to our earlier submission we further submitting the following facts for your kind consideration: 1. Sir The assessee submitted multiple applications for lottery ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... observed only this aspect but later on he used 'HOWEVER' (with Bold high-lighted words) as bifurcation of the sentence. The later part of the sentence as written by the AO is so specific for making the proposed addition. This the word "however" Means 'But' and not 'and'. 6. In nutshell, the assessee submitted 20 applications forms and only one out of the 20 applications was succeeded, Remaining 19 forms not succeeded so the amount of Rs. 285000/- of 19 Form applications are business expenditure incurred for sustaining the business or to maintain the business. Hence, it is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1). 7. Sir, in view of the above submission, we prey to your honour, kindly allow our ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... presently stayed at Hotel Royal Palazzo, subhash Nagar, Bani park, Jaipur mae on oath/affirm and say as follows:- a. I filed an appeal before ITAT for the Assessment Year 2017-18 and appeal No. 384/Jodh/2023. b. B. The written submission as filed before the honourable Bench Of ITAT, Jodhpur. c. That I, myself, engaged in the business of retail trade of liquor. d. During the FY 2016-17, I applied for allotment of liquor shops through submission of multiple applications forms to Rajasthan State beverages Company Limited, A government Agency. e. I deposited Rs. 300000/- through my bank account along with these applications forms and duly recorded in my books of account. These entries are tallied wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llotted one licence then what is the need of paying the other 19 application and since the licence was only for one year the ld. AO disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s. 37(1) of the Act stating that fees paid by the assessee claimed as revenue expenditure is not entertainable against the income of the under consideration without advancing any further reasons. The bench noted that even the ld. CIT(A) has not consider the overall facets of the arguments and facts of the case and has simply denied the claim stating that in the absence of the evidence the theory of commercial expediency not acceptable and the claim was rejected. Before us the ld. AO though ld. DR did not controvert the fact that the assessee has made 20 application and onl....