Ashish Raniwala, Jaipur vs Assessee
- CitationITA No. 873/JP/2012
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal allowed the employee PF and ESI disallowance ground by following the jurisdictional High Court decision in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur: where the employee's contributions to PF and ESI were deposited before the due date for filing the return of income, the disallowance under the relevant provision cannot be sustained. Where an assessee cannot furnish proper details for expenses such as travelling, conveyance, car depreciation and telephone, and does not rule out personal use, an ad hoc or estimated disallowance of part of those expenses may stand; such an estimate will not be interfered with on appeal unless the assessee gives proper justification for displacing it, and a bare plea that the disallowance is excessive is insufficient.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Jh vkj-ih-rksykuh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Vh-vkj-ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 873/JP/2012 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09
Ashish Raniwala, cuke Assistant Commissioner G-318, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Vs. of Income Tax, Circle-7, Area, Sitapura, Jaipur. Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAZPR 1834 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Madhukar Garg,(CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Neena Jeph, (JCIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 27/04/2015 ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 30/04/2015
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: R.P. TOLANI, J.M.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated
22/08/2012 by the learned CIT (A)-III, Jaipur for A.Y. 2008-09, grounds
of appeal are as under:
2 ITA 873 /JP/2012_ Ashish Raniwala Vs. ACIT
"1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 1,26,345/- and Rs. 45,388/- on account of late deposit of employee's contribution of PF and ESI. The addition sustained is illegal, unjustified and excessive.
2. That the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 1,16,267/- out of travelling and conveyance expenses. The disallowance sustained is unjustified and excessive.
3. That the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 94,715/- out of depreciation on car.
The disallowance sustained is unjustified and excessive.
4. That the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 69,783/- out of telephone expenses. The disallowance sustained is unjustified and excessive."
2 Learned counsel for the assessee contends that the issues about
late deposits of employee's contribution of PF and ESI is covered in
favour of the assessee by the decisions of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court
in the case of CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR
70 (Raj) and the payments are made before due date of filing of return.
2.1. Apropos grounds No. 2 and 3, the ld counsel pleaded that though
the personal use is not ruled out by the assesse, however, 20% ad hoc
disallowance is excessive, which may be suitably reduced.
3. Learned D.R. is relied on the order of ld. CIT(A).
3 ITA 873 /JP/2012_ Ashish Raniwala Vs. ACIT
4. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and
perused the material available on the record. Apropos the first ground
of appeal regarding PF and ESI payments we find merit in the
arguments of the ld. AR. It has not been disputed that these payments
have been made before due date of filing of return. In view thereof,
respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High
Court in the case of CIT Vs. SBBJ (supra), we allow the ground No. 1 of
the assessee.
4.1 Apropos grounds No. 2 and 3 of the appeal, the ad hoc
disallowance was made, as the assessee could not give proper details in
this behalf and did not rule out element of personal user therein. It has
been also conceded that the assessee does not separately maintain any
motor car or telephone expenses for personal use; which justifies part
disallowance on estimate basis. The estimate of disallowance of
expenses in these circumstances, can be interfered only when proper
justification is given. Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not adduce
anything except making a plea that the disallowance is excessive. In
these circumstances, we find no justification in interfering with the
finding of the lower authorities on grounds Nos. 2 and 3, which are
dismissed.
4 ITA 873 /JP/2012_ Ashish Raniwala Vs. ACIT
5. In the result, the assessee appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30/04/2015.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼Vh-vkj-ehuk½ ¼vkj-ih-rksykuh½ (T.R. Meena) (R.P.Tolani) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 30th April, 2015
*Ranjan
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Ashish Raniwala, Jaipur.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ACIT, Circle-7, Jaipur.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT (A)
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 873/JP/2012)
vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free