Bachooali Aqeel Alias Aqeel, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax

1 ITA NO.8730/MUM/2011 (A.Y.2006-07)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES 'B' MUMBAI सव[ौी आय.पी. बंसल, Ûयाियक सदःय एवं ौी बी.आर. भाःकरन, लेखा सदःय के सम¢ । BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER /AND

SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA NO.8730/MUM/2011 (A.Y.2006-07)

ACIT-19(3) Bachooali Aqeel Alias Aqeel, Room no.305, 3rd Floor 101, Neptune II, 1st Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel Vs. Nargis Dutt Road, pali Hill, Mumbai-400 012. Bandra (W) GIR No./PAN : AACPB 9807 G Mumbai-400 050. (Appellant ) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Vivek Batra -Sr. AR Respondent by : None

Date of hearing : 07/01/2015 Date of pronouncement : 07/01/2015

ORDER

PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M:

This appeal is filed by the revenue . It is directed against the order passed by CIT(A) dated 19/10/2011 for assessment year 2006-07. The revenue has raised the following grounds :-

(1) " On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance of expenses on account of Junior artist Fees at Rs. 32,150/- being 10% as against of Rs. 2,25,050/- being 70% disallowed by Assessing Officer, ignoring the fact that the assessee has failed to establish that the said expense were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business by submitting the supporting documentary evidences during the course of assessment proceedings.

(2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance on account of business, Travel & Promotion expenses at Rs. 2,56,034/- being 10% as against of Rs.

2 ITA NO.8730/MUM/2011 (A.Y.2006-07) 12,87,173/- being 50% disallowed by Assessing Officer, ignoring the fact that the assessee has failed to establish that the said expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business by submitting the supporting documentary evidences during the course of assessment proceedings. (3) The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO be restored.

The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary."

2. The assessee is deriving income from business/profession by virtue of being a disc jockey and music performer. The assessee claimed a sum of Rs.3,21,500/- towards junior artist fee. From the details furnished the AO noticed that these were self made vouchers. AO asked the assessee to produce junior artist which were not produced, therefore, disallowed 70% of the expenses and in this manner a sum of Rs.2,25,050/- was disallowed.

3. Similarly, out of business, travel and promotion expenses 50% disallowance was made which was calculated at Rs.12,80,173/-. Total expenses incurred on these items was a sum of Rs.25,60,346/-. AO issued summons to the assessee and assessee did not attend. Therefore, AO made the disallowance.

3.1 Before ld. CIT(A) it was submitted that the assessee could not attend before the AO as he was performing abroad and as per requirement of his profession he has to travel a lot alongwith group and, therefore, expenses could not be disallowed to the extent of 50%. Considering the detailed submissions filed by the assessee the ld. CIT(A) has come to a conclusion that disallowance made by AO was on the higher side and it was reduced to 10% from 50%.

3.3.1 On the issue of junior artist the ld. CIT(A) has found that in subsequent assessment years i.e. 2007-08 and 2008-09 even during scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) no such disallowance was made. However, keeping in view the fact that junior artist were not produced before the AO, ld. CIT(A) has restricted the 3 ITA NO.8730/MUM/2011 (A.Y.2006-07)

disallowance to 10%. The department is aggrieved with such relief granted by CIT(A) and raised aforementioned grounds.

4. The ld. DR relying on the assessment order submitted that addition was rightly made by the AO and CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the same. On behalf of the assessee a written submission has been submitted in which argument raised before CIT(A) has been reiterated.

5. We have heard the ld. DR and considered the written submissions filed by assessee. We have also carefully gone through assessment order as well as order passed by ld. CIT(A). The relief regarding disallowance made in respect to junior artist fee is based on order passed by AO in subsequent years. Moreover as per requirement of the profession of the assessee these type of expenses are necessary and no material has been brought on record to show that it was claimed in excess by the assessee. Therefore, we decline to interfere in the relief granted by CIT(A) and Ground No.1 is dismissed.

6. So far it relates to Ground No.2 here also it has been found by the ld. CIT(A) that disallowance is on higher side and disallowance is restricted from 50% to 10%. No particular material has been submitted by the department to dislodge estimate made by CIT(A). Therefore, we decline to interfere in the relief granted by CIT(A) and ground No.2 is also dismissed.

7. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07/01/2015 आदे श कȧ घोषणा खुले Ûयायालय मɅ Ǒदनांकः 07/01/2015 को कȧ गई ।

Sd/- Sd/- (बी.आर. भाःकरन /B.R.BASKARAN ) (आय.पी. बंसल / I.P. BANSAL) लेखा सदःय / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ûयाियक सदःय / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; Ǒदनांक Dated /01/2015 व.िन.स./Jv, Sr. PS 4 ITA NO.8730/MUM/2011 (A.Y.2006-07)

आदे श कȧ ूितिलǒप अमेǒषत/Copy षत of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant 2. ू×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुƠ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयुƠ / CIT

5. ǒवभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai

6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file.

आदे शानुसार/ ार BY ORDER, स×याǒपत ूित //True Copy//

उप/सहायक उप सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai