Deepesh Gupta, Jaipur vs Assessee
- CitationITA No. 301/JP/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may, on the basis of common knowledge of the trade and the reduced disallowances sustained in earlier assessment years on comparable facts, reject a full disallowance of commission paid to escorting tour guides and taxi drivers where the assessee cannot obtain complete recipient details in the presence of customers, and may instead restrict the disallowance to a lump sum that meets the ends of justice.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Shri Deepesh Gupta, cuke The I.T.O., Prop- M/s Small Scale Cottage Vs. Ward-5(1), Jaipur. Industries, Dussera Kothi, Amer Road, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADUPG 0413 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None. jktLo dh vksjr ls@ Revenue by: Mrs. Neena Jeph (JCIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 27/01/2015 ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 29/01/2015
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: R.P. TOLANI, J.M.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated
21/02/2014 by the learned CIT(A)-II, Jaipur for A.Y. 2009-10. The sole
ground of appeal raised is as under:-
2 ITA 301/JP/2014_ Deepesh Gupta Vs. ITO
"1. That the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 98,122/- out of commission paid. The disallowance sustained is unjustified and excessive."
2 None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite of issue of
proper notice, consequently appeal is heard ex parte after hearing the
ld. DR and after perusal of the record.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of
selling handicrafts items, carpets, jewellery, textiles etc. to tourists. The
assessee debited an expenditure of Rs. 12,26,522/- as commission
expenditure claimed to be paid to the agents like guides, taxi drivers
etc., who brought the tourists to his business premises for purchase of
such items. The Assessing Officer, however, held that the commission
vouchers were self made mentioning only name of tour guides, taxi
drivers with taxi number, which according to him didn't constitute
proper evidence. It was held that the assessee was not able to provide
complete details of recepeints of commission consequently, an amount
of Rs. 98,122/- being 8% of such expenditure was disallowed.
4. In first appeal, the assessee contended that in A.Y. 2007-08, the
Assessing Officer disallowed 8% of the commission expenditure, which
was enhanced to 10% by the learned CIT(A). The ITAT vide order 3 ITA 301/JP/2014_ Deepesh Gupta Vs. ITO
dated 10/01/2012 reduced it to a lump sum of Rs. 50,000/-, which
works out to 2.27% of the commission. In A.Y. 2008-09, the learned
CIT(A) himself has restricted the disallowance to 2.62%. It is a common
practice in such trade to pay commission to escorting tour guides or taxi
drivers, it will not be possible for assessee to insist for full vouchers in
presence of tourist for the fear of adverse publicity. Ld. CIT(A) however
confirmed the addition which is agitated by the assessee in second
appeal.
5. The learned SR.DR relied on the order of the lower authorities.
6. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the material available on the
record. It is a common knowledge that in the trade of sales of
handicrafts items to the tourists, the escorting tour guides or taxi
drivers are paid commission. It will not be possible for the assessee to
insist for each and every detail from such persons in presence of the
customers. Looking at the past history, in similar circumstances in A.Y.
2008-08, the CIT(A)'s reduced the disallowance to @ 2.62% of the
commission and in A.Y. 2007-08 to 2.27%. In these facts and
circumstances, in my considered view, a lump sum disallowance of Rs.
4 ITA 301/JP/2014_ Deepesh Gupta Vs. ITO
25,000/- will meet the ends of justice. Consequently, the disallowance is
reduced to an amount of Rs. 25,000/-.
6. In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29/01/2015.
Sd/-
¼vkj-ih-rksykuh½ (R.P.Tolani) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 29th January, 2015 *Ranjan
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Deepesh Gupta, Jaipur.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The I.T.O., Ward-5(1), Jaipur.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A)-II, Jaipur
4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT, Jaipur
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 301/JP/2014)
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