Dilip D. Dudani, Mumbai vs Assessee

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मुंबई यायपीठ "डी " मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL" D" BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND AMIT SHUKLA, (JM) सव ी बी.आर.बा करन, लेखा सद य एवं अ मत शु ला, या यक सद य के सम

आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6948/Mum/2012 ( नधारण वष / Assessment Year :2008-09)

Mr.Dilip D. Dudani, बनाम/ Asstt.Commissioner of Income 1105, C Wing, Vs. Tax- Range 19(3), Oberoi Garden Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Saki Vihar Road, Chandivili, M K Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400020.

Mumbai-400072 (अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent)

थायी ले ख ा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. :AAFPD2946K

अपीलाथ ओर से / Assessees by Shri Pankaj K Jain यथ क ओर से/Revenue by Shri Akhilendra P Yadav

सुनवाई क तार ख / Date of Hearing : 23.3.2015 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.3.2015

आदे श / O R D E R

PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM)

The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 20- 07-2012 passed by Ld CIT(A)-30, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance made out of Telephone expenses, Motor car expenses and Motor car depreciation.

2. We heard the parties and perused the record. In the assessment order, the AO disallowed 20% of the expenses claimed under the head Telephone, motorcar expenses and motor car depreciation and the Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same. The Ld A.R submitted before us copies 2 I . T . A . N o . 6 9 4 8 / Mu m / 2 0 1 2

of appellate orders passed by Ld CIT(A) for assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06, wherein identical disallowances made by the AO was restricted to 5%. The Ld A.R further submitted that the revenue has accepted the orders of Ld CIT(A) in the above said years and accordingly did not prefer appeal before the ITAT.

3. The Ld D.R, however, submitted that the revenue might not have preferred appeal before Tribunal in the above said years on account of low tax effect. He further submitted that the disallowance made by the AO was reasonable.

4. Having considered rival submissions, we do not find any reason to deviate from the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2003- 04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. Accordingly, we modify the order of Ld CIT(A) passed for the instant year and direct the AO to restrict the addition to 5% of expenses incurred on telephone, motor car and depreciation on motor car. In our view, the same would meet the ends of justice.

5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.

The above order was pronounced in the open court on 23rd March, 2015.

घोषणा खल ु े यायालय म दनांकः 23rd March, 2015 को क गई ।

Sd sd

(अ मत शु ला / AMIT SHUKLA) (बी.आर.बा करन / B.R. BASKARAN) या यक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

मुंबई Mumbai: 23rd March,2015.

व. न.स./ SRL , Sr. PS 3 I . T . A . N o . 6 9 4 8 / Mu m / 2 0 1 2

आदे श क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant

2. यथ / The Respondent.

3. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- concerned

4. आयकर आयु त / CIT concerned

5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned

6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.

आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, True copy सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मंब ु ई /ITAT, Mumbai