M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs Department Of Income Tax

DCIT - Range - 4, Vs. M/s Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow - 226001 PAN:AACCM5754E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri J. J. Mehrotra, C.A. Department by Smt. Swati Ratna, Sr. DR Date of hearing 16/04/2015 Date of pronouncement 11/06/2015

ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.

This is revenue's appeal directed against the order of Learned CIT (A) - II Lucknow Dated 30.09.2014 for A.Y. 2012 - 2013.

2. The revenue has raised as many as 6 Grounds but the grievance of the revenue is regarding deletion by learned CIT (A) of some ad hoc additions made by the A.O. as under:-

Rs. 559,024/- out of Misc. Expenses, Rs. 105,500/- out of Staff Welfare Expenses, Rs. 219,618/- out of Repairs & Renewals, Rs. 524,798/- out of Travelling & Conveyance Expenses and Rs. 165,933/- out of Vehicle Expenses.

3. Learned DR of the revenue supported the assessment order. Learned AR of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT (A). He also placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:-

i) State of Orissa vs. Maharaja B. P. Singh Dev, 76 ITR 690 SC)

ii) Alliance Builders & Contractors Ltd. vs. CIT, 13 MTC 300 (Trib) 2

iii) Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. vs. ACIT, 13 MTC 427 (Trib)

iv) Bhagirathi Tea & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No. 721/Lko/2011 Dated 14.06.2012

v) Widex India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 66 DTR 57 (Trib) (Delhi)

vi) Coca Cola India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, 100 ITR (AT) 149 (Pune)

vii) ITO vs. Lake Palace Hotels & Motels (P) Ltd., 13 TTJ 216 (JP)

viii) Ayushakti Ayurved P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 4 ITR (Trib) 537 (Mumbai)

ix) ACIT vs. Metallizing Equipment (P) Ltd. 25 SOT 16 (Jodh) (Uro)

4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that on page 9 of his order, a clear finding has been given by learned CIT (A) that the A.O. has not given any adverse finding with regard to claim of expenses and he has not pointed out even a single voucher which was not found for verification. On the basis of these findings, he deleted the above said disallowances totaling Rs. 15,74,873/-. These findings of learned CIT (A) could not be controverted by the learned DR of the revenue. We, therefore, have no hesitation in confirming the order of learned CIT (A) because in the absence of even a single voucher which was not found for verification, the ad hoc disallowances made by the AO are not justified and the same were rightly deleted by learned CIT (A).

5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. (Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page) Sd/. Sd/.

(SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Dated:11/06/2015

Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Asstt. Registrar