M.Subramaniam (Huf), Salem vs Assessee

Sh.M. Subramanian (HUF), The Assistant Commissioner of No.169, C-2, Thuraiyur Road, v. Income Tax, Namakkal. Circle - II, Salem. PAN : AACHM 0391 N (अपीलाथ,/Appellant) (-.यथ,/Respondent)

अपीलाथ, क/ ओर से/Appellant by : Sh.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, CA -.यथ, क/ ओर से/Respondent by : Sh.N. Madhavan, JCIT

सन ु वाई क/ तार ख/Date of Hearing : 12.05.2015 घोषणा क/ तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.05.2015

आदे श /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of

the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem, dated

30.12.2014 and pertains to assessment year 2005-06. The only

issue arises for consideration in this appeal is with regard to

disallowance of depreciation on the car on estimate basis. 2 I.T.A. No.335/Mds/15

2. Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, the Ld. representative for

the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed the

depreciation on estimate basis. The Ld. representative submitted

that without any material available on record, the Assessing Officer

disallowed 1/5th of the depreciation on the car. According to the Ld.

representative, the car was not used for personal purpose and the

books of account of the assessee were not rejected. Therefore,

according to the Ld. representative, there is no question of any

disallowance. The Ld. representative also placed reliance on the

decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in M. Selvaraj v. ACIT in I.T.A.

Nos.988 & 989/Mds/2014 dated 30.01.2015.

3. On the contrary, Shri N. Madhavan, the Ld. Departmental

Representative, submitted that the assessee is a HUF. The

assessee is engaged himself in the business. Therefore, personal

use of the car for the members of his family cannot be ruled out.

Therefore, the Assessing Officer is reasonably estimated the

disallowance at 1/5th of the car maintenance expenditure.

4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and

perused the relevant material on record. This Tribunal in the case

of Shri M. Selvaraj (supra) had an occasion to consider an identical

issue. This Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer has not 3 I.T.A. No.335/Mds/15

pointed out any defects in the accounts maintained by the

assessee. In those circumstances, it was found that the ad-hoc

disallowance cannot be sustained. One of us, the Accountant

Member is a party to the above order. Therefore, by following the

above order of this Tribunal and the reasoning stated therein, this

this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there cannot be any

disallowance on estimate basis in the absence of any material to

show that the car was used for personal purpose. Accordingly, the

orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the Assessing

Officer is directed to allow the entire claim of depreciation.

5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 29th May, 2015 at Chennai.

Sd/- sd/- (A.Mohan Alankamony) (N.R.S. Ganesan) (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या यक सद य/Judicial Member

चे नई/Chennai, th 5दनांक/Dated, the 29 May, 2015.

Kri.

आदे श क/ - त6ल7प अ8े7षत/Copy to:

अपीलाथ,/Appellant / -.यथ,/Respondent / आयकर आय9 ु त अपील)/CIT(A), Salem / आयकर आयु9त/CIT, Salem / 7वभागीय - त न ध/DR / गाड( फाईल/GF.