Praveen Kumar Shrimal, Jaipur vs Assessee

Praveen Kumar Shrimal cuke The I.T.O., Prop.- Timber & Plywood Traders Vs. Ward-4(1), Jaipur. F-17/A, Malviya Industrial area, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AJQPS 3351 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent

fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri N.S. Vyas (CA) jktLo dh vksjr ls@ Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Ojha (JCIT)

lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 28/01/2015 ?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

26/06/2014 by the learned CIT(A)-II, Jaipur for A.Y. 2008-09

challenging the addition of Rs. 77,707/- being 10% of telephone and

conveyance expenses.

2. Learned counsel for the assessee contends that like earlier years,

the assessee's books of account have been rejected and trading 2 ITA 598/JP/2014_ Praveen Kumar Shrimal Vs. ITO

additions have been made. In these circumstances, there is no

justification in making a separate ad hoc disallowance out of telephone

and car expenses. This issue also arose in A.Y. 2007-08 and the ITAT

deleted the similar type of ad hoc disallowance over and above the

trading addition consequent to rejection of books by following

observations:-

"3.2 In this case, the A.O. disallowed certain expenses by observing that they are not fully vouched etc. The learned CIT(A) has also confirmed the action of the A.O.. 3.3 After considering the submissions of the parties and perusing the material on record, we are of the view that assessee deserves to succeed in this ground. In this case, the provisions of Section 145(3) are invoked and thereafter the profit of the assessee has been determined by applying the higher gross profit rate. Once the provisions of Section 145(3) are applied then no separate addition is to be made as held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Banwari Lal Bansidhar, 229 ITR 229. In view of the judicial pronouncement, we hold that the separate disallowances on account of various expenses were not justified. Therefore, we delete the disallowance. We order accordingly." Facts and circumstances of the case being same, the addition may be

deleted.

3. The learned Sr.DR supported the order of the lower authorities.

3 ITA 598/JP/2014_ Praveen Kumar Shrimal Vs. ITO

4. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused

the material available on the record. I find merit in the arguments of

learned counsel for the assessee that when the books of account are

rejected and trading additions are made, there is no justification in

making further ad hoc disallowance qua telephone and conveyance

expenditure. This view is supported the ITAT in assessee's own case for

preceding year. In view thereof, the addition is deleted.

5. In the result, the assessee's appeal is 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- Praveen Kumar Shrimal, Jaipur.

2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The I.T.O., Ward-4(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. 598/JP/2014) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar