Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Anandu Brandy Shop, Pondicherry vs Assessee on 1 March, 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'A' BENCH, CHENNAI
BEFORE Dr. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT
AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 632/(Mds)/2010
Assessment Year: 2005-06
M/s. Anandu Brandy Shop, Income-tax Officer,
No.461 Bharathi St., vs. Ward-I(1),
Pondicherry. Pondicherry
PAN - AAJFA 4928 L
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri N. Devanathan, Advocate
Respondent by : Shri Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl.
Commissioner of Income-tax
Date of Hearing : 1st March, 2012
Date of Pronouncement : 13th March, 2012
ORDER
PER Dr.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT:
This appeal filed by the assessee relates to the assessment year 2005-06. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-XII at Chennai dated 29.01.2010. It arises out of the assessment completed under sec.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.:- 2 -: ITA 632/10
2. The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of trading in Indian Made Foreign Liquor. In computing its income, the assessee has claimed a deduction of ` 1,12,152/- estimated at 20% of turnover as sales promotion expenses. These expenses incurred by the assessee, as stated by it, also included CORKEGE, a discount given to consumers on production of bottle caps of particular brands of liquor. According to the assessee, this was a practice of giving incentives to promote the sales of those brands. The claim was disallowed by the assessing authority. In first appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) restricted the disallowance to 10% as against the disallowance of 20% made by the Assessing Officer. It is against this residual addition sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) that the assessee has come in second appeal before the Tribunal.
3. Shri N. Devanathan, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee contended that the quantum of addition sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) is very small and the tax liability is also negligible. But the assessee is more concerned about the manner in which a legitimate claim made by the assessee was :- 3 -: ITA 632/10 disallowed by the lower authorities without making any enquiries. It is, on this legal issue that the assessee has come in second appeal before us. The learned counsel explained that every trade and business has got its own particular type of expenses depending upon the environment in which they operate. The sales promotion expenses which included COREKEGE is an incentive practice in the whole industry. The Assessing Officer should have carried out necessary enquiries before coming to a conclusion against the assessee.
3. We heard the learned Commissioner also.
4. On going through the facts of the case, we find that the conclusions were arrived at by the lower authorities without making proper enquiries, as argued by the learned counsel. Let the matter be investigated and the Assessing Officer may come to a conclusion. He may decide in accordance with law but only after making a proper enquiry. For this purpose, the file is remitted back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is further directed to :- 4 -: ITA 632/10 provide an opportunity to the assessee to present the case before him.
5. In result, this appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 13th of March, 2012 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Challa Nagendra Prasad) (Dr. O.K.Narayanan)
Judicial Member Vice-President
Chennai,
Dated the 13th March, 2012.
mpo*
Copy to: (1) Petitioner
(2) Respondent
(3) CIT
(4) CIT(A)
(5) D.R.
(6) G.F.