Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur
Mana Constructions, Nagpur vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 28 September, 2023
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
DR. DIPAK RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A.No.69/NAG./2020
Assessment Year 2014-2015
M/s. Mana Constructions, DCIT, Circle-2,
206, Milk Scheme Housing Aayakar Bhavan,
Society, Near G.P.O. Square, vs. Room No.318, 3rd Floor,
Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440001 Telangkhedi Road,
Maharashtra. Nagpur - 440 001
PAN AALFM1727F Maharashtra.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
For Assessee : CA Gulshan Budhraja
For Revenue : Shri Rishi Kumar Bisen
Date of Hearing : 01.09.2023
Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2023
ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :
This assessee's appeal for assessment year 2014- 2015, arises against the CIT(A)-2, Nagpur's Order in Appeal No.CIT(A)-2/ 10577/2016-17, dated 30.01.2020, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee's sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant appeal challenges correctness of the CIT(A)'s action partly 2 ITA.No.69/NAG./2020 affirming the assessment finding disallowing sales promotion expenditure of Rs.3,50,000/- to Rs.3 lakhs vide following detailed discussion :
3
ITA.No.69/NAG./2020
3. Learned counsel vehemently argued during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in disallowing the assessee's sales promotion expenditure representing various payments made to Hotel Radisson Blu Hotel, Nagpur. He sought to buttress the point that the assessee had duly placed on record all the relevant photographs, paper advertisements, minutes of meeting and attendance of the agents etc. before the lower authorities. We are of the considered opinion that mere filing of such documentary evidences hardly comes to assessee's rescue once it has failed to prove that the impugned expenditure had been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. We thus find merit in the CIT(A)'s foregoing detailed discussion that the assessee could not discharge it's corresponding onus in respect of the impugned sales promotion expenditure claim. This is indeed coupled with the fact although not strictly relevant; that the Assessing Officer had disallowed various expenses totalling to Rs.50,67,769/- under various heads of petty contract expenses, work expenses and business promotion expenditure which have been confirmed to the extent of Rs.3 lakhs only in the CIT(A)'s lower appellate discussion. Faced with the situation, we find merit in the Revenue's vehement arguments in supporting both the learned lower authorities action making the impugned disallowance.
4
ITA.No.69/NAG./2020
4. This assessee's appeal is dismissed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.09.2023.
Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 28th September, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A)-4, Nagpur. 4. The PCIT-3, Nagpur.
5. D.R. ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.
6. Guard File.
//By Order// //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.
S.No. Details Date 1 Draft dictated on 25.09.2023 Sr.PS 2 Draft placed before author 26.09.2023 Sr.PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Author .09.2023 J.M. 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member .09.2023 A.M. 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS .09.2023 Sr.PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on .09.2023 Sr.PS 7 Date of uploading of Order .09.2023 Sr.PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk .09.2023 Sr.PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order