(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Assessee in is appeal against the judgement of the Tribunal dated 13.11.2009 raising following questions for our consideration :
(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding that the assessment order was valid though demand notice was not signed by the Assessing Officer?
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in disallowing Rs.70,000/- out of total telephone expenses of Rs.4,73,851/- on the presumption that some expenses are bound to be personal?
(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in disallowing 50% share of telephone expenses of Rs.1,68,949/- paid to Remik Trading Co. Ltd. And taxed in their hands?
(4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in disallowing the rent of Rs.1,62,000/-?
Insofar as question (1) is concerned, counsel submitted that the demand notice issued by the Assessing Officer was unsigned. After passing the order of assessment, tax demand was never ascertained by any separate order. Therefore, referring on the decision of the Division Bench in case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Purshottamdas T. Patel reported in (1994) 209 ITR 52, he contended that assessment proceedings could not be stated to have been completed within the time limit.
Insofar as question no.(2) is concerned, having perused the orders on record, we notice that two revenue authorities as well as Tribunal concurrently found from the evidence on record that the telephone expenses claimed by the assessee were excessive and part of it would form personal use of telephone. No question of law arises. Such question is therefore, not required to be considered.
With respect to question(3), we find that the revenue authorities as well as Tribunal concurrently found that the assessee had not been able to bring any supporting evidence for the purpose for which assessee had reimbursed the telephone expenditure of M/s. Remik Trading Company. It was also noticed that many of the bills pertained to earlier years. In that view also, we do not find any question of law arising.
With respect to question(4), counsel submitted that the payment of rent of Rs.1.62 lakhs was disallowed only on the ground that the assessee failed to prove the ownership of the premises of that of the lessors. He submitted that persons giving premises on rent themselves were tenants. To prove the same, documents were produced on record. Authorities erred in insisting on proof of ownership.
In the result, issue notice on questions no. 1 and 4 only, returnable on 21.2.2012.
(Akil Kureshi,J.) (Ms.
Sonia Gokani,J.) (raghu) Top