IT : Where audited books of account along with vouchers were produced, assessee's claim of expenditure could not be disallowed
 14 taxmann 87 (Punjab and Haryana)
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Commissioner of Income-tax, Faridabad
S.S.P. (P.) Ltd.*
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTG. CJ.
AND AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
IT APPEAL NO. 535 OF 2010
JULY 20, 2011
Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee-company claimed business expenditure incurred on site expenses, telephone expenses and maintenance expenses - Assessing Officer disallowed same on ground that these were not in wholly or exclusively for purpose of business - On appeal, Commissioner and Tribunal deleted disallowance - Whether since audited books of account along with vouchers were produced by assessee and Assessing Officer had failed to show that said expenditure was not for business purpose, Tribunal was justified in deleting disallowance - Held, yes [In favour of assessee]
The assessee-company was engaged in manufacturing and trading of capital goods. It claimed business expenditure incurred on site expenses, telephone expenses and maintenance expenses. Assessing Officer disallowed the same on ground that same were not incurred wholly or exclusively for purpose of business. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal deleted the disallowance.
On appeal :
It was noted that the disallowance was made on ad hoc basis without there being any material to justify such disallowance. No specific instances of expenditure had been pointed out which may disentitle the assessee's claim for site expenses. The findings on appeal were affirmed by the Tribunal. No error of law or perversity could be shown by the revenue in the aforesaid finding which may warrant interference. [Para 9]
As regards to disallowance telephone and main expenses, the Commissioner (Appeals) had concluded that the audited books of account along with vouchers were produced by the assessee and thereafter the Assessing Officer had failed to show that the said expenditure was not for business purposes. Further, the disallowance was made on ad hoc basis without there being any material which would justify that the amount had been spent for personal use of the directors. The aforesaid findings were confirmed by the Tribunal. [Para 11]
The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have not been shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner. [Para 12]
The appeal is to be dismissed.