The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0124 (Bang-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH

N.V. VASUDEVAN, V.P. & CHANDRA POOJARI, A.M.

Swan Silk (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

I.T.A. Nos. 1595, 1596/Bang/2018

22 December, 2020

Assessee by: S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate

Revenue by: Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

ORDER

Chandra Poojari, A.M.

These 2 appeals by the assessee directed against the different orders of Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2014-15. The assessee raised following grounds of appeal. These appeals are heard together and disposed off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience, as it belongs to the same assessee.

2. ITA No. 1595/Bang/2018

1. The order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in so far as it is against the appellant are opposed to law, equity and weight of evidence, natural justice, facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The appellant denies itself liable to be assessed to total loss of Rs. (-)79,85,450 as against the returned income of Rs. (-)2,06,89,572 on the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the disallowances of Rs. 10,43,680 being a portion of travelling expenditure incurred for the purpose of business, without appreciating that the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of business on the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The learned authorities below fell in error in assuming that the travel expenditure was to be demonstrated by correlating to the orders obtained, which is akin to the revenue sitting in the arm chair of the appellant to ascertain the purpose of every expenditure, on the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,50,291 being business development expenditure, incurred for the purpose of business on the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 44,796 being expenditure on clubs, which were necessary for hosting visiting clients etc., on the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the additions of Rs. 24,26,050 being estimated sale of scrap silk yarn, by accepting the premise the assessing officer that the scrap was also to be valued at the market rates, when (the appellant has detailed the reasons for sale of scrap, thus arriving at the erroneous finding that the additions made were to be sustained, on the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. The authorities below erred on facts in not appreciating that the sale of scrap could not be equated to the sale of regular goods and thus arrived at a perverse finding that the goods were to be valued at the rates as arrived at by the assessing officer on the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. The learned authorities below erred in not appreciating the documents filed before the lower authorities to arrive at the perverse finding that the various scrap yarn sold were of the same quality as new goods, on the basis of conjectures, surmises and presumptions and without establishing the same with cogent material and completely disregarding the material placed on record by the appellant by estimating the cost of the goods, on the facts and circumstances of the case.

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT