IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH SMC KOLKATA Before Shri S.S, Godara, Judicial Member ITA No.671/Kol/2019 Assessment Year:2015-16 Cannon Exports Income Tax Officer Neelkamal Apartment, 41, V/s . Ward-31(3), 10B, Elgin Road, Ground Floor, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700 020 4 t h Floor, [PAN No.AACFC 2790 D] Kolkata-700 071 Appellant .. /Respondent By Appellant Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate By Respondent Shri Raja Sengupta, JCIT-SR-DR Date of Hearing 29-08-2019 Date of Pronouncement 30-08-2019 ORDER This assessee s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata s order dated 21.01.2019 passed in case No.231/CIT(A)-9/Wd-31(3)/2017-18/Kol, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961; in short Act . Heard both parties. Case file perused. 2. I notice at outset that assessee s sole substantive grievance seeks to revive both lower authorities action disallowing its sale promotion expense of 3,38,219/- in curse of assessment as affirmed in lower appellate proceedings. CIT(A) s detailed discussion to this effect reads as under:- /Decision: I have gone through assessment order, grounds of appeal and submissions made on behalf of appellant. ITA No.671/Kol/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Cannon Exports vs. ITO Wd-31(3), Kol. Page 2 After going through reasons for delay in filing appeal, delay in filing of appeal is condoned. As per submissions made, no adjudication is required on Grounds Nos. 1,2,5,6 and 7. Ground 3 & 4 relates to disallowances made out of sales promotion expenses. As per assessment order, assessee debited Rs.36,71,472 towards payment of sales promotion expenses, out of which Rs.3,38,219 was claimed under sub- head other expenses regarding sales promotion. AO stated in assessment order that assessee produced some self-made bills to substantiate expenses and same were not found acceptable and assessee didn t furnish any further argument. During appellate proceedings, appellant attached certain bills with submissions. It has not been explained as to why complete bills and vouchers were not produced before AO. perusal of bills shows that these are in nature of personal expenses. From bill stating to be relating to Gold coins, it is seen that no such details as to number of Gold coins mentioned therein, instead it has been stated to be Gold Articles. From bills shown as sales incentive dated 15/10/2014 for Rs.2827 and Rs.14460, it is seen that these are comprising of various vouchers which are in nature of personal expenses. As regards payment of Rs.55000 made, it has been stated to be paid for installation to one Dr. Ava Dihingia for machine sold for Rs.2,60,000. No detail as regards identity, address, phone no. work experience of Dr. Ava Dihingia furnished and thus same is not verifiable. Neither gross profit to that extent has been shown. appellant is claiming Rs.55000 as paid for installation etc. on machine costing Rs.2,60,000 without any supporting evidence. From perusal of details of expenses attached, it is seen that appellant has not been able to justify that those are not in nature of personal expenses of appellant and that same are wholly and exclusively related to business. These grounds of appeal are dismissed. 3. This assessee admittedly treats in books. There is further no dispute that it had filed all necessary documentary evidence for purpose of raising impugned sales promotion claim. Revenue s case is that it could not file relevant particulars that for what purpose, it had incurred impugned expenditure on gold articles. My attention is further invited to CIT(A) s findings to this effect. I notice in this backdrop that neither assessee has been able to prove impugned expenditure nor its nexus with business purposes in enterity nor Revenue could justify its stand of disallowing amount in issue on technical grounds. I therefore ITA No.671/Kol/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Cannon Exports vs. ITO Wd-31(3), Kol. Page 3 deem it appropriate to restrict impugned issue of 3,38,219/- to extent of 38,219/- only with rider that same shall not be treated as precedent in any other case or assessment year; as case may be. 4. This assessee s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in open court on 30/08/2019 Sd/- (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member Kolkata, Dkp/Sr.PS - 30/08/2019 / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. /Appellant-Cannon Exports Neelkamal Apartment, 41,Elgin Road Ground Floor, Kolkta-20 2. /Respondent-ITO Wd-31(3), 10B, Middleton Row, 4 Floor, Kolakta-71 th 3. Concerned CIT 4. 'CIT (A) 5. (DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. Guard file. By order True Copy Cannon Exports v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-31(3), Kolkata