IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH ‘A’
Arun Kumar Gupta (HUF)
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
IT Appeal No. 871 (Delhi) of 2012
[Assessment year 2008-09]
OCTOBER 15, 2012
ORDER
A.N. Pahuja, Judicial Member – This appeal filed on 21.02.2012 by the assessee against an order dated 09th January, 2012 of the ld. CIT(A)-XXVIII, New Delhi, raises the following grounds:-
1. “On the facts and in law ld. CIT(A)-XXVIII, was not justified in dismissing appeal of the assessee.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A)-XXVIII, was not justified in confirming addition of Rs. 47,650/- towards estimated interest on advances, made by the Assessing Officer.
3. On the facts and in law ld. CIT(A)-XXVIII, has erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant that the payment made to MCD amounting to Rs. 4,67,950/-, towards registration, conversion and parking charges, was of revenue nature, therefore, allowable u/s 37(1) of the I.T. Act.
4. On the facts and in law ld. CIT(A)-XXVIII, was wrong to confirm the addition made by Assessing Officer for Rs. 4,67,950/-, towards payment made to MCD and considered by him, in the nature of capital expenditure.
5. On the facts and in circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A)-XXVIII, has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 23,404/-, being 1/5th of conveyance expenses, made by the Assessing Officer on estimated basis.
6. On the facts and in circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A)-XXVIII, has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 5,431/-, being 1/5th of vehicle maintenance expenses, made by the Assessing Officer on estimate basis.
7. On the facts and in circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A)-XXVIII, has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 7,639/-, being 1/5th of telephone expenses, made by the Assessing Officer on estimate basis.
8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or forgo any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
2. Adverting first to ground no. 2 in the appeal, facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring income of Rs. 16,14,980/- filed on 12.09.2008 by the assessee, trading in iron and steel works, in the name and style of M/s Shyam Sunder Arun Kumar, was selected for scrutiny with the service of a notice u/s 143 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), issued on 25.09.2009. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (A.O. in short) noticed on perusal of balance sheet of M/s Shyam Sunder Arun Kumar, proprietary concern of the assessee, that the assessee reflected following loan and advances given to the related persons:
