Case Law Details
ITO Vs D. D. & Company (ITAT Delhi)
It is not in dispute that the liquor license has been issued in the name of one Mr. Harish Kumar who is only a sales man, whose income is below taxable. As per remand report the 26AS from of past 5 years show that no TCS has been collected against the PAN nor any TDS made and no refund was issued to Mr. Harish Kumar. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the indemnity bond of Mr. Harish to ensure that no such claim of expenditure incurred by him for licensee fee is made by him, but no such indemnity has not been given during the appellate proceedings in spite of the direction. Even in the absence of the indemnity, the Ld. CIT(A) has proceeded to delete the addition made by the A.O. It is also in dispute that the assessee is not the licensee to do the liquor business directly, the assessee has set up his staff who is eligible for the liquor license under reserve quota. But the entire business has been run by the assessee by using his staff Mr. Harish who is a dummy bidder. Since the said model of business itself is in violation of licenses issued by the Excise Department, the license fee paid by the assessee who is not the license holder cannot be treated as eligible expenses.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal is filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2014-15 against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Rohtak, dated 24.10.2019.
2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
