P.K. Bansal, A.M. - (1.) THIS appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dt. 15th May, 1995, passed by learned CIT(A) for asst. yr. 1992-93.
(2.) Ground No. 1 relating to the disallowance of Rs. 3,000 included in office expenses on account of infraction of law, is not pressed by learned counsel. The same is, therefore, rejected as not pressed. Ground No. 2 is against the disallowance of Rs. 7,484 under Section 37(4) on ad hoc basis towards guest-house expenses. It is seen that similar ground for asst. yr. 1990-91 was rejected by the Tribunal in ITA No. 2192/92, dt. 12th June, 2000, as not pressed. Similar disallowance was also upheld by the ITAT in ITA No. 944/93 for asst. yr. 1991-92. Respectfully following the aforesaid order, we confirm the impugned disallowance made by the AO and upheld by learned CIT(A), after hearing rival submissions and going through the material on record.
(3.) GROUND No. 3 is against the disallowance of 10 per cent of the conveyance expenses amounting to Rs. 31,032, treating it to be the personal expenses, and ground No. 4 is against sustenance of disallowance of car expenses amounting to Rs. 20,000 on the ground of being personal in nature. Learned authorised representative submitted that the assessee is a private limited company and no disallowance can be made in respect of the conveyance expenses and motor car expenses, as these cannot be regarded to be the personal expenses, in the hands of the company. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions : (i) Perfect Pac. Ltd. v. IAC (1993) 46 TTJ (Del) 438; (ii) Asstt. CIT v. Oswal Spng. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. (2995) 51 TTJ (Chd) 152; (iii) Geetanjali Woollens (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (1994) 50 TTJ (Ahd) 19 : (1994) 50 ITD 558 (Ahd); (iv) ITO v. Ashoka Betelnut Co. (P) Ltd. (1985) 21 TTJ (Mad) 465 (TM); (v) Hero Cycles Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (1999) 63 TTJ (Chd) 665; and (vi) ITO v. Bandi Agencies (1997) 57 TTJ (Jp) 167. He submitted that similar disallowance made in asst. yr. 1991-92 was deleted by the Tribunal vide order dt. 12th June, 2000, (supra). Learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of tax authorities. After hearing the parties to the dispute and perusing the orders of the tax authorities and the material on record, we find that no disallowance can be made in the hands of a private limited company on the ground that the expenses have been partly incurred for personal purposes. Following the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, we delete the disallowance both on account of conveyance expenses and also the motor car expenses.;