Jayantilal Pravinkumar Co., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT,Cent.Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

CO 183/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0621 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K JINDAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NIDHI SRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 131; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KR. YADAV, J.M. & SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M.) I.T.(SS) A. NO. 427/AH D/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), AHMEDABAD V/S M/S. JAYANTILAL PRAVINKUMAR NI CO., AHMEDABAD, 467, KANDOI, KI KHADKI, SANKDI SHERI, MANEKCHAWK, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T(SS)A NO. 449/AHD/2011 & C.O. NO. 183/AH D/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008- 09) M/S. JAYANTILAL PRAVINKUMAR NI CO., AHMEDABAD, 467, KANDOI, KI KHADKI, SANKDI SHERI, MANEKCHAWK, AHMEDABAD V/S ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAGFJ0095A APPELLANT BY : MS. NIDHI SRIVASTAVA CIT/D R RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.K. JINDAL, A.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 10-06-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 -06-2015 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. IT(SS)A NOS 427 & 449/AHD/2011 & C.O. NO. 183/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2008- 09 2 1. THESE 2 APPEALS, OF WHICH 1 IS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AND THE OTHER IS FILED BY THE REVENUE, ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, AHM EDABAD DATED 28.03.2011FOR A.Y. 2008-09 AND ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FI LED C.O. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. 3. ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN ANGADIA BUSINESS AND TRAVELLING. IN THIS CASE, INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY INVESTIGATION WING OF JAIPUR ON 13.07.2007 FROM POLICE AUTHORITIES OF SHY AMNAGAR POLICE STATION OF JAIPUR THAT THEY HAD DETAINED TWO PERSONS NAMELY SHRI NARAYANLAL AND SHRI SHANKARLAL, THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO WERE CARRYING 6 BAGS. THE STATEMENT OF SHRI NARAYANLAL, SHRI SHANKARLAL & SHRI PREMRAJ PRAJAPATI, PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED U/S. 131 OF TH E ACT WHEREIN IT WAS ADMITTED BY THEM THAT THE BAGS CONTAINING DIFFERENT PARCELS OF JEWELLERY ITEMS OF GOLD, SILVER ETC. BELONGED TO THE BUSINESS CONCERN. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE ELECTRONICALLY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 08-09 ON 22.07.2008, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,47,850/ -. ON PERUSING THE RETURN OF INCOME, A.O NOTICED THAT THE JEWELLERY WORTH RS. 50,68,573/- AND THE CASH OF RS. 2,13,495/- THAT WERE SEIZED DURING SEARCH AC TION UNDER 132 OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN OFFERED TO TAX. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN ANGADIA BUSINESS AND THE JEWELLERY AND C ASH WAS ACCEPTED FROM THE CLIENTS OF JAIPUR FOR DELIVERY AT AHMEDABAD AND IT BELONGED TO THE CLIENTS OF THE FIRM AND NOT TO THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND A CCEPTABLE TO THE A.O MAINLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE CASH AND JEWELLERY WAS STATED TO HAVE BELONGED WERE NOT PRODUCED FOR VERIF ICATION AND THUS ACCORDING TO A.O THEIR IDENTITY WAS NOT ESTABLISHED . A.O THEREFORE ADDED THE IT(SS)A NOS 427 & 449/AHD/2011 & C.O. NO. 183/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2008- 09 3 CASH AND JEWELLERY AGGREGATING TO RS. 52,82,068/- U /S.69A OF THE ACT BY CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE TO BE ITS OWNER. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO A FTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE REMAND REPORT, REP LY OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE REMAND REPORT ETC DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 9 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE.APPELLAN T AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. AS THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FURNISHED IN APPEAL PROCEEDING S ARE CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, THE SAME ARE ADMITTED FO R ADJUDICATION. 9.1 THE UHCONTROVERTED FACTS ARE THAT TWO EMPLOYEES OF THE APPELLANT WERE GOING ALONG- WITH APPELLANT'S PARCELS CONTAINING JEWELLERY AND C ASH BY BUS FROM JAIPUR TO AHMEDABAD ON 14/12/2007. ON SOME INFORMATION WITH THE POLICE, THE JAIPUR POLICE STOPPED THE BUS. AT NEARBY JAIPUR. THE POLICE FOUND THE TWO PERSONS ALO NG-WITH SIX BAGS. THE POLICE ENQUIRED WITH THE EMPLOYEES-AND THE EMPLOYEES STATED THAT TH EY ARE THE EMPLOYEES 'OF THE APPELLANT. THE POLICE UNPACKED ALL THE PARCELS AND LATER ON, CALLED THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. THE DEPARTMENT TOOK ACTION U/S 132 OF T HE ACT. BOTH THE EMPLOYEES AND PARTNER IN THE SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS U/S.131 AND 1 32(4), STATED THAT THEY ARE COURIER AND IMPUGNED PARCELS BELONGS TO THEIR, CUSTOMERS. THE LIST OF THESE PARTIES ALONG WITH THE PARCELS THAT WAS ALSO SEIZED AND MARKED AS AS7 CONTAINING 15 PAGES. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRECEDING, THE APPELLANT FILED SEPARATE REPLIES FOR EACH 73 JEWELLERY SEIZURE AND- 7 CASH SEIZURE. IN THE REPLIES, ADDRESSES OF T HE PARCELS/ CASH SENDERS AND RECEIVERS/STOCK DETAILS ETC. WERE FILED. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVITS OF THE .PARCELS/CASH SENDERS AND RECEIVE RS WERE FILED. THE COPIES OF THESE 80 LETTERS CONTAINING MORE THAN 1500 PAGES WERE ALSO F ILED BEFORE ME. THE APPELLANT ALSO FILED ZEROX OF CASH BOOK DATED 14/12/2007, RECEIVIN G COURIER CHARGES RS. 5300 FOR THESE PARCELS ALONG-WITH THE DETAILS ON PAGE NO. 48 OF AN NEXURE A. 10. THE AO HAS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TH AT THE PERSON WHO CLAIMED THAT THE JEWELLERY BELONGS TO THEM HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED FO R VERIFICATION. THEREFORE, THE IDENTITY OF THESE PERSONS IS NOT VERIFIED. THE ID. AO ALSO R EFERRED THE PROCEEDING U/S 132B(1)(I) AND CONCLUDED THAT NO EXTRA EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND THEREFORE, THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANT IS THE OWNER OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND MADE ADDITION U/S 69 A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT RS .52,82,068/-. 11. I HAVE FOUND THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED ING, AROUND 80 LETTERS(1500 PAGES) EACH FOR JEWELLERY AND CASH SEIZURE WERE FURNISHED. FURTHER, ORIGINAL AFFIDAVITS OF PARCELS/CASH /SENDERS/ RECEIVERS (70 PARTIES) WERE FURNISHED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING. THE APPELLANT HAS DONE WHAT WAS POSSIBL E FOR HIM. BUT THE LD. AO. HAS NOT VERIFIED ANY OF THE EVIDENCE EITHER AT ASSESSMENT S TAGE OR AT REMAND STAGE. THE APPELLANT EXPLAINED REGARDING PARCELS AND. PRODUCED THE LIST OF PARCELS SENDER AND RECEIVER. THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO HAVE THE DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCE EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF THIS JEWELLERY ITEMS / CASH ETC. THE APPELLANT WAS COURIER AND EXPLAINED THROUGH EVIDENCES THAT THESE PARCELS BELONGS TO ITS CUSTOME RS AND HE RECEIVED THESE DURING THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS. THE APPELLANT IS SHOWING CO URIER CHARGES SINCE LAST MORE THAN TEN IT(SS)A NOS 427 & 449/AHD/2011 & C.O. NO. 183/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2008- 09 4 YEARS. THE APPELLANT IS REGISTERED WITH THE SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT AS A COURIER AND DEPARTMENT IS ALSO ASSESSING THE APPELLANT AS A COU RIER. DEPARTMENT IS ACCEPTING THAT THE APPELLANT AS A COURIER BUT NOT AS A JEWELLERY DEALE R OR FINANCER. THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF ACCEPTING THE APPELLANT AS A COURIER AND THERE ARE NO EVIDENCES WHICH ESTABLISHES THAT EITHER THE APPELLANT IS DEALING IN JEWELLERY OR HOL DING THE JEWELLERY AS A SECURITY. FURTHER, AFTER 'GOING THROUGH WHOLE RECORDS OF STATEMENTS OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION WING, THERE IS NOT ANY IOTA EVIDENCE WHICH SHOW THA T THE APPELLANT IS THE OWNER OF THESE GOODS. THE COURIER CHARGES ARE CREDITED IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS AND THE APPELLANT HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE COURIER CHARGES RS. 5300 FOR T HE IMPUGNED PARCELS WERE RECEIVED AND ENTERED IN THE JAIPUR BRANCH CASH BOOK ON 14/12/200 7. HENCE, THE IMPUGNED PARCELS BECOME PART OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS, SURROUNDING CI RCUMSTANCES AND AVAILABLE RECORD, I HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED HIS BURDEN T HAT THE APPELLANT WAS CARRYING THESE PARCELS CONTAINING JEWELLERY AND CASH AS A COURIER. THE PROVISIONS OF S. 69A OF THE ACT WOULD BE APPLICABLE ONLY, IN THE CASE IN WHICH ' TH E ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE OWNER OF...,' IN THE PRESENT CASE, ON THE PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE 'OWNER' OF THE AR TICLES/ PARCELS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF ITS EMPLOYEES. THE APPELLANT WAS THE MERE CUSTODIAN OF THE ARTICLES HANDED OVER TO HIM WHICH WERE BEING TRANSPORTED FROM JAIPU R TO AHMEDABAD. THE NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE APPELLANT IS VERY MUCH AKIN TO THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE POST OFFICE. 13. WHEN IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THESE PARCELS WERE HELD IN THE CAPACITY AS A COURIER, THEN THERE IS NO QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP OF THE APPELLANT OH SEIZED JEWELLERY AND CASH. HENCE SECTION 69A IS NOT APPLICABLE IN. THE APPELLANT'S C ASE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.52,82,068/- IS DELETED. THE ABOVE VIEW IS ALSO S UPPORTED IN THE CASE OF PATEL SOMABHAI KANCHANLAL & CO, VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1997 58 TTJ 206. 14. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FURTHER DIRECTED THAT THE SEIZED GOODS / CASH SHOULD BE RELEASED ONLY AFTER EXAMINING THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IN THE CASE OF ACTUAL, OWNER OF THESE GOODS / CASH. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REV ENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S69A AMOUNTING TO RS.52,82,068/-. 2. LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RESTRICTION THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LUXURY BUS EXPENSES TO RS.3,34,375/-AS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.6,68,750/- 5. ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION U/S. 69A OF RS. 52,82,068/ - BEFORE US, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. A.R. REITERATED THE IT(SS)A NOS 427 & 449/AHD/2011 & C.O. NO. 183/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2008- 09 5 SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE A.O AND LD. CIT(A) AND SUPP ORTED THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION HA S GIVEN A FINDING THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE HAD FIL ED REPLIES FOR EACH OF THE ITEMS OF JEWELLERY AND CASH SEIZED AND HAD ALSO FUR NISHED THE ADDRESSES OF THE SENDERS OF PARCEL AND CASH, THE ORIGINAL AFFIDA VITS OF THE SENDERS WERE ALSO FILED. A.O HAD NOT VERIFIED ANY OF THE EVIDENC E EITHER AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE OR THE REMAND STAGE. LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER G IVEN A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE WAS COURIER AND HAD EXPLAINED THROUGH EVID ENCES THAT THE PARCEL BELONGED TO ITS CUSTOMERS AND THE PARCELS WERE RECE IVED DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER GIVEN A FINDING TH AT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF THE GOOD S. LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS MERE CUSTODIAN OF T HE ARTICLES THAT WERE HANDED OVER TO HIM AND WHICH WAS BEING TRANSPORTED FROM JAIPUR TO AHMEDABAD AND THE PARCELS WERE HELD IN THE CAPACITY OF THE COURIER AND THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP AND SECTION 69A WAS NOT APPLICABLE. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A), WE THEREFORE FIND NO RE ASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 2 ND GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO RESTRICTING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LUXURY BUS EXPENSES. 7. A.O ON VERIFICATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND VO UCHERS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF LUXURY BUS ACTIVITIES WHICH IT(SS)A NOS 427 & 449/AHD/2011 & C.O. NO. 183/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2008- 09 6 INCLUDED EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF DRIVER SALARY, DIES EL EXPENSES, REPAIR EXPENSES, FOOD EXPENSES ETC. HE FURTHER NOTICED THA T 30% OF THE EXPENSES WERE BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS AND WERE NOT SUPPORTED B Y THIRD PARTY EVIDENCES. HE THEREFORE CONSIDERED 25% OF THE EXPEN SES OF RS. 26,75,000/- TO BE UNVERIFIABLE AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED RS. 6 ,68,750/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES TO BE FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES. AGGRIEVE D BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO G RANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 19. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELL ANT AND I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE XEROX COPY OF DAYBOOK. I FIND THAT THERE IS ONLY RS.500 G IVEN PER DAY TO DRIVER FOR LODGING AND EXCEPT THIS RS.500/-, THERE IS NO ANY EXPENDITURE R ELATES TO DRIVER'S SALARY, FOOD EXPENSES ETC. WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL VEHICLE EXPENDI TURE OF RS.89,19,141/-. HOWEVER, I FIND THAT SOME EXPENSES LIKE 'POLICE EXPENSES' ETC. HAVE ALSO BEEN DEBITED IN THE ACCOUNTS WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT ALLOWABLE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY, THE 50% OF THE ADDITION OF RS.6,68,750/-IS SUSTAINED AND BALANCE 5 0% ADDITION IS DELETED. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REV ENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE A.O AND LD. CIT(A) AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSI ONS AND THE DOCUMENTS HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT EXCEPT OF RS. 500 PER DAY WHIC H WAS GIVEN TO DRIVER FOR LODGING, THERE WAS NO FOOD EXPENDITURE RELATING TO DRIVER SALARY, FOOD EXPENSES ETC WHICH WAS INCLUDED UNDER THE TOTAL VEH ICLE EXPENDITURE. HE AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, DELETE D 50% OF THE ADDITION. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE IT(SS)A NOS 427 & 449/AHD/2011 & C.O. NO. 183/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2008- 09 7 FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). WE THEREFORE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. C.O NO. 183/AHD/2011 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 12. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE C.O READS AS UNDER:- 1.THE HON'BLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING ON THE FIRST GROUND OF THE APPELLANT RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). 1.1 IN THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ID, A. O. HAS ERRED IN PASSING ORDER U/S 153B L(B) R.W.S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT 1961.THE LD. A O SHOULD PASS THE ORDER U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3). 1.2 1.2 THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ILLEGAL AS THE AC TION U/S 132 OF THE I T ACT 1961 OF THE INVESTIGATION WING IS ILLEGAL.THE SEARCH ACTION WAS TAKEN U/S 132 WHEN THE SEARCH MATERIAL JEWELLARY AND CASH WAS ALREADY LYING UNDER THE CUSTODY OF POLICE THANA .NO SEARCH WARRANT CAN BE ISSUED IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES . 1.3 1.3 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BEIN G THE PARCELS OF JEWELLERY OF RS. 50,68,573/- AND V.P.P CASH RS.2,13,495/- ARE STOCK OF THE APPELLANT HENCE SEIZURE MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT IS ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO L AW. THE AO'S ORDER IS ILLEGAL HENCE IT BE HELD NOW AND ORDER PASSED BE CANCELLED. 2.THE HON'BLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LE VY OF INTEREST UNDER S. 234A , 234B/234C OF THE ACT. THE LEVY OF INTEREST BE HELD AS INCORRECT AND SAME BE DELETED NOW. 3. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CIT(A) IS BAD IN LA W, CONTRARY TO LEGAL PRONOUNCEMENTS TO THE EXTENT HE CONFIRMED THE ACTIO N OF THE AO. THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES CONFIRMED BY HIM ARE UNWARR ANTED AND SAME BE DELETED NOW. 13. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE C.O IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). CONSIDER ING THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF LD. A.R. THE C.O OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. NOW WE TAKE UP IT(SS)A NO. 449/AHD/2011 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) 14. THE GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- IT(SS)A NOS 427 & 449/AHD/2011 & C.O. NO. 183/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2008- 09 8 1. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,10,000 OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES TREATED AS INCURRE D FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES. 2. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N CONFIRMING RS.3,34,375/- BEING 50% OF THE ADDITION OF DISALLOWANCE OF LUXURY BUS E XPENSES RS.6,68,750/-OUT OF TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS.89,19,141/-. LD. CIT. (APPEAL) FURTH ER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN IGNORING AND ARBITRARILY BRUSHING ASIDE THE EVIDENC E OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT ANY COGENT AND RATIONAL REGION. THIS ACTION OF THE CIT. (APPEAL) IS ARBITRARY, IRRATIONAL AND ENTIRELY BASED ON CONJECTURE AND SURMISES. WITH OUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE THE A.O. HAS ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE EXPENSES RS 26,75,000/- ON DRIVER SALARY, FOOD EXP. ETC. GROUND NO. 1 IS WITH RESPECT TO CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF RS. 1,10,000/-. 15. A.O ON PERUSING THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED VARIOUS EXPENSES LIKE KHEM EXPENSES, VEHICL E EXPENSES, OFFICE EXPENSES ETC. WHICH WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY BILLS OR VOUCHERS AND WERE CLAIMED ON THE BASIS OF SELF MADE VOUCHERS. A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF EXPENSES, THE POSSIBILITY OF EXPENSES BEING INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OTHERWISE THAN BUSINESS, E SPECIALLY FOR PARTNERS PERSONAL USE, CANNOT BE RULED OUT. HE ACCORDINGLY C ONSIDERED EXPENSE OF RS. 1,10,000/- FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSE AND ADDED TO TH E INCOME. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFO RE LD. CIT(A). CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE GROUND BY NOTING THAT THE GROUND WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE LD. CIT(A). AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), A SSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 16. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE OBSERVATIONS OF LD. CIT(A) WITH RESPECT TO NOT PRES SING THE GROUND BEFORE IT(SS)A NOS 427 & 449/AHD/2011 & C.O. NO. 183/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2008- 09 9 HIM. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE FIND NO REA SON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GROUND OF ASSESSE E IS DISMISSED. 17. GROUND NO. 2 IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF LUX URY BUS EXPENSES. WE FIND GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS INTERCONNEC TED WITH GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY REVENUE IN IT(SS)A NO. 427/AHD/2011. WE W HILE DECIDING GROUND NO. 2 IN REVENUES APPEAL HEREINABOVE HAVE D ISMISSED THE GROUND OF REVENUE AND THEREFORE FOR SIMILAR REASONS STATED HE REINABOVE THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED 19. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE AS WELL A S ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AND C.O OF ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 25 - 06 - 2015. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KR. YADAV) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHM EDABAD