Shubham Goldiee Masale(P) Ltd., Kanpur V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur

CO 51/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8965 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: AKSHAY KUMAR GUPTA
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences; Commercial expediency

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.211/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, VS. M/S. SHUB HAM GOLDIEE MASALA KANPUR. PVT. LTD., 51/40, NAYA GANJ, KANPUR. (PAN: AAFCS0265 H). C.O. NO.51/LKW/2012 (ITA NO.211/LKW/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 M/S. SHUBHAM GOLDIEE MASALA VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, PVT. LTD. KANPUR. 51/40, NAYA GANJ, (PAN: AAFCS0265 H). (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) REVENUE BY : SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AKSHAY KUMAR GUPTA, FCA DATE OF HEARING : 18.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.09.2013 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTNT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY T HE ASSESSEE EMANATE OUT OF ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I DATED 24.01.2012 A ND PERTAIN TO A.Y. 2005-06. 2 ITA NO.211/LKW/2012 & C.O. NO.51/LKW/2012 A.Y. 2005-06 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN REVENUES APPEAL READ AS UNDER :- 1) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,50,000/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE GP OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS GONE DOWN AS COMPARED TO T HE IMMEDIATE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE CONSUMPTION OF THE PACKING MA TERIAL HAS GONE UP DISPROPORTIONATELY TO THE INCREASE IN THE TOTAL SALES. 2) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,00,000/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE YEAR CONSIDERATION, THE TOTAL SALES OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE INCREASED ONLY TO RS.76,54,24,469/- AS AGAINST THE TOTAL SALES OF RS. 73,66,90,017/-. THIS SHOWS AN INCREASE IN TOTAL SALES ONLY OF RS.2,87,34 ,452/- WHICH IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE COMES TO 3.90%. THIS INCREASE IN THE TOTAL SALES DOES NOT CALL FOR 100% INCREASE IN THE REMUNERATION OF THE DIRECTORS WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN INCREASED DISPROPORTIONATELY IN THE IMMEDIATE PREVIOUS YEAR. FURTHER, THE BRAND PRESEN CE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT COME UP IN ONE SINGLE YEAR BUT IT I S A RECOGNIZED COMPANY SINCE LONG AND THERE IS NO REASON FOR SUCH INCREASE IN THE REMUNERATION TO THE DIRECTORS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO GIVE ANY REASON O R BASIS OR SUCH DISPROPORTIONATE INCREASE IN THE REMUNERATION OF TH E DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN ENHANCED DISPROPORTIONATELY IN THE IMMEDIATE PREVIOUS YEAR. NEITHER ANY MIRACULOUS INCREASE IN THE TOTAL SALES NOR ANY MIRA CULOUS INCREASE IN THE G.P. RATE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED IN THE PREVIOUS YEA R WHICH COULD HAVE INVITED SUCH AN INCREASE IN THE REMUNERATION OF THE DIRECTORS. 3) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.32,009/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FA CT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ITSELF CONCEDED THAT THE EXCLUSIVE BUSI NESS USER OF THE PHONES CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED WITH ANY KIND OF SUP PORTING EVIDENCE AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE WAS ALSO E XAMINED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 2004-05. 4) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.79,608/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FA CT THAT THE ISSUE WAS EXAMINED IN THE BACK GROUND OF THE FACTS AVAILA BLE ON THE RECORD AS ALSO IN THE LIGHT OF SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY. IT 3 ITA NO.211/LKW/2012 & C.O. NO.51/LKW/2012 A.Y. 2005-06 WAS UNDISPUTED THAT THE NON BUSINESS USER/PERSONAL USER OF THE VEHICLE CANNOT ALTOGETHER BE RULED OUT. THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY ALSO HAD ADMITTED THAT FACT THAT NO LOG BOOK EVIDENCING THE DAY TO DAY USER OF THE VEHICLE WAS KEPT/MAINTAINED. 5) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.79,608/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE UNDER HEAD OF TRAVELLING & CONVEYANCE EXPENSES WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY INCRE ASED AS COMPARED TO WHAT WAS CLAIMED IN THE JUST IMMEDIATELY PRECEDI NG ACCOUNTING PERIOD AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COULD NOT SUBS TANTIATE ITS SUBMISSION WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. 6) THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW, THEREFORE, DESERVES TO BE QUASHED A ND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 7) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OR MODIFY ANY EXISTING GROUNDS AS AND WHEN THE SITUATI ON ARISES DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS APPEAL. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER :- 1) THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.2,50,000/- OUT OF PACKIN G MATERIAL STOCK. 2) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.48,000/- OUT OF TELEPHON E EXPENSES. 3) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.60,000/- OUT OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES. 4. APROPOS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PACKING MATERIAL EXPENSES. 4 ITA NO.211/LKW/2012 & C.O. NO.51/LKW/2012 A.Y. 2005-06 5. IN THIS CASE THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE PACKING MATERIAL EXPENSES DURING THE YEAR INCREASED TO RS.12,89,25,185/- AS COMPARED TO RS.10,23,76,132/- IN EARLIER YEAR. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE LIST OF OPENING S TOCK, CLOSING STOCK AND DETAILS OF PURCHASES DURING THE YEAR. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT MAINTAIN THE QUANTITATIVE RECORDS OF DAILY CONSUMPTION AND CLOSING STOCK AND THE CLOSING STOCK WAS ARRIVED ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL PHYSICAL VERIFICATION ON THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR. THE A.O. THUS CONCLUDED THAT THE CLOSING STOCK OF PACKING MATERIA L CANNOT BE VERIFIED AND HE MADE AN ADHOC ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- TO THE VALU E OF CLOSING MATERIAL STOCK AND THUS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DEALING IN LARGE NUMBER OF ITEMS OF SPICES AND OTHER MATERI ALS WHICH WERE PACKED IN DIFFERENT SIZE OF PACKING. HENCE, THE LIST OF PACK ING MATERIAL USED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY LARGE AND INDIVIDUALLY EACH ITEM VALUE WAS MINUSCULE. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS NOT PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE RECORD OF DAILY CONSUMPTION AND STOCK. HENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IT WAS THE CONSISTENT PRACTICE THAT C LOSING STOCK WAS PHYSICALLY TAKEN AND VALUED FOR DERIVING THE INCOME FOR THE YEAR. T HE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE QUANTITY OF OVERALL PRODUCTION HAS INCREAS ED BY 17% DURING THE YEAR AND THE CONSUMPTION OF PACKING MATERIAL HAD INCREASED B Y MORE THAN 21%. THE LD. 5 ITA NO.211/LKW/2012 & C.O. NO.51/LKW/2012 A.Y. 2005-06 CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THIS RISE IS NOT COMMENSURATE WITH THE RISE IN PRODUCTION. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT LUMP-SUM DISALLOWANCE OF R S.2.5 LACS WOULD MEET THE END OF JUSTICE. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE REVEN UE HAS FILED APPEAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION BEFORE US. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE LD. COUNSEL AND PERUSED T HE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS DEALING IN LARGE NUMBER OF ITEMS OF SPICES AND OTHER MATERIALS WHICH ARE PACKED IN DIFFERENT SIZE OF PAC KING. HENCE THE LIST OF PACKING MATERIAL USED BY THE ASSESSEE IS VERY LARGE AND IND IVIDUALLY EACH ITEM VALUE IS MINUSCULE. HENCE, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL THAT IT IS NOT PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN RECORD OF DAIL Y CONSUMPTION OF STOCK. IT HAS BEEN CONSISTENT PRACTICE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE C LOSING STOCK IS PHYSICALLY TAKEN AND VALUED FOR DERIVING THE INCOME FOR THE YEAR. T HIS PRACTICE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN EARLIER YEARS AND IT WAS NOT OBJECTED BY THE REVENU E. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.2.5 LAKHS. THIS HAS BEEN DONE ON THE GROUND THAT QUANTITY OF OVERALL PRODUCTION HAS BEEN INCREASED BY 17% DURING THE YEAR BUT THE CONSUMPTION OF PACKING MATERIAL HAD IN CREASED BY MORE THAN 21%. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE VARIATION AND THE INCREA SE NOTED IN THIS CASE IS NOT ABNORMAL. THERE IS NO RULE THAT WHEN THERE IS INCR EASE IN OVERALL PRODUCTION, INCREASE IN PACKING MATERIAL CONSUMPTION HAVE TO FO LLOW A MATHEMATICAL PRECISION. 6 ITA NO.211/LKW/2012 & C.O. NO.51/LKW/2012 A.Y. 2005-06 HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ADDITION SUST AINED IN THIS REGARD IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT ANY SHORTCOMI NG HAS BEEN NOTED IN THE VOUCHERS IN THIS REGARD. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE FIN D THAT NO ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE IS WARRANTED. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, REVENUES APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED AND ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION ON THIS ISSUE IS ALL OWED. 8. APROPOS ADDITION OF RS.9,00,000/- IN RESPECT OF DIRECTORS REMUNERATION. 9. ON THIS ISSUE THE A.O. NOTICED THAT DURING THE Y EAR THERE IS INCREASE IN REMUNERATION TO DIRECTORS SHRI SOM PRAKASH GOENKA A ND SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA FROM RS.50000/- PER MONTH TO RS.100000/- PER MONTH W.E.F. APRIL, 2004. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT TOTAL SALE DURING THE YEAR WAS RS .76.54 CRORES AS AGAINST RS.73.67 CRORES IN THE EARLIER YEAR WHICH AMOUNTED TO INCREASE OF 3.90% ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. HELD THAT THE INCREASE IN REM UNERATION IS WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE CAUSE. HE HIMSELF DETERMINED THE REMUNE RATION OF THE TWO DIRECTORS AT RS.50000 PER MONTH FROM 01.04.2004 TO 30.09.2004 AN D RS.75000/- PER MONTH FROM 01.10.2004 TO 31.03.2005. THE DISALLOWANCE OF TOTAL REMUNERATION AMOUNTED TO RS.9,00,000/-. 7 ITA NO.211/LKW/2012 & C.O. NO.51/LKW/2012 A.Y. 2005-06 10. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED T HE ADDITION HOLDING THAT REMUNERATION PAID WAS REASONABLE. AGAINST THE ABOV E ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE LD. COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE BOTH THE DIRECTORS SHRI SOM PRAKASH GOENK A AND SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA ARE WHOLE TIME PROMOTER DIRECTORS WHO HAVE ES TABLISHED AND RUN THE BUSINESS FOR 30 TO 35 YEARS. THE TURNOVER OF THE C OMPANY IS RS.76 CRORES AND THE PROFIT BEFORE REMUNERATION TO DIRECTORS IS RS.2.92 CRORES. THE TOTAL REMUNERATION TO 4 WHOLE TIME DIRECTORS IS RS.27,96,000/- FOR THE WH OLE YEAR WHICH IS LESS THAN1% OF SALES AND 10% OF PROFITS. HENCE, WE AGREE WITH THE LD. CIT(A)S OBSERVATION THAT REMUNERATION OF RS.1 LAC PER MONTH WITHOUT FURTHER PERQUISITES TO THE WHOLE TIME DIRECTORS WITH SUCH A LONG EXPERIENCE IN SAME BUSIN ESS DOES NOT SEEMS EXORBITANT OR HIGHLY UNREASONABLE. THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE A.O. IN THIS REGARD THAT THE REMUNERATION PAID IS EXCESSIVE IN COMPARISON TO FAI R MARKET VALUE OF SERVICES DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE FURTHER NOTE T HAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE DIRECTORS REMUNERATION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANY LAW IN THIS REGARD. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, TH ERE IS NO JUSTICE FOR THE A.O. TO SIT INTO THE SHOE OF THE BUSINESSMAN AND DECIDE WHAT SH OULD BE THE DIRECTORS REMUNERATION. LAW IS WELL SETTLED IN THIS REGARD T HAT COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY HAS TO 8 ITA NO.211/LKW/2012 & C.O. NO.51/LKW/2012 A.Y. 2005-06 BE SEEN FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE BUSINESS MAN AND NOT THAT WHAT REVENUE WANTS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. HENCE, REVENUES APPEAL ON THIS I SSUE STANDS DISMISSED. 12. APROPOS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF POSTAGE AND TELE PHONE EXPENSES. 13. ON THIS ISSUE THE A.O. MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.80,009/- @ 10% OUT OF POSTAGE AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES. THIS ADDITION W AS MADE ON THE GROUND THAT PROPER EVIDENCE FOR BUSINESS USE OF THE TELEPHONE A ND MOBILE IN THIS REGARD HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANYS ACCOUNTS ARE REGULARLY AUDITED AND EXPENS ES ARE VOUCHED. THERE HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE TURNOVER OF THE CO MPANY. HENCE, THE INCREASE IN TELEPHONE AND POSTAGE EXPENSES ARE NOT UNUSUAL. FU RTHERMORE, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT NO SPECIFIC DEFICIENCY WAS POINTED OUT REGARDI NG PERSONAL USE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT IT WAS NOT DENIE D THAT EXPENSES INCLUDE PHONE BILLS INSTALLED AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE DIRECTORS, THE PERSONAL USE IS EVIDENT. HENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.4 ,000/- PER MONTH AND ACCORDINGLY SUSTAINED ADDITION OF RS.48,000/-. AGAINST THE ABO VE ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION. 9 ITA NO.211/LKW/2012 & C.O. NO.51/LKW/2012 A.Y. 2005-06 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE LD. COUNSELS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE, THE A.O. HAS MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF 10% AMOUNTING TO RS.80,009/- OUT OF POSTAGE AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES. THIS HAS BEEN DONE ON THE GROUND THAT PERSONAL USE IN THIS CASE CANNOT BE RUL ED OUT. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE IS A COMPANY AND IT HAS N OT BEEN PROVED THAT THERE HAS BEEN ANY PERSONAL USE OF THE TELEPHONE. THE TURNOV ER OF THE COMPANY HAS INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY. HENCE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT POSTAGE AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED. FURTHER, IT HAS NOT BE EN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THERE HAS BEEN ANY SPECIFIC DEFICIENCY IN THE VOUCHERS MAINTA INED IN THIS REGARD. NO INSTANCE OF PERSONAL USE HAS BEEN POINTED OUT. UND ER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ANY ADDITION IN THIS REGARD IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS I SSUE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, REVENUES APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED AND ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION ON THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED . 15. APROPOS THE ISSUE OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF VEH ICLE EXPENSES. 16. ON THIS ISSUE THE A.O. NOTED THAT THE EXPENSES PERTAINING TO RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE OF VEHICLES AMOUNTED TO RS.7,94,129/- W HICH WERE STATED TO BE PERTAINING TO THE COST OF PETROL/DIESEL CONSUMED IN THE RUNNING OF THE VEHICLES AND 10 ITA NO.211/LKW/2012 & C.O. NO.51/LKW/2012 A.Y. 2005-06 ALSO IN RESPECT OF REPAIRS. THE A.O. IN THIS REGAR D OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COULD NOT CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATE THE EXCL USIVE BUSINESS USER OF THE VEHICLES. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT LOG BOOKS WERE NO T MAINTAINED IN THIS REGARD. HENCE, THE A.O. MADE DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OUT OF THE EXPENSES OF RS.7,94,129/- CLAIMED IN THIS REGARD AND THUS MADE ADDITION OF RS .79,413/-. FOR THE SAME REASON, THE A.O. DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION AT THE SAME RATE A ND THE SAME CAME TO RS.60,195/-. 17. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ADDITION OF RS.5,000/- PER MONTH FOR PERSONAL USE OF THE VEH ICLE IN THIS REGARD WAS REASONABLE INCLUDING DEPRECIATION OF THE VEHICLES. HENCE, HE RESTRICTED THE ADDITION IN THIS REGARD TO RS.60,000/-. 18. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION. 19. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE ADDITION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED ON ACCOUNT OF VEHICLE RUNNING AND REPAIR EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED LOG BOOKS IN THIS REGARD AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT THERE WAS NO 11 ITA NO.211/LKW/2012 & C.O. NO.51/LKW/2012 A.Y. 2005-06 PERSONAL USE OF THE VEHICLES. WE FIND THAT THE CON CLUSIONS DRAWN IN THIS REGARD ARE NOT PRACTICAL, AS IT IS NOT PRACTICAL TO MAINTAIN E LABORATE VEHICLE LOG BOOK. IT HAS NOT BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS ANY SPECIFIC INSTANC E OF PERSONAL USE OF THE VEHICLE. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THERE IS ANY SPECIFIC SHORT COMING IN THE VOUCHERS IN THIS REGARD. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, IN OUR CONSIDE RED OPINION, THE ADDITION IN THIS READ ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASID E THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 20. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DIS MISSED AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.09.2013) SD/- SD/- (S.K. YADAV) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 20.09.2013 PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) 4. CIT 5. D.R. ASSISTANT REGISTER