Shri Prabhakar Vasudeo Modak, V. ACIT, Range-8,

ITA 1016/PUN/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3401 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHAY DAMLE
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Bad and doubtful debts; Procedural lapse; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR (JM) AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO (AM) ITA NO. 1016/PN/2007 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2003-04) SHRI PRABHAKAR VASUDEO MODAK (PROP. SHARDA INDUSTRIES) W- 199, S BLOCK, MIDC, BHOSARI PUNE 411026 PAN : AAZPM6524E .. APPELLANT V. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -8, PUNE . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI ABHAY AVCHAT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. ABHAY DAMLE ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO AM THIS IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)- III, PUNE, DATED 23.03.2007 FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04. AT THE OUTSET, ASSESSEES COUNSEL SUBMITTED THERE IS A DELAY OF 35 DAYS TO FILE THIS APPEAL AND ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPE AL WHICH READS AS UNDER : 1. FOR A.Y. 2003-04, THE ASSESEE FILED THE RETURN ON 30.11.2003 RETURNING AN INCOME OF RS.1,44,08,200/-. THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1 ,61,33,475/-, AFTER MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES. 2. AN APPEAL WAS MADE TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PUNE WHERE CERTAIN RELIEF HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASS ESSEE. HOWEVER, THERE ARE STILL CERTAIN ADDITIONS. IN ORDER TO AGI TATE AGAINST THESE ISSUES, THE ASSESSEE IS DESIROUS OF FILING THE APPE AL BEFORE THE ITAT, PUNE. 3. THE APPEAL IS TO BE FILED WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM TH E DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE APPELLATE ORDER I.E. 27 TH APRIL, 2007. THE APPEAL WAS TO BE FILED ON 25 TH JUNE, 2007. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO FILE IT IN THE DUE TIME, WHICH HAS RESULTED IN A DELAY OF ABOUT A MONTH. 4. WE HAD PLACED THE FILE CONTAINING THE RELEVANT D OCUMENTS FOR FILING THE APPEAL IN OUR CONSULTANTS OFFICE. THE OFFICE BEIN G UNDER RENOVATION, THE FILE WAS MISPLACED. BUT AS SOON AS THE FILE WA S LOCATED, THE RELEVANT PROCEDURE FOR FILING THE RETURN HAS BEEN C ARRIED OUT. 5. AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ALL THE ABOVE HAPPENINGS, TH E APPEAL IS BEING FILED IN THE LAST WEEK OF JULY, 2007. A FAIR CHANC E NEEDS TO BE AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS, THEREFORE TO REQUEST YOU R HONOUR TO CONDONE THE PROCEDURAL LAPSE IN FILING OF THE APPEAL LATE. ITA NO 1016/PN/2007 SHRI PRBABHAKAR VASUDEO MODAK., A.Y.2002-03 PAGE OF 6 2 6. IT WILL BE APPRECIATED THAT THE DELAY IS FOR BON A FIDE REASONS AND NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY DILIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE AS SESSEE. 7. IN VIEW OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE MOS T RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS YOUR HONOUR TO CONDONE DELAY IN SUBMISSION OF APPEAL. THIS WILL RESULT IN MEETING THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. ASSESEE HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DT. 14 DEC 2009 WHEREIN VIDE SUB-PARA 3, IT WAS AFFIRMED AS UNDER : 3. I HAD PLACED THE FILE CONTAINING THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FOR FILING THE APPEAL IN MY CONSULTANTS OFFICE. THE OFFICE BEING UNDER RENOVATION, THE FILE WAS MISPLACED. BUT AS SOON AS THE FILE WAS LOCATED , THE RELEVANT PROCEDURE FOR FILING THE RETURN WAS CARRIED OUT. THIS RESULTE D IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BELATEDLY BY THIRTY FIVE DAYS. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE REASONINGS GIVEN BY THE ASS ESSEE IN ITS APPLICATION AS WELL AS THE ABOVE AFFIRMATION, WE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY OF 35 DAYS AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 2. GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER : 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE III, PUNE HAS ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THE LEARNED ADDL. CIT, RANGE -8, PUNE HAS ERRED IN ASSESSING AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS)-III, PUNE HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING INCOME AT RS.1,61,33,475/- IN PLACE OF R ETURNED INCOME OF RS.1,44,08,200/- 3. THE LEARNED ADDL. CIT, RANGE 8, PUNE HAS ERRED IN MAKING AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS)-III, PUNE HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,36,291/- UNDER THE PRETEXT OF BEING THE CLAIM FOR BAD DEBTS. 4. THE LEARNED ADDL. CIT, RANGE 8, PUNE HAS ERRED IN MAKING AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS)-III, PUNE HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE : I) 10% OF EXPENSES VIZ TRAVELING, CONVEYANCE, OFFIC E AND MISCELLANEOUS, VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND TELEPHONE UN DER THE PRETEXT THAT THE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSE S. II) 10% OF THE DEPRECIATION ON CAR AMOUNTING TO RS .56,162/- STATING THAT IT IS UNDER THE PRETEXT OF THE EXPENDI TURE BEING OF PERSONAL NATURE. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN IN DIVIDUAL AND PROPRIETOR OF A BUSINESS ENTITY RUNNING IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF SH ARDA INDUSTRIES. ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF AUTOMOBILE PARTS. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME TAX ON 30/11/2003 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME RS. 144,08,200/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) ON 9/3/2004. THE RETURN IS ACCOMPANIED WITH AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.3CB & 3CD ALONGWITH THE AUD ITED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS AND ITS ENCLOSURES. THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AS PER NORMS FIXED BY CBDT, AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S. 143(2)(II) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED ON 24/11/2004. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED SHRI D.R. KULKARNI, I.T.P. AND ITA NO 1016/PN/2007 SHRI PRBABHAKAR VASUDEO MODAK., A.Y.2002-03 PAGE OF 6 3 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O FROM TIME TO TIME AND EXPLAINED THE RETURN OF INCOME. HE ALSO F ILED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR WHICH WERE VERIFIED AND PLACED ON RECORD. THE A.O. FINA LLY ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,61,33,475/- AND THEREBY MADE ADDITION OF THE D IFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIGURES OF DECLARED AND ASSESSED INCOME , I.E. RS.17,25,275/- . AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE ADDITIONS, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) , WHO GAVE PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE CIT( A) ON THE ISSUES CONFIRMED BY HIM, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE US WITH T HE ABOVE-REFERRED APPEAL. 4. GROUND-WISE ADJUDICATION IS AS FOLLOWS. GROUN DS 1 & 2 ARE GENERAL AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY ADJUDICATION, HENCE THE SAME ARE DISMISSED . 5. GROUND 3 RELATES TO BAD DEBTS. THE RELEVANT FAC TS AND REASONS FOR ADDITIONS ARE GIVEN IN PARA 4.5 & 4.6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW : 4.5 FROM THE FACTS AS EMERGING ABOVE, FOLLOWING PO INTS ARE CLEAR : 1. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BAD DEBT IN HIS P & L A/C TO THE TUNE OF RS. 7,36,291.08/- IN THE YEAR UNDER QUESTION. 2. THAT EVEN AFTER SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR THE DETA ILS OF SUCH BAD DEBTS AS TO FROM WHAT PERIOD THIS DEBT IS OUTSTANDING AND IN WHICH YEAR THE SAME WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION, THE ASESSEE HAS NO BEEN ABLE TO GIVE SPECIFIC REPLY TO THIS QUERY AND HAS ONLY MENTIONED THAT THE CORRESPO NDING SALES HAVE BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE YEAR OF THEIR SALE. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER TRIED TO MAKE OUT A CAS E THAT THESE ARE THE ACCUMULATION OF CERTAIN BALANCES OVER A PERIOD OF T IME ARISING OUT OF NON RECONCILIATION OF ACCOUNTS WITH THEIR PARTIES AND T HAT AFTER RECONCILIATION DURING THIS YEAR THEY HAVE FOUND THESE AMOUNTS TO B E NON RECONCILABLE AND HENCE, HAS CLAIMED AS BAD DEBT. FROM THE REPLY REC EIVED FROM TATA MOTORS, LUCKNOW, THE BRIEF OF WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE FOREGOING PARAS, ASSESSEES THIS CONTENTION IS FOUND TO BE WITHOUT A NY BASIS. IN THE LETTER, THE TATA MOTORS LTD. HAS GIVEN THE FIGURE OF BALANCES A PPEARING IN THE LAST DATES OF 3 FINANCIAL YEARS INCLUDING THE BALANCES ON THE CLOSING DAYS OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER QUESTION AND HAVE FURTHER STATED THAT T HESE AMOUNT WERE DUE TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT THEY HAD NOT BECOME DUE FOR PAYMENT AS PER THE TERMS OF PURCHASE ORDER AND THE MOMENT T HESE AMOUNTS BECOME PAYABLE TO THE ASSESSEE THEY WERE PAID SUBSEQUENTLY . 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO GIVE BILLWISE, ENTRYW ISE, YEARWISE DEBT FOR THE AMOUNT IRREVOCABLE FROM THESE PARTIES AND THERE FORE, THE QUESTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECONCILED HIS ACCOUNTS WITH THESE OF THE PARTIES AGAINST WHOM THE BAD DEBTS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED IS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT. 4.6 UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO GIVE DETAILS AS TO WHICH PARTICULAR ENTRY, BILL OR PERIOD THE DEBT PERTAINED TO AND ATLEAST ONE PARTY AGAINST WHOM THE BAD DEBT HAS BEEN CLAIMED HAS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED THE DEBT OWED TO THE P ARTY AND FURTHER, THE RECONCILIATION OF ACCOUNTS AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED TO BE DONE BY THE ASSESEE, IS ALSO NOT FOUND TO BE CORRECT SPECIALLY IN VIEW O F THE LETTER OF ONE OF THE PARTIES I.E. TATA MOTORS, LUCKNOW, (COPY OF LETTER OF TATA MOTORS, LUCKNOW ANNEXED TO THIS ORDER AS ANNEXURE I FORMING PART O F THIS ORDER) THE DEBT ITSELF IS NOT PROVED AND THEREFORE, WRITING OFF OF THE SAME WHICH COMES AS 2 ND STEP CANNOT BE ALLOWED. FURTHER IN RESPECT OF OTHE R PARTIES, INSPITE OF ITA NO 1016/PN/2007 SHRI PRBABHAKAR VASUDEO MODAK., A.Y.2002-03 PAGE OF 6 4 SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES AND EVEN IN RESPONSE TO SH OWCAUSE ISSUED ON 20/10/2005, ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE AND GIVEN EVIDENCE OF DEBT OUTSTANDING WITH SPECIFIC DETAILS. FURTHER, IN VIE W OF SECTION 36(2)(I) AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO GIVE AS TO AGAINST WH ICH SALES, IN WHICH YEAR THE DEBT SO CLAIMED AS BAD DEBT WAS OFFERED FOR TAX ATION, IT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED THAT SUCH SALES/INCOME WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE EARLIER YEARS. IN THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASESSEE AS BAD DEBT TO THE TUNE OF RS.7,36,291.08/- CANNOT BE ALLOWED AND THEREFORE, ADDED BACK TO INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS AS PER PARA 5.3 OF T HE ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW : 5.3 THE SUBMISSION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. IT IS SEE N THAT THE APPELLANT HIMSELF IS NOT SURE AS TO UNDER WHICH PROVISION OF LAW, HIS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.7,36,291/- IS ALLOWABLE. AS REGARDS DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(VII), I AGREE WITH THE APPELLANTS VIEW THAT WRITING OFF THE DEBTS IN THE P & L A/C WOULD SUFFICE AND AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS, THE APPELLANT IS NOT REQUIRED T O PROVE THAT THE DEBTS HAVE ACTUALLY BECOME BAD BEFORE DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1 )(VII) IS ALLOWED TO HIM. HOWEVER, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) DO RE QUIRE THE FULFILLING OF THE CONDITION SPELT OUT IN CLAUSE (I) OF SUB.SECTION (2 ) OF SECTION 36 WHICH MANDATES THAT NO SUCH DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED UNLESS SUCH DEBT OR PART THEREOF HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTI NG THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DEBT OR PART THEREOF IS WRITTEN OFF OR OF AN EARLIER PREVIO US YEAR. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE APPELLANT HAS UTTERLY FAI LED IN PROVING THAT THIS CONDITION IS SATISFIED IN HIS CASE. THEREFORE, I H OLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.7,36,291/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER DISALLOWING HIS CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS U/S. 36(1 )(VII) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED. 7. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE CIT (A) , THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. DURING THE APPELLATE P ROCEEDINGS, THE LD AR FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEBTS ARE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT PERIOD. HE ARGUED THAT TH E COMPARABLE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS STAR CHEMICALS (BOMBAY) PVT LTD IN ITA NO 1915 OF 2007 IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, HE FILED ANOTHER JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS OMPRAKAS B SALECHA IN ITA 11 OF 2007 FOR AN IDENTICAL PROPOSIT ION. RELEVANT PARTS OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF STAR CHEMICALS (BOM) PVT LT D (SUPRA) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- IT IS THUS CLEAR FROM THE READING OF THE SECTION IT SELF AND THE CIRCULAR THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF THE DEBT AS BAD DEBT, THAT WOULD SATISFY THE PURPOSE OF THE SECTION. IN VIEW THAT WE HAVE TAKEN HAS ALSO BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX VS. AUTOMETERS LTD, 292 ITR 345, WHICH FOLLOWED THE EARLIER JUDGMENT IN CIT VS MARGAN SECURITIES AND CREDITS P LTD 292 ITR 339. THE SAME VIEW WAS A LSO TAKEN IN DEPUTY CIT ITA NO 1016/PN/2007 SHRI PRBABHAKAR VASUDEO MODAK., A.Y.2002-03 PAGE OF 6 5 VS PATIDAR GINNING AND PRESSING CO, 157 CTR 177. C ONSIDERING THE LAW AS STATED IN SO FAR AS QUESTION NO.1 THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE FAULTED. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR FOR REVENUE RELIED ON T HE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE O RDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE ISSUE AS WELL AS THE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS, REFERRED TO ABOVE. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE HAVE NOTI CED THAT THE AMOUNTS INVOLVED ARE THE DEBTS AND THEY ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME IN THE RELEVANT PERIODS. REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE ASESERTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IS WRONG OR FALSE. THE DEBTS INVOLVED ARE ADMITTEDLY AND UNDISPUTEDLY HAVE BEEN WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISION OF THE CIT (A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDI TION IS BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO PROV E THAT THE DEBT OR PART THEREOF HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. IN OUR OPINION, CONSIDERING THE ENTR IES IN THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS FOR THE REVENUE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE DEBTS OR PART THEREOF WERE NOT TAKEN IN TO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS. THEREFORE, TAKING ALL THE FACTS INTO CONSIDERATION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THA T THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD IS SET ASIDE AND GROUND 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 10. WITH RESPECT TO GROUND NO. 4 RELATING TO AD-HOC DISALLOWANCES OF VARIOUS EXPENSES, CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCES MADE UNDER CONVEYANCE AND TRAVELING E XPENSES AND OFFICE AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES , A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCES WITHOUT GIVING A SINGLE ILLUSTRATION OF PERSONAL EXPENDITU RE DEBITED UNDER THESE HEADS. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCES ARE BASED PUREL Y ON SURMISE AND CANNOT BE APPRECIATED., HENCE DELETED. HOWEVER, SAME CANNOT BE SAID TO BE TRUE WITH VEHICLE MAINTENANCE EXPENSES AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES. SINCE USE OF FACILITIES OF VEHICLES AND TELEPHONES FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES CANNOT BE RULED OU T, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING 10% DISALLOWANCE UNDER THESE HEADS, WHICH ARE CONFIRMED. FOR THE SAME REASON, DISALLOWANCE O F DEPRECIATION ON CAR IS ALSO CONFIRMED. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RI GHTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCES MADE UNDER CONVEYANCE AND TRAVELING EXPENSES AND O FFICE AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES AND THERE IS NO ISSUE ABOUT THE SAME BEFOR E US. WHERE AS THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF CLAIMS O F EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNTS OF VEHICLE MAINTENANCE EXPENSES AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES , IN THE ABSENCE ANY DETAILS ITA NO 1016/PN/2007 SHRI PRBABHAKAR VASUDEO MODAK., A.Y.2002-03 PAGE OF 6 6 OR EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE INDIVIDUAL, WE F IND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE FINDINGS OF T HE CIT(A) ON GROUND NO. 4 IS DISMISSED . 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13TH AUGUST , 2010 SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED THE 13TH AUGUST, 2010 US COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT - V, PUNE 4. THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE 4. THE D.R. A BENCH, PUNE 5. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE