Sh. Jai Bhagwan, Kaithal V. ITO, Kaithal

ITA 1038/CHANDI/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5376 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LAGANPREET SANDHU
• Keywords: Depreciation; Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI D.K.SRIVASTAVA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1038/CHD/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SHRI JAI BHAGWAN, VS. THE ITO, PROP. M/S WALAITI RAM JAI BHAGWAN, WARD-4, KAITHA L KAITHAL PAN NO. AALPB4310R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR RESPONDENT BY: SMT. LAGANPREET SANDHU ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), KARNAL RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING GEN ERAL IS DISMISSED. 3. THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UND ER:- 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HAVING CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT HAVING ALLOWED WHOLLY THE CLAIM OF RS. 70,000/- AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF HOU SE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND CONSEQUENTLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS . 2,10,822/- UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. 2 4. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE ASSESSEE IN ADDITION OF COST OF ACQUISITION OF SAID HOUSE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE SPENT RS. 70,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT. THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE WAS THAT THE SAID HOUSE WAS PURCHASED ON 6.9.1991 AND THEREAFTER THE SAID AMOUNT WAS SPENT FOR RENOVATING THE HOUSE. HOWEVER, THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DETAILS OF IMPROVEMENT OR THE SOURCE OF THE SAI D EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY IT. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OF FICER, HOWEVER, GAVE BENEFIT OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 30,000/- TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED ON THE REPAIRS OF THE HOUSE AND COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FURTHER DETAILS OR EVIDENCE ABOU T THE IMPROVEMENT MADE BY HIM OR FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE BEING FURNISH ED. THE CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE FOR THE SOURCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE SAID IMPROVEMENT. 5. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAD ONLY P LACED RELIANCE ON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW A ND HE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE AND THE SOURCE OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE. IN THE ABSENCE OF T HE SAME, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE SPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 30,000/- AS AGAINST 70,000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE. THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS DISMISSED. 6. THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UND ER;- 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HAVING CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 95,567/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING 3 OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS FROM SALE OF HUSK. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D NOT FURNISHED QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF HUSK ALONG WITH RETURN OF I NCOME OR AUDIT REPORT ATTACHED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME. DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SALE OF RICE HUSK WEIGHING 4021.26 QUINTALS INCLUDI NG AN OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 17,120/- WEIGHING 415 QUINTALS. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE PRODUCTION OF HUSK WORKED OUT TO 11.6% OF TOTAL PADDY MILLED WHICH AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS LOWER WHEN C OMPARED TO OTHER CASES WHICH WERE SHOWING HUSK @ 17% OR 18%. THE EX PLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT PAR T OF HUSK WAS CONSUMED FOR THE MILLING IN THE BOILER, THOUGH THE ACTUAL PRODUCTION WAS CORRECTLY OBTAINED. A CERTIFICATE FOR THE USE OF H USK IN THE BOILER ISSUED BY THE HARYANA BOILER INSPECTION DEPARTMENT ON 20.9 .3005 WAS PLACED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE SALE O F HUSK @ 65/- PER QUINTAL AS THE OTHER MILLER WAS SHOWING THE SALE OF HUSK AT AN AVERAGE OF RS. 70/- AND 58/- PER QUINTAL RESPECTIVELY AGAINST THE RATE OF RS. 41.18 PER QUINTAL SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) UPHELD T HE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE CASH SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE SOLD THE RICE HUSK AT RS. 41.18 PER QUINTAL. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT PART OF THE RICE HUSK WAS UTILIZED FOR MILLING IN THE BOILER FOR WHI CH NECESSARY CERTIFICATE WAS ALSO FILED ON RECORD. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE EX PLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE QUANTITY OF RICE HUSK SOLD WAS LESSER THAN RICE HUSK MANUFACTURED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE PL EA OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF OTHER MILLERS SHOWING SALE OF HUSK AT DIFFE RENT RATES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS OBSERVATION AT PAGE 4 NO TED THAT M/S SARASWATI 4 RICE COMPANY, KAITHAL HAD DECLARED AN AVERAGE OF RS . 70/- PER QUINTAL AND M/S GUJJAR RICE MILLS, DHAND HAD DECLARED THE A VERAGE RATE OF 58/- PER QUINTAL. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AN AVERAGE O F RS. 41.18 PER QUINTAL. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH SALES BU T WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE REJECTION OF THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE MERELY BECAUSE OTHER MILLERS HAD SHOWN DIFFERENT RATES OF SALE OF HUSK. THE RATE S CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE ALSO AT VARIANCE I.E. RS. 70 /- IN THE CASE OF ONE CONCERN AND RS. 58/- ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER CONCERN, W HICH PROVES STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID RATE IS VARIABLE ON ACCO UNT OF QUALITY OF RICE HUSK MILLED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTA BLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE RICE HUSK AT A PRICE HIGHER THAN THE O NE DECLARED, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE AFORESAID ADDITION AND DIRECT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 95,567/-. THE GROUND NO.3 RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS ALLOWED. 9. THE GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HAVING CONFIRMED THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 77,840/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDERVALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF RICE PERMAL. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HAVING CONFIRMED THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 84,580/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDERVALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK RICE PERMAL OUT OF STATE. 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THE ASSESSEE TO HAV E UNDER VALUED THE CLOSING STOCK OF RICE PERMAL. THE ASSESSEE HAD SH OWN VALUATION OF RICE PERMAL ON ACCOUNT OF TWO TRANSACTIONS I.E. WITHIN T HE STATE AND ONE OUT OF THE STATE. THE STOCK OF THE RICE PERMAL WITHIN TH E STATE WAS DECLARED @ RS. 881/- PER QUINTAL. FROM THE PURCHASE BILLS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE, ONE DATED 27.11.2004, THE RATE WAS RS. 900/- PER QUINTA L. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE AVERAGE PURCHASE AND SALE PR ICE WORKED OUT AT RS. 5 974/- AND RS. 949/- RESPECTIVELY. THE LAST SALE WA S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 917/- PER QUINTAL AS AGAINST RS. 88./- PER QUINTAL SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY COMPUT ED THE TOTAL VALUE OF STOCK @ RS. 917/- AS AGAINST RS. 881/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE RESULTING IN ADDITION OF RS. 77,840/-. SIMILARLY, THE STOCK OF RICE PERMAL OUT OF STATE WAS VALUED AT RS. 704/- PER QUINTAL BY THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE PURCHASED 3051 QUINTALS OF RICE FROM 6.11.2004 TO 26.1.2005 AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 877.70 PER QUINTAL AND THE LAST PURCHASE WAS MADE ON 26.1.2005 AT RS. 911/- PE R QUINTAL. THE LAST SALE WAS MADE @ RS. 851/- AND RS. 925/- PER QUINTAL . THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE SOLD THE BROKEN RICE OF 500 QUINTAL AT RS. 625/- PER QUINTAL WHEREAS IN THE PURCHASES, T HE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN PURCHASE OF BROKEN RICE. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AFTER THE SALE OF THE BROKEN RICE, THE LEFT OV ER RICE WAS DEFINITELY OF BETTER QUALITY AND IN VIEW THEREOF THE VALUATION WA S DONE @ RS. 877/- PER QUINTAL AS AGAINST STOCK DECLARED AT RS. 704/- PER QUINTAL SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, RESULTING IN ADDITION OF RS. 84,580/-. U PHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RICE WAS OF INFERIOR QUALITY. 11. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT WH ILE VALUING ITS STOCK, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO INCLUDED THE VALUE OF BROKEN RICE IN THE TOTAL QUANTITY AND HENCE THE AVERAGE RATE WAS ON A LOWER SIDE. FURTHER, THE QUALITY OF RICE BEING LOWER, HENCE ITS VALUE WAS ON A LOWER SIDE. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES FOR VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK ARE PRESCRIBED UNDER WHICH THE STOCK IS TO BE VALUED EITHER AT COST OR M ARKET PRICE, WHICHEVER 6 IS LESS. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAD MADE PURCHASES AT A HIGHER PRICE THAN THE RATE ADOPTED FOR VALUING ITS STOCK O F RICE. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS THAT THE RICE WA S SORTED OUT AND GOOD RICE WAS SOLD AT HIGHER PRICE WHEREAS THE BALANCE R ICE WAS VALUED ON THE RESIDUAL VALUE. THE SECOND CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE IN RESPECT OF THE LOWER VALUATION OF STOCK IS THAT THE STOCK WAS OF I NFERIOR QUALITY AND ALSO INCLUDED BROKEN RICE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FA ILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT CLAIM EXCEPT FOR MAKING AS REFERENCE TO THE TRANSACTION OF VARIOUS PURCHASES AND SALES UNDERTAK EN DURING THE YEAR. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD ONLY THE LOWER QUALITY OF RICE PERMAL AVAILABLE WITH IT AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE IN VIEW OF THE PURCHASE RATES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE SAME ITEMS. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE REJECT THE GR OUND NOS. 4 & 5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, GROUNDS NOS. 4 & 5 ARE DISM ISSED. 13. THE GROUND NO.6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED HAVING CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HAVING DETERMINED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 3,24,723/- AS AGAINST THAT CLAIMED AT RS. 5,90,514/- BY THE ASSESSEE. 14. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WI TH REGARD TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO BE INCLUDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 5, 05,505/- AS AGAINST RS. 1,45,651/- DECLARED IN THE LAST YEAR. THE ASSESSEE FILED A COPY OF AGRICULTURAL ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE BOOKS OF M/S WALAITI RAM JAI BHAGWAN OF WHICH HE IS A PROPRIETOR, REFLECTING THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AT RS. 5,90,514/- AGAINST WHICH AN EXPENDI TURE OF RS. 85,000/- WAS CLAIMED. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RE SPECT OF THE INCREASE IN 7 AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS THAT HE HAD PRODUCED BASMAT I RICE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION UNDER SELF CULTIVATION. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER NOTED FROM THE FRAD JAMABANDI FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TOTAL LAND HOLDING WAS 16.5 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN VILLAGE SIWA N. THE KHASRA GIRDWARI WAS FILED FOR THE PERIOD 1999-2000. AS PER THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, THE NET INCOME PER ACRE WORKED OUT TO RS. 30,635/- WHICH WA S FOUND TO BE ABNORMALLY HIGHER AS COMPARED TO THE INCOME SHOWN B Y THE OTHER ASSESSEE IN THE AREA. THE EXPENDITURE WAS FOUND TO BE TOO L OW ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE WHERE THE ACTIVITIES ARE CARRIED OUT ON BATAI OR WITH LABOUR EMPLOYED BY LANDLORD. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM TO PRODUCE BASMAT I RICE WAS ALSO FOUND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE THE KHASRA GIRDAWARI FOR CURRENT YEAR. THE HIGHER YIELD DECLARED BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS FOUND TO BE DOUBLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED IN RESPECT OF THE VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THE ASSESSEE TO HAV E WITHDRAWN RS. 40,000/- IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2005 I.E. IN THE SE ASONS HARVESTING OF WHEAT, ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO THE A GRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY ESTIMATED THE EXP ENDITURE ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AT RS. 2,65,731/-. THE AGR ICULTURAL INCOME WAS ESTIMATED AT RS. 3,24,783/- AND ADDITION OF RS. 1, 80,717/- WAS MADE BEING INCOME EARNED FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE SAID AD DITION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IN VIEW OF THE HIGHER INCOME AND LOW EXPENSES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 15. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE AGRICULTURAL ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF WALAI TI RAM JAI BHAGWAN WHEREIN THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CREDI TED ON VARIOUS DATES. THE LD. AR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE SALE OF WH EAT AND PADDY IS FULLY BACKED BY THE BILLS. FURTHER IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED 8 WAS OUT OF THE WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE AFORESAID ACCOUNT. THE LD. DR OF THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 5, 05,505/- DURING THE YEAR WAS HIGHER THAN AS SHOWN IN THE PRECEDING YEAR . THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS THAT BECAUSE OF THE HARVESTING OF RICE, THE INCOME HAD INCREASED THREE FOLD. THE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE WHEAT AND PADDY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR IN T HE FORM OF BILLS ISSUED BY M/S WALAITI RAM JAI BHAGWAN AND M/S RAMA KRISHAN TRADING COMPANY ARE PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, THE CONCERN M/S WAILATI RAM JAI BHAGWAN IS THE SOLE PROPRIETOR CONC ERN OF THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 85,000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE TO HAVE BEEN SPENT TO EARN THE AFORESAID INCOME APPEARS TO BE ON LOWER SIDE. FURTHER, FROM THE DETAILS OF BREAK UP OF THE SAID SUM OF RS. 85,000/-, IT APPEARS THAT A SUM OF RS. 10,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN ON 10.6.20 04, RS. 20,000/- ON 30.7.2004, RS. 15,000/- ON 7.8.2004, RS. 20,000/- E ACH ON 23.3.2005 AND 30.3.2005. OUT OF TOTAL WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 80,000/ -, ABOUT 45% IS WITHDRAWN AT THE FAG END OF MARCH 2005 AS COMPARED TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SALE OF WHEAT IN APRIL 2004 AND SALE OF PADDY ON VARIOUS DATES IN NOVEMBER 2004 . WE FIND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE ON LOWER SIDE AS COMPARED TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. A CCORDINGLY, WE ESTIMATE THE EXPENSES ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AT 30% OF T HE GROSS RECEIPTS AS AGAINST 45% ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND CORR ESPONDING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE GRO UND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9 17. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NOS. 7, 8 & 9 IS AGAINST TH E PARTIAL DISALLOWANCE OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) HAD ALSO DISALLOWED 1/5 TH OUT OF CAR EXPENSES, CAR DEPRECIATION AND TELEPHON E EXPENSES AND RS. 5,000/- OUT OF MISC. EXPENDITURE. IN THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE RESTRICT THE DISA LLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE OUT OF CAR EXPENSES, CAR DEPRECIATION AND TELEPHONE AT 1/10 TH AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS OF DIWALI EXPENSE S FILED, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5,000/- OUT OF MISC. EXPENSES I S UPHELD. THE GROUND NOS. 7 & 8 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND GROUND NO. 9 IS DI SMISSED. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K.SRIVASTAVA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 21 ST JUNE, 2011 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH