DCIT, Kota V. H.H. MAHAROA SHRI BRIJ RAJ SINGHJI, Kota

ITA 1142/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6503 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D C SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: M C BHANDARI
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 56

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH: JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R. MEENA) I.T.A. NO. 1142/JP/2011 ASSTT. YEAR- 2008-09 PAN NO. AAAHB7814B THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF H.H. MAHARAO SHRI BRIJ RAJ SINGH JI INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA. VRS. (SOLE OWNER OF ESTA TE OF H.H. MAHARAO SHRI BHIM SINGH JI, KOTA), KOTA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 17/JP/2012 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 1142/JP/2011) ASSTT. YEAR- 2008-09 PAN NO. AAAHB7814B H.H. MAHARAO SHRI BRIJ RAJ SINGH JI THE DEPUTY COMM ISSIONER OF (SOLE OWNER OF ESTATE OF H.H. VRS. INCOME TAX, CIRCL E-2, KOTA. MAHARAO SHRI BHIM SINGH JI, KOTA), KOTA. (OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY :- SHRI D.C. SHARMA. ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI M.C. BHANDARI. DATE OF HEARING : 08/07/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18/07/2014 PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. THE APPEAL BY REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY ASSESS EE ARISE FROM THE ORDER DATED 28/10/2011 OF LD. CIT (A), KOTA, BY RAI SING FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- GROUNDS IN REVENUE APPEAL. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN:- 2 (I) ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, HOLDING THA T THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DEEMED AS INDIVIDUAL INST EAD OF HUF TAKEN BY A.O.; (II) ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 10(19A) OF THE ACT TO T HE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF RENTAL INCOME FROM UMED BHAWAN PALACE AMOUNTING TO RS. 50,61,933/- AND RS. 2,43,408/-; (III) HOLDING THAT THE RECEIPTS FROM ITC LTD. AMOUN TING TO RS. 33,34,886/- ARE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS & PROFESSION INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHE R SOURCES HELD BY A.O.; (IV) HOLD THAT INCOME FROM INTEREST ON BANK FDRS A MOUNTING TO RS. 4,01,888/- IS ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME INS TEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES HELD BY A.O.; (V) HOLDING THAT INCOME FROM COMMERCIAL COMPLEX AM OUNTING TO RS. 1,61,653/- IS ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHER HOUSE PROPERTY HELD BY A.O.; (VI) HOLD THAT INCOME FROM UMMED BHAWAN GARDEN AMOU NTING TO RS. 3,01,430/- IS ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES HELD BY A.O. AND ALLOWI NG DEDUCTION OF RS. 1,06,627/- AGAINST THIS INCOME; (VII) RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF BUSINESS EXPENSES TO RS. 4,18,777/- AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 17,93,885/- M ADE BY A.O.; (VIII) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LIBERTY TO RAISE ADDIT IONAL GROUND AND TO MODIFY/AMEND THE GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS IN CROSS OBJECTION 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EAL) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IS NOT ACCEPTING ALS O THE ALTERNATIVE GROUND THAT BESIDES ALLOWING EXEMPTION U /S 10(19A), THE RENTAL INCOME OF UMMED BHAWAN PALACE FROM STRUCTURE AND LAND REQUISITIONED BY DEFENCE DEPARTMENT IS NEITHER ACCRUED NOR AROSE NOR RECEIVE D THIS YEAR, AS THE RENTAL IS IN DISPUTE IN WRIT PETITION BEFORE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT FILED BY DEFENCE DEPAR TMENT AND QUANTUM THEREOF IS NEITHER SETTLED NOR DETERMIN ED AT ALL. 3 HENCE NOT TAXABLE ON THIS SCORE IN ALTERNATIVE GR OUND ALSO. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EAL) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN NOT ALLOWING IN AL TERNATIVE GROUND, THE STATUTORY DEDUCTION AS ALLOWABLE U/S 22 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY RENTAL INCOME FROM UMMED BHAWAN PALACE (INCLUDING ENTIRE COMPOUND AND STRUCTURES REQUISITIONED BY DEFENCE DEPARTMENT) THR OUGH THE ENTIRE INCOME OF UMMED BHAWAN PALACE HAS BEEN HELD AS EXEMPT U/S 10(19A) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 BY THE TRIBUNAL, IN CASE, IF LATER ON HELD AS TAXABLE IN FU RTHER APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE HONBLE RAJASTHAN H IGH COURT. THEREFORE, STATUTORY DEDUCTION U/S 22 DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED IN ALTERNATIVE GROUND. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE AL) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS NOT ALLOWED DEDUCTIO N OF SENOR CITIZEN QUANTUM OF EXEMPTION AS PROVIDED UNDE R SCHEDULE FIRST OF SECTION. 2 (PART-1) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 AS IT IS ALLOWABLE IN THE STATUS AS OF INDIVIDUAL, AS THE A PPELLANT AGE IS MORE THAN 65 YEARS OLD. THE SAME DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES YOUR HONOUR TO KINDLY ALLOW TO ADD, ALTER OR NEW ANY GROUND ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEA RING. 2. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE TREATIN G THE STATUS OF HUF AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INDIVIDUAL. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN ON 27/2/2009 DECLARI NG TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 40,91,110/-. A NOTE HAS ALSO BEEN GIVEN AT THE BOTT OM OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RETURN THAT THE PAN NUMBER IS ALLOTTED OLD, WHICH IS CONTINUED, THE STATUS IS INDIVIDUAL AS DEEMED AS PE R LAW. LATE H.H. MAHARAO BHIM SINGHJI OF KOTA WAS THE RULER OF THE ERSTWHILE KOTA STATE BEFORE ITS 4 MERGER INTO THE UNION OF INDIA. MAHARAO BHIM SINGHJ I EXPIRED IN THE YEAR 1991. AFTER HIS DEATH, THE HUF IS SHOWN TO HAVE COME INTO EXISTENCE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURNS IN HUF STATUS IN THE EAR LIER YEARS BUT AS STATED ABOVE NOW STATUS IS BEING CLAIMED AS OF INDIVIDUAL . THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE AS THERE IS NO MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE FACT DURING THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TREATED THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AS HUF. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER , THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO HAD GIVEN DETAILED FINDING AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE ITA T JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08. ACCORDINGLY, HE DECIDED THE ASSESSEES STATUS AS INDIVIDUAL. 4. NOW THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE ISSUE IN YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION BUT BOTH THE PARTIES FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 610 TO 613/JP/2010 IN PRECEDING YEA RS, THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE REVENUE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND. 5. THE SECOND GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 10(19A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS THE ACT) IN RESPECT OF RENTAL INCOME FROM UMMED BHAWAN PALACE AM OUNTING TO RS. 50,61,933/- AND RS. 2,43,408/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RENTAL INCOME FROM UMMED BHAWAN COMPOUN D AT RS. 2,43,408/- 5 FROM THE DEFENCE DEPARTMENT AND COMPENSATION OF RS. 50,61,933/- RECEIVED FROM THE DEFENCE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER G AVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE AFTER CONS IDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY. HE HAS NOT TREATED THIS INCOME EXEMPTED. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- I HAVE GONE THROUGH ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER, ASS ESSEES SUBMISSIONS, ORDERS OF HONBLE ITAT & MY PREDECESSORS ORDER FOR A .Y. 2007-08. THE ISSUE IS SIMILAR TO GROUND NO. 2,3, & 4 OF APPEA L NO. 330/2009-10 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE HIMSELF. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE AND IN GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES, I HELD THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 1 0(19A) OF THE IT ACT AGAINST THE RECEIPT OF RENT AND COMPENSATION FO R.. THE UMED BHAWAN PALACE. IN THIS VIEW OF THINGS, ISSUES RAISED IN GROUND 4 BECOME REDUNDANT. THUS ADDITION OF RS. 2,43,408/- AND RS. 5 0,61,933/- ARE DELETED. GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 ARE ACCEPTED AND GROUND NO. 4 IS DISMISSED. 7. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. IT WAS ARGUED THAT T HE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RENTAL INCOME FROM UMMED BHAWAN PALACE, WHICH IS TAXA BLE WITHIN THE INCOME TAX LAW AS IN PAST THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACC EPTED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION ON THE FACTS AS WELL AS ON LAW, THEREFORE , HE REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ARGUED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE 6 PRECEDING YEAR IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN PAST, SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LEA RNED CIT(A). IN A.Y. 2007-08 PASSED IN ITA NO. 610 TO 613/JP/2010, THE C OORDINATE BENCH DECIDED THIS ISSUE AS UNDER:- THESE TWO ISUES ARE DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWIN G THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1986-87 TO 1990-91 (SU PRA). RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AT PAGE 50 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THEREAFTER ALSO THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THIS ORDER ALLO WED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN A SSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. SINCE THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR EARLIE R YEARS, THEREFORE, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF LD. C IT(A) IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO ISSUES ALSO. BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDI NATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DIFFER WITH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE RE VENUES APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 10. GROUND NO. 3 IS AGAINST TREATING THE RECEIPTS FROM ITC LIMITED AMOUNTING TO RS. 33,34,886/- AS BUSINESS INCOME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS. 33,34,886/- FROM ITC LI MITED AND SHOWN THIS INCOME IN THE RETURN AS BUSINESS INCOME, WHICH WAS TR EATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS HELD IN PAST BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE 7 ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AND P ROFESSION ON THE GROUND THAT IN PAST THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ITAT ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE ACCEPTED THE FACT BEFORE US T HAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN PRECEDING ORDERS BY VARI OUS DECISIONS OF THE ITAT, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DIFFER WITH T HE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN PRECEDING YEAR. ACCOR DINGLY, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THIS GROUND. 11. GROUND NO. 4 IN REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST TH E INTEREST ON BANK FDR AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,01,888/- AS ASSESSABLE AS BUSINE SS INCOME INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN IN TEREST ON FDR AT RS. 4,01,888/- UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THIS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES U/S 56 OF THE ACT BY CONSIDERING THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECIS ION IN THE CASE OF BENGAL AND ASSAM INVESTORS LIMITED VS. CIT 59 ITR 547. THE LE ARNED CIT(A) HAD DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND TR EATED THIS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE U S. 12. THE LEARNED D.R. ARGUED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COV ERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND IN PAST THE INTEREST INCOME ON FDR HAS BEEN HELD UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, WHICH HAS BEEN FAIRLY ACCEPTED BY THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILAR ISSUE WAS INVOLVED IN THE PAST AND THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE A ND INTEREST INCOME WAS 8 HELD TO BE TREATED INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NO T BUSINESS INCOME. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DIFFER WITH TH E FINDINGS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH GIVEN IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN A.Y. 2007-08. THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 13. GROUND NO. 5 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST TH E INCOME FROM COMMERCIAL COMPLEX AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,61,653/- IS A SSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE AS SESSEE RECEIVED RS. 549/- INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND SHOP RENT AT R S. 2,29,505/- AND AFTER CLAIMING 30% STANDARD DEDUCTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS S HOWN NET TOTAL ASSESSABLE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME AS RS. 1,61,037/-. 14. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THIS ADDITION BEFORE TH E LEARNED CIT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT THROW ANY LIGHT ON HIS REASON FOR TR EATING THE INCOME FROM A COMMERCIAL COMPLEX AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. F URTHER IN THE APPEAL ORDER FOR A.Y. 2005-06, SIMILAR DECISION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, BASED ON HIS OPINION THAT MOTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO EARN REN TAL INCOME, WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND THE RENTAL INCOME FROM SAROWAR COMPLEX WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ACCORDINGLY, HE DELETED THE ADD ITION. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 15. THE LEARNED D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 9 16. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED A.R. ARGUED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD COMMERCIAL SHOPS IN SAROWAR COMPLEX, WHICH IS A BUSIN ESS PROPERTY AND EARNED INCOME OF RS. 1,60,653/- UNDER THE HEAD INCO ME FROM BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THESE RECEIPTS UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AND PROFESSION, IN EARLIER YEAR, NO APPEAL HAS BEE N FILED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CONSI STENTLY SHOWING RENTAL INCOME FROM THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AND PROFESSION, WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOT ONLY IN THIS YEAR BUT IN THE PRECEDING YEARS ALSO. THE LEARNED D.R. HAD NOT CONTROVERTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE OR DER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 18. GROUND NO. 6 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST UM MED BHAWAN GARDEN AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,01,430/- IS ASSESSABLE AS BUSINE SS INCOME INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF 1,06,727/-. THE LEARNED A.O. OBSERVED THAT AS PER ANNEXURE-C, ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED RECEIPT FROM GARDEN AT RS. 3, 01,430/- AGAINST WHICH EXPENSES OF RS. 1,01,430/- HAD BEEN CLAIMED. HOWEVER , NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAD BEEN FURNISHED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLA IM OF EXPENSES, THEREFORE, HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,01,430/- IN THE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE AS BUSINESS SOURCE. 10 19. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THIS ADDITION BEFORE TH E LEARNED CIT(A), WHO HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF HIS PREDECESSORS ORDER FOR A.Y. 2007-08. 20. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US AND THE LEARNED D. R. VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFIC ER. 21. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THIS ADDITION IS REPEATEDLY MADE IN PRECEDING YEAR AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD AL LOWED THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCO UNT ARE AUDITED WHATEVER EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN CLAIMED AGAINST THE INCOME. THIS INCOME ALWAYS HAS BEEN SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON PAGE NOS. 202 AND 203 OF ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK AND BY CONSIDERING THE HON BLE ITAT DECISION ON CONSISTENCY, NO SEPARATE VIEW SHOULD BE TAKEN, IS NO MATERIAL CHANGE IN FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION ON THIS ISSUE. 22. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, FACTS AND PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS WELL AS I TAT HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE CONTENTION ON THE BASIS OF CONSISTENCY AS WELL AS NATURE OF RECEIPTS. THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 23. GROUND NO. 7 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST DI SALLOWANCE OUT OF BUSINESS EXPENSES OF RS. 4,18,777/- AGAINST THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS. 17,93,885/-. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENSES UNDER VARIOUS HEAD FOR EARNING OF INCOME AS WELL AS FOR 11 BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED WE RE RS. 20,93,885/- OUT OF WHICH ONLY RS. 3,00,000/- HAD BEEN ALLOWED AND REMAIN ING AMOUNT OF RS. 17,93,885/- WAS DISALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF REASONING GIVEN IN EARLIER YEARS AS IN A.YS. 1997-98 TO 1999-2000, 2002-03 AND 2004-05. 24. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT(A), WHO HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL PARTIALLY BY FOLLOWING HIS PREDECE SSORS ORDER IN PRECEDING YEARS AND ITAT ORDER DATED 31/7/2007AND HE RESTRICTE D THIS ADDITION AT RS. 4,18,777/- BEING 20% OF TOTAL CLAIM OF RS. 20,93,88 5/-. 25. NOW THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNE D CIT(A) IS BEFORE US. THE LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 26. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED A.R. PLACED RELIAN CE UPON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AT PAGE NO. 21 PARAGRAPH 4.92 AND I TAT ORDER AT PAGE NO. 184 IN ITA NO. 147 & 148/JP/2005 IN GROUND NO. 8, W HICH HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE BENCH ON PAGE NOS. 90 AND 91 AND DIS ALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED 20% OF TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THER EFORE, HE REQUESTED TO FOLLOW THE EARLIER ORDER OF HONBLE ITAT. 27. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BO TH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE PR ESENT ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 147 & 148/JP/2005 FOR A.Y. 2001-02 AND 20% EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION. THUS, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 12 28. WITH REGARD TO THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED BEFORE THIS BENCH, SO THE SAME IS HERE BY DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 29. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED AND CROSS OBJECTION STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/07/2014. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR, DATED : 18 TH JULY, 2014 * RANJAN COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA. 2. H.H. MAHARAO SHRI BRIJ RAJ SINGH JI, KOTA. 3. THE CIT (A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE D/R GUARD FILE (I.T.A. NO. 1142/JP/2011 & .C.O. NO. 17/J P/2012) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.