Kirti Kumar Jain, UDAIPUR V. DCIT, UDAIPUR

ITA 131/JODH/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 13123314 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G R KOKANI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH DEOPURA
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Commercial expediency

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR (SMC) BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE : SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 131/JODH/2012 ASSTT. YEAR : 2007-08 KIRTI KUMAR JAIN, VS. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, 13-14, U.I.T. SHOPS, UDAIPUR. HIRANMAGRI, UDAIPUR. (PAN :AAZPJ 8279 R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJESH DEOPURA, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.R. KOKANI, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 04.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.07.2012 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 14.12.2001 OF THE LD. CIT(A), CENTRAL, JAIPUR. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THI S APPEAL RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID AMOUNTING TO RS.54 ,873/-. 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE, IN BRIEF, ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION THROUGH OWN AND HIRE D TANKER LORRIES. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2006, DECLARING TOT AL INCOME AT RS.1,38,160/-. LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD S HOWN DEBTS AMOUNTING TO ITA NO. 131/JODH/2012 2 RS.89,168/- AND RS.50,000/- IN THE NAMES OF SHRI SA NDEEP JAIN AND SUNDER LAL JAIN, HUF RESPECTIVELY. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE A SSESSEE DID NOT CHARGE ANY INTEREST ON SUCH DEBTS WHEREAS HE HAD PAID INTEREST OF RS.2,50,570/- TO VARIOUS PERSONS ON THEIR LOANS AND THAT HE HAD ALSO GIVEN A SUM OF RS.5,42,404/- TO HIS FATHER SHRI SUNDER LAL JAIN FOR INCOME-TAX PAYMENT. THE AO, ON THE BASIS THAT ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST @ 12% ON THE LOAN TAKEN FROM OTHERS, WORKED OUT THE INTEREST CHARGEABLE ON THE INTEREST FREE LOANS, AT RS.54,873/- (RS.10,700/- IN THE NAME OF SHRI SANDEEP JAIN, RS.18500/- IN THE NAME O F SHRI S.L. JAIN, HUF AND RS.25,673/- IN THE NAME OF SHRI S.L. JAIN) AND DISA LLOWED THE SAME. 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT AS PER PAST PRACTICE NEITHER THE INTEREST WAS CHARGED FROM DEBTORS NOR PAID TO THE CREDITORS AND THE AMOUNTS GIVEN IN THE NATURE OF CO NTRIBUTION OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS WERE DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET REGULAR LY. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT SHRI SANDEEP JAIN IS ONLY YOUNGER BROTHER OF ASSESS EE LIVING IN JOINT FAMILY AND SHRI SUNDER LAL JAIN IS HIS FATHER AND THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS ALSO A MEMBER OF SHRI SUNDER LAL JAIN, HUF. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASS ESSEE CONTRIBUTED RS.5,00,000/- FOR HOUSE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY HUF TO FULFILL SOCI AL OBLIGATIONS ALONG WITH OTHER MEMBERS AND WAS HAVING OWN CAPITAL FUND AS WELL AS NON-INTEREST BEARING FUNDS TOTALING TO RS. 48,79,425/- AS ON 31.03.2007. HENCE , NO INTEREST HAD BEEN CHARGED, ITA NO. 131/JODH/2012 3 PARTICULARLY WHEN THE NATURE OF AMOUNT GIVEN WAS NO T LOAN OR ADVANCE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS : (I). SMT. TARA DEVI VS. ITO (2000) 68 TTJ (JODHPUR ) 361 (II). MEENAKSHI SYNTHETICS (P) LTD. VS. ACIT (2003 ) 79 TTJ (LUCK.)423 (III). INDIAN METALS AND FERRO ALLOYS LTD. VS. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 344 (ORI.) (IV). G.R. AGENCIES VS. ITO (2003) 79 TTJ (LUCKNOW ) 416 (V). CIT VS. SAHNI SILK MILLS (P) LTD. (2002) 253 ITR 294 (DEL.) (VI). CIT VS. TINGRI TEA CO. (1971) 79 ITR 294 (CA L.) (VII). OSWAL INDUSTRIES VS. ACIT (2000) 109 TAXMAN 279 (MUM.) 4. THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING IN PAR A 2.3 AND 2.4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER : 2.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AR AN D HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS ARE AS BELOW : SANDEEP JAIN RS.89,168/- SUNDER LAL JAIN HUF RS.5,00,000/- SUNDER LAL JAIN RS.8,18,372/- WHEREAS THE INTEREST FREE LOAN FROM MEMBERS ARE ONL Y RS.17000/- + RS.11,500/- = RS.28,500/-. ACCORDINGLY IN VIEW OF T HE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE COURT AS MENTIONED BELOW, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.54,873/- SO MADE BY THE AO OUT OF THE INTEREST E XPENDITURE OF RS.2,50,570/-, NEEDS TO BE UPHELD. 2.4. THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT IN THE CAS E OF SH.SUNDER LAL JAIN, THESE ARE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS ALSO HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY ME. ON PERUSAL OF COPY OF LEDGER ACCO UNT SO FILED, IT IS SEEN THAT MAJOR ENTRIES NAMELY RS.1,70,000/- ON 1.4 .2006 IS NOT FOR ANY PURCHASE OR SALE OF DIESEL BUT IS ACTUALLY LOAN ADVANCED BY WAY OF TRANSFER ENTRY. MOREOVER, RS.16,779/-, RS.2,21,271/ -, RS.1,86,176/-, ITA NO. 131/JODH/2012 4 RS.18,000/-, RS.27,070/- & RS.13,108/- TOTALING TO RS.5,42,404/- ARE REGARDING INCOME TAX OF SH. SUNDER LAL JAIN PAID FR OM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF MR. KIRTI JAIN FOR A.Y. 2000-01 TO A.Y. 2004-05. THUS, THESE ADVANCES ARE PURELY FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES AND ALSO DO NOT HAVE ANY COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO REFERRED TO THE FOLLOWING CA SE LAWS : (I). TRIVENI ENGG. WORKS LTD. VS. CIT, 167 ITR 742 ) (ALL.) (II). PHALTON SUGAR WORKS LTD. VS. CIT, 208 ITR 98 9 (BOM.) (III). HIRALAL & SONS REPORTED AT 190 ITR 408 (BOM ) (IV). VIJAYALAKSHMI LORRY SERVICE VS. CIT, 194 ITR 197 (MAD.) (V). CIT VS. SARAYA SUGAR MILLS (P) LTD., 193 ITR 575 (ALL.) (VI). CIT VS. H.R. SUGAR FACTORY (P) LTD., 187 ITR 363 (ALL.) (VII). CIT VS. ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES LTD., 286 ITR 1 (P&H) (VIII). CIT VS. MOTOR GENERAL FINANCE LTD., 254 IT R 449 (DEL.) NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AM OUNTS IN QUESTION WERE GIVEN AS CONTRIBUTION TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET REGULARLY FOR REMEMBRANCE. SO, THESE WERE NOT LOANS OR ADVANCE OR DEBTS AS ALLEGED BY THE AO. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE USED TO SEL L DIESEL TO HIS FATHER, SHRI S.L. JAIN, WHO WAS DOING THE BUSINESS OF TANKERS PLYING. THERE FORE, THE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING AT THE YEAR END AT RS.8,18,372/- WAS AGAINST THE SA LE. SO, NO INTEREST COULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED, BEING ROUTINE BUSINESS TRANSACTION AS PER PAST PRACTICE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE AO HAD NOT ESTABLISHED ANY NEXUS B ETWEEN THE INTEREST BEARING ITA NO. 131/JODH/2012 5 LOANS AND INTEREST FREE ADVANCES. AS SUCH, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCES. RELIANCE WAS PLACED O N THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS : (I). YAMUNA PRASAD PESHWA VS. DCIT, ITAT JODHPUR BE NCH (2012) 143 TTJ 615. (II). ACIT VS. RAM KISHAN VERMA, ITAT JAIPUR BENCH (2011) (ITA NO. 960/JP/2010). (III). SMT. TARA DEVI VS. ITO (2000)68 TTJ (JODHPU R)361 (IV). MEENAKSHI SYNTHETICS (P) LTD. VS. ACIT (200 3) 79 TTJ (LUCK.) 423 7. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SU PPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT AP PEARS THAT THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT VERIFIED THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING IN THE NAME OF SHRI S.L. JAIN WAS AGAINST THE BUSIN ESS TRANSACTIONS ON WHICH NO INTEREST WAS CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER PAST PR ACTICE. THEREFORE, THE FACTS ARE NOT CLEAR. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NEXUS MUST BE PR OVED BETWEEN THE INTEREST BEARING LOANS AND INTEREST FREE ADVANCES FOR MAKING DISALLO WANCE. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO SUCH NEXUS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, THEREFORE, CONS IDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ITA NO. 131/JODH/2012 6 AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDIN G THE ASSESSEE DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,10,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF INTERE ST ON SHARE APPLICATION MONEY INVESTMENT. 10. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D TAKEN LOAN OF RS.10,00,000/- ON 03.05.2006 FROM SHRI MAHVEER RAMAWAT AND PAID IN TEREST OF RS.1,20,196/-, WHICH WAS @ 12% PER ANNUM. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSE E TO EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR TAKING LOAN AS WELL AS THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT OF THIS AMOUNT OF RS.10,00,000/-. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE LOAN TAKEN ON 0 3.05.2006 HAD BEEN INVESTED IN THE EQUITY SHARE APPLICATIONS IN THE COMPANY, NAMED M/S. JAINAM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR. IT WAS A LSO STATED THAT THE LOAN TAKEN WAS REPAID ON 29.12.2006 DURING THE YEAR ITSELF. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHILE INVESTING CONSIDERABLE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED DIRECTORS POST IN THE COMPANY AND ALSO RECEIVED REMUNERATION OF RS.1,00,0 00/-. ITA NO. 131/JODH/2012 7 11. THE AO DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE ABOVE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST TO SH RI MAHAVEER RAMAWAT ON THIS LOAN OUT OF BUSINESS INCOME OF THE YEAR WITHOUT DIS CLOSING ANY INCOME FROM INVESTMENT OF RS.10,00,000/-. THE AO WORKED OUT THE INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO THIS LOAN OF RS.10,00,000/-, WHICH CAME TO RS.1,10,000/- , THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE C ARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE T HE AO. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO PRESUMPTIVELY IGNORED THIS FA CT THAT THE INVESTMENT OF RS.10,00,000/- IN EQUITY SHARE APPLICATION HAD BEEN MADE TO EARN / GENERATE INCOME. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SHRI MAHAVEER RAMAWAT CONFIRMED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED BACK THIS LOAN AMOUNT ON 29.12.2006. T HEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS BAD IN LAW. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJENDRA PRASA D MOODY, 115 ITR 519. 12. THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING IN PARA 3. 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER : 3.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF LD. A.R. AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS UNDISPUTED TH AT THE APPELLANT TOOK LOAN FROM SH. MAHAVEER RAMAWAT OF RS.10 LAKHS AND THE MONEY WAS INVESTED IN THE EQUITY SHARE OF THE COMPANY M/S . JAINAM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ARGUMENT OF THE A.R. THAT APPE LLANT BECAME DIRECTOR AND IS RECEIVING REMUNERATION IS OF NO HEL P AS THE ITA NO. 131/JODH/2012 8 REMUNERATION RECEIVED IS NOT AGAINST THE MONEY ADVA NCED BUT IS FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED AND WORK AND RESPONSIBILITY U NDERTAKEN. OTHER ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT AMOUNT WAS REPAID ON 29.12.06 IS ALSO NOT COMING TO RESCUE THE APPELLANT, AS THE OPENING CREDIT BALANCE IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF MAHAVEER RAMAWAT IS AS HIGH A S RS.22,99,700/- AND DURING THE YEAR HE REPAID RS.10,39,700/- AND RS .9,90,000/- AND HAS RECEIVED RS.10,00,000/-. THUS IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT AMOUNT OF RS.10 LAKHS TAKEN AS LOAN AND INVESTED IN THE SHARE HAS BEEN REPAID. IN ANY CASE, AS PER CAPITAL ACCOUNT, AFTER DEDUCTIN G LIC PREMIUM AND HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL, NET SURPLUS PROFIT AVAILABLE FOR DISPOSAL IS ONLY RS.1,54,980/- DURING THE YEAR AND ACCORDINGLY, REPA YMENT SO MADE TO MAHAVEER RAMAWAT IS NOT OUT OF OWN FUNDS. ACCORDING LY, ARGUMENT OF THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT IS HEREBY REJECTED AND DI SALLOWANCE OF RS.1,10,000/- SO MADE BY THE A.O. IS HEREBY CONFIRM ED. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 13. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE IN VESTMENT OF RS.10,00,000/- IN EQUITY SHARE APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE TO EARN / GE NERATE INCOME AND THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE WAS LOAN TAKEN FROM SHRI MAHAVEER RAMAWAT ON 03.05.2006, WHICH HAD BEEN RETURNED BACK ON 29.12.2006. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE AOS ASSUMPTION THAT SINCE NO INCOME EARNED FROM THE INV ESTMENT, THE EXPENDITURE OF INTEREST PAID WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED, WAS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE IT IS NOT DEFINITE RULE THAT INCOME WOULD GENERATE FROM EVERY DAY INVESTMEN T MADE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY (SUPRA). IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THERE WAS BU SINESS CONNECTION OF M/S. ITA NO. 131/JODH/2012 9 JAINAM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. WITH THE ASSESSEES FAM ILY BUSINESS CONCERN, M/S. SANDEEP CARGO MOVERS FOR TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT. S INCE THERE WAS BUSINESS CONNECTION THEN INTEREST PAYMENT FOR SHARE CAPITAL INVESTMENT WOULD BE STILL ALLOWABLE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DEC ISIONS : (I). CIT VS. SAMTEL ELECTRON DEVICES LTD. (2010) 2 36 CTR (DEL.) 268. (II). ITO VS. CHAMBA MAL ROOP CHAND (2001) 70 TTJ (ASR.) 43. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ARBITRARY AND PRESUMPTIVE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.1,10,000/- MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTA INED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS BAD IN LAW. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO F URNISHED COPY OF CERTIFICATE WHEREIN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE REMUNERATION OF R S.1,00,000/-, RS.6,00,000/- AND RS.6,00,000/-, AS A DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY, WA S PAID TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2009-10 AND 2010-11 RESPEC TIVELY. 14. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR STRONGLY S UPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 15. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN TH E PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 3.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER CL EARLY POINTED OUT THAT THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE OPENING CREDI T BALANCE OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT ITA NO. 131/JODH/2012 10 OF SHRI MAHAVEER RAMAWAT WAS AS HIGH AS RS.22,99,70 0/- AND DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE REPAID RS.10,39,700/- AND RS.9,90,000/- AN D HAD RECEIVED RS.10,00,000/-. HOWEVER, NO DATE OF REPAYMENT HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO PROVE THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE LOAN RECEIVED AND THE INVESTMENT MADE. ON THE CONTRARY, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE LOAN RECEIVED ON 03.05.2006 WAS REPAID ON 29.12.2006. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE CERTIFICATE NOW FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE RECEIPT OF REMUNERATION WAS ALSO FURNISHED TO THE AO OR THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHE R THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE SAID CERTIFICATE. I, THERE FORE, CONSIDERING THE CONTRADICTION OF THE RELEVANT FACTS, THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO REM AND THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AF TER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. 16. THE LAST ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO SUS TENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.15,000/- OUT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30,000/- MADE BY THE AO. 17. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD CLAIMED ALLOWANCE EXPENSES OF RS. 50,900/-, DIESEL AND OIL EXPENSES OF RS.12,7 1,092 AND GENERAL ROUTE EXPENSES OF RS.58,160/-. THE AO FROM THE BILLS / VOUCHERS, P RODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE NOTICED ITA NO. 131/JODH/2012 11 THAT SOME CASH EXPENSES WERE NOT VOUCHED. HE DISALL OWED A SUM OF RS.30,000/-. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A), WHO SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.15,000/- BY OBSERVING IN PARA 4.3 OF THE IMPU GNED ORDER AS UNDER : 4.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A R AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE A.R., IT IS SEEN THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE ON RUN NING OF TANKERS AND LORRIES. THE A.O. HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30,00 0/- OUT OF THESE EXPENSES CONSIDERING THEM TO BE PARTLY UN-VOUCHED B EING CASH EXPENSES. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THAT OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. WOULD BE MORE APPLICABLE TO ALLOWANCE EXPENSES OF RS.50,900/ - AND GENERAL ROUTE EXPENSES OF RS.58,160/- MAINLY, ACCORDINGLY I T WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.15,0 00/-. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 18. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES. THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWAN CE WAS REQUIRED. ALTERNATIVELY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS ON HIGHE R SIDE. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 19. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES. IN THIS CASE, IT APPEARS THAT FEW OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE W ERE NOT FULLY VOUCHED AS POINTED OUT BY THE AO. SO SOME DISALLOWANCE WAS CALLED FOR. BUT SINCE NEITHER THE AO NOR THE LD. CIT(A) POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC ITEM OF DIS ALLOWABLE NATURE, IN MY OPINION, THE DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS ON HIGHER SIDE. THEREFORE, TO MEET ITA NO. 131/JODH/2012 12 THE ENDS OF JUSTICE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,000/- IS SUSTAINED. AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE WILL GET RELIEF OF RS.5,000/-. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.07.2012. ) SD/- (N.K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 4 TH JULY, 2012 *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, JODHPUR 6. GUARD FILE ASSTT. REGISTRAR TRUE COPY