Shri Padmshibhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, Surat V. The ACIT.,Circle-3, Surat

ITA 1431/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 143120514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAPNESH SHETH
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Onus to prove

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , . .!'#$, % & BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1431/AHD/2009 ( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) PADAMSHIBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL PROP.OF M/S.AKHAND ANAND BUILDERS FLAT NO.802, ASHOPALAV APARTMENT,TADWADI RANDER ROAD, SURAT ( ( ( ( / VS. THE ASST.CIT CIRCLE-3 SURAT * % ./+, ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AJFPP 7240 L ( *- / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ./*- / RESPONDENT ) *- 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAPNESH SHETH ./*- 1 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWAL, SR.D.R. (2 1 3% / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 07/05/2012 4') 1 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18/5/2012 5 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING FR OM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-II, SURAT DATED 17/02/2009 PAS SED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 20/ 12/2007 WERE THAT THE ITA NO.1431/AHD /2009 PADAMSHIBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 2 - ASSESSEE IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION RUNNING A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, VIZ.M/S.AKHAND AN AND BUILDERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS M ADE PURCHASES FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSONS:- (I) SHREEJI CARTING TADVADI RS.5,01,860 (II) KRISHNA CORPORATION RS. 89,551 (III) GANPATI GRANITE & STORES RS.1,03,151 (IV) TAJANI CARTING, CHOWPATI RS.79,560 (V) OM SAI MARBLE RS.3,19,351 2.1. NOTICES U/S.133(6) WERE ISSUED, HOWEVER RETURN ED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARKS NOT KNOWN. FURTHE R, AN INSPECTOR WAS DEPUTED TO ENQUIRE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE SAID PARTIES AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRITTEN THAT AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS THE PARTIES DID NOT EXIST. ACCORDING TO ASSESSIN G OFFICER, PURCHASES REMAINED UNVERIFIABLE, HENCE A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WA S ISSUED AND IN COMPLIANCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- A. DETAILS OF NEW ADDRESS WITH PAN OF THREE PARTY NAMELY TEJANI CARTING, GANPATI GRANITE & STONES AND OM SAI MARBLE HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED IN THE DETAILS FILED OF PURCHASE PARTIES. KRISHNA CORPORATION AND SHREEJI CARTING ARE CLOSED DOWN THE IR BUSINESS AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. PAYMENTS ARE MADE TO BOTH THE P ARTIES BY CHEQUE ONLY. WE HAVE ALREADY FILED THE BANK STATEM ENT. B. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT AT PRESENT ASSESSEE HAS NOT HAVE ANY BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ABOVE PARTY. THUS, ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE ADDRESS PROOF OF PARTIES AND THE ADDRESSES STATED IN THE BILL ARE GENERALLY PRESUMED TO BE CORRECT ONE. ITA NO.1431/AHD /2009 PADAMSHIBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 3 - 2.2. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, MERELY ISSUANC E OF CHEQUES HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE GOODS WERE ACTUALLY PURCHA SED FROM THOSE PARTIES. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, THOSE PARTIES NEVER EXISTED IN THE PAST OR IN THE PRESENT AT ALL THOSE ADDRESSES INFORMED BY T HE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF ONE PARTY, THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY IN THE PAN A S INFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE CONFIRMAT IONS BUT THE TOO WERE ALSO NOT COMPLETE AS PER THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER SINCE THE GST NUMBER AND CST NUMBER WERE NOT MENTIONED. FINA LLY, IT WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PURCHASES WERE BO GUS, RESULTANTLY THE ADDITION OF RS.10,13,913/- WAS MADE. BEING AGGRIEV ED, THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS COMMENTED THAT ALTH OUGH IT WAS TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL POSSIBLE D ETAILS AND EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES, YET THE ENQ UIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO CONFIRM THEIR GENUI NENESS. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE O N RECORD TO SHOW THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS PURCHASED. AS PER LEARNED CIT(AP PEALS) ONLY A THEORETICAL ARGUMENT WAS MADE THAT UNLESS THE MATER IAL WAS PURCHASED THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE CARRIED OUT THE CONSTRU CTION WORK. LD.AR HAS ALSO ARGUED TO APPLY THE RATIO OF VIJAY PROTEIN S LTD. (1996) 55 TTJ (AHD.) 76 :: 58 ITD 428 AND RESTRICTED THE ADDITIO N UPTO 25% ONLY. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS DISMISSED THAT ARGUMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE DECISION OF VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. WAS DELIVERED O N ITS PECULIAR FACTS. FINALLY, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS C ONFIRMED. ITA NO.1431/AHD /2009 PADAMSHIBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 4 - 4. THE LD.AR MR.SAPNESH SHETH APPEARED AND AT THE OUT SET, DRAWN OUT ATTENTION ON THE DETAILS OF MATERIAL PURCHASED FROM THESE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS:- (I) SHREEJI CARTING - PURCHASE OF RETI & KAPCHI (II) KRISHNA CORPORATION - PURCHASE OF FLUSH DOO RS (III) GANPATI GRANITE & STORES - MARBLE PURCHASE (IV) OM SAI MARBLE - MARBLE PURCHASE 4.1. HE HAS THEN MENTIONED THAT THE PURCHASES OF R ETI AND KAPCH WAS FROM SUCH PARTIES HAVING NO PA OR CST NUMBER. HOWE VER, HIS VEHEMENT CONTENTION BEFORE US IS THAT ABOUT 70% PUR CHASES WERE MADE THROUGH CHEQUES. HE HAS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE PARTI ES; NAMELY, KRISHNA CORPORATION, GANPATI GRANITE & STORES AND OM SAI MA RBLE HAVE CST AND GST NUMBERS. THEIR INVOICES WITH THEIR SALES TAX NUMBERS ARE ALSO PLACED IN THE COMPILATION. HE HAS, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT IT WAS WRONG ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLEG E THAT THE PARTIES WERE NOT AVAILABLE BECAUSE THOSE PARTIES COULD HAVE BEEN EASILY TRACED. NEXT, HE HAS INFORMED THAT FOR THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD ENDE D ON 31.3.2005 THE CONSTRUCTION RECEIPTS AS PER THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCO UNT (PAGE 57 OF PAPER- BOOK) CONSTRUCTION RECEIPTS WERE SHOWN AT RS.1,19,1 0,200/- AND THE NET PROFIT WAS SHOWN @ 6% OF RS.7,14,763/-. THE PERCEN TAGE OF PROFIT IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS, AS PER LD.AR WAS REASONABLE AS AL SO ACCEPTABLE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE TURNOVER IN THE PAST WAS RS.1 9,93,005/- AND THE PROFIT WAS RS.3,93,657/-, THEREFORE, THERE WAS SUBS TANTIAL INCREASE IN THE TURNOVER AS WELL AS IN DECLARING THE PROFIT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE HAS REITERATED THAT IT WAS NOT P OSSIBLE TO CARRY OUT THE CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WORK WITHOUT THE PURCHASES AS SH OWN BY THE ASSESSEE, ITA NO.1431/AHD /2009 PADAMSHIBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 5 - HENCE MERELY ON PRESUMPTION THAT THOSE PARTIES WERE NOT AVAILABLE ON THE ADDRESSES GIVEN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD WRONGLY MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. ACCORDING TO HIM, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO KEEP TRACK OF ALL THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE BUILDING MATERIAL PURCHASED, SPECIALLY WHEN SUCH TYPE OF TRADE DO NOT HAVE A SYSTEMATIC LINE OF BUS INESS. HE HAS ALSO INFORMED THAT EXCEPT SHREEJI CARTING, REST OF THE P ARTIES ARE SUBJECT TO TAX AND THEIR PANS HAVE BEEN INFORMED TO THE REVENUE DE PARTMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION IN R ESPECT OF REST OF THE FOUR PARTIES, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RA ISED OBJECTION ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF PAN FOR ONE PARTY; NAMELY, SHREEJI CARTING. HE HAS, THUS, STRONGLY PLEADED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 5. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LD.SR.DR MR.SAMIR TEKRIWAL APPEARED AND HAS SUPPORTED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE RE VENUE AUTHORITIES AND ARGUED THAT THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT HAS RETURNED THE NOTICES AS NOT KNOWN BUT NOT AS LEFT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS ALSO DEPUTED THE INSPECTOR WHO HAS CONFIRMED THAT ON THE ADDRESSES G IVEN THOSE PARTIES HAVE NEVER EXISTED. IN RESPECT OF THE ARGUMENT THA T THE PAYMENT WAS MADE THROUGH 'A/C.PAYEE CHEQUE', THE LD.DR HAS CITE D A DECISION OF HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRECISION FINANCE PVT.LTD. REPORTED AT 208 ITR 465 (CAL.) FOR THE LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT THE TRANSACTION MERELY BY A CHEQUE DO NOT IPSO FACTO PROVE THE CORRECTNESS OR GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. AS PER LD.DR, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY ONUS, THEREFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION. ITA NO.1431/AHD /2009 PADAMSHIBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 6 - 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF THE COMPILATION FILED. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE BOOK RESULTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE BETTER THAN THE PAST. THERE WAS A REMARKABLE INCREASE IN THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF CONSTRUCTION RECEIPTS FR OM RS.19,93,005/- TO RS.1,19,10,200/-. THE NET PROFIT HAS ALSO GONE UP FROM RS.3,93,657/- TO RS.7,14,763/-. IN THIS REGARD, THE ARGUMENT BEFOR E US IS THAT WITHOUT THE IMPUGNED PURCHASES OF BUILDING MATERIAL, THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY TO RUN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. THIS FACT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN DENIED THAT MOST OF THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKIN G CHANNEL. WE HAVE PERUSED THE INVOICES OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES AND HAVE NOTICED THAT IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING PARTIES; NAMELY, (I) KRISHNA CORPORATION (II) GANPATI GRANITE & STORES (III) OM SAI MARBLE (IV) TEJANI CARTING THE BILLS/INVOICES RESPECTIVELY CONTAINING THEIR CS TNOS./GST NOS. IN THE CASE OF GANPATI GRANITE & STORES ONLY GST WAS FOUND AVAILABLE ON THE BILLS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED PAN OF GANPATI GRANITE & STORES, TEJANI CARTING AND OM SAI MARBLE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED THAT IN RESPECT OF OM SAI MARBLE, THE ACCOUN T WAS SETTLED BY MAKING A PAYMENT OF RS.1 LAC THROUGH CHEQUE AND THE CHEQUE DETAILS DATED 25.3.2005 ARE AS PER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF TH E SAID PARTY IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE PERUSED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF KRISHNA CORPORATION AND HAVE NOTICED THAT THERE WERE TWO CH EQUES RESPECTIVELY OF RS.49,500/- AND RS.26,100/- ISSUED TOWARDS PURCHASE S OF HARDWARE ITA NO.1431/AHD /2009 PADAMSHIBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 7 - GOODS. HOWEVER, ALL PAYMENTS TO GANPATI GRANITE & STORES WERE MADE IN CASH. NEXT, AS PER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF TEJANI CA RTING A PAYMENT OF RS.39,780/- THROUGH CHEQUE. ON THE BASIS OF THESE DETAILS, ONCE IT IS NOTICED THAT SOME OF THE PAYMENTS ARE THROUGH CHEQU ES AND THE BILLS/CASH MEMOS HAVE DISCLOSED THEIR GST NOS./CST NOS. AND TH AT THEIR PANS HAVE ALSO BEEN INFORMED TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THERE WAS GOOD REASON TO HOLD THAT THE PRIMARY ONUS FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISCHARGED. IN RESPECT OF THESE PARTIES, THE ASSES SING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE MADE MORE CONSCIOUS EFFORTS TO TRACE THEM ON THE BA SIS OF THEIR PANS OR GST NOS. EVEN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS COULD ALSO HAVE BEEN TRACED TO CONFIRM THE SUPPLY OF BUILDING MATERIAL. IN RESPEC T OF THESE PARTIES, FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABI LITIES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF NON-APP EARANCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO HOLD THAT THE PURCHASES HAVE NOT AT ALL HAS BEEN MADE ALTHOUGH THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE CON STRUCTION RECEIPTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, THE FACTS HAVE REVEALED THAT IN RESPECT OF SHREEJI CARTING, THE BILLS HAVE NOT REVEALED THE CST NO./GST NO; NEITHER PAN WAS INFORMED. THE ASSESSEE HAS THEREFORE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE PRIMARY ONUS OF INFORMING T HE CORRECT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PARTY. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE PURCH ASES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,01,860/- MADE FROM SHREEJI CARTING REMAINED UN SUBSTANTIATED, HENCE RIGHTLY ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN R ESPECT OF REST OF THE PARTIES, WE HEREBY DIRECT TO DELETE THE ADDITION. BEFORE WE CONCLUDE, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE CASE LAWS AS CITED BY THE LD. DR; NAMELY, PRECISION FINANCE LTD.(SUPRA), BUT HAVE FOUND THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITA NO.1431/AHD /2009 PADAMSHIBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 8 - CALCUTTA COURT WAS IN RESPECT OF CASH CREDITS AND T HE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE ON RECORD THE IDENTITY OF THE CRE DITORS. THAT PRIMARY ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS COULD N OT BE ESTABLISHED, THEREFORE THE HON'BLE COURT HAS HELD THAT MERE PAYM ENT BY CHEQUE DID NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDITS. SINCE TH E CONTEXT IN WHICH THE SAID VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE COURT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, HENCE WE HEREBY HOLD THA T THIS CASE LAW DOES NOT APPLY RATHER MISPLACED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, AS PER THE DIRECTIONS, THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7. GROUND NO.2 READS AS UNDER: 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS W ELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONF IRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.33,800/- OF DOCUMENTATION CHARGES. 7.1. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS. 33,800/- UNDER THE HEAD DOCUMENTATION CHARGES. HOWEVER, THE DETAILS OF DASTAVAJ WERE NOT FURNISHED. BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PLACE ON RE CORD ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID EXPEN DITURE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO CORROBORATE THE CLAIM OF EXP ENDITURE BY PLACING ON RECORD ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, HENCE WE HEREBY HOL D THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS RIGHTLY MADE. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO.3 READS AS UNDER: ITA NO.1431/AHD /2009 PADAMSHIBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 9 - 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS W ELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONF IRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF R S.50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 8.1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT TOTAL HOU SE-HOLD WITHDRAWALS WERE SHOWN AT RS.1,10,000/- PERTAINING TO THE FOUR ADULTS FAMILY MEMBERS. LOOKING TO THE LIVING-STANDARD AND THE PR EVAILING MARKET RATE OF DAILY COMMODITIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MAD E A LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS.50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE-HOL D WITHDRAWALS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER. 9. THE ISSUE OF ESTIMATION OF HOUSE-HOLD EXPENDITUR E ON ADHOC BASIS IS VERY COMMON AND THERE IS NO FIXED YARDSTICK TO D ECIDE THE EXACT AMOUNT OF THE HOUSE-HOLD EXPENDITURE. EVERY FAMILY HAS HIS OWN WAY OF LIVING AND, THEREFORE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO STANDARD IZE THE HOUSE-HOLD EXPENDITURE. IN A SITUATION WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS A LSO NOT FURNISHING EXACT DETAILS OF THE DOMESTIC EXPENDITURE, THE REVENUE AU THORITIES ARE LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO MAKE AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE. WE CA N ONLY COMMENT THAT SUCH AN ESTIMATION SHOULD NOT BE BIASED BUT SH OULD BE ON A RATIONAL BASIS. IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, THERE IS ALWAYS A SCOPE OF CERTAIN DEGREE OF GUESS WORK AND FOR THAT ASSESSEE IS ALSO REASONA BLE AND THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CANNOT BE BLAMED ENTIRELY. HENCE, WE H EREBY HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO ARBITRARINESS IN THE PRESENT CASE ON THE PAR T OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ESTIMATING HOUSE-HOLD EXPENSES. WE HER EBY CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS GROUND IS DI SMISSED. 10. GROUND NO.4 READS AS UNDER: ITA NO.1431/AHD /2009 PADAMSHIBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 10 - 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS W ELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONF IRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF R S.76,793/- BEING 2% OF LABOUR EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF NON-BUSINESS PU RPOSE. 10.1. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED LABOUR EXPENSES OF R S.38,39,652/-. IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVI DENCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED 2% OF THE SAME. T HE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO HA S CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HOLD THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD MADE A VERY NOMINAL DISALLOWANCE THAT TOO, TO COVER UP THE DEFICIENCIES ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT TH E LABOUR EXPENDITURE PARTLY REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED, WE HEREBY HOLD THA T THERE WAS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- ( . .!'#$ ) ( ) % ( A.K. GARODIA ) ( M UKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 18/ 05 /2012 63..(, .(../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.1431/AHD /2009 PADAMSHIBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 11 - 5 1 .7 8 7) 5 1 .7 8 7) 5 1 .7 8 7) 5 1 .7 8 7)/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./*- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 9() / THE CIT(A)-II, SURAT 5. 7 >> >/ // / + + + + ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION..8/5/12 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 11/5/12 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S18.5.12 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 18.5.12 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER