S.K. Electronics, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 48(4), New Delhi

ITA 1511/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2385 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ PATWARI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Earning of tax free income; TDS
• Section: 14A; 40(a)(ia); 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1511/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 S.K. ELECTRONICS, SHOP NO.94, OLD LAJPAT RAI MARKET, NEW DELHI. VS. ITO, WARD-48(4), NEW DELHI. TAN/PAN: AAPFS 2596G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI MANOJ PATWARI, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI N.K. BANSAL, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 16 09 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08 11 2019 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.02.2017, PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXII, NEW DEL HI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S.143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (A) IS BAD BOT H IN EYES OF LAW AND ON FACTS. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS BY UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.75,00,000/- U/S. 68 OF I.T.ACT,1961BY TREATING THE UNSECURED LOANS AS UNEX PLAINED. I.T.A. NO.1511/DEL/2019 2 3. THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS O N FACTS BY UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 21,04,667/- U/S. 4 0(A)(IA) OF THE I.T.ACT,1961. 4. THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS O N FACTS BY UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 24,44,658/- U/S 14 A OF THE I.T. ACT,1961 5. THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS O N FACTS BY UPHOLDING THE NOTIONAL ADDITION OF RS. 1,05,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DIVIDEND FROM INVESTMENT IN A PRIVATE UN LISTED COMPANY. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS BY NOT ADJUDICATING ON THE MATTER INVOLVING THE ADD ITION OF RS.63,787/-ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES. 7. THAT THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON F ACTS BY IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) OF THE IT ACT,1961. 8. AS THE ABOVE ADDITIONS ARE BAD IN FACTS AND LAW ARE BASELESS, HENCE THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234A,234B, 234C AND 234D MAY ALSO BE DELETED. 2. AT THE OUTSET, GROUND NO. 5 HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED . ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. GROUND NO.1, 7 AND 9 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND G ROUND NO.8 IS CONSEQUENTIAL, THEREFORE, NO SEPARATE ADJUD ICATION IS REQUIRED. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS .75 LACS MADE U/S.68 ARE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT A SSESSEE HAD SHOWN CREDIT OF UNSECURED LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS. 75 LACS I.T.A. NO.1511/DEL/2019 3 FROM M/S. HIGH GROUND ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI. LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH VARIOUS DETAILS, WHICH ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH A NY INFORMATION TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS. FURTHER, FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSE SSEE, HE NOTED THAT THERE ARE NO CREDITS AMOUNT OF RS.75 LAC S. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO IN ORDER TO PROVE THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION FILED A COPY OF LEGAL COMPLAINT FILED B Y THE PARTY, M/S. HIGH GROUND ENTERPRISES AGAINST M/S. RAMA KRIS HNA ELECTRO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD. IN TIS HAZARI COURT OF DELHI, WHEREIN THIS AMOUNT WAS MENTIONED AS DUE FROM THE COMPLAINANT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN OF RS.75 LAC. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST M/S. RAM KRISHNA ELECTRO COM PONENT PVT. LTD. AND ASSESSEES NAME DOES NOT APPEAR IN TH E COMPLAINT FILED, AND THEREFORE, MONEY RECEIVED BY T HE ASSESSEE REMAIN UNEXPLAINED. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME WAS ADDED . 5. LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION ON TH E GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION. 6. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ENTIRE ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPRECIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR LD. CIT(A). THE FACT OF THE MA TTER IS THAT M/S. RAM KRISHNA ELECTRO COMPONENT PVT. LTD. IS A S ISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE PARTNER OF ASSESSEE FIRM, MR. SATISH KUMAR LUTHRA, WAS ALSO A DIRECTOR IN M/S. RA M KRISHNA ELECTRO COMPONENT PVT. LTD. THE COMPANY RAM I.T.A. NO.1511/DEL/2019 4 KRISHNA ELECTRO COMPONENT PVT. LTD. HAD FILED A CAS E AGAINST M/S. HIGH GROUND ENTERPRISES LTD. BEFORE THE HONBL E DELHI HIGH COURT ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PAYMENT OF SUMS DUE BY THE LATTER. AS PER THE ORDER, PAYMENT OF RS.1.5 CRORE H AD ALREADY BEEN MADE AGAINST SETTLEMENT OF LOAN AND OUT OF RS. 1.5 CRORE, RS.50 LAKHS AND RS.25 LAKHS WERE RECEIVED IN THE AC COUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE SAID CREDIT WAS RECEIVED FRO M MR. SANDEEP ARORA, DIRECTOR OF M/S. HIGH GROUND ENTERPR ISES LTD., ON BEHALF OF THE SAID COMPANY AND THIS FACT I S FULLY VERIFIABLE BY THE BANK STATEMENT PLACED IN THE PAPE R BOOK FROM PAGES 56 & 59. EVEN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS CREDITED IN THE NAME OF M/S. HIGH G ROUND ENTERPRISES LTD. WHICH HAS BEEN SOUGHT TO BE ADDED U/S.68. HE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THERE HAS BEEN TRADE RELA TIONSHIP BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND M/S. RAM KRISHNA ELECTRO COMPO NENT PVT. LTD. WHICH IS A DEBTOR IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASS ESSEE IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE SAID AMOUNT RECEIVED HA S YET NOT BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE DEBT AND DISCLOSED AS UNS ECURED LOAN IN THE NAME OF M/S. HIGH GROUND ENTERPRISES. B ECAUSE, THE FINAL VERDICT AT THAT TIME WAS STILL PENDING FR OM THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND PERMISSION TO PASS A JOURNAL VOUCHER WAS YET TO BE GRANTED. THE JUDGMENT OF THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT IS NOW AVAILABLE WHICH CLEARLY PROVES AN D SUPPORT THE CONTENTION AND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THU S, SUCH AN AMOUNT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. I.T.A. NO.1511/DEL/2019 5 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED UPON T HE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT ONUS HA S NOT BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND EVEN CONFIRMATION WAS NOT FURNISHED. THUS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND O N PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, IT IS SE EN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CREDITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.75 LAC IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF M/S. HIGH GROUND ENTERPRISES LTD. THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF CER TAIN DISPUTE WITH M/S. RAMA KRISHNA ELECTRO COMPONENT PV T. LTD. WHICH IS A SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WHO HAD FILED A CASE AGAINST M/S. HIGH GROUND ENTERPRISES LTD. IN T IS HAZARI COURT, DELHI ON ACCOUNT OF SUMS DUE BY THE SAID PAR TY. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT DATED 23 RD JULY, 2018 WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK FROM PAGES 47 TO 51, IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE SUIT FILED BY M/S. RAMA KRISHNA ELECTRO COMPONENT PVT. L TD. AGAINST M/S. HIGH GROUND ENTERPRISES LTD., THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS NOTED IN PARAGRAPH 3 THAT DEFENDANT HAD R EPAID A SUM OF RS.1.5 CRORES TO THE PLAINTIFF. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN PARAGRAPH 10 HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE DEFENDANT H AS REPAID A SUM OF RS.1.5 CRORE AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ADMITTE D ALSO, THEREFORE, CLAIM RELATING TO RS.1.5 CRORE AND FOR P ROPORTIONATE INTEREST IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. OUT OF THE SAME VERY AMOUNT OF RS.1.5 CRORE, SUM OF RS.75 LACS HAS BEEN RECEIVED I N THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM FROM M/S. HIGH GROUND I.T.A. NO.1511/DEL/2019 6 ENTERPRISES LTD. RECEIVED THROUGH MR. SANDEEP ARORA , DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY. THIS IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE BANK STATEMENT PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 56 AND 59 WHICH SHOWS TWO ENTRIES ONE DATED 23.06.2011 FOR SUM OF R S.50 LACS WHICH IS A RTGS BY SANDEEP ARORA AND AMOUNT AND RS. 25 LACS ON 08.11.2011 WHICH IS ALSO AN RTGS BY SANDEEP ARORA. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT M/S. RAMA KRISHNA ELECTRO COMPONENT PVT. LTD. IS A DEBTOR IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM LIST OF DEBTORS ON 31.03 .2013 GIVEN IN SCHEDULE 8 OF THE BALANCE SHEET. IT HAS BEEN FUR THER CLAIMED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE DEBT AS IT STILL APPEARS AS UNSECURED LOAN IN T HE NAME OF M/S. HIGH GROUND ENTERPRISES LTD., BECAUSE DURING T HAT PERIOD THE FINAL VERDICT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD NOT COME. NOW THAT THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT H AS COME THEREFORE, IT IS NO LONGER IN THE NATURE OF LOAN. U NDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE SOURCE OF CREDIT OF RS.75 LACS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED, BECAUSE ADMITTEDLY THE SAID AMOUNT HAS COME FROM M/S. HIGH GROUND ENTERPRISES LTD. IN PURSUANCE OF SUIT FILED BY THE SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS AN AMOUNT DUE BY T HE SAID PARTY TO THE SISTER CONCERN, I.E., M/S. RAMA KRISHN A ELECTRO COMPONENT PVT. LTD.. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 9. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.21,04,667/- MADE U/S.40(A)(IA), THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT, ASSESSEE H AS PAID FREIGHT CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.21,04,667/- WHICH WERE DEBI TED TO I.T.A. NO.1511/DEL/2019 7 THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES: A. M/S. SAI DUTTA SHIPPING AGENCY RS.9,34,,472/- B. M/S. DEFT SHIPPING AGENCY RS. 57,433/- C. M/S. RELIABLE TRANSPORT OF INDIA RS.6,55,015/- D. M/S. GODARA FREIGHT CARRIERS RS.4,57,747/- TOTAL RS.21,04,667/- AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS AT THE APPLICABLE RATE AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 194 C, THEREFORE, HE MADE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA). THE SAID ADDITION HAS ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 10. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL HAD SUBMITTED THAT THOUG H ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON THE FREIGHT PAYMEN TS TO THE FOUR PARTIES, BUT THESE PARTIES WERE REGULAR AS SESSED TO TAX. IN SUPPORT, COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 OF THE THREE PARTIES NAMELY, M/S. SAI DUTTA SHIPPING AGENCY; M/S. RELIABLE TRANSPORT OF INDIA A ND M/S. GODARA FREIGHT CARRIERS WAS FILED, WHICH SHOWS THAT THESE PARTIES HAVE DECLARED THESE AMOUNTS IN THE RETURN O F INCOME, AND THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE IN VIEW OF THE 2 ND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) READ WITH 1 ST PROVISO TO SECTION 201. IN SUPPORT, HE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE JUDGME NT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. VS. CIT, (2007), 293 ITR 2 26 (SC); CIT VS. ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP (P) LTD., (2015) 3 77 ITR 635 (DEL.). I.T.A. NO.1511/DEL/2019 8 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITT ED THAT IF ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING BENEFIT UNDER 2 ND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA), THEN ONUS WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE. ALTERNA TIVELY, HE SUBMITTED THAT MATTER CAN BE RESTORED BACK TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY WHETHER THE PAYEES HAVE DISCLOSED THESE PAYMENTS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR WHICH THE ASSE SSEE SHALL FURNISH A REQUISITE CERTIFICATE OF THE CHARTERED AC COUNTANT OF THE PAYEES. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS NOT DISPU TED THAT ON THE FREIGHT CHARGES PAID TO THE AFORESAID FOUR PART IES, TDS WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED U/S.194C FOR WHICH ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA). HOWEVER, B EFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT NOW IN VIEW OF 2 ND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) READ WITH 1 ST PROVISO TO SECTION 201 WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN THE STATUTE W .E.F. 01.07.2012, PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FA ILED TO DEDUCT WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE TDS, BUT IF THE PAY EE HAS SHOWN THE SAID AMOUNT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S.139 AND HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT SUCH SUM FOR COMPUTING T HE INCOME AND HAS PAID THE TAXES, THEN NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE. NOW IT IS A WELL SETTLED LAW IN VIEW OF THE H ONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP (P) LTD. (SUPRA) THAT SAID PROVISO IS CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND WILL APPLY RESPECTIVELY . BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL HAD PLACED COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE I.T.A. NO.1511/DEL/2019 9 PARTIES TO PROVE THAT THESE PARTIES ARE REGULARLY A SSESSED TO TAX AND HAS ALSO SHOWN THESE PAYMENTS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND HAVE PAID TAXES THEREON. HOWEVER, MERELY FROM THE RETURN THE SAME IS NOT VERY DISCERNABLE. ACCORD INGLY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS MATTER SHOULD BE RESTO RED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY, WHETHE R THE PAYEES HAVE OFFERED THIS AMOUNT IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME AND HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT SUCH SUM FOR COMPUTING THE INCOM E AND HAVE PAID TAXES THEREON. THE ASSESSEE WILL CO-OPERA TE BEFORE THE AO TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE DOCUMENT AND CERTIF ICATE FROM THE PAYEES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS CONTENTION. 13. LASTLY, WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.25 ,49,658/- U/S.14A, WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE TH E ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND BANK CHARGES. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEES CASE WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN TRADE ADVANCE TO SISTER CONCERN AND NO INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED FROM THE SUCH LOAN. MOREOVER, THESE ADVANCES HAVE B EEN GIVEN OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND NOTHING HAS BE EN DIVERTED TO THE SISTER CONCERN OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS. HOWEVE R, FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE LD. ASSES SING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT FUNDS OVER DRAWN BY THE PAYEE WER E NEVER UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND HAS TRIED TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A WITHOUT ANY GIVING ANY REASONI NG OR BASIS. THERE IS NO WHISPER AS TO WHY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A IS ATTRACTED ON ADDITION OF RS.25,49,658/- FOR DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IN BANK CHARGES, WHEN THER E IS NO I.T.A. NO.1511/DEL/2019 10 EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEA R. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE IN VESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.10,50,000/- IN SHARES OF UNLISTED C OMPANY ON WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE SEPARATE ADDITI ON OF RS.1,05,000/- U/S.14A WHICH STANDS DELETED BY THE L D. CIT(A). EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO, IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAD H UGE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND CAPITAL OF RS.68,64,871/- AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL OR FINDING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT A NY INTEREST- BEARING FUND HAVE BEEN DIVERTED FOR THE NON-BUSINES S PURPOSE. WE ARE UNABLE TO APPRECIATE THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING SUCH KIND OF ADDIT ION WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND THUS SAME IS DIRECT ED TO BE DELETED. 14. IN GROUND NO.6, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.63,787/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 15. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADHOC ADDITION @ 20% ON THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES DEBITED: I) CAR INSURANCE: RS. 5,618/- II) CAR RUNNING & MAINTENANCE EXPENSE: RS. 64,7 58/- III) DEPRECIATION ON CAR RS.1,48,799/- IV) MISC. EXPENSES RS. 1849/- V) STAFF WELFARE RS. 36,745/- VI) TELEPHONE EXPENSES RS. 61,168/- I.T.A. NO.1511/DEL/2019 11 A SHORT REASONING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE ELEMENT OF PERSONAL USE CANNOT BE RULED. NOTHING HA S BEEN STATED BY HIM AS TO WHETHER THERE IS ANY DISCREPANC Y IN THE BILL AND VOUCHERS AND WHETHER THERE IS ANY DEFECT I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IF AT ALL, THERE COULD BE SOME EL EMENT OF PERSONAL USE THAT COULD BE ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF CAR R UNNING AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES. THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS NOT ONLY GENERAL BUT ALSO VAGUE AND PURE LY BASED ON ADHOC WITHOUT FINDING ANY DEFECT IN THE EVIDENCE SU BMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, SUCH AN ADHOC ADDITION I S DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH NOVEMBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- [B.R.R. KUMAR] [AMIT SHUKLA] [ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 8 TH NOVEMBER, 2019 PKK: