Shri Vipul Kantilal Vachhani, Surat V. The Income tax Officer.Ward-6(4), Surat

ITA 1522/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80417 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 37(1)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD , 00 ' , #$ # % BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1522/AHD/2011 ( )(/ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI VIPUL KANTILAL VACHHANI, 1102, RIVERA TOWER NO.3, NR. SARDAR BRIDGE, ADAJAN ROAD, SURAT PAN : AAVPV 3361 L VS THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 6 (4), SURAT *+ / (APPELLANT) ,- *+ / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE(S) BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSION) REVENUE BY : SHRI NIMESH YADAV, SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 13/10/2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/10/2014 #./ O R D E R PER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-VI, SURAT DATE D 02.02.2011. THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE READS A S UNDER:- THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS)-IV, SURAT ERRED IN LAW A S WELL AS ON FACTS WHILE CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ITO, WARD 6(4), S URAT MAKING LUMP- SUM DISALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.9,54,684/-. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ON VERIFICATION OF THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 1522/AHD/2011 AY 2007- 08 SHRI VIPUL KANTILAL VACHHANI - 2 - HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.38,18,734/- UNDER THE H EAD ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE FOLLOWING INF ORMATION VIDE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 28.08.2009:- POINT NO.11 :- PLEASE FURNISH THE DETAILS OF EXPEN SES DEBITED IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ALONGWITH LEDGER ACCOUNT PRODUCE BIL LS FOR VERIFICATION OF EACH ITEM. 3. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE POINT S OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SENT LAONG WITH THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. ON THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 23.12.2009, WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF ADMINISTRATI VE EXPENSES OF RS.38,18,734/- FOR VERIFICATION OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND WAS ALSO REQUESTED TO SHOW-CAUSE AS TO WHY 25% OF T HESE EXPENSES SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS AND BE ADDED TO THIS TOTAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER SUBMITTED AN IOTA OF DETAILS CALLED FOR NOR ATTENDED AND EXPLAIN ED THE RETURN OF INCOME. THUS, EVEN THOUGH, SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND TO OFF ER THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES, EVERY TIME, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO E XPLAIN/OFFER THE DETAILS CALLED FOR. THIS EVIDENCED THAT THE ASSESSEE TO SAF EGUARD HIMSELF FROM THE BURDEN OF TAXATION HAS INFLATED THE EXPENSES. HE FU RTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TOTALLY FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENES S OF THE EXPENSES AND TO PROVE THAT THEY WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVEL Y FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AS ENVISAGED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT IN ORDER TO FO LLOW THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, A SMALL PORTION OF RS.9,54,684/- BEING 25 % OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS.38,18,734/- IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ITA NO. 1522/AHD/2011 AY 2007- 08 SHRI VIPUL KANTILAL VACHHANI - 3 - 5. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. BEFORE US, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRIT TEN SUBMISSIONS, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES HAS BEEN MADE PURELY ON ESTIMATION, PRESUM PTION, ASSUMPTION, LUMP-SUM AND ADHOC BASIS, WHICH IS NOT TENABLE IN L AW. THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, OFFERED APPRECIABLY HIGH TRA DING RESULTS SO FAR AS THE GP RATIO AND NP RATIO IS CONCERNED AND THERE IS NO REASON TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE ARBITRARILY WHICH IS ON THE FACE OF IT VERY MUCH ON HIGHER SIDE. AS A RESULT OF SUCH ARBITRARY AND ADHOC DISALLOWANC E, THE NET PROFIT RATIO WOULD COME TO 2.71%, WHICH IS ABOUT 3 TIMES MORE TH AN THE NP RATIO 0.67 ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE IMMEDIATE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE A CT. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS O F THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HEARD THE DR AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAI LABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RS.38,18,734/- UNDER THE HEAD ADMINISTRATIVE EXPEN SES. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUC E ANY BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY IT A ND THEREFORE HE DISALLOWED THE 25% OF SUCH EXPENSES, WHICH WORKED TO RS.9,54,684/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME DO NOT RELATE TO THE BUSIN ESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. TH E ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE A.O. BECAUSE NO DETAILS / EVIDENCES WERE PRO DUCED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO DETAILS OR EVID ENCES HAVE BEEN PRODUCED. THOUGH, IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT THE MAJO R EXPENSE WAS ON ITA NO. 1522/AHD/2011 AY 2007- 08 SHRI VIPUL KANTILAL VACHHANI - 4 - ACCOUNT OF DISCOUNTS ALLOWED TO THE DEALERS AS PER INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COMPANY, NEITHER DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES NOR INSTRU CTIONS OF THE COMPANY (CELFORCE) WAS PRODUCED TO JUSTIFY THE CLAI M. THE MAIN PLANK OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT FINANCIAL RESULTS OF PRECE DING YEAR HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED U/S. 143(3) AND THEREFORE DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT WARRANTED. WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT PREVIOUS YEAR RECORDS GIVE A BASIS FOR DETERMINATION OF INCOME IN CASE IT IS TO BE ESTIMAT ED, AT LEAST IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT COMPARISONS WITH THE RESULTS OF THE PRECEDING YEARS DO NOT HELP THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS TRIED TO COMPARE ONLY MACRO LEVEL RESULTS, I.E. NET PROFIT AS PERCEN TAGE OF TURNOVER WHEREAS CLAIMS UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS NEED TO BE ANA LYSED ALSO. IT IS SEEN THAT EXPENSES INCURRED UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE INCREASED EVEN THOUGH THE TURNOVER HAS SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED. A COMPARISON IS GIVEN BELOW :- SWASTIK OIL TRADERS CELFORCE SWASTIK OIL TRADERS BAN A.Y. TURNOVER CASH ON BANK NET TURNOVER CASH BANK DISCOUNT DISCOUNT SALARY HAND INTEREST PROFIT ON INTEREST REED GIVEN HAND FROM CO. 06-07 38306061 21427 587037 284686 97357009 256658 258250 5714216 1959800 360800 07-08 2580925 2379071 648832 634955 76891047 2649664 157990 4434069 2905505 499500 (LOSS) THE ABOVE CHART MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THER E IS NO CONNECT BETWEEN TURNOVER AND DISCOUNT ALLOWED. THE DISCOUNT ALLOWED IS ALSO NOT EXPLAINABLE ON THE BASIS OF DISCOUNT RECEIVED F ROM THE COMPANY (PRINCIPALS). SIMILARLY, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR INCREASE IN SALARY WHEN TURNOVER HAS REDUCED NOR IS THERE ANY EXPLANAT ION FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN CASH ON HAND WHILE MAKING PAYMENTS TO T HE BANK. THE EXPENSES CANNOT BE HELD AS INCURRED WHOLLY FOR PURP OSES OF BUSINESS. NO EVIDENCES RATHER NOT EVEN DETAILS HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE. COMPARISON WITH PRECEDING YEAR DOES NOT GIVE ANY JU STIFICATION FOR EXCESSIVE PAYMENTS OF DISCOUNTS DURING THE YEAR ESP ECIALLY WHEN NO INSTRUCTIONS OF THE PRINCIPALS, AS CLAIMED, HAS BEE N SUBMITTED BEFORE ME. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 06-07 (PRECE DING YEAR), IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O. HAD MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF 25% O F TELEPHONE EXPENSES/OFFICE EXPENSES/VEHICLE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,07,7667- AND IT APPEARS THAT NO APPEAL HAS BEEN F ILED AGAINST THIS ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE SEEN THAT NO EVIDENCE / DETA ILS FOR THE CURRENT YEAR HAVE BEEN PROVIDED, THAT COMPARISON WITH PRECE DING YEAR SHOWS THAT THE EXPENSES MADE DURING THE YEAR WERE EXCESSI VE AND THAT DISALLOWANCES HAD BEEN MADE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS WHICH APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE APPELLANT . THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF DETAILS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE IS CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF THE APPELLANT FAILS. ITA NO. 1522/AHD/2011 AY 2007- 08 SHRI VIPUL KANTILAL VACHHANI - 5 - 10. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSI ONS SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- THE APPELLANT WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT AS UNDER:- (1) THE ASSESSEE BEING THE INDIVIDUAL IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALERSHIP OF CELL FORCE AND OTHER RELATED ITEMS SU PER STOCKIEST FOR CELL FORCE UNDER HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S SWASTIK OIL TRADERS. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AS THAT OF IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REGULARLY MAINTAINED AND DULY AUDITED IN COMPLIANCE TO THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 44 AB OF THE ACT. THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED ON 23-03-2009 SHOWING THE TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME AT RS.3,52,740/- ALONG WITH THE COPY OF AUDIT REPORT, COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. IN THE EARLIER YEARS ALSO, THE RETURNS OF INCOME WERE FILED ALONG WITH THE AUDIT R EPORT U/S 44AB OF THE ACT AND THE REGULAR ASSESSMENTS U/S 143(3) OF T HE ACT WAS COMPLETED BY THE SAME ITO ALLOWING SUBSTANTIALLY AL L THE BUSINESS EXPENDITURES CONSIDERING RIGHTFULLY THE G.P. RATIO AND N.P. RATIO OF THE RELEVANT YEARS. KINDLY SEE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR: 2006-07 PASSED BY THE SAME ITO AT APPEAL PAPERS PAGES 53 TO 55. (2) DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS WOUND UP ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER RELEVANT BOOK RECORDS MAINTAINED AND KEPT WERE DEST ROYED IN THE HORRIBLE FLOODS IN SURAT AND FOR THESE GENUINE, BON AFIDE AND REASONABLE CAUSE, THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS COU LD NOT BE PRODUCED. NOT ONLY THAT, THE ACCOUNTING DATA/RECORD S MAINTAINED BY THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE APPELLANT NAMELY MR. PRADIPBH AI JAIKISHANDAS ROOPAWALA ON HIS COMPUTER WERE ALSO CRASHED DUE VIR US IN COMPUTER. IN SUPPORT OF THIS, THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ACCOUNTANT WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, NOT CONSIDERED IN THE RIGHT AND PROPER PERSPECTIVES. KINDLY SEE PAGES 58 AND 59 OF APPEAL PAPERS. IN SPITE OF THIS GENUINE, FACTUAL, TRUE AND REASONABLE CAUSE WITH EVIDENCES EXPLAINED, THE LEARNED AO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144 OF THE ACT IGNORING THE RELEV ANT DATA/DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE TAX AUDIT REPORT FURNISHED WITH THE R ETURN OF INCOME FILED AS ALSO THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE A PPELLANT AVAILABLE ON HIS RECORDS. BECAUSE OF SUCH ARBITRARY ASSESSMENT, THE LEARNED AO MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 9,54,6 84/- BEING 25% OF TOTAL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES TAKEN AT RS. 38,18,734/-, WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (APPEALS). ITA NO. 1522/AHD/2011 AY 2007- 08 SHRI VIPUL KANTILAL VACHHANI - 6 - (3) YOUR HONOURS, THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN APPRECI ABLY HIGH GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT RATIO AS COMPARED TO THE EARL IER ASSESSMENT YEARS WHEREIN THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE LOWER RATE OF G.P. AND N.P. RATIO. THESE VERY FACTS IS DEPICTED BELOW: SWASTIK OIL TRADERS - BAN (PROPRIETARY CONCERN) PARTICULARS 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 G.P. RATIO 2.25% 3.00% 6.60% N.P. RATIO 0.58% 0.67% 1.47% YOUR HONOURS, ALL THE ABOVE DETAILS OF TURNOVER, GR OSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT IN TERMS OF AMOUNT AND PERCENTAGE TO TURNOVE R ALONG WITH THE AUDIT REPORT OF THE EARLIER YEARS WERE FURNISHED BE FORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, BENT UPON THE LUMP SUM DISALLOWANCE OF THE GENUINE BUSINESS EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR. KINDLY SEE PAGE 43 TO 52 OF APPEAL PAPERS SHOWING THE TRADING RESULTS OF THE CONSECUTIVE THREE YEARS. (MORE PARTICULARLY ON PAGE NO. 43 AND 49 OF APPEAL PAPERS). UNFORTUNATELY, BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAIL ED TO CONSIDER IN THE RIGHT AND PROPER PERSPECTIVES THE VERY NATURE OF TH E BUSINESS OF DEALERSHIP OF CELL FORCE AND ITS ITEMS FOR WHICH TH E PROFIT OF MARGIN IS VERY LOW, WHILE THE BUSINESSMEN HAS TO BEAR THE FIX ED NATURE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. YOUR HONOURS WILL CERTAINL Y APPRECIATE THAT THE SALARY AND COMMISSION EXPENSES PAID TO THE EMPL OYEES EMPLOYED ON FIXED TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ARE ON THE FIXED BASIS AND NOT BASED ON THE COMMISSION EARNED AS PRESUMED BY THE CIT (APPEA LS). IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE CIT (APPEALS) OR DER, YOUR HONOURS WILL CERTAINLY FIND THAT FOR SUCH ADHOC DISALLOWANC E OF EXPENSES MADE, THE LEARNED AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE SAID EXPENSES WERE EXCESSIVE OR INFLATED, WHILE THE CIT (APPEALS) TOOK THE DIFFEREN T VIEW THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED ARE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE COM MISSION INCOME. THUS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATE EXP ENSES MADE BY BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE ON DIFFERENT BASIS A ND THAT TOO, PURELY ON ESTIMATION, PRESUMPTION, ASSUMPTION, LUMP SUM AN D ADHOC BASIS AND HENCE, NOT TENABLE IN LAW. (4) THAT APART, YOUR HONOURS WILL CERTAINLY APPRE CIATE THE CONTENTION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS, FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, OFFERED APPRECIABLY HIGH TRADING RESULTS SO FAR AS THE G.P. RATIO AND N .P. RATIO IS CONCERNED AND THERE IS NO REASON WITH BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE ARBITRARILY WHICH IS, ON THE FACE OF IT VERY MUCH ON HIGHER SIDE. AS A RESULT OF SUCH ARBITRARY AND ADHOC DISAL LOWANCE, THE NET PROFIT RATIO WOULD COME TO 2.71%, WHICH IS ABOUT 3 TIMES MORE THAN THE NET PROFIT RATIO 0.67 ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN THE IMMEDIATE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. YOUR HONOURS, BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORIZES OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE VERY FACT THAT THE NATURE OF VARIOUS BUSINESS E XPENSES CLAIMED ARE ITA NO. 1522/AHD/2011 AY 2007- 08 SHRI VIPUL KANTILAL VACHHANI - 7 - THE SAME AS THAT OF IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND BY THE NATURE OF SUCH EXPENSES, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE VARIOUS BUS INESS EXPENDITURES CLAIMED AND INCURRED ARE NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES BY THE APPELLANT. REGRETEDLY, BOTH THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO CONSIDER THE TRADE PRACTICE OF THE BUSINE SS OF THE APPELLANT EXPLAINED IN DETAIL WHILE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE B EFORE THEM. KINDLY SEE PAGES 27 TO 30 OF APPEAL PAPERS. THUS, THE LUMP SUM DISALLOWANCE MADE AT THE RATE OF 25% OF THE TOTAL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF RS. 38,18,734/- IS UNREASONABLE, HIGH PITCHED AN D UNREALISTIC IN THE LIGHT OF THE PAST ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE ASSESSE E AND HENCE, NOT TENABLE IN LAW. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, YOUR HONOURS ARE REQUEST ED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL FULLY AND OBLIGE. 11. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT ANY EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE DISCREPANCY POINTED OUT BY THE CIT(A). NO SP ECIFIC DEFECT IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) COULD BE POINTED OUT IN THE WRITTEN S UBMISSIONS BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT NO MATERIAL BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENSES OUT OF WHICH THE DISALLOWANCES WERE MA DE COMPARES FAVOURABLY WITH THE PAST RECORDS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE EXPENSES WERE REASONABLE WHEN COMPARED TO THE VOLUME OF THE BUSINESS OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. KEEPING IN VIEW THE PAST HISTO RY OF THE CASE, IN ABSENCE OF SUCH MATERIAL BROUGHT BEFORE US, WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 17 TH OF OCTOBER, 2014 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 17/10/2014 *BIJU T. ITA NO. 1522/AHD/2011 AY 2007- 08 SHRI VIPUL KANTILAL VACHHANI - 8 - #. / ,01 2#1) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! / CONCERNED CIT 4. ! ( ) / THE CIT(A)- VI, SURAT 5. $%& '' , , )*++ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &,- . / GUARD FILE. #. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY 3/ 4 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD