Suhas Zumbar Borude, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 3 (1), Pune

ITA 1626/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3813 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-02-2020
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VISHWAS MUNDHE
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries; TDS
• Section: 40(a)(ia); 194C; 13; 22; 145

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE ( THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT (KZ) AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO.1626/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SHRI SUHAS ZUMBAR BORUDE, G-8, HIMALI SOCIETY, NEAR MHATRE BRIDGE, ERANDWANA, PUNE 411 004. PAN : AIOPB6207C. . / APPELLANT. V/S THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), PUNE. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE. REVENUE BY : SHRI VISHWAS MUNDHE. / ORDER PER SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM TH E ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 2, PUNE DATED 01.03 .2017 FOR A.Y. 2013-14 AS PER THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKING AN AD-HOC DISALLO WANCES OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 AND THEREFORE THE ACTION IS BAD IN LAW AND ORDER PASSED IN CONSEQUENCES TO SUCH ACTION NEEDS TO BE D ELETED. / DATE OF HEARING : 22 .09. 2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 .0 9 .2020 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,00,440/- OUT OF GENUINE PURCHASE MADE FROM THE PARTY AS PRIOR PERIO D EXPENDITURE AND ALLEGED BOGUS EXPENDITURE BY DISREGARDING APPELLANT 'S CONTENTION. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION UP TO RS.14,23,645/- BEING 20% OF TOTAL DIRECT PAYMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.71, 18, 225/- WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY SPECIFIC REASON THEREFORE ENTIRE ADDITION IS BA D IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE STRUCK DOWN. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF R S.2,70,025/- OUT OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES BY INVOKING PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) BY DISREGARDING APPELLANT'S' CONTENTION. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS .3,13,000/- ON LOW HOUSE HOLD DRAWING ON ESTIMATED BASIS, THE ADDITION NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE U PTO RS.70,334/- BEING 15% OF FOLLOWING EXPENSES. CONVEYANCE AND TRAVELLING RS.87,068/- INTEREST ON CAR LOAN RS.85,477/- DEPRECIATION ON CARS RS.2,96,350/- TOTAL : RS.4,68,895/- 2. WE SHALL FIRST ADJUDICATE GROUNDS 1 AND 3 TOGETHER SIN CE THEY ARE INTER-CONNECTED AS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. THE BRIEF FACTS REGARDING THESE GROUNDS ARE THAT FROM TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DIRECT EXPENSE S OF RS.71,18,225/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AND SU BMIT DETAILS OF DIRECT EXPENSES CLAIMED. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ARS LETTER SU BMITTED ON 09.09.2015 STATED THAT THE LABOUR CHARGES WERE PAID IN C ASH ON DAILY BASIS AS ASSESSEE WAS WORKING AS A LABOUR CONTRACTOR AT INTE RIOR SITE OF CANAL WORK. HOWEVER FROM THE ACCOUNTS BOOKS, IT WAS SEEN THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED THIS EXPENDITURE ON DAILY BASIS WITH THE NARR ATION BEING DIRECT EXPENSE INCURRED FOR THE DAY. NO DETAILS LIKE PAYM ENT VOUCHERS, 3 MUSTER ROLL, WAGES REGISTER WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSE RVED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY DETAILS OF THE PAYMENTS EVEN AFTER GRANTING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE T O VERIFY WHETHER THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO A SINGLE PERSON OR MANY PER SONS ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CONTRACT RECEIPTS FR OM RACHANA CONSTRUCTION, SAI CONSTRUCTION, SAPPHIRE CONSTRUCTION, PUN E BASED PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS AND NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENT AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE AS SESSEE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCOUN TED FOR CASH EXPENSES WITHOUT ANY DETAILS OUT OF THE CASH IN HAND OF R S.66.86 LACS AS ON 01.04.2012. FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS SEEN THAT IT HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.10 LACS ON 26.03.20 13 FROM SAI CONSTRUCTION (BANK OF MAHARASHTRA) AND HAS WITHDRAWN RS.1 0 LACS FROM JANATA SAHAKARI BANK ON 28.03.2013 AFTER TRANSFER FROM B ANK OF MAHARASHTRA. IN THE SAME WAY, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED R S.451.67 LACS FROM RACHANA CONSTRUCTION ON 25.03.2013 IN BANK OF MAHARASHTR A AND WITHDRAWN CASH OF RS.29.65 LACS ON 30.03.2013 FROM BANK OF BARODA AFTER TRANSFER FROM BANK OF MAHARASHTRA. IN THE SAME WAY, ASS ESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS.35.64 LACS FROM RACHANA CONSTRUCTION ON 24.01 .2013 (IN JANATA SAHAKARI BANK) AND HAD WITHDRAWN CASH OF RS.31.45 LACS BETWEEN 4 TH AND 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 FROM JANATA SAHAKARI BANK. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS DOING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND WAS NOT DOING ANY LABOUR WO RK AT INTERIOR SITE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW ING CLOSING CASH IN HAND OF RS.45.48 LACS AS ON 31.03.2013. THE TOTAL CONTRAC T WORK 4 DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.144.48 LACS (RS.52.34 LAC S FOR EARTH WORK, RS.82.13 LACS FOR RACHANA CONSTRUCTION AND RS.10 LACS FOR SAI CONSTRUCTION). AFTER CONSIDERING THE OTHER EARTH WORK SH OWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.52.34 LACS AND THE DIFFERENCE OF AMOUNT REC EIVED AND CASH WITHDRAWN TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS.72.55 LACS, OUT OF THE CASH EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENT S AND DETAILS, 50% OF THE DIRECT EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WA S DISALLOWED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON T HIS ISSUE HELD AS FOLLOWS : 6.2. I HAVE EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF DIRECT EXPENSES WHICH IS MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR CHARGES. IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE LABOUR CHARGES ARE PAID IN CASH AND NO DET AILS LIKE PAYMENT VOUCHERS, MUSTER ROLL, OR WAGES REGISTER WERE PRODU CED. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY NOT POSSIBLE TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAI M MADE WITH REGARD TO DIRECT EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.71,18,225/-. NO TD S DETAILS AND ALSO WHETHER PAYMENTS WERE IN VIOLATION OF SEC.40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT WERE PRODUCED IN SPITE PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FULLY DISC HARGE HIS ONUS WITH REGARD TO ITS CLAIM MADE UNDER THE HEAD DIRECT EXPE NSES. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS, I AM OF THE OPINION T HAT DISALLOWANCE OF 50% IS THE VERY MUCH ON THE HIGHER SIDE. I CONSIDER IT FA IR AND REASONABLE TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE AT 20% WHICH COMES TO RS.14,23,645 /-. THE APPELLANT THUS GETS RELIEF OF RS.21,29,468/-. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLO WANCE UNDER THE HEAD OF DIRECT EXPENSES BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND THE CONFIRMATION BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS DONE ON ADHOC BASIS S INCE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS UNDER SEC.145(3) OF THE ACT. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AUTHOR ISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS IF THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S WERE FOUND CORRECT THEN THE ALLEGATION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHOUT ANY 5 BASIS. ALTERNATIVELY, IF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MAD E THIS DISALLOWANCE, THEN HE SHOULD HAVE REJECTED THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE R ELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDERS OF SUB-ORDINATE AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER AT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR AT THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE FURNISHE D ANY EVIDENCE / DOCUMENTS JUSTIFYING THE LABOUR PAYMENTS. I T IS CLEARLY ON RECORD THAT REGARDING THE ENTIRE LABOUR PAYMENTS, HOW THOSE PAYMENTS WERE MADE AND THE AMOUNT INVOLVED WHETHER PAID TO A S INGLE PERSON OR PAID TO MANY PERSONS, NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSE SSEE. 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE SUB-ORDINATE AUTH ORITIES, ANALYZED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE. WE FI ND THAT EVEN CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT THOUGH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT REJECTED STILL THESE DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE WHICH GIVES A CHARACTER OF ADHOC DISALLOWANCE. BUT S TILL THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE LABOUR CHARGES WERE PAID IN CASH AND N O DETAILS LIKE PAYMENT VOUCHERS, MUSTER ROLL, OR WAGES REGISTER WERE P RODUCED. IT WAS THEREFORE NOT POSSIBLE TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE C LAIM WITH REGARD TO DIRECT EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.71,18,225/-. THAT FURTHER , NO TDS DETAILS AND WHETHER THESE PAYMENTS WERE IN VIOLATION OF SE C.40A(3) OF THE ACT, NO EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE INSPITE OF BEING GR ANTED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM MADE UNDER THE HEAD DIRECT 6 EXPENSES. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, THE LEARNED COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE FROM 50 % MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO 20% ON THIS HEAD. 7. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW FOR THE VERY FACT THAT THERE WAS NO REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, SOME BEN EFIT OF DOUBT SHOULD ACCRUE TO THE ASSESSEE IN HIS FAVOUR AND UNDER T HESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE AT 10% UNDER THIS HEAD OF DIRECT EXPENSES. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTE D TO PROVIDE APPEAL EFFECT ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NOS.1 AND 3 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. THAT WE NOW COME TO GROUND NO.2 WHEREIN THE FACTS AR E THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS OBS ERVED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,50,000/- WAS SHOWN AS PURCHASES FROM ONE SHRI R.T. LALWANI. IT HAD BEEN MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R THAT R.T. LALWANI DID NOT RESPOND TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED. IT HAS BEEN FUR THER OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT OUT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,50,000/-, AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,440/- PERTAINS TO PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E., 2012- 13 AND NOT ACCOUNTABLE FOR A.Y. 2013-14 AND ONLY THE BA LANCE OF RS.49,560/- PERTAINS TO THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. T HE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED BOTH BY MENTIONING THAT THE GE NUINENESS IS NOT PROVED AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,440/- DOES NOT PE RTAIN TO THIS YEAR. LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN HIS ORDER OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS : 5.2. I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS AND I OBSERVED THAT SHRI R.T. LALWANI IS A MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR AND ALSO ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLY OF MURUM. JUST BECAUSE HE HAS N OT RESPONDED TO SUMMONS, THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE PENAL ISED FOR THAT. THE SUPPLIER IS HAVING A VALID PAN AND THEREF ORE THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT GENUINENESS IS NO T PROVE, 7 PARTICULARLY IN THE FACE OF THE FACTS THAT THERE AR E PROPER BILLS AND ALSO PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHAN NELS. HOWEVER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT. IS FOLL OWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING THEREFORE EXPENSES PERTAINING TO PREVIOUS YEARS CANNOT BE ALLOWED THIS YEAR. I TH EREFORE RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,00, 440/- BEING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. THE APPELLANT THUS GETS RELI EF OF RS. 49,560/-. 9. WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR HIS FINDINGS ON THIS ISSUE SINCE IT IS ON RECORD THAT PROPER BILLS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AND PAYMENTS WERE MAD E THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, THUS GENUINENESS CANNOT BE DOUBTED. T HE FACT REMAINS THAT RS.1,00,440/- PERTAINS TO THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 WHILE THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUN TING AND THEREFORE, THESE EXPENSES WERE RIGHTLY DISALLOWED IN THIS R ELEVANT YEAR I.E., A.Y. 2013-14. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.2 IS DISMISSED. 10. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.4, THERE IS A DISALLOWANCE OF R S.2,70,025/- MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREIN HE NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PA ID TO LARSON & TOUBRO AS MACHINERY SERVICE CHARGES. HOWEVER, NO TA X WAS DEDUCTED ON SUCH PAYMENTS. HE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLAI M BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ON THIS ISSUE, THE LE ARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT AS PE R THE BILLS ENCLOSED, THE SAME CONSISTS OF SOME SPARES AND MAJOR PO RTION OF THE CLAIM IS IN THE NATURE OF LABOUR CHARGES. MACHINERY SERVICE CHA RGE IS A COMPOSITE PAYMENT AND THE SAME WAS LIABLE FOR TAX UNDER SEC.194C OF THE ACT. THIS OBSERVATION WAS FORTIFIED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE US RELYING ON PAGES 120 TO 129 O F THE PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN THE COPY OF BILLS HAVE BEEN PLACED AND IT WAS POI NTED OUT THAT 8 MAJOR PORTION OF THE BILL AMOUNT PERTAINS TO LABOUR CHARGE S. WE OBSERVE FROM THESE FACTS THAT THERE IS AN OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX UNDER SEC.194C OF THE ACT IN THE PRESENT S CENARIO. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENT ATIVE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTA N COCO-COLA BEVERAGE PVT., LTD., VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORT ED IN 293 ITR 226 SC WHEREIN THE HEAD-NOTE READ AS UNDER : TDSASSESSEE IN DEFAULTTAX ALREADY PAID BY RECIPI ENT OF INCOME PAYEE HAS ALREADY PAID TAXES DUE ON THE PAYMENTS RE CEIVED BY IT FROM THE ASSESSEETHEREFORE, TAX COULD NOT BE RECOVERED ONCE AGAIN FROM THE DEDUCTOR-ASSESSEE THIS ISSUE STANDS CLARIFIED BY CIRCULAR NO. 275/201/95-IT(B), DT. 29TH JAN., 1997 11. LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE RELYING ON THE DEC ISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT CITED SUPRA SUBMITTED THAT IF THE TAX HAS BEEN PAID BY THE RECIPIENT RECEIVING INCOME OR IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE RECIPIEN T OF THE AMOUNT HAS SHOWN THE SAME IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND HAS OFFERE D IT TO TAX AND TAXES PAID THEN THERE IS NO FINANCIAL JEOPARDY CAUSED TO THE REVENUE. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FULFILLED HIS OBLIGATION OF DEDUCTING TAX UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT, TAKING GUIDANCE FROM THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN CO CO-COLA BEVERAGE PVT., LTD., (SUPRA), WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DIRECTING HIM TO VERIFY WHETHER THE RECIPIENT OF THES E AMOUNTS HAVE OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION OR NOT AND WHETHER THE TA XES ON THESE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN PAID AND RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE CO MPLYING WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. GROUND NO.4 IS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 9 12. GROUND NO.5 PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE-HOLD WITHDRAWAL OF RS.3,13,000/-. THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS SHOWN A MEAGER DRAWING OF RS.46,893/- ONLY FOR HOUSE-HOLD EXPENSES FOR TH E WHOLE YEAR. HE THEREFORE MADE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT BY CONSIDERIN G THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS.30,000/- PER MONTH. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX (APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE HOUSE-HOLD EXPE NSES BY HOLDING WITHDRAWAL OF RS.25,000/- PER MONTH AND THE SAID DIS ALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,53,104/-. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE US REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS PLACE D BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS GROUND. WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED VIEW THAT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PARAMETERS OF JUSTICE WHEN THE ASSESSEES FAMILY CONSISTS OF HIS WIFE AND HIS THREE YEAR OLD SON, HIS WITHDR AWAL OF AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.20,000/- PER MONTH SEEMS TO BE R EASONABLE. HENCE, WE DIRECT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE APPEAL EFFECT ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 13. GROUND NO.6 PERTAINS TO THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCES REGARDING CONVEYANCE AND TRAVELLING, INTEREST ON CAR LOAN AND DEPR ECIATION ON CARS. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 25% SINCE NO LOG BOO K ETC., WERE MAINTAINED. AS THERE WERE NO DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEA LS) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE AT 15% I.E., RS.70,334/- SINCE ELEMENT OF PERS ONAL USE EXISTS. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW TAKING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT DISALLOWANCE AT 10% SHOULD BE REASONA BLE AND DIRECT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVIDE APPEAL EFFECT ACCOR DINGLY. THUS, GROUND NO.6 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10 14. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 24 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- - ( P.M. JAGTAP ) ( PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2020. YAMINI , -./0 10. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5. 6. CIT(APPEALS)-2, PUNE. PR. CIT-2, PUNE. '#$ %%&', &', / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; $*+,/ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // -./%0&1 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY &', / ITAT, PUNE.