Smt. Neerja Dwivedi, Farrukhabad V. ITO, Farrukhabad

ITA 169/AGR/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6991 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SHARMA
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Depreciation; Set aside
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 133A; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 169/AGRA/2009 ASSTT. YEAR : 2003-04 SMT. NEERAJA DWIVEDI VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PROP. M/S. V.S. DWIVEDI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, WARD 2 , FARRUKHABAD. AVAS VIKAS, BARHPUR, FARRUKHABAD. (PAN : AHNPD 6397 B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI PANKAJ GARGH, ADVOCATE. FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI A.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL, A.M. : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2009 OF THE CIT(A), GHAZIABAD ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. BECAUSE THE ADDITION OF INCOME 265600/- & THE CONFI RMATION THERE OF IN APPEAL ON A/C OF OPERATIONS CONDUCTED IN THE HOSPITAL IS ARBI TRARY, WRONG & BASED ON MISUNDERSTANDING AS THE ACTUAL HOSPITAL GROSS RECEIPTS (CONSISTING OF FEE, ADMISSION, BED-CHARGES. ETC.) HAVE ALREADY BEEN SHO WN RS. 571735/- IN P & L A/C. 'I., 2.BECAUSE THE ARBITRARY ADDITION OF 4257'20/- ON A/ C OF BED-CHARGES & CONFIRMATION THERE OF IN APPEAL IS WRONG AS THE GROSS RECEIPTS R S.571735/- CONSISTING OF FEE/ADMISSION BED -CHARGES ETC.AS SAID IN ABOVE PAR A HAVE ALREADY BEEN SHOWN IN THE BOOKS. 3.BECAUSE THE ADDITION OF 61505/- ON A/C OF LOOSE P APERS FOUND CONTAINING CERTAIN PAYMENTS IS WRONG & THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN OVER LOOKING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN IN 1 ST APPEAL FACTS PARA 8. 4. BECAUSE THE ADDITION ON A/C OF MEDICINES PURCHASES 117580/- & CONFIRMATION THERE OF IN APPEAL L IS BASED ON PREJUDICE & IS AGAINST F ACTS ON RECORD, SPOT STATEMENT DT. 6-3-03 IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.14 & STATEMENT ON OA TH DT.15-3-03 IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.5 & 6. 5. BECAUSE THE ADDITION ON A/C OF SO CALLED SALARY PAY MENT OF 70400/- & CONFIRMATION THERE OF IN APPEAL IS ARBITRARY & IGNORING THE EXPL ANATION GIVEN IN I S 'APPEAL FACTS 2 PARA 10. 6. (A)- BECAUSE THE ADDITION ON A/C OF CONSTRUCTION VA LUE DIFFERENCE RS.82604/-(SAID TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST ABOVE ADDITION & NOT ADDED) IS BASED ON WRONG, ARBITRARY & DEFECTIVE ESTIMATION OF THE LD. VALUATION OFFICER A ND IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED, IN THE LIGHT OF APPROVED VALUER'S REPORT DT. 1.11.06 FILED LATER ON BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AS PER WHICH THERE IS NO SHORT FALL INVESTMENT AT ALL. (B)- THAT WHILE MAKING VALUATION LOCAL PWD RATES SH OULD BE APPLIED INSTEAD OF CPWD RATES AS HELD IN CIT VS RAJ KUMAR ( 1990) 182 PAGE 436 (ALL.)WHILE THE LD.V.O.APPLIED CPWD RATES & THE LD. A.O. AS WELL AS LD.CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW TO RELY ON SUCH DEFECTIVE REPORT. (C)-THAT IN VIEW OF CERTAIN JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND ALSO AS PER THE CASE OF SMT.SAROJ GUPTA 106 TTJ 1073 (ITAT DELHI B BENCH) 10% DEDUCTI ON FOR SELF SUPERVISION IS ALLOWABLE WHILE THE LD. DVO ALLOWED ONLY 7.5%. 7. BECAUSE THE REJECTION OF MINORS' SAVINGS 95675/-(SA ID TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST OTHER ADDITION) IS WRONG AS WELL AS AGAINST LAW OF PROBAB ILITY & LD.CIT(A) IGNORED EXPLANATION NARRATED IN 1ST APPEAL FACTS PARA 12. 8. THE ADDITION FOR LOW HOUSE HOLD EXP.RS.1 LAC(SAID T O BE ADJUSTED AGAINST OTHER ADDITION) IS WRONG AND IS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE F ACT THAT THE HUSBAND WHO IS A DOCTOR IN GOVT.HOSPITAL BEARS EXP. & WHILE ACCEPTIN G THIS FACT IN A.Y.2004-05 (ASSESSED U/S 143(3) ON 11-12-07)EXPENSES SHOWN 240 00/-WERE NOT DISTURBED. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN SAYING THAT TH ERE WAS NO MATERIAL TO PROVE HUSBAND'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS HOUSE EXP.& IG NORED THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE HIM IN THE RESPECT ON 5.1.09. 9.BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) KEPT MUM ON THE 1 ST APPEAL GROUND NO. 10 FOR ALLOWABLE DEP. ON BUILDING RS.833241/- & OTHER ASSETS 212848/ - (I.E., FURNITURE 88148/-, GENERATOR 27000/-, INSTRUMENTS 82500, ELECTRIC-EQUI PMENTS 15200/-) AND THE ALLOWABLE DEP. HAS BEEN IGNORED. 10.THAT THE SURRENDER WAS CAUSED UNDER PRESSURE AND WAS AGAINST LAW ALSO AS EXPLAINED IN 1 ST APPEAL FACTS PARA 14. 11.THAT THE ASSTT. ORDER IS ARBITRARY AGAINST LAW A S WELL AS FACTS PASSED IN HURRY IGNORING ACCOUNT STATEMENTS, EXPLANATIONS, REPLIES TO QUERIES, AFFIDAVIT & OTHER RECORD ON FILE & RETURNED INCOME IS LIABLE TO BE AC CEPTED. 2. GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.2,65, 600/-. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS ADDITION ARE THAT THERE HAD BEEN A SURVEY IN THE CASE OF ASS ESSEE U/S. 133A ON 06.03.03. IN THE STATEMENT, THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF H OSPITAL WAS STARTED IN MONTH OF APRIL, 2001 WHILE THE PLOT WAS, IN FACT, PURCHASED ON 20.07.200 1. THE CONSTRUCTION WAS CARRIED OUT JOINTLY BY 3 THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS HER HUSBAND DR. K.M. DWIVED I. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY A NUMBER OF PAPERS WERE SEIZED AS PER ANNEXURE 10 WHICH CONTA INED 23 PAGES CALLED OPERATION THEATRE REGISTER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE PAYM ENTS WERE MADE TO THE DOCTORS, WHO CONDUCTED OPERATION OF THE PATIENTS. PAYMENTS FROM THE MONTH OF JULY, 2002 TO MARCH, 2003 WERE WORKED OUT AT RS.2,65,600/- WHICH WERE NOT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS BASIS MADE ADDITION FOR U NEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.2,65,000/- AND RS.2,65,000/- BEING THE INCOME RE CEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE OPERATIONS. 3. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). B EFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY DIPLOMA HOLDER OPHTHALMOLOGIST AND NOT A MBBS OR SURGEON. HE USED TO CALL DOCTORS IN HOSPITAL WHO RA ISE BILLS DIRECTLY AND THE SAME IS PAID TO THE DOCTORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS IN THE INCOME. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE AD DITION OF RS.2,65,000/- BEING THE PAYMENT MADE TO DOCTORS STATING THAT THE PAYMENT CANNOT REP RESENT THE INCOME, BUT CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF INCOME OF RS.2,65,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS COME I N APPEAL AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS.2,65,000/-, BUT THE REVENUE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE DELETION OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF RS.2,65,600/- IGNORING THE PROVISO T O SECTION 69C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THUS, THE ISSUE BEFORE US REMAINS ONLY TO THE ADDITION OF RS.2,65,600/-. 4. THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US DID NOT DISPUTE THE EST IMATION BUT VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT RECEIVING ANY INCOME. THE INCO ME IN THIS REGARD WAS DIRECTLY RECEIVED BY THE DOCTORS. IT SHOULD NOT BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE BENCH GAVE TIME TO THE LEARNED AR TO PRODUCE THE COPY OF BILLS ISSUED BY T HE HOSPITAL SO AS TO JUSTIFY THAT THE HOSPITAL 4 WAS NOT RAISING BILL IN THIS REGARD, BUT THE LEARNE D AR EVEN AFTER AVAILING OF THE ADJOURNMENT ON THE EARLIER DATE OF HEARING COULD NOT PRODUCE THE C OPY OF BILLS ETC. BUT MERELY CONTENDED THAT THE BILLS ARE NOT WITH THE ASSESSEE AND WERE IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. NO IOTA OF EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY THE LEARNED AR TO JUSTIFY HER CLAIM. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE EVIDENCE, THE INFERENCE WILL NATURALLY BE DRAWN AGAINST THE A SSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,65,600/-. 5. SECOND GROUND RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF THE A DDITION OF RS.4,25,720/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF THE BED CHARGES. TH E FACTS RELATING TO THIS ADDITION ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, ANNEXURE 11 WAS FOUND WHICH SHOWS RECEIPT OF BED CHARGES FROM PATIENTS PER DAY. THE BED CHARGES FROM 01.06.2002 T O 28.02.2003 WERE WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF THESE RECEIPTS AT RS.4,28,900/-. IT WAS NOTED TH AT ONLY RS.45,750/- WAS SHOWN AS RECEIPT IN THE CASH BOOK. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT T HE SUM OF RS.3,83,150/- WAS NOT SHOWN IN THE CASH BOOK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE AVE RAGE OF THE RECEIPTS AMOUNTING TO RS.42,570/- PER MONTH. THEREFORE, AFTER ADDING RS.4 2,570/- FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2003, THE SUM OF RS.4,25,720/- WAS ADDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AN D CONTENDED THAT BED CHARGES INCLUDING SERVICE CHARGES AND FEE ETC. HAVE BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 5,71,735/- IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. TH E CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE BEING PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BY W AY OF CASH BOOK OR LEDGER WHICH MAY PROVE THAT BED CHARGES ARE INCLUDED IN THE SUM OF RS.5,71 ,735/-. 5 7. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AR REITERATED THE SUBMISS IONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND RELIED ON PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH CONTAINED THE PRO FIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT SHOWING RS.5,71,735/- UNDER THE HEAD FEE/ADMISSION. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDE D THAT THE BED CHARGES ARE INCLUDED IN FEE/ADMISSION AND THEREFORE, NO SEPARATE ADDITION S HOULD BE MADE. THE LEARNED AR DID NOT PRODUCE THE COPY OF CASH BOOK WHICH MAY PROVE THE F INDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE INCORRECT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT I NCLUDED THE BED CHARGES RECEIPTS IN THE CASH BOOK AND ONLY A SUM OF RS.45,750/- WERE INCLUDED OUT OF THE TOTAL BED CHARGES OF RS.4,28,900/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM JUNE 2002 TO 28.02.20 03. EVEN NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE US TO CONTRADICT THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT THE BED CHARGES RECEIVED FROM THE MONTH OF MARCH ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT. 8. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ANNEXURE 11 FORMING PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS IS A FACT THAT ANNEXURE 11 SHOWING BED CHARGES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM 01.06.2002 TO 28.02.2 003 OF RS.4,28,900/- WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ONLY A SUM OF RS.45,750/- WAS RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK. THE BALANCE OF RS.3,83,150/- WAS NOT REC ORDED IN THE CASH BOOK. EVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT RECORDED ANY BED CHARGES FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2003 IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ESTIMATED THE BED CHARGES FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH AT RS.42,570 /-. THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON MEDICAL PROFESSION AND INCOME DURING THE YEAR AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT APPEARING AT PAGE NO. 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS RS.1,87,636/-. IN VIEW OF THESE F ACTS, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED U/S. 44A TO 6 MAINTAIN NECESSARY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS NOTIFIED U/R . 6F. THE ASSESSEE ALTHOUGH CLAIMED THAT BED CHARGES ARE INCLUDED IN THE SUM OF RS.6,39,593/- SH OWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD FEE/ADMISSION, BUT COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY BOO KS OF ACCOUNT AND THE LEDGER TO JUSTIFY HER CLAIM. THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE BED CHARGES RECEIV ED, WAS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE OWNERSHIP OF WHICH IS NOT DENIED. THE ONUS, IN OUR OPINION, IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE BED CHARGES AS SHOWN IN THE STATEMEN T FOUND ARE DULY INCORPORATED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARG ED HER ONUS. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFER ENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION O F RS.4,25,720/-. 10. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.61,5 05/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF RS.61,505/- DURING THE YEAR WHICH CONSISTS OF THREE AMOUNTS, BUT THE SAME ARE NOT ENTERED INTO THE CASH BOOK, THEREF ORE, HE ADDED THE SAME. WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIO N. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL LY CONSIDERED THE SAME. WE FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AR THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TELESCOPING AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED INCOM E, IF ANY, SUSTAINED. BUT IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISION AS STIPULATED UNDER PROVISO TO S ECTION 69C, NO DEDUCTION CAN BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASS ESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.61,505/-. THIS PROVISO READS AS UNDER : PROVIDED THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OT HER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, SUCH UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE WHICH IS DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS A DE DUCTION UNDER ANY HEAD OF INCOME. 7 WE ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THIS GROUND AND CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE. 12. GROUND NO.5 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.70,40 0/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF SALARY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED AS PER ANNEXURE 16 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT FOR THE SALARY TO DOCTORS AND EMPLOYEES ON DIFFERENT DATES AND THE TO TAL OF SUCH PAYMENT WAS RS.70,400/-. THE PAYMENT WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. H E, THEREFORE, MADE THE ADDITION. WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL LY CONSIDERED THE SAME. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AR THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TELESCOPING OF THE SAID AMOUNT AGAINST THE ADDITION, IF ANY, SUSTAINED BY U S. WE HAVE ALREADY SUSTAINED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BED CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.4,25,720/- A ND IN OUR OPINION, SAID AMOUNT MUST BE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE SALARY. BUT SINCE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED EX PENDITURE U/S. 69C, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISO TO THIS SECTION, WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT , 1998 W.E.F. 01.04.99, WE CANNOT ENTERTAIN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THE EXPENDITURE AGAINST THE ADDITION OF THE INCOME. WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 70,400/-. 14. GROUND NO. 6 RELATES TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE BUILDING DURING THE YEAR. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE T HAT IT WAS NOTICED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSTRU CTED THE HOSPITAL BUILDING AND THE RESIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS HER HUSBAND HAS INVESTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING JOINTLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO WHO ESTIMATED THE 8 INVESTMENT MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AT RS.4,03,395/- WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY AT RS.2,70,838/-. THUS, THERE WAS DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,32,557/- WHICH WAS APPORTIONED IN THE RATIO OF 168 : 102 (1,68,238 INVESTMENT MADE BY SMT. NEERJA DWIVEDI AND RS.1,02,600/- INVESTMENT MADE BY DR. K.M. DWIVE DI) IN THE SAME RATIO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOCATED THE SUM OF RS.1,32,557/- AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.82,604/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CI T(A). THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 15. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE DVO HA S APPLIED CPWD RATE INSTEAD OF PWD RATES WHILE VALUING THE PROPERTY. HE ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE DVO HAS DEDUCTED 7.5% FOR SELF SUPERVISION IN PLACE OF 10% BEING ALLOWED BY THIS T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. SAROJ GUPTA, 106 TTJ 1073 (ITAT DELHI B BENCH ). THE LEARNED AR DID NOT SUBMIT THE DETAILED WORKI NG BEFORE US QUANTIFYING THE RELIEF CLAIMED ON THESE TWO BASIS. 16. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON TH E ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CA REFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONGWITH ORDER OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND FORCE I N THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AR THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE CPWD RATE AND PWD RATE. WE A LSO NOTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SAROJ GUPTA (SUPRA) HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION FOR SELF SUPERVISION @ 10% INSTEAD OF 7.5%. SINCE THE COPY OF THE DVOS REPORT AND THE DETAILS OF VALUATI ON AFTER THE EFFECT ON THE VALUATION DUE TO THESE POINTS WAS NOT FILED BEFORE US, WE, THEREFORE , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY TO BOTH THE PARTIES SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE SA ME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-DECIDE THIS ISS UE AND IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE CPWD RATE 9 AND PWD RATE, THE VALUATION SHOULD BE RECOMPUTED AF TER GIVING EFFECT TO THE PWD RATE AND ALSO ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SELF SUPERVISION @ 10% INSTEAD OF 7.5% AS HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE DVO. IF STILL THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FINDS THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION, THE ADDITION TO THA T EXTENT MAY BE SUSTAINED. THUS, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 18. GROUND NO. 7 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.95,6 75/-. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CASH FLOW STATEMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THE SOURCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RS.95,675/- AS MINORS SAVING DURING THE YEAR BEING AMOUNT RECE IVED ON THE OCCASION OF THE BIRTHDAY OR OTHERWISE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED. THEREFORE, HE MADE THE ADDITION. THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION. 19. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID ADDITION HAS TO BE TELESCOPED AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.4,25,720/- AS SUSTAINED BY US UNDER GROUND NO. 2, AS THE FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF BED CHARGE S WILL BE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ADDITION OF RS.95,675/- STANDS DELETED AND THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 20. THE GROUND NO. 8 RELATES TO THE ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.4,25,720/- ON ACCOUNT OF BED CHARGES , THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE INCURRED PERSONAL EXPENSES OUT OF THAT AND, THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. THIS GROUND IS, THUS, A LLOWED. 10 21. GROUND NO. 9 RELATES TO THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE I N RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION ON BUILDING AND OTHER ASSETS. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED GROUND NO. 10 BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR CLAIMING DEPRECIATION IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER : 10. THAT THE APPELLANT FILED MONTHLY SUMMARY OF (A ) BUILDING A/C 833241/- (B) OTHER ASSETS 212848/- (I.E. FURNITURE 88148/-, GENERATOR 27000/- INSTRUMENTS RS.82500/- & ELECTRIC EQUIPMENTS 15200/ -) ALONGWITH BILLS PHOTO COPY BUT DEP. ALLOWABLE UNDER LAW HAS NOT BEEN ALLO WED. THE CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THIS GROUND. WE ACCO RDINGLY, RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE THIS GRO UND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 22. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.06.11 . SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (P.K. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 17 TH JUNE, 2011 *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY