PILLOO C.J. CURSETJEE, MUMBAI V. ACIT RG 16(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1781/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 178119914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1781/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 MRS. PILLOO C.J. CURSETJEE 10, DARBHANGA MANSION 12, CARMICHAEL ROAD MUMBAI -400 025 PAN :ACVPC 1036 F VS. ACIT RG 16(1) MATRU MANDIR MUMBAI-400 007 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PERCY PARDIWALA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJEEV JAIN DATE OF HEARING : 08.04.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.07.2014 O R D E R PER DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) -27, MUMBAI DATED 16.12.2009 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. IN GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 7, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE DECISION OF THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN NOT AL LOWING THE DEDUCTION OF RS.22,09,388/- BEING INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND FURTHER CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN NOT ALLOWING THE ADDITIONAL INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS.43,07, 218/- (SIC) CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS. 2.1 BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME HAD SHOWN A NET LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON DEVELOPMENT RIGHT A T RS.3,92,835/- AFTER CLAIMING INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT AT RS.22,09,388/- ON TH E COST OF IMPROVEMENT INCURRED AT RS.16,73,681/-. THE ASSESSEE, BEING THE SOLE EXE CUTRIX OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT AND OF THE ESTATE OF HER MOTHER LATE MARY CURSETJEE, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGRE EMENT DATED 03.04.2003 WITH ITA NO. 1781 /MUM/2010 MS. PILLOO C.J. CURSETJEE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 2 M/S. RAMESH BUILDERS (DEVELOPERS). UNDER THE SAID DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, DEVELOPERS HAD PAID A SUM OF RS.3,35,00,000/- TO TH E ASSESSEE FOR OBTAINING FROM HER FULL AND EXCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN RESPEC T OF THE PIECE OF A LAND ADMEASURING 15,941/- SQUARE METERS. THE SAID LAND W AS ORIGINALLY OWNED BY LATE MS.MARY CURSETJEE, MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO DIED ON 30.10.1996. AS PER HER UNREVOKED LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT DATED 29.11.1994, SHE APPOINTED HER ONLY CHILD, THE ASSESSEE AS HER ONLY HEIR AND NEXT KIN. THE SAI D WILL ALSO APPOINTED THE ASSESSEE AS THE SOLE EXECUTRIX OF THE SAID WILL AND OF HER E STATE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, SHE HAD INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.43,86,789/- ( IN VARIOUS YEARS) TOWARDS COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID TO THE DEVELOPERS. OUT OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE, THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 16,73,681/- AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM C APITAL GAIN IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED INDEXAT ION BENEFIT IN RESPECT EXPENSES AGGREGATING TO RS.7,56,568/-. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURTHER CLAIMED THE INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT AT RS.65,16,566/- AS AGAINST RS.22,09,388/- ORIGINALLY CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN CONNECTION TO THE AFOREMENTIONED CLAIM, THE AO REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ORIGINAL BILLS/VOUCHERS/BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S. RAMESH BUI LDERS TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM AND THE PERSONAL PRESENCE OF THE DEVELOPER. IN RESPONSE , VIDE LETTER 12.10.2006, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE AO TO DIRECTLY SUMMON MR.RAM ESH THAKKAR, A PARTNER IN M/S. RAMESH BUILDERS. HOWEVER, THE AO AFTER NOTING THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCE OF ANY CLAIM MADE BY HER, REJECTED THE INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS.22,09,388/- ON THE COST O F IMPROVEMENT AT RS.16,73,681/- AND ALSO THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM OF COS T OF INDEXATION OF RS. RS.43,07,218/- (SIC) (RS.65,16,566/- CLAIMED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS (MINUS) RS.22,09,388/- CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INC OME) CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.2 DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE T HE LD.CIT(A), IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LAND WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED TO HER DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR WAS OWNED BY THE LATE MOTHER AND HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE LAND CEILING ACT AND SHE HAD TAKEN THE HE LP OF ONE MR. RAMESH THAKKAR PARTNER OF RAMESH BUILDER TO RECOVER THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND WITH UNDERSTANDING ITA NO. 1781 /MUM/2010 MS. PILLOO C.J. CURSETJEE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 3 IF THE LAND WAS RECOVERED, THE BUILDER WOULD HAVE T HE RIGHT TO DEVELOP THE SAME ON MUTUALLY ACCEPTED TERMS, THE COST WOULD BE BORNE BY THE BUILDER AND WOULD BE RECOVERED ONCE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS REACHED AS THE OWNER WAS NOT IN FINANCIAL POSITION TO BEAR THE COST. THE LAND WAS R ECOVERED IN 1992 FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT AFTER SURRENDERING 20% OF THE LAND TO TH E STATE GOVERNMENT AND CERTAIN BOUNDARY WALLS WERE MADE, THE BUILDING PLAN S WERE DEVELOPED AND THE BUILDER INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.43.83 LAKHS ON ALL THESE ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER, MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WHO DIED IN 1996 AND THE ASSESSEE BECAME THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING. IN APRIL 2003, THE ASSESSEE SIGNED A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH M/S. RAMESH BUILDERS FOR WHICH THEY PAID A SUM OF RS.3.35 CRORES FOR OBTAINING EXCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THE PLOT OF LAND. IT WAS STATED THAT THE BUILDER HAD RAISED DEBIT NOTES FOR RS.48.80 LAKHS IN RELATION T OWARDS IMPROVEMENT EXPENSES INCURRED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE NOT P AID EARLIER TO HIM AS THE OWNER OF THE ESTATE AS HER LATE MOTHER DID NOT HAVE FUND TO PAY THE EXPENSES. HENCE, THE CLAIM WAS MADE FOR THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE BUILDER TO BE BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) HAD NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACQUIRED IN 1980 AND THE SAME WAS RELEASED IN 1995 TO THE ASSES SEES MOTHER AND THE ASSESSEE INHERITED THE PROPERTY IN 1996. THE AGREEMENT FOR P ROPERTY WITH THE BUILDER WAS SIGNED IN 2003. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE A GREEMENT WAS SIGNED IN 2003 FOR A SUM OF RS.3.35 CRORES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. THE BUILDER MUST HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE MONEY HE MUST HAVE SPENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES MOTHER WHEN THE FINAL PRICE WAS REACHED FOR THE PUR CHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT RATES OF THE PROPERTY. THE BUILDER WOULD NOT WAIT FOR 15 YEARS TO RECOVER HIS MONEY WHEN THERE IS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT THAT HE WOULD RECOVER HIS MONEY FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE AGREEMENT HAD BEEN SIGNED AFTER A GAP OF 8 YEAR S WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS RELEASED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THEREFORE, ACCORD ING TO THE LD.CIT(A), THERE WAS NO BINDING OBLIGATION ON THE ASSESSEE TO SIGN AN AG REEMENT WITH THE BUILDER FOR HIS EFFORTS TO RELEASE THE PROPERTY FROM THE STATE GOVE RNMENT ACQUISITION. THUS, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE CLAIM OF DEVELOP MENT CHARGES BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AFTER THOUGHT AND THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS NOT SPENT BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREBY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED DECISION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THESE GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 1781 /MUM/2010 MS. PILLOO C.J. CURSETJEE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 4 2.3 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD. AS REGARDS THE DEDUCTION OF RS.22,09,388/- CLAIMED IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME, IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSE E HAS INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.43,86,789/- TOWARDS COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF THE P ROPERTY AND THE BREAK UP OF THE DETAILS IS AS HEREUNDER: PARTICULARS OF EXPENDITURE AMOUNT PROPERTY TAX, DEVELOPMENT CHARGES, BETTERMENT CHARGE S ETC. TO PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ETC. 31,78,991 LEGAL FEES, ARCHITECT FEES, TRANSPORT CHARGES SECUR ITY CHGS. ETC. 12,07,798 TOTAL 43,86,789 IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE, OUT OF THE T OTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.43,86,789/- HAS CONSIDERED ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.16,73,681 TOWAR DS COST OF IMPROVEMENT WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN IN RESPECT OF THE SAID P ROPERTY. THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.16,73,681/- IS AS HEREUNDER: S.NO PARTICULARS OF EXPENSES AMOUNT(RS.) 1 EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON CONSTRUCTION OF WALL & OT HER EXP. ON LAND 1,39,124 2 TRANSPORTATION CHARGES 2,27,624 3 LABOUR CONTRACTORS 1,29,707 4 ARCHITECT FEES 2,25,000 5 LEGAL FEES 1,15,000 6 NON AGRICULTURAL CHARGES 80,658 7 BETTERMENT CHARGES 31,948 8 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 7,24,620 TOTAL COST OF IMPROVEMENT 16,73,681 WHILE WORKING OUT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION, THE ASSES SEE HAS CLAIMED AN INDEXED COST OF RS.12,92,276/- (IN RESPECT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AN D BETTER CHARGES PAID OF RS. 7,56,568/-) AND THE BALANCE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 9,17 ,113 (RS. 16,73,681 MINUS RS.7,56,568) AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT WITHOUT INDEXAT ION. FIRSTLY, IN RESPECT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND BETTERMENT CHARGES OF RS.7,56,568/- PAID BY THE ASSESEE ON WHICH INDEXATION BENEFIT OF RS. 12,92,276/- HAS BEEN CLAI MED, THE PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT RECORDS REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED THE DETAILS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE BEFORE THE AO DURING THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WHEN THE FACTS ARE BEING SO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATIO N ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO MAKE/CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE. SECONDLY, AS REGARDS THE ALOWABILITY OF ITA NO. 1781 /MUM/2010 MS. PILLOO C.J. CURSETJEE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 5 DEDUCTION OF AN EXPENDITURE OF RS. 9,17,113/-, (THE BALANCE EXPENDITURE OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE CONSIDERED OF RS. 16,73,681), IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BUILDER HAS INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.12,0 7,798 AND THE BUILDER HAS GIVEN THE DETAILED DEBIT NOTE IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXPE NDITURE AND OUT OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ONLY RS. 9,1 7,113/- WITHOUT INDEXATION. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS RELEVANT TO STATE THAT THE P ERUSAL OF THE DEBIT NOTE FROM THE BUILDER AND THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE AVAILABL E RESPECTIVELY AT PAGES 83 AND 86 OF THE PAPER BOOK INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS I NCURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.12,07,798/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE AND THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE T O THE BUILDER IS A MATTER OF RECORD AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS BY PROVIDING THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE AND PAYMENTS MADE THEREOF DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ALSO, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO PRODUCE ORIGINAL BILLS/VOUCHERS/BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S. RAMESH BUI LDERS TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM AND THE PERSONAL PRESENCE OF THE DEVELOPER. IN VIEW OF THE AFOREMENTIONED DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO DENY/DISALLOW THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS COU NT. RESULTANTLY, THE DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION OF RS.22,09,388/- MADE/CONFIR MED BY THE AO/LD.CIT(A) STANDS DELETED. 2.3.1 THIRDLY, AS REGARD THE ADDITIONAL INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEME NT OF RS.43,07,218/- (SIC) CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS RELEVANT TO POINT O UT THAT THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS, HAS REVISED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AMOUNTING TO RS.65,16,566/- AGAINST RS.22 ,09,388/- CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE FACTS AND THE DECISION OF THE LD.CIT (A), IN DETAIL, ON THE ISSUE OF DENIAL OF THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM IS NARRATED IN PARA 2.2 ABOVE. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE REASONS CITED BY THE LD.CIT(A) ARE JUSTIFIED FO R DENYING THE SAID ADDITIONAL CLAIM, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE DE CISION OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS COUNT AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS UPHELD TO THE EXTEN T OF DENYING THE ADDITIONAL DEDUCTION OF AN AMOUNT RS.43,07,218/- (SIC) CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 1781 /MUM/2010 MS. PILLOO C.J. CURSETJEE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 6 3. IN GROUND NOS. 8 AND 9, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATE D THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN ASSESSING THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS.4 2,000/- AS AGAINST RS.5040/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3.1 BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNING TWO PRO PERTIES, ONE AT MUMBAI WHICH WAS SHOWN AS SELF OCCUPIED AND THE OTHER PROPERTY W AS LOCATED AT GOA OF WHICH THE DEEMED VALUE WAS ESTIMATED AT RS.12,000/- PER MONTH BY THE AO. IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED AT VA RCA VILLAGE IN SALCETE DISTRICT OF GOA AND THERE IS NO MUNICIPALITY IN THE HANDS OF TH E VILLAGE PANCHAYAT AND THE PANCHAYAT LEVIES THE HOUSE TAX ON PROPERTIES AT RS. 6 PER SQ.MTRS., AND THE HOUSE TAX ON THE SAID FLAT OF 88 SQ. MTRS., IS RS.521/- PER Y EAR. SINCE THERE IS NO MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD ASSUMED A RATEABLE VA LUE OF RS.82 PER SQ. MTRS. PER YEAR. HOWEVER, ON APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) HAD OBSERVED THAT A HIGH VALUE HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE AO. HOWEVER, SINCE THE SAID PROPERTY IS HOLIDAY HOME AND WAS NOT LET OUT, BUT BEING SITUATED IN GOA WHICH IS A PREMI UM HOLIDAY LOCATION IT WOULD HAVE SOME LETTING OUT VALUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD.CIT(A) DETERMINED THE VALUE AT RS.5000/- PER MONTH WHICH HE CONSIDERED TO BE A REASONABLE VA LUE. AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED DECISION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THESE GR OUNDS IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US. 3.2 HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT NEITHER THE AO NOR THE LD .CIT(A) HAS ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF PROPERTY ON ANY REASONABLE BASIS. THE ESTIMATION BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES IS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS WHICH IS NOT LEGALL Y TENABLE. IN VIEW OF THAT MATTER, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ACCEPT THE VALUE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROPERTY. RESULTANTLY, GROUND NO 8 AND 9 ARE ALLOWED. 4. IN GROUNDS NO. 10 TO 13, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITAT ED THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED B Y THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF RENTAL & ELECTRICITY, REPAIRS & MAINTENANCES AND OF FICE EXPENSES. 4.1 AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE 2/3 OF THE EXPENDIT URE ON ACCOUNT OF RENT & ELECTRICITY, REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING THE BUSINESS OF BILL DISCOUNTI NG FROM THE ASSESSEES HOUSE AND DUE TO THE INVOLVEMENT OF PERSONAL USE, THE DISALLO WANCE HAS BEEN MADE/CONFIRMED ITA NO. 1781 /MUM/2010 MS. PILLOO C.J. CURSETJEE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 7 BY THE AO/LD.CIT(A). IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS PERT INENT TO MENTION THAT IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SIMILAR EXPENSES HA VE BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE PAST AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THEREFORE, NO DISAL LOWANCE IS WARRANTED ON THIS COUNT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTUAL ASPECT OF THE CASE, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING THE BUSINESS OF BILL DISCOU NTING FROM HER HOUSE AND THEREFORE THE INVOLVEMENT OF PERSONAL USE CANNOT BE RULED OUT . HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT SIMILAR EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN THE EARL IER AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AD HO C DISALLOWANCES ARE RESTRICTED TO 1/3 OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE DIRECT AND ORDER ACCORDINGLY. GROUNDS NO. 10, 11 AND 12 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 4.2 REGARDING THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.15,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF OFFICE EXPENSES, IT IS RELEVANT TO STATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE SAID EXPENSES UNDER VARIOUS HEAD. DUE TO THE REASON THAT THERE IS INSUFFICIENCY OF VOUCHERS AND THE INVOLVEMENT OF PERSONAL EXPENSES OF THE PROPRIETOR, THE AO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.30,000/- AND THE SAME HAS BEEN REDUCED TO RS.15, 000/- BY THE LD.CIT(A). CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROD UCED PROPER VOUCHER FOR THE SAID EXPENDITURE AND PERSONAL EXPENDITURE OF THE PROPRIE TOR, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD.CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMI NG THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.15,000/- AND THUS THE SAME IS UPHELD. GROUND NO. 13 IS DISMISSED. 5. GROUND NO. 14 AND 15 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND H ENCE THE SAME DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF JULY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 14.07.2014 *SRIVASTAVA COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR C BENCH //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.