Pushpa Prakash Sarda, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1838/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7483 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Keywords: Gift; Business income; Futures and options; TDS; Capital Gains
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92; 40(a)(ia); 43(5); 143(1); 201; 143(2); 44AB; 13

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO. 1 838 /MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :20 07 - 08 M RS. PUSHPA SARDA, 64, GODOWN STREET, CHENNAI 600 001. [PAN: A RQPS2143B ] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BUSINESS CIRCLE IX, KANNAMMAI BUILDING , C HENNAI 600 006 . ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI D. ANAND , A DVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : S HRI SUPRIYO PAL , J CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 28 . 1 2 .201 6 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 17 . 0 3 .201 7 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : TH I S APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 13 , C HENNAI DATED 07 . 03 .201 6 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 07 - 08 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I) THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) - 13 IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IS THEREFORE UNSUSTAINABLE. I.T.A. NO . 1 838 / M/ 1 6 2 II) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) - 13 OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD OBTAINED FORM 15G IN RESPECT OF PERSONS WHO DID NOT WANT TAX TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON INTEREST PAID/PAYABLE TO THEM AND OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.5,30,278/ - O N THIS SCORE. III) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DECLINED THE SET OFF OF THE LOSS UNDER F & O (FUTURE & OPTIONS) AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS LOSS UNDER F & O HAS TO BE TREATED ON PAR WITH BUSINESS LOSSES A ND C.I.T (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE SET OFF OF THE LOSS UNDER F & O AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE SAME YEAR. IV) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED ALL TH E INFORMATION AND DETAILS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER LIKE CONTRACT NOTES REGARDING THE PURCHASE AND SALES. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT TRANSACTIONS OF F & O CANNOT REFLECT IN D'MAT ACCOUNT AS THERE IS NO D ELIVERY UNDER F & O TRADE AND D'MAT ACCOUNT HAS NO PLACE IN F & O TRADES. V) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE NOTED THE AMENDMENT MADE TO FINANCE ACT, 2005 WHICH IS CAPTIONED AS UNDER: 'THE FINANCE ACT 2005, HAS ACCORDINGLY AMENDE D SECTION 43(5) TO PROVIDE THAT AN ELIGIBLE TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF TREATING IN DERIVATIVES AND SECURITIES CARRIED OUT ON A RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE SHALL NOT BE DEEMED AS SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION AND THE SAME IS EFFECTIVE FOR AND FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06 - 07'. AS PER THE AMENDMENT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE SET OFF OF THE LOSS UNDER ANY HEAD DURING THE SAME YEAR AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 71(1) & 71(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. VI) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) O UGHT NOT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 0,549/ - UNDER PACKING EXPENDITURE, A SUM OF .10,000 ON ACCOUNT OF CARTAGE & COOLIE CHARGES, TRAVELLING EXPENDITURE OF .1,33,656/ - FREIGHT CHARGES OF .52,040/ - AND BUSINESS COMMERCIAL EXPENSES OF .26,3 56/ - . THE I.T.A. NO . 1 838 / M/ 1 6 3 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THIS WAS A TAX AUDIT CASE U/S 44AB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO AUDIT BY THE AUDITORS AND THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO QUALIFICATION BY THE AUDITORS REGARDING THE ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT AND OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ALL THE DETAILS AS DESIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE FURNISHED. THE FACT THAT THE BILLS/VOUCHERS ETC., HAD BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOO SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN NOTE OF AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC INSTANCE, OUGHT NOT TO HAVE SUSTAIN THE DISALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE. FURTHER NOWHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD POINTED OUT ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUG HT TO HAVE THEREFORE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THERE ARE BOUND TO BE A FEW SELF - MADE VOUCHERS LIKE FOR TEA, COFFEE, CLEANING CHARGES, POOJA EXPENSES ETC., AND OUGHT NOT TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT ADDITION IS WARRANTED ON THE ONLY REASON OF WANT OF EVIDEN CES AND VOUCHERS. FOR THE GROUNDS STATED ABOVE IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AND JUSTICE RENDERED. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DEALER IN TEXTILE GOODS. SHE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ON 22.09.2009 RETURNING LOSS OF .12,81,817/ - . THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT]. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERV ED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THROUGH HER AR, THE ASSESSEE FILED ALL DETAILS SUCH AS CONFIRMATION OF CREDITORS, COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT, ORIGINAL TDS CERTIFICATE, PURCHASE/SALE DETAILS, INTEREST DETAILS, INTEREST PAYMENT DETAILS, DETAILS OF RENT, S ALARY PAYMENT, DRAWINGS & ADDITION TO FIXED ASSETS, BANK STATEMENTS, DETAILS OF BANK CREDITORS CONFIRMATION, FAMILY I.T.A. NO . 1 838 / M/ 1 6 4 DRAWINGS, COMPUTER BOOKS, BILLS/VOUCHERS FOR EXPENSES, ETC. AFTER SCRUTINIZING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERI NG THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 29.12.2009 BY ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT .16,51,862/ - AFTER MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND CHALLENGED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST GROUND IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF .5,30,278/ - UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED FORM 15G IN RESPECT OF PERSONS WHO DID NOT WANT TAX TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON INTEREST PAID/PAYABLE TO THEM . THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD BE DELETED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT BY FILING D UPLICATE COPY OF THE FORM 15G FILLED UP BY THE PAYEE AND DELIVERED TO THE PAYER FOR VERIFICATION IN I.T.A. NO . 1 838 / M/ 1 6 5 SUPPORT OF THE CLIENT TO WHOM THE INTEREST PAID/PAYABLE BEFORE THE LD. CIT OR AT LEAST AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE INTEREST AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME MAY BE SUSTAINED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX ON INTEREST PAYMENT ON LOANS AMOUNTING TO .5,30,276/ - . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT BY FILING DUPLICATE COPY OF THE FORM 15G FILLED UP BY THE PAYEE AND DELIVERED TO THE PAYER FOR VERIFICATION IN SUPPORT OF THE CLIENT TO WHOM THE INTEREST PAID/PAYABLE BEFORE T HE LD. CIT OR AT LEAST AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CAREFUL LY CONSIDERIN G THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT COMP LIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT , THAT IS TO SAY, IF F ORM NO. 15 G WERE ISSUED THEN THE SAME WERE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED AS PER PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN THE INCOME TAX ACT , THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A SSESSING O FFICER UN DER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE A C T . I.T.A. NO . 1 838 / M/ 1 6 6 6.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON INTEREST PAID TO LOANS. IN TURN, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AGAINST THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO THE LOAN CREDITORS, FORM NO. 15G WERE ISSUED AND THEREFORE, SUCH PAY MENTS WERE NOT COVERED UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND THUS, NO TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED . HOWEVER, TO MAKE SUCH CLAIM, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FILE THE DUPLICATE COPY OF THE FORM 15G BEFORE THE LD. C OMMISSIONER WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME FOR VERIFICATION IN SUPPORT OF THE CLIENT S/CREDITORS . IF AT ALL, THE DUPLICATE COPY OF THE FORM 15G WAS NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. C OMMISSIONER , AT LEAST THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) OR EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. NO CLAIM OF ASSESSEE COULD BE ALLOWED WITHOUT MATERIAL EVIDENCE. THUS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF .21,42,956 / - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADJUSTED SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF .21,42,956/ - AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME. SINCE THE RETURN OF INCOME WITH AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT DOES NOT REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TRADED IN SHARES [EXCEPT SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN MEMO], THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO ADJUST AGAINST THE BUSINESS I.T.A. NO . 1 838 / M/ 1 6 7 INCOME AS PER SECTION 71(1) AND SECTION 71(3) OF THE ACT, SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO HAVE SUCH SET OFF AGAINST INCOME UNDER THE OTHER HEAD. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE LOSS CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEE. 7.1 ON APPEAL, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT AS PER AUDIT REPORT, THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TEXTILE BUSINESS AND SHE IS THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. AMIT CREATION. THEREFORE, THE SHORT TER M CAPITAL LOSS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ALLOWABLE TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 71(1) AND SECTION 71(3) OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT SET OFF OF LOSSES AS CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME UNDER OTHER HEAD AND THUS, HE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7.2 BEFORE US, BY RELYING ON THE FINANCE ACT, 2005, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED T HAT ANY ELIGIBLE TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF TREATING IN DERIVATIVES AND SECURITIES CARRIED OUT ON A RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE SHALL NOT BE DEEMED AS SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION AND THE SAME IS EFFECTIVE FOR AND FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. BY RELYING ON THE DE CISION IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. AISHWARYA & CO. P. LTD. IN I.T.A. NO. 860/MDS/2014 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.05.2015, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE INFORMATION AND DETAILS WITH REGARD TO I.T.A. NO . 1 838 / M/ 1 6 8 THE TRANSACTIONS OF FUTURE AND OPTIONS, WHICH ARE TYPES OF DERIVATIVES. THEREFORE, THE LOSS INCURRED SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE ADJUST AGAINST INCOME AND PLEADED THAT THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 7.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPP ORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7.4 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TEXTILE BUSINESS AND PROPRIETOR OF M/S. AMIT CREATION. THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CB AND 3CD CONFIRMS THE ABOVE FACT. THE ASSESSEE NOWHERE CLAIMED TO HAVE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARE TRADING OR FILED ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO TRADING IN DERIVATIVES CARRIED OUT IN A RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS IN QUESTION IS NOT ALLOWABLE TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME AS PER SECTION 71(1) AND SECTION 71(3) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 7.5 IN THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARE TRADING WHICH INVOLVES STOCK AND SHARE BROKING ACTIVITIES, PURCHASE AND SALE OF DELIVERY BASED SHARES AND PURCHASE AND SALE OF NON - DELIVERY BASED SHARES I.E., DERIVATIVE T RADING I.T.A. NO . 1 838 / M/ 1 6 9 THROUGH RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE. THEREFORE, AS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE LOSS INCURRED IN TRADING IN FUTURE AND OPTIONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST ASSESSEE S BROKERAGE INCOME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESEN T CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TEXTILE BUSINESS AND NOWHERE CLAIMED TO HAVE ENGAGED IN TRADING FUTURES AND OPTIONS THROUGH RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE. UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HA S NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 7.6 AS PER AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CB AND 3CD, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TEXTILE BUSINESS AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE LOSS INCURRED IN SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME. IF THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN SHARE TRADING WITH RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE , WHAT PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE NOT TO INCLUDE IT AS ONE OF HER BUSINESS AND CLAIM THE LOSS AS BUSINESS LOSS? PRIMARILY, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FAULT NOT TO DECLARE THE ENTIRE BUSINESS IN THE AUDIT REPORT AS WELL AS RETURN OF INCOME. SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 71 OF THE ACT STATES THAT CURRENT YEAR LOSS CAN BE SET OFF AGAINST INCOME UNDER ANY OTHER HEAD EXCEPT LOSS FROM CAPITAL GAINS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. I.T.A. NO . 1 838 / M/ 1 6 10 8. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO THE DISALL OWANCES TOWARDS PACKING EXPENDITURE, CARTAGE & COOLIE CHARGES, TRAVELLING EXPENSES, FREIGHT CHARGES AND BUSINESS COMMERCIAL EXPENSES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED SELF MADE VOUCHERS TOWARDS THE EXPENSES OF PACKING, CARTAGE & COOLIE AND FREIGHT CHARGES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED SOME PORTION ON ESTIMATION BASIS. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TEXTILE BUSINESS IN GODOWN STREET AND THE ABOVE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ESSENTIAL IN THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS . MOREOVER, TO INCUR THE ABOVE EXPENSES, NO ASSESSEE WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO FURNISH CASH BILL OR CASH MEMO FOR THE PETTY EXPENSES OTHER THAN SELF MADE VOUCHERS. UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCES MADE WITH REGARD TO PACKING EXPENSES, CARTAGE & COOLIE AND FREIGHT CHARGES. 8.1 WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE TOWARDS TRAVELLING EXPENSES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE TRAVEL EXPENSES INCUR RED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT NECESSARILY BE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND PERSONAL USE CANNOT BE AVOIDED IN TOTO, HE DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF .1,33,636/ - FOR WANT OF PROPER VOUCHERS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TEXTILE BUSINESS, SHE IS NATURALLY REQUIRED TO VISIT BUSINESS RELATED AREA FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE THERE IS PERSONAL USED INVOLVED. HOWEVER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE MAKE CLAIM UNDER I.T.A. NO . 1 838 / M/ 1 6 11 TRAVELLING EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH P ROPER VOUCHERS/ BILLS, ETC. IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM. IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER EVIDENCE, A ROUND SUM OF .1,33,656/ - WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORIGINAL CLAIM OF .4,45,521/ - FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT AGAINST PROPER BILLS/VOUCHERS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED THE EXPENSES AND IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROPORTIONATELY DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES, BUT DISALLOWED ONLY IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER BILLS/VOUCHERS, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S SUSTAINED AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8.2 WITH REGARD THE EXPENSES TOWARDS CAR MAINTENANCE AND BUSINESS PROMOTIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED 25% OF THE EXPENSES SINCE THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY OF PERSONAL ELEMENT INVO LVED IN CAR MAINTENANCE. USAGE OF CAR FOR PERSONAL USE CANNOT BE AVOIDED AND THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED ONLY 25% OF EXPENSES. WITH REGARD TO BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM OF .1,05,423/ - [EXCEPT THREE ENTRIES] ALL PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY CASH. IT WAS PAID FOR GIFT BOOK, SAMPLE BOOK, VOUCHERS, ETC. AND PART OF VOUCHERS IS SELF MADE VOUCHERS. IF THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE ABOVE ITEMS, SHE WOULD HAVE PURCHASED FROM THE SHOP AND OBTA INED CASH BILL/MEMO AND FURNISHING OF SELF MADE VOUCHERS WOULD NOT I.T.A. NO . 1 838 / M/ 1 6 12 ARISE FOR PURCHASING ITEMS SUCH AS GIFT BOOKS, ETC. THUS, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FURTHER CONFIRMED. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 17 TH MARCH , 201 7 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 17 . 0 3 .201 7 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2 . / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.