SHRI DHIREN KUMAR SINGH, Jaipur V. ITO, Sikar

ITA 197/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7773 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D C SHARMA
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Salary income; Corroborative evidences; Non compliance
• Section: 37(1); 131; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH: JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R. MEENA) I.T.A. NO. 197/JP/2012 ASSTT. YEAR- 2007-08 PAN NO. AGZPK 4802 D SHRI DHIREN KUMAR SINGH, THE I.T.O., PROP. M/S CYBER SPACE, VRS. WARD 1, SIKAR. STATION ROAD, SIKAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI P.C. PARWAL. DEPARTMENT BY :- SHRI D.C. SHARMA. DATE OF HEARING : 26/08/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/09/2014 O R D E R PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/2/2011 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-III, JAIPUR FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- (1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS . 18,14,226/- MADE BY THE A.O. OUT OF COMMISSION PAYMENTS OF RS. 24,18,968/- (2) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS . 1,55,400/- OUT OF VARIOUS OTHER EXPENSES. 2. THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SALARY INCOME AND COMMISSI ON INCOME FROM THE AGENCY OF TATA INDICOM. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED AS AUTHORIZED ITA 197/JP/2012 DHIREN KUMAR SINGH VS. ITO 2 DISTRIBUTOR OF TATA TELE SERVICES LTD. FOR SIKAR ARE A AND WAS DISTRIBUTOR OF POST PAID MOBILE CONNECTION AND RURAL AREA BASED LINE PH ONE CALLED RTB. IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE APPELLANTS NATURE OF BUSINESS WAS TO DISTRIBUTE THE PRODUCT OF M/S TATA TEL E SERVICES LTD. TO CONSUMER ON COMMISSION BASIS. IN PROCESS OF DISTRIB UTION, THE ASSESSEE USED TO TAKE ASSISTANCE FROM VARIOUS PRIVATE PERSONS, RE TAILERS, AGENTS ETC. ON COMMISSION BASIS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON, THE ASSESSEE GOT COMMISSION OF RS. 33,66,306/- FROM TATA TELE SERVICES LTD. AND PAID COMMISSION OF RS. 24,18,968/- TO RETAILERS, AGENTS, SUB DISTRIBUTORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH FULL DETAILS OF SUCH COMMISSION PAYMENT GIVING THEI R NAMES AND ADDRESSES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED TO PRODUCE HIS BOOKS OF A CCOUNT ALONGWITH SUPPORTING VOUCHERS OF EXPENSES FOR THEIR VERIFICAT ION. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED STATEMENT OF ONE PERSON PRODUCED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TH E OTHER WITNESSES WERE ALSO PRODUCED ON 18/9/2009 BUT IN ABSENCE OF IDENTI TY PROOF CALLED FOR BY HIS OFFICE, THEY COULD NOT CROSS EXAMINE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. FINALLY, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT) FOR ALL THE 49 CO MMISSION RECIPIENTS ON 26/11/2009 TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF COMMISSION PAYMENT. THE OUTCOME OF THE INQUIRY WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED ITA 197/JP/2012 DHIREN KUMAR SINGH VS. ITO 3 16/12/2009 AND WAS ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY A ND ASKED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONGWITH SUPPORTING VOUCHERS O F EXPENSES. COPIES OF STATEMENTS WERE ALSO FORWARDED TO THE APPELLANT FOR H IS COMMENT AND CROSS EXAMINATION. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED COPIES OF ALL T HE VOUCHERS OF EXPENSES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER GAVE HIS FINDING PERSON WISE FOR COMMISSION PAYMENT ON PAGES 4 TO 11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT EXPENSES MORE THAN 75% REMAINED U NVERIFIABLE. THE ENQUIRY PROCEEDING SUMMARIZED ON PAGE NO. 22 OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER IS AS UNDER:- S.NO. DETAILS S. NOS. OF THE TABLE AMOUNT (IN RS.) 1 SUMMONS RETURNED 8,10,11,14,16,17,18,23,24, 28, 30,33,34,39,40,41,44 TO 49 7,94,386/- 2 NON COMPLIANCE BY THE WITNESSES 1,2,5,20,26,29,31,37 & 42 6,06,215/- 3 DENIED OF HAVING RECEIVED ANY COMMISSION 3,9,12,21 3,00,057/- 4 PARTIALLY ADMITTED TO HAVE RECEIVED COMMISSION 4,6,7,13,15,19,22,25,27,32, 35, 36,38,43 4,11,000/- OUT OF RS. 7,46,160/- IT IS HELD THAT WITNESSES HAVE CONFIRMED TO RECEIVE RS. 4,11,000/- ONLY THAT TO OUT OF RS. 7,46,160/- AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. C OMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS. 17,00,640/- REMAINED UNVERIFIABLE FOR WANT OF EITHER PRODUCTION OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCES OR FOR PRODUCTION OF WITNESS/DENIAL BY THE WITNESSES. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE SUPPOR TING EVIDENCE FOR CLAIM OF COMMISSION OF RS. 24,18,968/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED 25% OF ITA 197/JP/2012 DHIREN KUMAR SINGH VS. ITO 4 COMMISSION AT RS. 6,04,742/-, BUT DISALLOWED 75% COM MISSION CLAIMED AT RS. 18,14,226/-. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT( A), WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 2.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS OF TH E A.O. AND THE COUNTER SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED AR IN THIS REGARD. FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS FOUND THAT THE A.O. HAS D ISALLOWED THE COMMISSION EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 18,14,226/ -, FOR THE REASONS THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE I TS CLAIM WITH THE COGENT REASONS AND EVIDENCES THEREOF. AS EVIDEN T FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED COMMISS ION OF RS. 33,66,306/- FROM M/S TATA TELE SERVICES, TOWARDS THE D ISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTS OF THEIR PRODUCTS. AGAIN SUCH RECEIPTS, THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THE PAYMENT OF RS. 24,18,968/- AS COMMI SSION OF RETAILERS, AGENTS/SUB DISTRIBUTORS. HOWEVER, THE A.O . OBSERVED THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR THE CONFIRMATION/SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS O F SUCH PAYMENTS WERE FURNISHED AS SUCH. ACCORDINGLY THE A.O . ISSUED SUMMONS TO ALL 49 COMMISSION RECIPIENTS FOR THE REQ UISITE VERIFICATION IN THIS REGARD. HOWEVER, THE STATUS OF COMPLIANCE OF SUCH SUMMONS, AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IS FOUND AS UNDER:- SR. NO DETAILS TOTAL NO. OF PERSONS AMOUNT 1. SUMMONS RETURNED BACK 22 RS. 7,94,368/- 2. NON COMPLIANCE OF SUMMONS 9 RS. 6,06,215/- 3. DENIED OF RECEIVING THE COMMISSION 4 RS. 3,00,057/- 4. PARTIALLY ADMITTED OF RECEIVING COMMISSION 14 RS. 4,11,000/- OUT OF RS. 746160/- ITA 197/JP/2012 DHIREN KUMAR SINGH VS. ITO 5 IN OTHER WORDS, OUT OF TOTAL CLAIM OF COMMISSION EXP ENSE OF RS. 24,18,968/-, THE PAYMENT OF RS. 4,11,000/- WERE ONLY CONFIRMED BY 14 SUB AGENT/RETAILERS. THUS, THE BALANCE COMMISS ION PAYMENT WAS REMAINED UNVERIFIABLE AT THE ASSESSMENT LEVEL. A CCORDINGLY THE A.O. ESTIMATED THE 25% OF SUCH PAYMENT I.E. RS. 6,04,742/- WOULD BE A REASONABLE FIGURE TO BE ALLOWED UNDER THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE BALANCE I.E. RS. 18,42,226/- WAS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, AT THE APPELLATE STAGE THE LEARNED AR SUBM ITTED THAT THE NON COMPLIANCE OF SUMMONS OR CONTRADICTORY STAT EMENT OF THE RETAILERS, I.R.O., THE COMMISSION PAYMENT WERE DUE T O LAPS OF TIME INVOLVED IN THE ENTIRE PROCESS AS SUCH. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE MAMMOTH WORK OF DISTRIBUTION TO TELE PRODUCTS IN REMOTE AREAS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE, WITHOUT THE AID/ HELP OF SUCH RETAILERS/DISTRIBUTORS. THE LEARNED AR ALSO ARGUED T HAT THE NP DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 5.06% IS REASONABLE, UN DER THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT TH E DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 18,14,226/- BEING 75% OF THE EXPENSES CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS UNREASONABLE AND UNCALLE D FOR. 2.3.1 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL DISCUSSION , IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO ESTABLIS H THE GENUINENESS AND CORRECTNESS OF THE COMMISSION OF RS . 24,18,968/-, SO MUCH SO THAT EVEN THE SUMMONS ISSUE IN THIS REGARD, WERE REMAINED LARGELY UN-SERVED/UNCOMPLIED WI TH. REGARDING THE ONUS ASPECT, THE COURTS HAVE HELD THA T TO CLAIM ANY EXPENDITURE AS ALLOWABLE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT, THE PRIMARY ONUS LIES ON THE CLAIMANT OF SUCH EXPENSES I.E. ON THE A SSESSEE ONLY. UNLESS HE PROVES SUCH CLAIM WITH PROPER REASONS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, THE DEPARTMENT IS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING SUCH EXPENSES AS AN INADMISSIBLE EXPENDITURE, AS SUCH. THE ABOVE VIEWS ASSESSEE EXPRESSED IN THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: I. RAM BHADUR THAKUR LTD. 261 ITR 390 (FB) (KER.) II. SHAHI BAG ENTREPRENEURS P. LTD. 215 ITR 810 ( GUJ.) ITA 197/JP/2012 DHIREN KUMAR SINGH VS. ITO 6 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION, IT IS CON CLUDED THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAI M OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO GREAT EXTENT, THEREFORE, THE A.O. WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING SUCH EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF 75%, AS T HE PATTERN EMERGED OUT OF THE VERIFICATION MADE BY HIM IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, I FIND NO REASONS TO INTERFERE IN THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED UPON BY THE A.O. ON THIS ACCOUNT AND THE AD DITION OF RS. 18,1,4,226/- IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. CONSEQUENTLY, THI S GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR STARTED WORKING AS DIRECTING SELLING AGENT OF M/S TATA TELE SERVICES LTD . IN SIKAR IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S CYBER SPACE. THE BUSINESS WAS STARTED IN THE MONTH OF APRIL 2006 BUT CLOSED IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST, 2006. THE ASSESSE E EARNED COMMISSION INCOME OF RS. 33,66,306/- FROM M/S TATA TELE SERVICE S LTD. AND INCURRED COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS. 24,18,968/- ON PAYMENT T O VARIOUS PERSONS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AP PELLANT HAD SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF 49 COMMISSION RECIPIENTS SHOWING NAME, AD DRESS AND AMOUNT PAID. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT IN 49 CASES, 22 SUMMONS WERE RETURNED UNSERVED, 12 SUMMONS WERE SERVE D BUT NOT COMPLIED AND REMAINING 15 SUMMONS WERE COMPLIED WITH, WHEREIN S TATEMENT WAS RECORDED/SELF EXPLANATORY STATEMENT WAS RECEIVED. THE APPELLANT GAVE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF ALL THE 49 COMMISSION RECIPIENTS DURING THE ASSESSMENT ITA 197/JP/2012 DHIREN KUMAR SINGH VS. ITO 7 PROCEEDINGS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONGWITH SPECI FIC VOUCHERS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUPPORT OF THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION AND ALSO THE CONFIRMATION OF SOME OF THE PERSONS ON STAMP PAPER WHERE THEY ACCEPTED THAT NO AMOUNT IS DUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER PRODUCED THREE MORE COMMISSION RECIPIENTS FOR RECORDING THEIR STAT EMENTS. THE OUTCOME OF INVESTIGATION WAS INFORMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 16/12/2009 WHEREAS ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON 24/12/2009. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PERTAINED TO F.Y. 2006-07 WHEREAS SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2009 A ND BUSINESS WAS CLOSED, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NO TOUCH WITH THE SE COMMISSION RECIPIENTS. SOME OF THE COMMISSION RECIPIENTS HAD M IGRATED FROM SIKAR TO OTHER PART OF THE COUNTRY IN SEARCH OF EMPLOYMENT. THE A.R. CLAIMED THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORED THE EVIDENCE FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE DRA WN OUR ATTENTION ON PAPER BOOK AND CLAIMED THAT IN NUMBER OF CASES, SUP PORTING EVIDENCE IN FORM OF PRODUCING THE PERSONS, FURNISHING THE REPLY, FUR NISHING THE COPY OF ACCOUNT WERE SUBMITTED TO THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. SOM E PERSONS ADMITTED LESSER AMOUNT OF COMMISSION RECEIPT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT REMEMBER EXACT AMOUNT OF COMMISSION. THEY ADMITTED COMMISSION RECEI PT ON APPROXIMATION. THEREFORE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ENTIRE COMMISSION CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED U/S 37 OF THE ACT. ITA 197/JP/2012 DHIREN KUMAR SINGH VS. ITO 8 6. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE START ED FIRST YEAR OF HIS BUSINESS IN MOBILE SERVICE/TELEPHONE. HE DID NOT HAVE ANY EX PERIENCE IN THE LINE OF BUSINESS AND ALSO WAS NOT CONVERSANT TO THE INCOME T AX PROCEEDING. HOWEVER, HE MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONGWITH EXPENSE S. THE COMMISSION WAS RECEIVED FROM TATA TELE SERVICES LTD. AFTER TDS, THER EFORE, RECEIPTS CANNOT BE SUPPRESSED. THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING THIS BUSINESS IN S IKAR DISTRICT THROUGH VARIOUS PERSONS I.E. RETAILERS, AGENTS, SUB DISTRIB UTORS ETC.. IT IS TRUE THAT WITHOUT INCURRING ANY EXPENDITURE, NO INCOME CAN BE EARNED. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TOUCH WITH THE COMMISSION RECIPIENT AS HE ALR EADY CLOSED THE BUSINESS WITHIN FOUR MONTHS OF THAT FINANCIAL YEAR. THE FACTS OF THE CASE PARTLY ADMITTED THAT THERE IS A LAPSE ON PART OF THE APPELLANT TO M AINTAIN THE REQUIRED EVIDENCE FOR CLAIMING THE EXPENSES UNDER THE LAW. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ESTIMATED INCOME ON THE BASIS OF NON PARTIAL ATTEND ANCE OF RECIPIENT OF COMMISSION. HOWEVER, HE HAS ACCEPTED THE INCOME, WHI CH WAS RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AFTER DEDUCTING TDS AN D ALSO NUMBER OF TELEPHONE INSTALLED ARE ALSO AVAILABLE ON RECORD FR OM THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO COMPARABLE CASE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE HAS SO MUCH INCOME IN THE LINE OF T HIS BUSINESS. IF ON TOTAL ITA 197/JP/2012 DHIREN KUMAR SINGH VS. ITO 9 RECEIPTS OF RS. 33,66,306/-, THE NET INCOME IS ASSE SSED AT RS. 25,15,690/-, IT WILL GIVE NET PROFIT RATE @ 75%, WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE IN ANY KIND OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE, WE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ALLOW 80% CO MMISSION RECEIPT AS BUSINESS EXPENSES AND REMAINING 20% OF COMMISSION R ECEIPT AS INCOME INCLUDING RETURNED INCOME, THUS THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS DIRECTED TO CALCULATE THE INCOME AS PER ABOVE OBSERVATION. ON THIS GROUND , THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. THE SECOND GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,55,400/- OUT OF VARIOUS OTHER EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED EXPE NSES UNDER VARIOUS HEADS AT RS. 7,76,992/- IN P&L ACCOUNT OTHER THAN COMMISS ION. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO CLAIM THESE EXPENSE S. HE DISALLOWED 50% OF EXPENSES AND ADDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. I N APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD RESTRICTED THIS DISALLOWANCE AT RS. 1,55,4 00/- BEING 50% OF TOTAL EXPENSES AS REASONABLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS NOT HAVING PROPER VOUCHER SUPPORTING DETAILS AND EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN CASH ONLY. THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT FULLY VERIFIABLE UNDER T HE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KANAHIYA LAL JANGIR 217 CTR 254. BEFORE US, THE LEA RNED CONTENDED THAT THIS DISALLOWANCE IS HIGHER SIDE. FACT IS THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD CLOSED DOWN HIS BUSINESS WITHIN FOUR MONTHS, THEREAFTER HE LOST HIS CONNECTION WITH ALL THE ITA 197/JP/2012 DHIREN KUMAR SINGH VS. ITO 10 SUPPLIER OF SERVICER FOR WHICH HE MADE THE PAYMENT, THEREFORE, A REASONABLE AMOUNT MAY PLEASE BE CONFIRMED. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE CONSIDER THIS DISA LLOWANCE AT RS. 25,000/- JUSTIFIABLE. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES WERE DISALLOWED HIG HER SIDE UNDER THIS HEAD. THUS, UNDER THIS GROUND ALSO, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/09/2014. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR, DATED : 05 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 * RANJAN COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. SHRI DHIREN KUMAR SINGH, SIKAR. 2. THE ITO, WARD 1, SIKAR. 3. THE CIT (A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE D/R GUARD FILE (I.T.A. NO. 197/JP/2012) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.