Naresh Jindal, Gurgaon V. ITO, Gurgaon

ITA 2424/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 242420114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 12-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S NEGI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Capital receipt; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI B.C. MEENA ITA NO. 2424/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 NARESH JINDAL, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PLOT NO. 10/11, LANE-1, WARD (2), SHEETLA COLONY, NEW DELHI ATUL KATARIA MARG, GURGAON. (PAN: ACZPJ3866G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 2462/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. NARESH JINDAL, WARD (2), PLOT NO. 10/11, LANE-1, GURGAON. SHEETLA COLONY, ATUL KATARIA MARG, GURGAON. (PAN: ACZPJ3866G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI PIYUSH KAUSHIK, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI RS NEGI, S R. DR ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE IN CROSS-APPEAL AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DATED 07.02.2011 PASSED FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE WAS RUNNING T WO PROPRIETARYSHIP CONCERNS AT THE RELEVANT TIME, NAMELY, M/S. JINDAL ENTERPRISES AND M/S. INDOSUN GLOBAL. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, HE FIL ED HIS RETURN ON 31.10.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL. AFTER HEA RING THE ASSESSEE, LEARNED 2 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED AN ASSESSMENT ORDER UN DER SEC. 143(3) ON 31.12.2009. HE DETERMINED THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.52,64,659. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE TH E FOLLOWING ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES: I) ADDITION ON A/C OF ADVANCE AGAINST ORDER RS.45 ,03,927/- II) DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) RS. 5,00,000/- III)ADDITION ON A/C OF PURCHASES RS. 32,657 /- IV)ADDITION ON A/C OF SAMPLING EXPENSES RS. 48 ,075/- V)DISALLOWANCE ON A/C. OF CONVEYANCE, REPAIR RS. 90,000/- & MAINT. AND STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES. VI)DISALLOWANCE ON A/C. OF DEPRECIATION ON CAR, RS . 90,000/- INSURANCE, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE AND TELEPHON E EXPENSES. 2. ON APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS MENTIONED AT SR. NOS.1 AND 4. SHE CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS AT SR. NOS. 2, 3, 5 & 6. THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL HAS NOT TAKEN THE GROUND IN C ONSONANCE WITH RULE 8 OF THE ITAT'S RULES, THEY ARE DESCRIPTIVE AND ARGUMENT ATIVE IN NATURE. HOWEVER, IN BRIEF, IT IS CHALLENGING THE DELETION O F ADDITION OF RS.45,03,927 MENTIONED AT SR. NO.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING CONFIRMATION OF ADDITIONS BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL S) AT SR. NOS. 2, 3, 5 & 6 OF THE TABLE EXTRACTED SUPRA. 3 3. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WITH REGARD TO THE SOLITARY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THE FACTS ARE THAT ON SCRUTINY OF T HE ACCOUNTS, IT REVEALED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED A SUM OF RS.45,03,927 UNDER THE HEAD EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCES AG AINST THE ORDER. HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AND NA TURE OF EXPENSES I.E. NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE ADVANCES HAD BEEN GIVEN ALONG WITH THEIR CONFIRMED COPY OF ACCOUNT. ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE NEXUS OF THE EXPENSES/ADVANCE S WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT HE WAS RUNNING THE BUSINESS IN THE N AME OF JINDAL ENTERPRISES SINCE 1997. THE PROPRIETARYSHIP CONCERN WAS ENGAGED INTO MANUFACTURE AND PRODUCTION OF HOME FURNISHING ITEMS FOR THE DOMESTI C MARKET AND HE WAS DOING THE JOB WORK FOR THE EXPORTS. HE HAS BEEN FIL ING THE RETURN FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS IN THE WARD(2), GURGAON. AFTER HAVING EXPE RIENCE OF MORE THAN 10 YEARS IN THIS FIELD, AND LOOKING INTO THE PROSPECTI VE BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE HAD ESTABLISHED A PROPRIETARYSHIP FIRM BY THE NAME OF INDOSUN GLOBAL FOR DOING THE EXPORT BUSINESS OF THE HOME FURNISHING IT EMS. THE FIRM WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2005-06. IT BECAME MEMBER OF EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL FOR HANDICRAFTS. THE PROPRIETARYSHIP 4 ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH INDO COM NETWORK LTD . (TRADE INDIA.COM HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TRADE INDIA) FOR DISPLAY ING THE COMPANYS NAME ON WEBSITE AND FORWARDING THE NAME OF PROSPECTIVE BUYE RS. THE ASSESSEE GOT LOGIN ID AND PASSWORD FOR USING THE WEBSITE THROUGH THIS CONTRACT (TRADE INDIA), THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FORWARDED TO T HE PROSPECTIVE BUYER ALL OVER THE WORLD. UNITED NATION CHILDREN FUND APPROAC HED THE ASSESSEE THROUGH TRADE INDIA.COM WITH THE DETAILS OF PRODU CTS TO BE SUPPLIED. THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH UNICEF FOR SUPPLY OF ITEMS I.E. BED SPREAD AND QUILT AS PER THE CONTRACT AND PURCHASE O RDER. AS PER THE CONTRACT, UNICEF WAS SUPPOSED TO GIVE ADVANCE AGAINST ORDER T O BE ADJUSTED AGAINST INVOICE, BUT FOR GIVING SUCH ADVANCE, THEY HAD ASKE D THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS WHICH WERE THE EXPENSES TO BE INC URRED FOR THE ADVANCE TO BE RELEASED: I) 2,200.00 EURO ATTORNEY FEES II) 18,500.00 EURO BID SECURITY AMOUNT III) 24,716.34 USD EU TAXATION IV) 37,265.32 USD LOCKED FUND INSURANCE 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSMITTED THIS AMOUNT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. SUBSEQUENTLY, HE CAME TO KNOW THAT HE HAS BECOME A VICTIM OF FRAUD AND SOMEBODY HAS MISUSED THE LOGO OF UNISEF WHILE INTER ACTED WITH THE 5 ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY REPORTED THE MAT TER TO THE POLICE ON 20.7.2006. HE FILED A COMPLAINT TO THE EMBASSY OF S PAIN. HE REQUESTED THE BANK TO FREEZER HIS ACCOUNT ON 9.6.2008. HE WROTE T O THE CHIEF MINISTER OF HARYANA FOR TRANSFERRING THE CASE TO THE CENTRAL BU REAU OF INVESTIGATION. HE FILED A CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION UNDER SECTI ON 482 OF THE CR.PC SEEKING A DIRECTION THAT FIR BE REGISTERED AND INVE STIGATION BE MADE. ON THE STRENGTH OF ALL THESE DOCUMENTS, ASSESSEE CLAIMED T HIS AMOUNT AS A LOSS IN BUSINESS. HOWEVER, LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DID NO T ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAS N OT FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF GOODS/RAW-MATERIAL PURCHASED FROM THE PERSON TO WHO M THE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT UNDERSTANDAB LE AS TO WHY THE UNICEF, WHO HAS TO PURCHASE THE GOODS FROM THE ASSESSEE DEM ANDING ADVANCES AND THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD TO SUPPLY THE GOODS AGAINST OR DER SENT MONEY AS ADVANCE AGAINST HIS SALES. IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE IS A VENDOR, THE ADVANCE OUGHT TO HAVE BEE N MADE BY THE UNICEF FOR PROCURING THE MATERIAL FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE A DVANCES WERE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ALL NORMAL BUSINESS PRACTICE. ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE MONEY ADVANCED AGAINST SUPPLY IS NOT A GENUINE BUSINESS TRANSACTION AND IT IS NOT RELATED TO THE BUSINESS O F THE ASSESSEE NEITHER IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE RUNNING OF THE BUSINESS. ASSESSIN G OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED 6 THAT IF IT IS CONSTRUED THAT REMITTANCE WAS MADE FO R BUSINESS PURPOSE, THEN, THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOUR CE ON FOREIGN REMITTANCE. HENCE, HIS CLAIM DESERVES TO BE DISALLOWED UNDER SE C. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E. 5. ON APPEAL, LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS REAPPRECIATED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM. 6. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECO RD THAT ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A PROPRIETARYSHIP CONCERN IN THE NAME OF JINDAL ENT ERPRISES WHICH IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTION OF HOME FU RNISHING ITEMS FOR THE DOMESTIC MARKET. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO CARRYING OUT JOB WORK FOR THE EXPORTERS SINCE 1997. THIS YEAR HE HAS EXPANDED HIS BUSINESS AND UNDERTOOK THE EXPORTS ACTIVITY BY ESTABLISHING A NEW PROPRIETARYS HIP CONCERN, NAMELY, INDOSUN GLOBAL. HE HAS COMPLETED ALL THE FORMALITIE S AND REGISTERED THE PROPRIETARYSHIP CONCERN WITH EXPORT PROMOTION COUNC IL FOR HANDICRAFTS. HE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SUPPLY OF BED SPR EAD AND QUILT. THE PURCHASER HAD DEMANDED CERTAIN AMOUNTS WHICH ARE IN CIDENTAL TO THE SUPPLY. 7 THE ASSESSEE HAS REMITTED THOSE AMOUNTS UNDER A BEL IEF THAT HE IS GETTING HUGE ORDER WHICH WOULD TAKE CARE ALL SORT OF THESE EXPENSES. WHEN UNICEF DEMANDED MORE AMOUNT THEN ASSESSEE INQUIRED THEIR A NTECEDENTS. HE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE FRAUD PLAYED UPON HIM. HE IMMEDIATEL Y TOOK ALL STEPS PERMISSIBLE IN THE LAW IN ORDER TO AVOID THAT FRAUD . THUS, ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT RIGHT IN OBSERVING THAT WHY THE ASSESSEE MADE T HE PAYMENT WHEN HE HAS TO SUPPLY THE GOODS ON RECEIPT OF PAYMENTS. THE ASS ESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT UNDER ANTICIPATION OF RECEIPT OF SUBSTANTIA L AMOUNT IN CONNECTION WITH HIS BUSINESS AND THE NATURE OF THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS SUCH THAT NOBODY CAN DOUBT THE ANTECEDENTS OF UNICEF UP TO THAT STAGE. THE NATURE OF AMOUNTS MENTIONED IS BID SECURITY AMOUNTS , TAXATION AND LOCKED FUNDS INSURANCE. LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND OBSERVED THAT THESE REMITTANCE DO NOT CONTAIN THE COMPONENTS OF TAXABLE INCOME IN INDIA WHICH WOULD PUT AN OBLIG ATION UPON THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT THE TAX BEFORE REMITTING THOSE AMOUNTS. A FTER CONSIDERING THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IN PARAGRAPH NO.4.10 TO 4.13, WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. WE ARE IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8 7. IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE FIRST GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DI SALLOWANCE OF RS. 5 LACS. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID A SUM OF RS.5 LACS TO M/S. VV INDUSTIRES FOR TAKING ON RENT THE FACTOR Y PREMISES, NAMELY, PLOT NO.295, SECTOR 6, IMT, MANESAR, GURGAON. THIS PREMI SES WAS TO BE TAKEN ON LEASE FOR MANUFACTURING OF QUILT ETC. FOR EXPORT AS PER THE EXPORT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE WAS TO PAY A REFUNDABLE SECURITY OF RS. 10 LACS. HE HAS PAID RS. 5 LACS. SINCE THE FRAUD HAS BEEN PLAYED UPON HIM, HE COULD NOT RUN THE FACTORY AND SUFFERED HUGE LOSSES. THE LANDLORD HAS FORFEITE D THE SECURITIES TOWARDS THE RENT. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT WHILE MAKING THE PAYMENT OF RENT, ASSES SEE WAS TO DEDUCT TDS, SINCE HE FAILED TO DEDUCT THE TDS, THEREFORE, HE CA NNOT CLAIM THE DEDUCTION. THE SECOND REASON ASSIGNED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS A SECURITY IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT, IF IT WAS FORFEITED THEN IT WAS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 8. APPEAL TO THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 9 9. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE LANDLORD HAS FILED CIVIL SUIT FOR EJECTMENT AND RECOVERY OF RENT . ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A CIVIL SUIT AND ULTIMATELY THE DISPUTE WAS SETTLED B Y WAY OF A COMPROMISE DECREE. THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED FOR ADJUSTMENT OF T HE AMOUNT TOWARDS RENT AND CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. T HE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT OF RENT IS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS CAPITAL IN N ATURE. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID A REFUNDABLE SECURITY AND ON SUCH SECURITY, HE WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO DEDUCT TDS. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS CIRCULAR NO. 718 WHICH IS PLACED ON PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND REPORTED IN 215 ITR (STATUTE) 67. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). HE ALSO MADE REFERENCE TO THE DECISIO N OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LORDS DIARY FORM LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 27 ITR 700. 10. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS A ND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE RELEVANT QUESTION IN THE CIRC ULAR REFERRED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: QUERY NO.2 :WHETHER TAX IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WHERE A NON-REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE TENANT? 10 ANSWER : IN CASES WHERE THE TENANT MAKES A NON-REFU NDABLE DEPOSIT TAX WOULD HAVE TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AS SUCH DEPOSIT REPRESENTS THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE USE OF THE LAND OR THE BUILDING ETC., AND, THEREFOR E,, PARTAKES OF THE NATURE OF RENT AS DEFINED IN SECTIO N 194-I. IF, HOWEVER, THE DEPOSIT IS REFUNDABLE, NO T AX WOULD BE DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE. IT IS FURTHER CLARIF IED THAT IF THE DEPOSIT CARRIES INTEREST, THE TAX TO BE DEDUCTED ON THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST WILL BE GOVERNED. 11. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS A REFUNDABLE SECURITY. THE ONLY DISPUTE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT THE TDS. LEARNED FIRS T APPELLATE AUTHORITY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT A REFUNDABLE SECURITY WAS ADJU STED TOWARDS RENT IN PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. WHEN ASSESSEE MAD E THE PAYMENT OF REFUNDABLE SECURITY, AS PER CIRCULAR, HE WAS NOT SU PPOSED TO DEDUCT THE TAX AT SOURCE. THE SECURITY WAS PAID IN ORDER TO COVER SUC H TYPE OF UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES. THE LANDLORD HAS FORFEITED IT AND AD JUSTED IT TOWARDS THE RENT, THUS, IT WAS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT DID NOT DESERVE TO BE DISALLOWED. WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF A PPEAL AND DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE. 11 12. IN THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL, GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION O F RS.32,657. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED CERTAIN ITEMS BUT FAILED TO DISCLOSE THEM IN THE CLOSING STOCK. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDIT ION ON THE GROUND THAT THEY SHOULD REFLECT IN THE CLOSING STOCK UNLESS AND UNTIL THEY ARE SOLD. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN IT. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 13. IN THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL, GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION O F RS.90,000 OUT OF THE EXPENSES DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD CONVEYANCE, REPAIR , MAINTENANCE AND STAFF WELFARE. 14. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. IT REVEALS FROM THE RECORD T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.86,128 UNDER THE HEAD CONVEYANCE ,K A SUM OF RS.56,463 UNDER THE HEAD REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE, RS.36,729 UNDER THE HEAD STAFF WELFARE. HE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE SUPPORTING MATERI AL TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH CAN ENABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO V ERIFY THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS, A SUM OF RS.90,000 HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY 12 THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTH ORITY HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE. 15. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED D R RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THIS GRO UND OF APPEAL BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE DETAILS I.E. BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENSES. THE TWO REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE ALREADY EXERCISED THEIR DISCRETION ESTIMATING THE EXPENSES, NO DOUBT WHENEV ER SOME ESTIMATION IS MADE, ELEMENT OF GUESS WORK IS ALWAYS INVOLVED BUT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT POINT ANY CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH CAN PURSUED THE SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO REPLACE AN ESTIMATED OPINION , BASED ON DISCRETION OF THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY BY FURTHER ESTIMATED OPI NION. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 16. IN THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL, GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.90,000. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCUR RED A SUM OF RS.1,86,388 ON VEHICLE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE/INSURANCE AND TELEPH ONES. LEARNED ASSESSING 13 OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED RS.90,000 OUT OF THESE EXPEN SES ON THE GROUND THAT THE DETAILS COULD NOT BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE. 17. FOR THE REASONS STATED BY US WHILE CONFIRMING T HE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.90,000, OUT OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE BUI LDING, STAFF WELFARE AND CONVEYANCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO REJECTED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.05.20 12 SD/- SD/- ( B.C. MEENA ) ( RAJ PAL YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18/05/2012 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR