M/s. Meridian Infratel Pvt. Ltd., Bharuch V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Bharuch

ITA 2524/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94826 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LAL PHILIPS
• Keywords: Gift; Onus to prove
• Section: 131; 68

Judgement Text

, C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2524/AHD/2013 [ASSTT/YEAR 2010-2011] M/S.MERIDIAN INFRATEL PVT. LTD. PLOT NO.4509, NR. SEVEN WATER TANK GIDC INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ANKLESHWAR BHARUCH, GUJARAT 393 002. VS ITO, WARD-4(1) BHARUCH. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MR. LAL PHILIPS, SR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 18/11/2015 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08/12/2015 %& / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-VI, BARODA DATED 14.8.2013 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2010- 11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN SEVEN GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH ARE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE RULE 8 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPEL LATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 - THEY ARE DESCRIPTIVE AND ARGUMENTATIV E IN NATURE. IN BRIEF THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE REVOLVES AROUND THREE ISSUES VIZ. (A) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.96,000/- WHICH WAS ADDED WITH THE AID OF SECTION 68, (B) THE LD.CI T(A) HAS ERRED IN ITA NO.2524/AHD/2013 2 CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.23,701/- AND RS.6 1,167/- OUT OF MOBILE AND PETROL EXPENSES. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 6.7.2015. THEREAFTER, THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 1.10.2015. THE REPRESENTA TIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FILED AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ON THE GR OUND THAT HE WAS BUSY IN RETURN FILING WORK AS 30 TH SEPTEMBER IS DUE DATE FOR THE ASSESSEE WHO ARE COVERED UNDER TAX AUDIT. HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 18.11.2015. AGAIN, THE LD.CA HAS FILED APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS OUT OF STATION AND UNABLE TO ATTEND THE HEARING. TO OUR MIND THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE REASON FOR NOT AT TENDING THE HEARING ON BOTH THESE DATES. THEREFORE, WE DID NOT ACCOMMO DATE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND HEARD THE APPEAL WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.DR. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY. IT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 15.10.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,12,709/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED U PON THE ASSESSEE. ON SCRUTINY OF THE ACCOUNTS, IT REVEALED TO THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.96,000/- FROM FIVE INDI VIDUALS. HE NOTED THE DETAILS AS UNDER: SL.NO. NAME OF THE DEPOSITOR AMOUNT (RS.) 1. SHRI ISHWARCHANDRA GUPTA 19,500/- 2. SHRI JATIN DASHRATBHAI PATEL 19,600/- 3. NAVINCHANDRA K. PATEL RS.19,200/- 4. SHRI RAJESHKUMAR ARORA RS.19,500/- 5. SHRI SURESH MAGANBHAI PATEL RS.18,200/- TOTAL RS.96,000/- 5. THE LD.AO HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN T HE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ALL THESE FIVE PERSONS WERE THE EMPLOYEES OF MANISH ELECTRICALS WH ERE THEY WORKED FOR 8 MONTHS AND DRAWN SALARY. THE ASSESSEE HAS SU BMITTED THEIR ITA NO.2524/AHD/2013 3 SALARY CERTIFICATES, COPIES OF THEIR PAN AND ID-PRO OFS. THE LD.AO HAS EXAMINED THE DETAILS OF EACH CREDITOR AND RECORDED A FINDING THAT THESE ARE THE PERSONS OF MEAGER MEANS, THEY WERE NOT IN A POSITION TO ADVANCE A LOAN OF RS.19,500/- TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE PAN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE DOE S NOT BELONG TO THEM. HE ISSUED SUMMONS ALSO, WHICH WERE NOT RESPO NDED BY THEM. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD.AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.96,0 00/-. 6. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDIT ION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND I HAVE NO HESITATION IN CONF IRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE OF ADDI TION OF RS. 96,000/- , BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (A) THE ASSESSEE HAS MISERABLY FAILED IN ITS EFFORT TO PROVE EITHER THE IDENTITY OR THE GENUINENESS OF--THE TRANSACTION S OR THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE CLAIM ED LOANS ARE PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN. (B) IN CASE OF ALL THE 5 PERSONS, SALARY CERTIFICAT ES FOR 8 MONTHS OF THE YEAR ARE PROVIDED BY M/S MANISH ELECTRICALS, WH ICH IS A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. ALL THE SALARY CERTIFICATES ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL THE RESPECTS EXCEPT THE NAME OF THE PERSON AND THE AMOUNT OF SAL ARY DRAWN. ALL OF THESE 5 PERSONS FROM WHOM LOANS ARE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN HAVE WORKED FOR 8 MONTHS WITH M/S MANISH ELEC TRICALS AND REMAINING 4 MONTHS WITH M/S KHUSHBU CONSTRUCTION AN D HAVE DRAWN CASH SALARIES IN THE RANGE OF RS. 6,5007- PER MONTH. (C) CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT I S IMPROBABLE THAT PERSONS HAVING ANNUAL SALARY OF LESS THAN A LA KH RUPEES A MONTH WILL ADVANCE INTEREST FREE LOANS IN THE RANGE OF RS. 18,000/- TO 19,500/ TO ANYBODY. IT DEFIES LOGIC. (D) ALL THESE 5 PERSONS ARE EMPLOYEES OF ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY ON WHOM THE APPELLANT EXERCIS ES SUBSTANTIAL CONTROL AS EMPLOYER. IT IS CLEAR FROM T HE RECORDS THAT THEY ARE ONLY NAME LENDERS AND THEY DID NOT HAVE SU FFICIENT ITA NO.2524/AHD/2013 4 MEANS TO ADVANCE THE SAID LOANS. THEIR CREDITWORTHI NESS IS NOT PROVED. (E) EVEN THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE LOANS ARE PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN IS NOT PROVED. IN THE CASE OF SHRI ISHWAR CHAND GUPTA, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED PAN OF ONE SHRI EESHWARCHAND. SHAH S/O DIPTI SHAH. IN CASE OF SHRI JATIN DASHRATHBHAI PATEL, PAN OF ONE SHRI JATINKUMAR LAXM ANBHAI PATEL WAS FURNISHED. IN THE CASE OF SHRI NAVINCHANDRA K.P ATEL, THE APPELLANT FURNISHED PAN OF ONE SHRI NAVINBHAI KANUB HAI PARMAR. IN ALL THESE THREE CASES PANS OF SIMILAR SOUNDING P ERSONS WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE UNDER SIGNED IN ITS EFFORT TO HOODWINK THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJESHKUMAR ARORA AN ILLEGIBLE COPY OF ELECTION CAR D WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). IN THE CASE OF SHRI SURESH MA GANBHAI PATEL NO ERROR WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO SUBMIT ANY KI ND OF PROOF OF IDENTITY AT BOTH THE STAGES. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE PRIMARY ONUS CAST ON IT IN AS MUCH AS THE IDENTITY OF THE PURPORTED DEPOSITORS IS DOUBTFUL AND NOT PROVED. (F) THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN ISSUED SUMMONS U/S 1 31 TO THESE PERSONS AND TRIED TO SERVE THE SAME ON THE ADDRESSE S OF THE DEPOSITORS PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT. BUT HIS EFFOR T TO RECORD THEIR STATEMENTS UNDER OATH WAS IN VAIN. THE SUMMONS RETU RNED UNSERVED IN THE CASES OF SHRI SURESH MAGANLAL PATEL , SHRI RAJESH AARORA AND SHRI JATIN DASHRATHBHAI PATEL. SHRI ISHW ARCHAND GUPTA AND SHRI NAVINCHANDRA K PATEL, THOUGH ACCEPTED THE SUMMONS BUT REFUSED TO PRESENT THEMSELVES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. INSTEAD, THEY SENT WRITTEN REPLIES CONFIRMING THE L OANS. SINCE THEIR IDENTITY IS NOT PROVED, NO CREDENCE CAN BE GIVEN TO THESE CONFIRMATORY LETTERS FILED IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS U /S 131 OR THE ONES FILED BY THE APPELLANT SUO MOTO DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. (G) EVEN THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NO T PROVED SINCE ALL THE PURPORTED LOANS ARE IN CASH AND THE TRAIL O F THE CASH FLOW CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED. (H) THE PRIMARY ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CRED ITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTI ONS WAS ON THE APPELLANT. HE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS DUTY AND ITS ARGUMENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE INVESTIGAT ED THE LOANS AND THE DEPOSITORS FURTHER IS FRIVOLOUS. IT IS CLEA R THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED MISERABLY IN ITS EFFORTS TO PR ESENT THE BEST ITA NO.2524/AHD/2013 5 EVIDENCE EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR DUR ING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. (I) IN ITS DESPERATE EFFORT TO WRENCH SOME RELIEF, THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON A LARGE NUMBER OF CASES, WITHOUT PROVIDIN G THE REASON AS TO HOW THESE DECISIONS ARE HELPFUL TO THE APPELLANT , KEEPING IN MIND THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THIS CASE. I HAVE PERUSE D THESE DECISIONS AND FIND THAT THEY ARE NOT OF ANY HELP TO THE APPELLANT IN AS MUCH AS THE FACTS OF THESE CASES ARE DISTINGUISH ABLE FROM THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. (J) IN CIT V/S. P. MOHAN KALA & OTHERS 291 ITR 278 SUPREME COURT, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE BURDEN WAS O N THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT EVEN IF THE EXPLANATION IS NO T ACCEPTABLE, THE MATERIAL AND ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD DO NOT JUSTIFY THE SUM CREDITED IN THE BOOKS TO BE TRE ATED AS RECEIPT OF AN INCOME NATURE. (K) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE APPELLANT' S CONTENTION THAT THE GIFTS ARE GENUINE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THER EFORE, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE IS CON FIRMED AND THE GROUND IS DISMISSED. 7. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.DR, WE HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT CONTEMPLATES THAT WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF AN ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF, OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF T HE AO SATISFACTORY, THEN THE SUM SO CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNTS MAY BE TRE ATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. A PERUSAL OF THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) EXTRACTED SUPRA WOULD INDICATE THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TR ANSACTIONS AS WELL AS CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. BOTH THE REVEN UE AUTHORITIES HAVE RECORDED A CONCURRENT FINDING ON THE ISSUE. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FINDING OF THE LD.REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE ON THIS ISSUE. ITA NO.2524/AHD/2013 6 8. WITH REGARD TO OTHER TWO ISSUES, WE FIND THAT TH E LD.CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THE FOLLOWING FINDING: THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS AS UNDER: 2. THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.23,701/- BEING 25% OF MOBILE & PETROL EXPENSES MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 5.1 THE AO HAS DEALT THIS ISSUE IN PARA 5 OF HIS OR DER U/S.143(3). THE SAME IS EXTRACTED BELOW: 5. DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE HA S INTER-ALIA DEBITED THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES TO THE P&L A/C. MOBILE EXPENSES RS. 33,637/- PETROL AND DIESEL EXPENSES RS. 61,167/- TOTAL RS.94,804/- IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, ON VERIFICATION OF THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ABOVE EXPENSES ARE NOT SUPPO RTED BY PROPER BILLS AND VOUCHERS. IN MANY CASES ONLY SELF MADE VO UCHERS ARE AVAILABLE. MOREOVER, THE ELEMENT OF USE OF VEHICLES AND MOBILE PHONE FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES COULD NOT BE RULED OUT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY SEPARATE LOG BOOK OR ANY REC ORDS IN THIS REGARD. IN THE ABSENCE OF SEPARATE RECORDS/LOG BOOK BEING MAINTAINED, THE POSSIBILITY OF EXPENSES IN THE NATU RE OF PERSONAL EXPENSES DEBITED TO P&L A/C CANNOT BE RULED OUT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I DISALLOW @ 25% OUT OF THE ABOVE EXPENSES W HICH WORKS OUT TOP RS. 23,701/- (25% OF RS. 93,804/-). THE SAM E IS ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT O F CHECK OVER EXPENSES.' 5.2 VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 02.08.2013, THE APELLA NT HAS SUBMITTED THAT, ' THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED LUMSUMP ON ESTIMATE BASE ONLY. THE ASSESSEE DID MAINTAIN VOUCHERS. THE SAME IS NOT DENIED BY AO HIMSELF. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED BY CA. NO ADVERSE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY AUDITOR. THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE IS IN FIRST YEAR ONLY. THE G.P . IS 24% HIGH. THE EXPENSES ARE HARDLY 0.53% & 0.96% OF THE TURNOVER. ITA NO.2524/AHD/2013 7 FURTHER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DOES NOT OWN ANY VEHIC LE. HE HAS TAKEN ON RENT THE VEHICLES FOR WHICH THE RENT C HARGE OF RS. 50,000/- IS PAID. THE REASON FOR USE OF VEHIC LE IS FULLY EXPLAINED BY HIM. HE HAS NOT DISALLOWED THE RENT. THUS THE DISALLOWANCE OF VEHICLE PETROL & MOBILE EXPENSES WI THOUT PINPOINTING OUT THE PARTICULAR PERSONAL ELEMENTS IS UNWARRANTED AND NOT CALLED FOR. AS HELD BY GUJ. HIGH COURT IN SAYAJI IRON & ENGG. C O. VS. CIT (2002) 172 CTR (GUJ) 339 THAT IN CASE OF COMPAN IES THERE CANNOT BE ANY PERSONAL USE. ANNEXURE C. SO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION A.O. SHOULD NOT HAVE DISALLOWED THE SAME. KINDLY CANCEL THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS OF GUJ. HIGH COURT DECISION IN CASE OF SAYAJI IRON & ENGG. CO. VS. CIT (2002) 172 CTR (GUJ) 339.' 5.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS NOTICED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT PROPER RECORD OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSEESSEE. IT IS A FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MAINTAINED LOG BOOK . BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER RECORDS IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER WHOLE OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS AN D WHETHER THE SAME CAN BE ALLOWED AS AN EXPENDITURE T O THE APPELLANT, EVEN IF THERE IS NO PERSONAL ELEMENT. TH ERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANT DOES NOT OWN ANY VEHICLE S. HE HAS TAKEN ALL THE VEHICLES ON RENT AND IN THIS SITU ATION FURTHER EXPENDITURE ON PETROL EXPENSES NEEDS JUSTIF ICATION THAT IT WAS FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE. IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING A PART OF THE EXPENDITURE AS FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES. HOWEV ER, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO 15% OF THE TOTAL EXPEN DITURE ON MOBILE AND VEHICLE PETROL. THE APPELLANT GETS RELIE F OF RS.9480/-. THE GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6 GROUND 3; 6.1. THE THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL IS AS UNDER: '3. THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 6,4127- OUT OF VE HICLE REPAIRING EXPENSES BE DELETED.' 6.2 THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. IS AS UNDER: ITA NO.2524/AHD/2013 8 '6. IT IS ALSO SEEN FROM THE VERIFICATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OWN ANY VEHICLE. HOWEVER, IT HAS CLAIMED VEHICLE REPAIRING EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,412/- . THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY BILLS/VOUCHERS FROM WHICH IT CAN BE ASCERTAINED ON WHICH VEHICLE THE SA ID EXPENDITURE HAD INCURRED AND ALSO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE VEHICLE. IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION THAT IN THE AB SENCE OF ANY VEHICLE BEING OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE EXPENS ES DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE REPAI RING EXPENSES CANNOT BE ALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I DISALLOW VEHICLE REPAIRING EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS . 6,412/- AND ADD THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE.' 6.3 THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UN DER: '3. DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 6,412/- ON REPAIRING OF VEH ICLE: THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ON RENT THE VEHICLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SITE VISIT. THE EXPENSES INCURRED IS SUPPORTED BY VOUCHER. IT IS VERY MINOR AND IT IS SURPRISING TO OBSERVE HIS COMMENTS THAT THERE IS ABSENCE OF VEHICLE. ON ONE HAND HE PARTY ALLOWED THE VEHICLE PETROL ETC . FOR VALID REASON & ALSO HE ALLOWED FULLY VEHICLE RENT P AID OF RS.50,000/- & ON OTHER HAND HE DISALLOWED MINOR REP AIR OF RS. 6,412/-. THUS THE DISALLOWANCE OFRS. 6,412/- REQUIRED TO BE DELETED.' 5.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND S UBMISSION MADE BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS A FACT THAT THE A PPELLANT DOES NOT OWN ANY VEHICLE AND COULD NOT PROVE THAT THIS EXPEN DITURE WAS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. THEREFORE VEHICLE REPAIR EXPENSES CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO IT. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N THIS REGARD IS CONFIRMED. 9. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY MOTOR VEHICLES, THEREFORE, NO EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS CAN BE ALLOWED. AS FAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL EXPENDITURE OUT OF MOBILE EXPENSES, PETROL AND DIESEL EXPENDITURE ARE CONCERN ED, THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS BASICA LLY WAS NOT MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USER OF THESE FACILITIES. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE OF THE ITA NO.2524/AHD/2013 9 EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR HIRING THE CARS. THEREFOR E, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 15% OF THE TOTAL EXP ENDITURE. WE MODIFY ORDER OF THE CIT(A) PARTLY BECAUSE, THE MOBILE EXPE NSES WERE NOT INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER HIRING THE MOBILE. THERE CANNOT BE PERSONAL ELEMENT OF MOBILE EXPENSES IN THE CASE OF THE COMPANY, AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAYAJI IRON & ENGG. CO. VS. CIT , 172 CTR 339, WE ALLOW THE MOBILE EXPENSES TO THE ASSESSEE IN TOTO AND THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF CAR HIRING CHARGES IS CONFIRMED TO THE EXTEN T THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ALL OW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE PARTLY. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 8 TH DECEMBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER