IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, J.M. AND SHRI R.C.SHARM A, A.M. PAN NO. : ACOPG5693F I.T.A.NO. 253 /IND/201 3 A.Y. : 2007-08 SHRI SANJEEV GARG, BHOPAL. VS. ACIT, BHOPAL APPELLANT RESPON DENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI H.P.VERMA AND SHRI N. D. PATWA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. A. VERMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 10 . 10 .201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 . 10 .201 3 O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), DATED 11.3.2013, FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 143( 3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. -: 2: - 2 2. IN THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS BASICALLY AGGRIEVED FOR THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,40,000/ -. FROM THE RECORD, WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN A LOAN OF RS. 1 LAKH FROM ONE SHRI NANURAM, IN SUPPORT OF GENUINE NESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED BANK P ASS BOOK OF SHRI NANURAM. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE A CTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY ON THE PLEA THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHI NESS OF THE LOAN CREDITOR. FROM THE BANK PASS BOOK OF NANURAM, WE FOUND THAT THERE IS A CREDIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT THROUGH CLEARING NO.82507 AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 LAKH. THUS, THERE WAS A DEPOSIT OF CHEQUE/DD AND THERE WAS NO CASH DEPOSIT. ADVANCE WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON 3.5.2006 AND THERE WAS A G AP OF ELEVEN DAYS BETWEEN THE CREDIT OF AMOUNT IN THE ACC OUNT OF NANURAM AND THE DATE OF ADVANCING TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, WE FOUND THAT AS ON THE DATE OF ADVANCE, THERE WAS SUF FICIENT CREDIT BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF NANURAM, WHICH PRO VED CREDITWORTHINESS OF LOAN CREDITORS. SIMILARLY, THER E WAS A CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SMT. PUSHPA VIDE CLEARING CH EQUE NO. 461428 AMOUNTING TO RS. 40,000/- AND ASSESSEE WAS G IVEN -: 3: - 3 ADVANCE THROUGH CHEQUE ON 8.4.2006. THUS, THERE WAS NO CASH DEPOSIT IN THE ACCOUNT OF SMT. PUSHPA. SINCE T HERE WAS SUFFICIENT CREDIT BALANCES IN THE ACCOUNT OF PUSHPA AS ON THE DATE OF ADVANCING THE CHEQUE TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN D CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). 3. AS THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF TRADING AND JEWELLERY, THE EXPENDITURE WAS CLAIMED UNDER TH E HEAD TELEPHONE, ADVERTISEMENT, DEPRECIATION ON CAR ETC. BY OBSERVING THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS PERSONAL IN NATU RE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 50,000/-. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 30,000/-. HOWEVER, NOTHING WAS PLACED BEFORE US, SO AS TO PERSUADE US TO DEVIATE FROM THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWAN CE OF RS. 30,000/- RETAINED BY HIM. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM T HE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 30,000/- AS SUSTAINED BY THE LD .CIT(A). -: 4: - 4 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D IN PART. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH OCTOBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (R. C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 11 TH OCTOBER, 2013. CPU* 101110