Sh. Devinder Singh Lamba, Paonta Sahib V. ITO, Nahan

ITA 266/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8393 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 266 & 267/CHD/2012 A.Y. : 2006-07 & 2007-08 SHRI DEVINDER SINGH LAMBA, VS THE ITO, PROP. M/S MODERN TENT HOUSE NAHAN. & GLASS PALACE, MAIN ROAD, PAONTA SAHIB. PAN: AAVPL4082A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VINEET KRISHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ MISHRA DATE OF HEARING : 21.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.03.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM BOTH THE APPEALS BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) SHIMLA DATED 22.12.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08 . 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BOTH APPEALS ARE DECIDED AS UNDER IN WHICH COMMON ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED. ITA 266/2012 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ) 3. GROUND NO. 1 IS GENERAL AND NEED NO ADJUDICATION . 2 4. ON GROUND NO. 2, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 4,57,565/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE F IGURES OF PURCHASES, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THOSE AS PER FIGURES GIVEN TO THE BANK FOR RAISING LOAN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM BANK WHICH REVEALED T HAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIGURES OF PURCHA SES, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK AS REFLECTED IN THE SET OF FINAL ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED TO THE BANK AND THOSE FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER NOTED SOME OF THE INSTANCES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I.E. WITH REGARD TO M/S GLASS PALACE AND REPRODUCED SOME AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN OPENING STOCK, PURCHASES AND SALES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, NOTED THAT THE SAME W OULD SHOW THAT LOANS OBTAINED FROM THE BANK IN THE NAME OF M/S GLASS PALACE HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY UTILIZED IN THA T BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BILL OF THE PURCHASES OF STOCK TO THE BANK WHICH MAKES IT CRYST AL CLEAR THAT AMOUNT OF LOAN TAKEN WAS UTILIZED FOR TH E SAME CONCERN AND THE FIGURES SUBMITTED TO THE BANKS ARE ORIGINAL FIGURES OF SALES, PURCHASES, CLOSING S TOCK AND GP AND THE BOOK RESULTS ARE FABRICATED. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE A.O. THAT STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE BANK ARE BASED ON HALF COOKED INFORMATION/DATA WHICH WAS FILED ONLY FOR THE PURPO SE OF RAISING LOAN. FURTHER ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONS WERE SUPPLIED WITH REGARD TO LOANS IN M/S MODERN TENT HO USE 3 AND M/S LAMBA BISTAR BHANDAR ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE STATEMENT FURNISHED TO THE BANK WA S MEANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED TH E DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALES SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND SHOWN TO THE BANK AND FOUND DIFFERENCE O F SALES OF RS. 9,47,852/- AND NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED GP RATE OF 16.13% WHICH WAS APPLIED ON THE SAME AND PROFIT WAS WORKED OUT TO RS. 1,52,888/-. THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK WAS FOUND AT RS. 57,127/- AND I N THE JOB WORK, THE AMOUNT WAS FOUND AT RS. 2,47,554/- AN D AFTER MAKING NECESSARY CALCULATION, ADDITION OF RS. 4,57,565/- WAS MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME. 5. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BECAUSE HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THAT ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE BILLS OF PURCHASES OF THE STO CK TO THE BANK WHICH PROVED THAT STOCK STATEMENT SUBMITTE D TO THE BANK WAS CORRECT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) RELI ED UPON DECISION OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COIMBATORE SPINNING & WEAVING COMPANY 95 ITR 375 AND DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE . 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND FILED WITH THE BANK FOR TH E 4 PURPOSE OF TAKING LOAN. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, PROFIT HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.75,546/- AND IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOU NT AND BALANCE SHEET FILED WITH THE BANK, THE NET PROF IT HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 1,06,980/-. HE HAS SUBMITTED THA T THIS FIGURE IS NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE SALES OR OPENING STOCK AND THE CLOSING STOCK, BUT ULTIMATELY THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PROFIT IS VERY SMA LL AND THE EXPENSES SHOWN IN THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO TH E BANK HAVE NOT BEEN DISBELIEVED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. THESE FACTS WOULD CLEARLY SHOW THAT ASSESSEE HAS SH OWN ONLY IMAGINARY FIGURES IN THE TRADING AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK BECAUSE THERE COULD N OT BE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE OPENING STOCK. THE ENTIRE TRADING AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, WHEN CONSIDERED FOR FILING WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THAT THE BANK WOULD CLEARLY INDICATE THAT ULTIMATELY THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PROFIT WAS IN THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF A LL THE FIGURES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT WHEN HE HAS BELIEVED TRADING AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FILE D WITH THE BANK AS CORRECT AS PER THE FIGURES GIVEN THEREON, THEN THE PROFIT DECLARED THEREIN SHOULD HA VE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO FURTHER CALCULATION SHOULD BE MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKIN G ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE 5 AND MODIFY THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DIRE CT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT NET PROFIT OF RS. 1,06,980/- AS DECLARED IN THE TRADING AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK INSTEAD OF RS. 75,546 /- DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. WE, THEREFORE, C ONFIRM THE FINDING OF AUTHORITIES BELOW TO THAT EXTENT AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE PROFIT OF RS. 1,06,980/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 2 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. ON GROUND NO. 3, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE UPHOLDING OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 28,611/- ON ACCOUN T OF COLLEGE FEE PAYMENT AND DEPOSIT OF RS. 53,200/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI NAVNEET SINGH LAMBA. THE PRINCIPAL OF COLLEGE IN WHICH SHRI NAVNEET SINGH LA MBA WAS STUDYING, CONFIRMED PAYMENT OF FEES IN A SUM OF RS. 28,611/-. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT DURING FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER APPEAL, RS. 53,200/- HAD BEEN DEPOSITED IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI NAVNEET SINGH LAMBA. WHEN CONFRONTED THIS FACT TO THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THESE WERE OUT OF PERSONAL SAVINGS M ADE FROM TUITION INCOME OF SHRI NAVNEET SINGH LAMBA AND THAT HE WAS FILING REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLE GE AT CHANDIGARH IN WHICH SHRI NAVNEET SINGH LAMBA WAS STUDYING, HAS CLEARLY INTIMATED THAT HE WAS HOSTELL ER AND STUDENTS STAYING IN THE COLLEGE HOSTEL ARE NOT 6 ALLOWED TO MAKE TUITIONS. SHRI NAVNEET SINGH LAMBA IS SON OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCORDINGLY TREATED THE SAME TO BE UNDISCLOSED INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 28,611 /- AND RS. 53,200/-. 6(I) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERING THE RECORD OF THE CASE FOUND THAT SHRI NAVNEET SINGH LAMBA WAS NOT FI LING RETURN OF INCOME AND THAT STORY HAS BEEN CONCOCTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING OF THE INCOME BY HIM. THEREFORE, ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED. 7. AFTER HEARING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT SON OF T HE ASSESSEE SHRI NAVNEET SINGH LAMBA WAS DEPENDANT AND THAT NO EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN PRODUCED TO EXPLAIN THE ABOVE ADDITIONS. SINCE THE SOURCE OF FEE DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI NAVNEET SINGH LAMBA AND SOURCE OF BANK DEPOSIT IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI NAVNEET SINGH LAMBA HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLAINED WHO IS ADMITTED TO BE MINOR SON OF THE ASSESSEE, AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AND CONFIRMING BOTH THE ABOVE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABS ENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION, NO EVIDENCE OR COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IN MAKING THE ADDITION. WE CONFI RM THESE ADDITIONS AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. 7 8. ON GROUND NO. 4, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 29,900/- ON ACCOUNT OF COLLEGE FEES PAYMENT OF SON OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI AVNEET SINGH LAMBA AND ADDITION OF RS. 1,51,300/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSIT IN STATE BANK OF INDIA, PAONTA SAHIB. THE FACTS ARE S AME AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ON GROUND NO. 3. THE PRINC IPAL OF LAW COLLEGE, DEHRADOON HAS INTIMATED THAT SON OF ASSESSEE SHRI AVNEET SINGH LAMBA WAS A STUDENT AND HAS PAID FEES OF RS. 29,900/- FOR ACADEMIC SESSION RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, SHRI AVNEET SINGH LAMBA DENIED TO HAVE ANY BANK ACCOUNT IN HIS NAME, HOWEVER, IT WAS INTIMATED BY STATE BANK OF INDIA, PAONTA SAHIB THAT SHRI AVNEET SINGH LAMBA WAS MAINTAINING BANK ACCOUNT IN WHICH RS. 1,51,300/- HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED. SINCE SO URCE OF THE SAME WAS NOT EXPLAINED, THEREFORE, BOTH THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8(I). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF SHRI NAVNEET SINGH LAMBA (SUPRA). 9. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT F IND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT SON OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DEPENDAN T UPON ASSESSEE AND NO SOURCE. THERE IS A DEPOSIT OF THE FEES IN THE LAW COLLEGE IN THE NAME OF SON OF THE ASSESSEE AND BANK DEPOSIT WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA, 8 PAONTA SAHIB. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THESE DEPOSITS THEREFORE, AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JU STIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE . NO EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE US TO EXPLAIN BO TH THESE ADDITIONS THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD, WE CONFIRM BOTH THE ADDITIONS A ND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. ON GROUND NO. 5, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 2 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN FDRS BY T WO SONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED FDRS IN THE NAME OF TWO OF H IS SONS I.E. SHRI NAVNEET SINGH LAMBA AND SHRI AVNEET SINGH LAMBA DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IN A TOTAL SUM OF RS. 2 LACS. IT WAS ADMITTED FACT THAT BOTH WERE STUDENTS WHEN FDRS WERE PURCHASED IN THEIR NAMES BY ASSESSEE. SI NCE SOURCE OF THE PURCHASE OF FDRS WERE NOT EXPLAINED, THEREFORE, RS. 2 LACS WAS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED ADDITION BECAUSE NOTHING WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE HIM WITH REGARD TO INVESTMENTS IN THE FIXED DEPOSITS IN THE NAMES OF S ONS OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE D O NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE PURCHA SED 9 FDRS IN THE NAMES OF TWO OF HIS SONS DURING ASSESSM ENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE PURCHASE OF THE FDRS AND ALSO FAILED TO EXPLAIN THAT WHEN BOTH OF HIS SONS WERE STUDENTS, H OW THEY COULD HAVE PURCHASE THE FDRS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. ON GROUND NO. 6, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED DISALLOWAN CE OF RS. 18,086/- ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES. TH E PERUSAL OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF M/S MODERN TENT HOUSE REVEALED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED TELEPHONE EXPENSES, VEHICLE RUNNING EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION OF CAR, THEREFORE, PERSONAL USER OF THESE EXPENSES CAN NOT BE RULED OUT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED 30% FOR PERSONAL USER AND MADE THE ABOVE ADDITION. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DISMISSED THIS GROU ND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW ADDITION IS EXCESSIVE. THE PERSONAL USER OF T HESE EXPENSES CANNOT BE RULED OUT. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, 30% OF EXPENSES IS ON HIGHER SIDE. WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET A SIDE AND MODIFY THE DISALLOWANCE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OUT OF THESE EXPENSES. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10 15. NO OTHER POINT ARGUED OR PRESSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA 267/2012 : ( A.Y. 2007-08 ) 17. THE GROUND NO. 1 IS GENERAL AND NEED NO ADJUDICATION. 18. ON GROUND NO. 2, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED ADDITION O F RS. 14,35,942/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN FIGURES OF PURCHASES, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THOSE AS PER FIGURES GIVEN TO THE BANK FOR RAISING LOAN. IT IS STATED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. HOWEVE R, IT IS NECESSARY TO NOTE ONE MORE FACT THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER NOTED THE DIFFERENCE IN THE FIGURES IN THE CASE OF M/S GLASS PALACE BECAUSE AS PER STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK, THE SALES WAS OF RS. 20,11,520/- BUT THE SALES AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS RS. 5,14,859/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, NOTED THAT THE GP DEC LARED BY ASSESSEE WAS OF 54%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, APPLIED RATE OF 54% AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 14,35,942/- BY ADDING THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK AND J OB WORK. LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES SUBM ITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT & LOSS 11 ACCOUNT WHICH WAS FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME W HICH DISCLOSED NET PROFIT OF RS. 91,918/-. HOWEVER, THE BALANCE SHEET, TRADING AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WI TH THE BANK SHOWS THE PROFIT OF RS. 1,32,677/-. BY FOLLOWING THE REASONS FOR DECISION FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006-07, WE SET ASIDE AND MODIFY THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT NET PROFIT OF RS. 1,32,677/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE INCOME OFF. REST OF THE ADDITION WOUL D BE DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 19. ON GROUND NO. 3, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 7434/- ON ACCOUNT OF COLLEGE FEES OF ASSESSE E'S SON SHRI NAVNEET SINGH LAMBA AND RS. 14,390/- ON ACCOUNT OF BANK DEPOSIT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF BOTH THE DEPOSITS, THEREFORE, ADDITION WAS MADE. LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SAME AS HAVE BE EN CONSIDERED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE REASONS FOR DECISION FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006-07, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 20. ON GROUND NO. 4, ASSESSEE SIMILARLY CHALLENGED ADDITION OF RS. 29,900/- ON ACCOUNT OF COLLEGE FEES AND RS. 99,296/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCO UNT IN THE NAME OF SON OF ASSESSEE SHRI AVNEET SINGH LAMBA. THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN 12 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE REASONS FOR DECISION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, W E DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 21. ON GROUND NO. 5, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITI ON ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES IN A SUM OF RS. 16,940/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF M/S MODERN TENT HOUSE, ASSESSEE DEBITED SEVERAL EXPENSES WHICH ARE PERSONAL IN NATU RE I.E. DEPRECIATION ON CAR, TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND VE HICLE EXPLANATION. 30% OUT OF THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE REASONS FOR DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YE AR 2006-07, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRIC T THE ADDITION TO DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF THESE EXPENSES INSTEAD OF 30%. THIS GROUND IS THEREFORE, PARTLY AL LOWED. 22. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. 23. IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (BHAVNES H SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 8 TH MARCH, 2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD