Shri Ruchish Rajendrabhai Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-10(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 3293/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9530 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Depreciation; Capital expenditure
• Section: 133(6); 68; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 3293/AHD/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI RUCHISH RAJENDRABHAI SHAH, PROP. M/S. RIDDHI PACKAGING, B-2, CHANDANI AVENUE, 45 JAIN NAGAR, PALDI, AHMEDABAD .. APPELLANT PAN : AZZPS 6383 A VS ITO, WARD -10(4), AHMEDABAD .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI S.N. DIVATIA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI P.L. KUREEL, SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING 01/02/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12/02/2016 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XVI, AHMED ABAD DATED 01.11.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, ON TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) XVI HAS ERRED BOTH IN L AW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING AN ADDIT ION OF RS.1,59,459/- MADE BY LEARNED A.O. HOLDING IT AS NO N- EXISTENT LIABILITIES AND BY APPLYING SEC. 41(1) THE SAME HAS BEEN UPHELD. (SMC) ITA NO. 3293/AHD/2011 SHRI RUCHISH RAJENDRABHAI SHAH VS. ITO AY 2008-09 2 2. HAVING REGARD TO THE PECULIAR FACTS THE ADDITION S OF RS.1,59,459/- MADE BY LEARNED A.O. AND CO NFIRMED BY CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING WRITTEN SUBMISS IONS DATED 20.10.11, THE ADDITIONS DESERVES TO BE DEL ETED. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FURTHER GRIEVOUSLY E RRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRM ING AN ADDITIONS OF CASH CREDITS U/S 68 AMOUNTING TO RS.2,73,874/- 4. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND MATERIAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE LEARNED A.O. AS WELL CIT(A) AND PA PER BOOK THE ADDITIONS OF RS.2,73,874/- CONFIRMED BY LE ARNED CIT(A) BE DELETED. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITIE S, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF DEPOSITORS/DONORS, HOWEVER, ON UNWANTED GROUNDS AND FACTS, THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT(A) RE QUIRES TO BE DELETED. 6. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.9,625/- OUT OF TO TAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.49,697/- + RS.46,556/-) = RS.96,2 53/- ON AD -HOC BASIS WHICH IS NOT LEGAL AND VALID IN LA W WHICH DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 7. THAT THE EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED OF RS.9,625/- ON AD- HOC BASIS IS NEITHER CAPITAL EXPENDITURE NOR IN THE NATURE OF PERSONAL AND HENCE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE O F RS.9,625/- CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) B DELETED. 8. THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT COMMITTED DEFAULT O F SEC. 139(1), HOWEVER, FINDING IS GIVEN FOR CHARGING INTE REST U/S 139 AND ALSO FOR CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234 B, 234C AND 234D EVEN THOUGH APPELLANT HAS NOT COMMITT ED DEFAULT OF SECTION 210, THEREFORE UNWANTED INTEREST CHARGED BY LEARNED A.O. UNDER VARIOUS SECTIONS BE D ELETED. 9. THAT THERE IS NEITHER CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULAR S OF INCOME AND /OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREFORE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED FOR BOTH THE AL LEGED DEFAULT IS NOT LEGAL AND VALID ON LAW AND THEREFORE PENALTY (SMC) ITA NO. 3293/AHD/2011 SHRI RUCHISH RAJENDRABHAI SHAH VS. ITO AY 2008-09 3 PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BE DIRECTED TO BE CANCELLED O R DROPPED. 10. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS TILL THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD AND DECIDED. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION O F RS.1,59,459/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THEM AS CESSATION OF LIABILITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTI CED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS.10,87 ,310/- WHICH INCLUDES THE CREDITORS NAMED AS M/S. DHARINI PACKAGING, M/S. FLEXOR ALLIED INDUSTRIES, M/S.MAYUR EXTRUSION PVT LTD, M/S.MAYUR WOVEN PVT LTD, M/S. SWISS POLYPLAST & M/S . SIDDHESHWARI ELECTRICALS WHOSE CREDIT BALANCES WERE SHOWN OUTSTANDING SINCE LAST YEARS AND NO TRANSACTIONS WE RE RECORDED WITH THESE PARTIES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FILE CONFIRMATION OF THE CREDITORS ALONGWITH THEIR PAN ETC. THE ASSE SSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTIES WERE SET TLED IN THE YEAR 2008-09 EXCEPT WITH THAT OF M/S. DHARINI PACKA GING AND M/S. SWISS POLYPLAST. ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESS EE, NOTICE U/S 133(6) WAS ISSUED TO THE PARTIES BUT THE SAME W ERE RETURNED UNSERVED. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT PURCHASES WERE MADE FOR RS.2,91,957/- FROM M/S. DHA RINI (SMC) ITA NO. 3293/AHD/2011 SHRI RUCHISH RAJENDRABHAI SHAH VS. ITO AY 2008-09 4 PACKAGING DURING THE F.Y. 2005-06 OUT OF WHICH PAYM ENT OF RS.1,59,459/- WAS MADE AND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,32,4 98/- WAS STILL OUTSTANDING. AS REGARDS THE OTHER CREDITOR M/ S. SWISS POLYPLAST, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY CLARIF ICATION / EXPLANATION EXCEPT SAYING THAT PURCHASES OF RS.61,0 41/- WAS EFFECTED THROUGH M/S. DHARINI PACKAGING. AFTER CONS IDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE LIABILITY FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,59,459/- HAS CEASED TO EXIST AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.1,59,459/- WAS MADE U/S. 41(1) O F THE ACT. 2.1 THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY, WHEREIN VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, THE CI T(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN QUESTION. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, I NTER ALIA, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN AD DITION OF RS.1,59,459/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING IT AS NON- EXISTENT LIABILITIES AND BY APPLYING SEC. 41(1) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,59,459/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE; SO HE PLEADE D THAT THE (SMC) ITA NO. 3293/AHD/2011 SHRI RUCHISH RAJENDRABHAI SHAH VS. ITO AY 2008-09 5 ADDITION IN QUESTION MAY BE DELETED. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 2.2 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD C LAIMED TO SOLD PP/HDPE SACKS TO M/S. A ONE CHEMICALS, ANKLESHWAR A ND M/S. ANMOL CHEMICALS, GANDHINAGAR THROUGH M/S. DHAR INI PACKAGING WHICH AGGREGATED TO RS. 2,15,994/-. THESE PARTIES HAD NOT CLEARED THE DUES ON THE GROUND THAT THE MON EY HAD BEEN PAID TO M/S. DHARINI PACKAGING. THE ASSESSEE W AS THUS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY ANYTHING TO M/S. DHARINI PACKAG ING AND THEREFORE, THE LIABILITY ACTUALLY CEASED TO EXIST A ND THE SAME WAS RIGHTLY ADDED TO THE INCOME BY RESORTING TO THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT. SAME IS THE SITUATION IN THE CASE OF M/S. SWISS POLYPLAST IN WHOSE CASE THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT WAS RS. 61,410/-AND THESE PURCHASES WERE MADE THROU GH M/S. DHARINI PACKAGING AND THIS AMOUNT WAS ALSO MUST HAV E BEEN ADJUSTED BY M/S. DHARINI PACKAGING AGAINST ITS OUTS TANDING AND NOTHING WAS PAYABLE TO M/S. DHARINI PACKAGING T O THIS EXTENT. IN THIS CASE ALSO NO PROOF OF PURCHASE OR T HE AMOUNT PAID WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE A SSESSING (SMC) ITA NO. 3293/AHD/2011 SHRI RUCHISH RAJENDRABHAI SHAH VS. ITO AY 2008-09 6 OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE LIABILITY AND ADDING THE SAME U/S. 41(1) OF THE ACT. THESE REASONED FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) NEED NO INTERFERENCE FROM MY SIDE; I UPHOLD THE SAME. 3. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF CAS H CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT, AMOUNTING TO RS.2,73,874/-. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED CA PITAL OF RS.2,78,874/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS REGARDING THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, CAPACITY O F THE PERSONS WHO HAS GIVEN SUCH LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE GE NUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. IN ABSENCE THEREOF AND AFTER RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED TH E CASH CREDITS AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE ADDITION IN QUESTION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 3.1 BEFORE ME, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE A DDITIONS OF CASH CREDITS U/S 68 AMOUNTING TO RS.2,73,874/-. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND MATERIAL E VIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE PAPE R-BOOK, THE ADDITIONS OF RS.2,73,874/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SA ME SHOULD BE (SMC) ITA NO. 3293/AHD/2011 SHRI RUCHISH RAJENDRABHAI SHAH VS. ITO AY 2008-09 7 DELETED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3.2 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND M ATERIAL ON RECORD, I FIND THAT THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTAT IVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- THE LEARNED A.O. HAS FURTHER ERRED IN MAKING AN AD DITION OF RS.2,73,874/- HOLDING IT AS CASH CREDITS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION AND EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF IT. HOWEVER, LEARNED A.O. HAS MADE ADDITION AGAINST WHI CH THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED AND ITEM WISE SUBMISSIO NS AND ALONG WITH IT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FILLE D BEFORE LEARNED A.O. AND THE COPIES OF THE SAME IS ENCLOSED.: 1. RS.1,874/- - THIS AMOUNT IS OPENING BALANCE IN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT AND BROUGHT IN BOOKS OF ACCOUN T BY THE APPELLANT. EVEN THOUGH THE LEARNED A.O. HAS ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT HOLDING IT AS CASH CREDIT WHI CH DESERVES TO BE DELETED. THE XEROX COPY OF BANK STATEMENT IS ENCLOSED AND CONSIDERING THE SAME, ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. RS. 17,000/- - CREDITED OUT OF PERSONAL SAVINGS MADE BY WITHDRAWAL MADE IN EARLIER YEARS AND THE CASH OF PERSONAL SAVINGS IS DEPOSITED IN MY BANK ACCOUNT WI TH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. I AM RESIDING WITH MY PARENTS AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IS BORNE BY HIM AND SO WHATEVER CASH IS AVAILABLE WITH ME ABOUT RS.17,000/ - WAS DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT WHICH PLEASE NOTE. MY OLD CAPITAL BALANCE IS RS.4,44,683/-. I AM DOING BUSINESS WITH SMALL CAPITAL AND THEREFORE FOR MAKIN G (SMC) ITA NO. 3293/AHD/2011 SHRI RUCHISH RAJENDRABHAI SHAH VS. ITO AY 2008-09 8 PAYMENTS TO THE TRADERS/CREDITORS I HAVE TO BORROWE D LOANS FROM MY RELATIVES AND FRIENDS AND SECONDLY I A M UNMARRIED DOING BUSINESS SINCE LAST SO MANY YEARS A ND THEREFORE THE PERSONAL SAVINGS MADE BY ME IS ACCEPTABLE AS I AM UNMARRIED AND RESIDING WITH MY PARENTS CONSIDERING THE SMALLNESS AMOUNT ADDITION MADE BY LEARNED A.O. BE ALLOWED HOLDING IT AS GENUI NE CASH CREDIT. 3. RS.25,000/- - I HAVE RECEIVED GIFT OF RS.25,000/ - IN CASH FROM MY MATERNAL UNCLE SHRI SURESH K. DOSHI WHO IS DOING BUSINESS AT BOMBAY AND HE HAS FILED HI S CONFIRMATION ALONG WITH DETAILS OF HIS RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, PAN NO., CONFIRMATION OF GIN AND I BEING A SON OF SISTER OF DONOR (BHANIYA) THIS AMOUNT IS GIFTED TO ME FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MY BUSINESS BEING A ONLY SISTER' S SON AND CONSIDERING THE CONFIRMATION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED TO BE UNPROVED THE CASH CREDIT AMOUNT ADDED RS.25,000/- MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. THE XEROX COPY OF THE SAME IS ENCLOSED. 4. RS. 75,000/- RECEIVED BY WAY OF GIFT FROM MY MO THER SMT. RITA RAJENDRA SHAH WHO IS ASSESSED AT PAN NO. BUYPS756OL HAS GIFTED ME RS.75,000/- RS. 40,000/- ON 24.08.2007 AND RS. 30,000/- ON 23.01.2008 BY WITHDRAWING FROM HER BANK ACCOUNT AT TWO TIMES FROM HER BANK ACCOUNT NO. 6579. IN HER ACCOUNT THERE WAS A GOOD BALANCE AND OUT OF THIS, BY NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION AND I BEING A ONE SON, BOTH THE AMOUNT HA VE BEEN GIFTED TO ME FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MY BUSINESS. XEROX COPY OF HER BANK ACCOUNT AND CONFIRMATION SUBMITTED TO LEARNED A.O. AND COPY OF THE SAME IS ENCLOSED THE LEARNED A.O. HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE SA ID CONFIRMATION AND BANK WITHDRAWAL IN ASSESSMENT ORDE R AND THEREFORE CASH CREDIT ADDED MAY PLEASE BE DELET ED. 5. RS.75,000/- THIS AMOUNT OF RS.75,000/- IS GIFTED BY MY REAL SISTER RUCHI BY WITHDRAWING FROM HER BANK ACCOUNT. SHE IS A DIPLOMA HOLDER IN ARCHITECT FROM GUJARAT UNIVERSITY AND SERVING WITH PRASHANT STUDIO AND SHITAL DESIGN AND DURING THEN FINANCIAL YEAR SH E HAS RECEIVED SALARY AND OUT OF WHICH SHE HAS GIFTED THIS (SMC) ITA NO. 3293/AHD/2011 SHRI RUCHISH RAJENDRABHAI SHAH VS. ITO AY 2008-09 9 AMOUNT TO ME. HER CONFIRMATION IS FILED AND COPY OF HER BANK ACCOUNT IS ENCLOSED AND CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND CONFIRMATION FROM HER SID E AND WITHOUT DISPROVING IT BY LEARNED A.O. THE ADDIT ION MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED CONFIRMATION BEFORE ITO WD. 10(4) DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, COPY OF THE SAME IS ENCLOSE D. 6. RS. 50,000/- IS RECEIVED BY WAY OF GIFT FROM MY MATERNAL UNCLE SHRI DILIP KANTILAL DOSHI, RESIDING AT BOMBAY AND DOING BUSINESS AND ASSESSED TO TAX AT PA N NO. AT BOMBAY AND DECLARATION OF HIS GIFT IS FILED BEFORE LEARNED A.O. AND WITHOUT DISPROVING IT THE ADDITION MADE BY LEARNED A.O. DESERVES TO BE DELETED. THE CONFIRMATION IS GIVEN BY HIS SON HETAL DILIP DOSHI AS DILIP KANTILAL DOSHI HAS EXPIRED, CONSIDERING THE CONFIRMATION, THE ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. THE APPELLANT BEING A SON OF SISTER OF DONOR AND OUT OF NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION AND BEING A CUSTOM IN TH E HINDU RELIGION THAT SISTER IS NOT GETTING ANY RIGHT IN THE HOUSE FROM WHERE SHE WAS BORN AND BROUGHT UP AND THEREFORE THIS IS A GIFT MADE BY HIM DURING HIS LIF E TIME BEFORE HIS DEATH AND THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION DESERVE S TO BE DELETED. AS FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,874/- WAS CONCERNED, IT WAS STATED TO BE THE OPENING BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUN T AND BROUGHT IN BOOK OF ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT (A) DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE T HERE WAS NO WITHDRAWAL OF THIS AMOUNT FROM THE BANK AND THEREFO RE, HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IT WAS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED BAC K AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVE D THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF PERSONAL SAVING OF RS. 17,000/- MADE BY (SMC) ITA NO. 3293/AHD/2011 SHRI RUCHISH RAJENDRABHAI SHAH VS. ITO AY 2008-09 10 WITHDRAWAL OF EARLIER YEARS. THIS AMOUNT WAS ALSO C LEARLY UNEXPLAINED. THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CAS H GIFTS OF RS.25,000/- FROM MATERNAL UNCLE SHRI SURESH K. DOSH I, RS.75,000/- FROM MOTHER SMT RITA RAJENDRA SHAH, RS. 75,000/- FROM SISTER RUCHI AND RS. 50,000/- FROM MATERNAL UN CLE SHRI DILIP K. DOSHI. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE DONORS, THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS. THE CIT(A) ALSO FOUND THAT NO CONFIRMATION FOR THE GIFT ED AMOUNT WAS FURNISHED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER O R BEFORE HIM. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT SO CALLED GIFTED AMOUNT OF CASH OF RS.25,000/-, RS. 75,000/-, RS. 75,000/- AND RS.50,0 00/- WERE THUS CORRECTLY TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH INTRODUC ED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUST IFIED IN TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITORS. TH E CIT(A) ALSO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 30,000/- DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON THE G ROUND THAT THE SAME WAS AN ALTOGETHER NEW STORY COOKED UP WHIC H WAS NOT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER; AND ACCORDINGLY, TREA TED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE ABOVE REFERRED CASH CREDITS AND THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS (SMC) ITA NO. 3293/AHD/2011 SHRI RUCHISH RAJENDRABHAI SHAH VS. ITO AY 2008-09 11 JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,73,874/- U /S. 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THEREFORE, I AM NOT INCLINED TO IN TERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED T HE ADDITION IN QUESTION FOR THE REASONS AS STATED ABOVE. I UPHO LD THE SAME. 4. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE AD-HOC DISALLOW ANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.9,625/- OUT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.96,253/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AD-HOC D ISALLOWANCE OF 20% OUT OF TELEPHONE, VEHICLE, DEPRECIATION ON V EHICLE, TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE EXPENSES, AMOUNTING TO RS .96,253/-, WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.19,250/-. ON APPEAL, CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE SAME TO 10%, I.E. RS.9,625/-. CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWAN CE SEEMS TO BE ON HIGHER SIDE AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS RESTRI CTED TO RS.5000/-. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 12TH FEBRUARY, 201 6 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- ( SHAILENDRA K. YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 12/02/2016 BIJU T., PS (SMC) ITA NO. 3293/AHD/2011 SHRI RUCHISH RAJENDRABHAI SHAH VS. ITO AY 2008-09 12 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! ' ' # / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' ' # ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. &'( ! , ' ! , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. (- . / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !', / ITAT, AHMEDABAD