Naveen Kumar Kedia, Hyderabad V. ITO,Ward 8(2), Hyderabad

ITA 40/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77926 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 44 year(s) 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-1970
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SARANG SHAH
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Rejection of books of accounts
• Section: 40A(3); 80G

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE S/SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. & SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. ITA.NO.40/HYD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 NAVEEN KUMAR KEDIA, HYDERABAD. PAN: ACBPK 9123B VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SRI SARANG SHAH FOR REVENUE : SRI SOLGY JOSE T KOTTARAM DATE OF HEARING : 01-05-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13-06-2014 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M . THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15-10-2013 OF CIT (A), HYDERABAD PERTAINING T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IN ALL 10 GROUNDS. GROU ND NO.1 AND 10 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LEARNED AR EXPRESSED HIS INTENTION TO CONTEST ONLY GROUND NOS. 4,5 AND 6. IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE, GROUND NOS. 2,3, 7, 8 AND 9 ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO CIT (A) SUSTAINING AN ADDITI ON OF RS.10 LAKH ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT, UN-VOUCHED EXP ENSES, UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES AND VALUATION OF STOCK. 2 ITA.NO.40 OF 2014 NAVEEN KUMAR KEDIA, HYD. 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDU AL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF CASTOR OIL A ND COTTON OIL. FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, HE FILED THE RETURN OF I NCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.7,58,300/-. DURING SCRU TINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING THE TRADING AND PROFIT & LOSS A/C NOTICED THAT ON A TOTAL TURNOVER OF R S.33,06,60,497/- THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED GROSS PROFIT OF RS.34,90,04 1/- WHICH WORKS OUT TO 1.06%. CONSIDERING IT TO BE ON THE LOW SIDE, COM PARED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09, THE ASSESSING O FFICER THAT BY APPLYING THE RATE OF 1.28% WORKED OUT GROSS PROFIT TO RS.41,99,381/- WHICH RESULTED IN A DIFFERENCE OF RS.7,09,346/- WHIC H THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TO ADD. LIKEWISE, THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE PROPOSED ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE ON VARIOUS OTHER ISSUES. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS EXPLANATION O BJECTING TO THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCE, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ULTIMATELY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME A T RS.50,42,755/- ON THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS:- I) ADDITION TOWARDS LOW GROSS PROFIT RS.7,09,346 II) ADDITION TOWARDS UN-VOUCHED EXPENDITURE RS.4,05 ,755 III) ADDITION TOWARDS 40A(3) PAYMENTS RS.4,35,220 IV) ADDITION TOWARDS DONATION RS.1,25,000 V) ADDITION TOWARDS EXCESS PAID ON A/C OF PURCHASES RS.9,25,318 VI) ADDITION TOWARDS QUALITY DIFFERENCE RS.3,89,921 VII) ADDITION TOWARDS INTEREST PAYMENTS RS.9,00,400 AN D VIII) ADDITION TOWARDS VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK RS .2,93,495 5. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT (A). BEF ORE THE CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE OBJECTING TO EACH OF THE ADDITIONS MADE FIL ED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONS MADE RESTRICTED THE 3 ITA.NO.40 OF 2014 NAVEEN KUMAR KEDIA, HYD. DISALLOWANCE TO RS.10 LAKH IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIO NS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCLUDING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT. 6. THE LEANED AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY MAINTAINED REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BUT ALL EX PENDITURES ARE SUPPORTED BY GENUINE VOUCHERS AND BILLS AND THEREFORE WITHOUT FINDING ANY DEFECT OR DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS OR ANY DEFICIENCY IN THEM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CI T (A) WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCE PURELY ON ESTIMATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT REJECTI NG THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAS RESORTED TO ESTIMATION OF PROFIT. TH E CIT (A) WAS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKH ON ESTIMATION BY ERRONEOUSLY OBSERVING THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE AS SESSEE WERE REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT BILLS AND VOUCHERS ARE NOT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS BUT EXPENDITURES ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY GENUINE BILLS AND VOUCHERS . GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY, THE ASSES SEE WOULD BE ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS. 7. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) HAVING COME TO A REASONABLE CONCLUSION BY RESTRICTI NG THE ADDITION TO RS.10 LAKH CONSIDERING HUGE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.3.6 CRORES, NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS AND ALL EXPENDITURES ARE SUPPORTED BY GENUINE BILLS AND VOUCHERS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES WERE NOT CO RRECT IN MAKING ADDITIONS WITHOUT FINDING ANY DEFECT OR DEFICI ENCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ON A P ERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS NOT SPECIFICALLY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR MADE A NY ADVERSE COMMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE SAME. HOWEVER, THERE IS A F INDING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE VOUCHERS PRODUCED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN 4 ITA.NO.40 OF 2014 NAVEEN KUMAR KEDIA, HYD. SUPPORT OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED ARE MOSTLY SELF MAD E VOUCHERS. THE CIT (A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10 LAK H BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS AND THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND VOUCHERS. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT ALL THE EXPENDITURES ARE SUPPORTED BY GENUINE BILLS AND VOUC HERS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY MAINTAINED WHICH CAN B E PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING IT AGAIN. IF THE ASSE SSEE IS UNABLE TO PROVE THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AND THE PROFIT DECLARED W ITH PROPER EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FREE TO DRAW HIS OWN CONCLUSION ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HOWEVER , THE ASSESSEE MUST BE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT HIS CASE. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN GROUND NO.5, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE AD DITION OF RS.4,35,220 U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. 10. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS NOTICED THAT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS A/C THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS.16,29,159/- AS FUEL EXPENSES. ON VERIFYING THE VOUCHERS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ALMOST ALL VOUCHERS AR E SELF MADE AND PAYMENTS MADE IN MANY OCCASIONS WERE IN CASH EXCEEDI NG THE AMOUNT OF RS.20,000/-. HE THEREFORE PROPOSED TO DISA LLOW THE SAME BY INVOKING SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSED DISALLOWANCE SUBMITTED THAT FUEL IS PURCHASED FROM VARIOUS UNREGISTERED DEALERS, HENCE IT IS DIFFICULT TO GET FUEL WITHOUT MAKING PAYMENT IN CASH. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GET T HE EXTERNAL SUPPORTING VOUCHERS FOR THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HOWEVER WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. ON V ERIFYING THE DETAILS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND CASH PAYMENTS E XCEEDING RS.20,000/- ON 19 INSTANCES TOTALLING TO RS.4,35,220/- . HE THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE SAME BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 40A (3) AND ADDED IT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE C HALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE THE CIT (A). THE CIT (A) ALSO UPHELD THE ADDITION BY CONCLUDING THAT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE PAYMEN TS WERE 5 ITA.NO.40 OF 2014 NAVEEN KUMAR KEDIA, HYD. MADE AFTER OFFICE HOURS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT WHEN EVERY PETROL PUMP AND FUEL STATION PROVIDES CR EDIT TO ITS REGULAR CLIENTS, FUEL IS SOLD ON CASH ONLY TO OCCASIO NAL PURCHASES, BUT FOR REGULAR CLIENTS CREDIT SALES ARE PROVIDED BY EVER Y FUEL STATION. HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE PA YMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE MIDDLE OF NIGHT WHEN THE CHEQUE COU LD BE GIVEN IN DAY TIME. HE THEREFORE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION. 11. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ARRIV ED AT HIS CONCLUSION BY TOTALLY MISCONCEIVING THE FACTS BY OBSER VING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENTS TO PETROL PUMP TOWARDS PUR CHASE OF PETROL AND DIESEL. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT ON THE CONTRARY, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE AMOUNT TOWARDS PURCHASE OF FIRE WOOD WHICH IS USED BY THE ASSESSEE AS FUEL IN THE MANUFACTURING PROC ESS. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT FIREWOOD IS BEING PURCHAS ED FROM UNREGISTERED DEALERS WHO INSIST ON PAYMENT OF CASH AN D DO NOT ACCEPT CHEQUE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS SUCH PAY MENTS HAVE TO BE MADE AFTER THE BANKING HOURS, THEREFORE, PAYMENT S WERE MADE IN CASH. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN OTHE RWISE ALSO EXCEPT THREE INSTANCES, ALL OTHER PAYMENTS MADE IN C ASH ARE BELOW RS.20,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY CLUBBING PAY MENTS MADE ON TWO SUCCESSIVE DAYS HAS ARRIVED AT THE FIGURE OF RS.4, 35,220/- MADE IN CASH. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CONTENTION, THE LEARNED AR RE FERRED TO THE LEDGER EXTRACT OF FUEL EXPENSES AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES-36 TO 38 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 12. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, WHILE SUPPORTIN G THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HOWEVER SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEES CLAIM CAN BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES , PER USED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS OTHER MA TERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CIT (A) HAS MIS CONCEIVED THE FACTS BY CONCLUDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENTS TO PETROL PUMP TOWARDS PURCHASE OF PETROL, WHEREAS THE ASSESSE E HAS MADE THE PAYMENTS TO UNREGISTERED DEALERS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF F IREWOOD 6 ITA.NO.40 OF 2014 NAVEEN KUMAR KEDIA, HYD. WHICH IS BEING USED AS FUEL IN ASSESSEES MANUFACTUR ING ACTIVITY. FURTHER, IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT EXCEPT PAYMENTS ON THE FOLLOWING THREE INSTANCES:- I) 15 TH MAY, 2008 RS.24,700 II) 19 TH OCTOBER, 2008 RS.26,100 III) 24 TH OCT. 2008 RS.20,600 ALL OTHER PAYMENTS MADE IN CASH ARE BELOW RS.20,000/ -. ON A PERUSAL OF LEDGER EXTRACT, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGE S 36 TO 38 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR APPEARS TO BE CORRECT. FOR INSTANCE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLUBBED TOGETHER PAYMENTS MADE ON 8 TH ARIL, 2008 AND 9 TH APRIL, 2008 TO TREAT IT AS SINGLE PAYMENT OF RS.20,500 SO AS TO BRING IT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 40A(3). WHEN OTHER INSTANCES OF CLUBBING OF PAYMENTS MADE ON SUCCESSIVE DAYS ARE ALSO FILED FROM THE LE DGER EXTRACTS. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT C LUB TOGETHER PAYMENTS MADE ON TWO DIFFERENT DATES AS ONE PAYMENT SO AS TO BRING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE AC T. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS REQUIRED TO B E VERIFIED WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY DONE EITHER BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER OR BY THE CIT (A). FURTHER MORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE FUEL PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PETROL OR DIESEL BUT F IREWOOD ALSO NEEDS EXAMINATION. SINCE THERE IS NO CLARIFICATION IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL EXAMINE ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE ISSUE AND THEREAFTER TAKE A DECISION IN THIS MATTER. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL OFFER A REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HIS STAND. HENCE, THIS GRO UND OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSES. 14. IN GROUND NO.6, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE D ECISION OF THE CIT (A) IN RESTRICTING DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80G OF THE ACT. 15. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEB ITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 LAKH IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS A/C TOWARDS DONATI ONS. HE NOTICED 7 ITA.NO.40 OF 2014 NAVEEN KUMAR KEDIA, HYD. THAT THE DONATION WAS MADE TO A TRUST BY TWO PERSONS AN D HE WAS THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ENTIRE DONATION CANNO T BE ALLOWED AT THE HANDS F THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH EREFORE CONCLUDED THAT AS THE DONATION OF RS.1 LAKH WAS MADE BY TWO PERSONS, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMIN G DEDUCTION U/S 80G OF AN AMOUNT OF 50% OF RS.50,000 I.E., RS.25,000 /-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADDED BACK THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 LAKH DE BITED TO PROFIT & LOSS A/C IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND STRAIGHTAW AY CLAIMED 50% THEREOF TOWARDS DEDUCTION FROM THE TOTAL INCOME HE AD DED BACK AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,25,000/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED HE ADDITION IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) . 16. BEFORE THE CIT (A) IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 LAKH DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C WAS ACTUALLY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE THOUGH THE RECEIPT WAS IN THE NAME OF TWO PERSONS. THE CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE AS SESSEE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE RECEIPT AND ALLOW TH E CLAIM IF THE RECEIPT IS FOUND TO BE GENUINE AND THE TRUST TO WHICH DONATION WAS GIVEN IS FOUND TO BE REGISTERED U/S 80G OF THE ACT. 17. LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT, THOUGH THE RECEIPT TOWARD S DONATION OF RS.1 LAKH WAS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OTHER PERSON NAMELY G.K. KEDIA BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY PAID THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 LAKH BY HIMSELF WHICH CAN BE VERIFIE D FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT FROM WHICH CHEQUE OF RS.1 LAKH WAS ISSUED. THE LEARNED AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE INSTITUTION TO WHICH DONATION GIVEN IS REGISTERED U/S 80G OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTU ALLY PAID THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 LAKH, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80G OF THE ACT OF THE AMOUNT CLAIMED. 18. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF THE CIT (A). 19. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON A PERUSAL OF THE DONATION RECEIPT, A COPY OF WHICH IS AT PAGE-39 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT APPEARS THAT THE RECEI PT IS IN THE NAME OF TWO PERSONS I.E., THE ASSESSEE AND ONE SRI KEDIA ,. HOWEVER, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CHEQUE FOR RS.1 LAKH WAS 8 ITA.NO.40 OF 2014 NAVEEN KUMAR KEDIA, HYD. ENTIRELY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT. FURTHER, REFERENCE TO THE ORDER PASSED U/S 80G, A COPY OF WHIC H IS AT PAGE-40 OF PAPER BOOK, REVEALS THAT THE INSTITUTION TO WHICH D ONATION WAS PAID HAS BEEN REGISTERED U/S 80G OF THE ACT. THEREFO RE, IF THE ASSESSEE AS CLAIMED BY HIM, HAS ISSUED A CHEQUE FR OM HIS BANK ACCOUNT FOR RS.1 LAKH, ONLY BECAUSE THE RECEIPT IS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ANOTHER PERSON, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80G CANNOT BE RESTRICTED TO 50,000/- IN PLACE OF RS.1 LAKH. THE REFORE, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WH O SHALL VERIFY ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT IF UPON SUCH VERIFICATION I T ISFOUND THAT CHEQUE FOR RS.1 LAKH WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE I N FAVOUR OF THE CONCERNED TRUST THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST ALLOW CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 LAKH. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON 13-6-2014. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 13 TH JUNE, 2014 JMR* COPY TO : 1. C/O M/S SARANG SHAH & COMPANY, CAS, 3-5-1090/A2, OPP. YMCA, NARAYANGUDA, HYDERABAD. 2. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (A)-III, HYDERABAD. 4. CIT-II, HYDERABAD. 5.D.R. ITAT, A BENCH, HYDERABAD. 9 ITA.NO.40 OF 2014 NAVEEN KUMAR KEDIA, HYD. 10 ITA.NO.40 OF 2014 NAVEEN KUMAR KEDIA, HYD.