Shri Deepakbhai Natvarlal Thakrar, Bhavnagar V. The ACIT.,Circle-1, Bhavnagar

ITA 435/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0471 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 10-01-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T SHANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT TALSANIA
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard; Opportunity of cross examination; Third party statement
• Section: 133A; 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMADABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 435/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 DEEPAKBHAI NATVARLAL THAKRAR PLOT NO. 1190-B, NOBLE HOUSE, GHOGHA CIRCLE, BHAVNAGAR V/S . ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1, BHAVNAGAR PAN NO. AB BPT9198E (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) BY APPELLANT SHRI ANKIT TALSANIA, A.R. /BY RESPONDENT SHRI T. SHANKAR, SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING 1 0 . 0 1 .201 3 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08.03.2013 O R D E R PER : T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE WHI CH HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD, DATED 15.10 .2009 FOR A.Y. 2006-07. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) XX ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION MADE ON STRENGTH OF THIRD PARTY STATEMENT WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS VERIFICATION EVEN AFTER SPECIFIC REQUEST. ITA NO. 435/AHD/10 A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 2 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) XX ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING RS. 56000/- AS UN EXPLAINED SALARY EXPENDITURE. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) XX ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ALLOWING THE SALARY EXPE NDITURE OF RS.56000/- AS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) XX ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF R S.49000/- AS UNACCOUNTED COMPUTER FEE MADE IGNORING HARD FACTS A ND BY MISINTERPRETING APPELLANTS STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) XX ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF R S.42000/- REPRESENTING PLANNING FOR COMPUTER PURCHASE AS UNAC COUNTED RECEIPT. 6) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) XX ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF R S.32171/- REPRESENTING ESTIMATE FOR LAPTOP AS UNACCOUNTED REC EIPT. 7) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) XX ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTER AND LAPTOP. 8) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) XX ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ALLOWING BENEFIT OF TELE SCOPIC SET OFF. 9) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) XX ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.7000/-. 2. THE FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST CROSS VERIFICATION O F THE STATEMENT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED BY THE A.R. THEREFORE, NO ADJUDIC ATION IS REQUIRED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 435/AHD/10 A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 3 3. THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON TUITION CLASSES. TH E SECOND AND THIRD GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.56,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. THE FACTUAL ASPECT IS THA T THE THERE WAS A SURVEY U/S. 133A OF THE ACT ON 20.10.2005. DURING THE COU RSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDING, THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED U/S.131 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDING, TH E STATEMENTS OF VARIOUS TEACHERS WERE ALSO RECORDED WHEREIN DETAILS OF THE SUBJECTS TAUGHT BY THEM, THEIR SALARY ETC. WERE RECORDED. THEREAFTER, ON 23 .11.2005, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A SUBMISSION REGARDING STANDARDWISE FEES, DET AILS OF PAYMENTS TO EMPLOYEES ETC. THE LD. A.O. GAVE THE SHOW CAUSE NO TICE VIDE LETTER DATED 23.12.2008 AGAINST THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPEL LANT DATED 28.10.2008, 24.11.2008 AND SUBMISSION MADE ON 23.11.2005. DURI NG THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE STATEMENT OF MRS. DIPTI MUKESH BHATT WH O HAD ADMITTED TO BE PAID RS.3,000/- P.M., SHRI KAVIT ASHWINBHAI PATEL PAID R S.1,400/- P.M., SWATI BHARAT PANDYA PAID RS.1,500/- P.M. & PANKAJ JAYPRAK ASH NATHANI RS.600 P.M. AFTER CONSIDERING THE STATEMENT OF KAVIT ASHW INBHAI PATEL, SWATI B. PANDYA, PANKAJ J.NATHANI & VIPULBHAI AND SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IT WAS FOUND BY THE A.O. THAT SALARY ADMITTED BY THE FOUR EMPLOYEES HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE A.O. MADE ADDIT ION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF SALARY TO KAVIT ASHWINBH AI PATEL RS.16,800/-, SWATI B. PANDYA RS.18,000/-, PANKAJ J. NATHANI RS.7 ,200/- & VIPULBHAI ITA NO. 435/AHD/10 A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 4 RS.14,000/-. THUS, TOTAL ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UN EXPLAINED SALARY EXPENDITURE MADE AT RS.56,000/-. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDI TION. THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER IS AS UNDER: 4.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, FINDI NGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED AUT HORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, DETAILED DISCUSSION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER W HILE MAKING THE ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE CLAIMED UN DER THE HEAD SALARY. THE FACTS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED AFTER RECORDI NG THE STATEMENTS OF THE CONCERNED PERSONS WHICH THE APPELLANT COULD NOT REFUTE. THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT ALL THE FOUR PERSONS DID NOT GET ANY REMUNERATION AND HAD LEFT THE JOB. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, NO VOUCHER S IGNIFYING PAYMENTS TO ANY OF THESE PERSONS WAS FOUND. THIS CLEARLY PROVED TH AT NO PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THEM. THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN FOLLOWING CASH SYS TEM OF ACCOUNTING EXPENSES ARE REQUIRED TO BE DEBITED ONLY WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY PAID. THE LD. A.O. HAD DETERMINED SALARY OF ENTIRE YEAR AS UNEXPLAINED SALARY THOUGH THE PERSONS HAD STATED THAT THEY HAD WORKED FOR LESSER PERIOD, FOR EXAMPLE, KAVIT ASHWINBHAI PATEL WORKED THREE MONTHS I.E. FROM AUGU ST TO OCTOBER, SWATI B. PANDYA FOR TWO MONTHS & PANKAJ J. NATHANI FOR THREE MONTHS AND KEVIN PATEL NO ADMISSION OF PERIOD WAS MADE BUT LEFT IN TWO-THR EE DAYS. THE APPELLANT ITA NO. 435/AHD/10 A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 5 ALSO FILED COPY OF VOLUNTARY STATEMENT AT PAGE NOS. 32 TO 36 WHICH SHOWS THAT KAVIT ASHWINBHAI PATEL WAS WORKING SINCE LAST THREE MONTHS, SWATI B. PANDYA SINCE LAST TWO MONTHS & PANKAJ J. NATHANI SINCE THR EE MONTHS. LD. A.R. RELIED IN CASE OF ABBAS NABI SHAIKH VS. ACIT, IN ITA NO. 366/AHD/2009 FOR A.Y. 05- 06 AND CLAIMED THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, DOES NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE. THUS, HE HAS REQUE STED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. AT THE OUTSET, LD. SR. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) & A.O. AND ARGUED THAT THESE SUBMISSIONS WERE VOLUNTARY GIVEN BY THE TEACHERS/STAFFS AND SALARY OF THESE PERSONS HAS NOT BEEN REFLECTED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT OUTSIDE T HE BOOK. THUS, LD. SR. D.R. HAS REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THOSE SUBMISSIONS WERE RECORDED U/S. 131 O F THE IT ACT. ON THE DATE OF SURVEY AS WELL AS THE VOLUNTARY STATEMENT IN FOR M OF SUBMISSION MADE BY SWATI B. PANDYA AND PANKAJ J. NATHANI ON 25.12.2008 , IT REVEALS THAT THERE IS NO VARIATION IN ADMISSION AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND STATEMENT MADE BEFORE THE A.O. AND NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING T HE COURSE OF SURVEY AGAINST THEM AS THEY WORKED FOR LIMITED PERIOD. TH E ASSESSEE HAD BEEN FOLLOWED CASH SYSTEM ON ACCOUNT. THUS, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE APPEAL, ON THESE TWO GROUNDS, IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. GROUND NOS. 4, 5 & 6 AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF RS.49,000/- AS UNACCOUNTED COMPUTER FEE, RS. 42,000/- REPRESENTING PLANNING FOR COMPUTER PURCHASE & RS.32,171/- REPRESENTING ESTIMATE FOR LA PTOP. THE A.O. OBSERVED ITA NO. 435/AHD/10 A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 6 THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THERE WAS LOOSE P APERS FOUND AND INVENTORIES SR. NO. 1 TO 4 AS PER ANNEXURE Y, IT W AS ADMITTED THAT PAGE NO.2 CONTAINS PARTICULARS OF COMPUTERIZATION FEES RECEIV ED FROM 23 STUDENTS OF RS.49,000/- WHICH WAS NOT ACCOUNTED BY THE APPELLAN T IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FURTHER, ON PAGE NO.3, IT CONTAINS DETAIL OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS OF RS.42,000/- AND ITS USE AND ON PAGE NO.4 CONTAINS U NACCOUNTED RECEIPTS OF RS.32,171/- HAD BEEN MENTIONED. THE A.O. GAVE REAS ONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. BUT LD. A.O. WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT B ECAUSE THE APPELLANT WAS DENYING HIS OWN ADMISSION DATED 20.10.2005 IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.12 WHEREIN IT WAS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE ABOVE INCOME WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND REPRESENTED HIS UN ACCOUNTED RECEIPTS. THUS, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,23,171/- U/S. 68 OF THE IT ACT. 7. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A ) WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE ASSESS EES REPLY AND FINALLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN PARA 5.2, WHICH IS REPROD UCED AS UNDER: 5.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, FINDI NGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED AUT HORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT WITH CASE LAW. IT IS A CASE OF SURVEY. THE CATEGORICAL STATEMENT MADE WITH REGARD TO UNDIS CLOSED INCOME WHICH WAS SPONTANEOUS DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY H AS NOT BEEN SUCCESSFULLY REBUTTED BY THE APPELLANT. THE FINDIN GS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE, THEREFORE, HEREBY CONFIRMED. 8. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE STA TEMENT OF APPELLANT WAS ITA NO. 435/AHD/10 A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 7 RECORDED. THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT WAS CONVI NCINGLY MISINTERPRETED BY THE A.O. TO SUIT HIS REQUIREMENT. THERE IS NOTHING WITH THE DEPARTMENT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM THAT THE FIGURE AS MENTIONED ON LOOSE CHIT REPRESENTS ASSESSEES UNACCOUNTED INCOME. THESE ARE NO EVIDEN CE IN THE EYES OF LAW, THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO PR OVE THAT FIGURE AS MENTIONED IN THE CHIT DO REPRESENT THE REAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RE ALLY RECEIVED. LD. A.R. FURTHER RELIED IN CASE OF M/S. DINESHCHANDRA J DINA 24 ACAJ, ITA NO. 1958/AHD/98, PULLANGODE RUBBER PROUDCE CO. LTD. 91 ITR 18 (SC). THE COMPUTER FEE AT RS.49,000/- WAS BELONGED TO MR. VAI BHAV ANDHARIA. THE LD. A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.42,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF MER E PLANNING FOR PURCHASE OF COMPUTER, WHICH WAS PURCHASED IN SEPTEMBER FROM HIS OWN SOURCE. RS.32,171/- WAS REPRESENTING ESTIMATE OF LAPTOP AND ITS ACCESSORIES ON CHIT WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME. NO BIL L, EVEN WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE A.O. THAT LAPTOP WAS PURCHASED FROM APPELLANTS UNACCOUNTED INCOME. THUS, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THIS ADDITION DESERVED TO BE DELETED. LD. SR. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. PAGE NO.2 OF THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENT, WHICH SHOWS THAT THIS PAPER CONTAINS COMPUTER ADMISSION OF 23 STUDENTS WITH FEE S OF RESPECTIVE STUDENTS IN TOTAL RS.49,000/- DATED 13.09.2005. PAGE 3 SHOW S PAYMENT OF RS.42,000/- FOR PURCHASE OF COMPUTER. BALANCE HAS BEEN SHOWN R S.7,000/-. THE OTHER ITA NO. 435/AHD/10 A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 8 DETAILS SHOWN RS.5000/- TO PAPA, RS.25,000/- NIPULB HAI, TOTAL RS.30,000/-, RS.7,000/- AND BALANCE RS.5,000/- IN THE NAME OF BA NDIP WITHOUT ANY DOUBT WHICH ALSO MATCHES WITH COMPUTER COST OF RS.42,000/ -. PAGE 4 OF IMPOUNDED DOCUMENT SHOWS THAT RS.31,000/- AGAINST LAPTOP, 196 FORD, 125, 158 BIC, 6458 AND COMPUTED KEABORD AND 145 FOR RENT. THUS, TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.32,171/- HAD BEEN SHOWN WITHOUT ANY DATE. SHRI DIPAKBHAI NATUBHAI THAKRAR ADMITTED U/S.131 OF THE IT ACT IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.12, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: A.12 PAGE NO.1 SHOWS LIABILITY OF RS.1,743/-, PAGE NO.2 REGARDING NISHA SHARMA FOR JUNE,05, PAGE NO.2 HAS PARTICULARS OF COMPUTERIZATION FEES RECEIVED FROM 23 STUDENTS OF R S.49,000/-. THIS INCOME I HAVE NOT ACCOUNTED IN MY REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. PAGE NO.3 CONTAINS DETAILS OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS OF RS .42,000/- AND ITS USE. PAGE NO.4 IS PARTICULARS OF MY UNACCOUNTED RE CEIPTS. BUT THE APPELLANT HAS CHANGED HIS STAND BEFORE THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. THE STATEMENTS WE RE RECORDED WITHOUT ANY FORCE ANY UNDUE INFLUENCE ON THE APPELLANT, WHICH H AS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE SURVEY TEAM. THE OTHER PARTIC ULARS OF STATEMENT REPLY NO.13, 14 SUPPORT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING UND ISCLOSED INCOME. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERVENE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, ON THESE THREE GROUNDS, IS D ISMISSED. 10. GROUND NO.7 IS AGAINST NOT ALLOWING DEPRECIATIO N ON COMPUTER AND LAPTOP BY THE A.O. THE LD. A.O. MADE ADDITION ON A CCOUNT OF COMPUTER AS WELL ITA NO. 435/AHD/10 A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 9 AS LAPTOP. THE ASSESSEE ALTERNATIVELY REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION ON IT, WHICH WAS ALSO REJECTED BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 6 .1 ON THE GROUND THAT OWNERSHIP AND USE OF COMPUTER HAD NOT BEEN PROVED C LEARLY. THUS, DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE ALLOWED. HOWEVER, WE HAVE C ONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF COMPUTER AND LAPTOP. THEREFORE, THE A.O . IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION AS PER RATE PRESCRIBED IN IT RULES ON THESE ITEMS. 11. GROUND NO. 8 IS NOT ALLOWING BENEFIT OF TELESCO PIC SET OFF, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SERIOUSLY PRESSED BY THE LD. A.R. AND ALSO WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUCH DOUBLE ADDITION IN THIS CASE TO ALLOW THE BENEFIT O F TELESCOPIC SET OFF. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 12. GROUND NO.9 IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.7000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES. THE A.O. FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.70,000/- IN THE NAME OF NIPUL THAKRAR AS ON 01.04.2005. HOWEVER, A SUM OF RS.7,000/- WAS DEBITED AS INTERE ST ON 31.03.2006. THE A.O. FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CHARGED INTEREST @ 10% ON RS.70,000/- FOR THE YEAR 05-06 AT RS. 7,000/- ON WHICH TAX OF RS. 7 85/- HAD BEEN DEBITED ON 31.03.2006. THE APPELLANT ACCEPTED ANOTHER LOAN OF RS. 70,000/-, WHEREAS THIS ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED, AS SUCH. THUS, HE ADDED BACK INTEREST OF RS. 7,000/- IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HA S BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) BY OBSERVING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT CLAR IFIED AS TO WHAT WAS THE DUE DATE FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND HOW THIS CLAIM WAS GENUINE. THUS, HE REJECTED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E APPELLANT AGAIN ARGUED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACC OUNTING. THE APPELLANT ITA NO. 435/AHD/10 A.Y. 06-07 PAGE 10 FILED THE COPY OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND HAD CLAIMED THAT INTEREST WAS PAID IN CASH. THUS AS PER PRINCIPLE OF CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE. THE LD. D .R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS, THE A PPELLANT HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE US TO PROVE THAT THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE A.O. ARE BASELESS, SIMPLY ARGUING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FOLLOWED THE CASH SYSTEM ON ACCOUNTING WHEN TDS AMOUNT HAD BEEN MENTIONED BY THE A.O. IT PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.7,000/ - WITHOUT ANY BASIS WHEREAS THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT OF RS. 70,000/- HAD BEE N PAID BY THE APPELLANT ON 01.04.2005. THUS, WE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A). THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 08.03.2013 SD/- SD/- ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA ! ! ! ! '! '! '! '! / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. '(' ) * / CONCERNED CIT 4. *- / CIT (A) 5. !./ ), ) , 12( / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. /45 67 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , 8/ 1 ': ) , 12( ;