Bharatbhai Narshibhai Patel, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 47/RJT/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3113 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business expenditure; Corroborative evidences; Capital Gains
• Section: 54F; 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [ CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD ] BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ITA NO.47/RJT/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) BHARATBHAI NARSIBHAI PATEL PROP OF M/S.PUSHPAM CREATION MEHUL TEXTILE NAGAR SANT KABIR ROAD, RAJKOT / VS. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2 RAJKOT ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ADPPP 6615 C ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRAVIN VERMA, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING 29/01/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04/03/2019 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)III, RAJKOT [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-III /RJT/0156/11-12 DATED 22/11/2013 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER P ASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HERE-IN-AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 20/12/2011 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- ITA NO.47/RJT/2014 BHARATBHAI NARSIBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR 2009-10 - 2 - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFI RMING ADDITION OF RS.2,21,902/- IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED U/S.54F. THE DISALLOWANCE NEEDS DELETION. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIR MING ADDITION OF RS.2700/- IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT TOWARDS SALES TAX PENALTY. 3.1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN C ONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.21,500/- IN RESPECT OF TRAVELLING EX PENSES. THE DISALLOWANCE NEEDS DELETION. 3.2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.21,500/- IN RESPECT OF TRAVELLING E XPENSES. THE DISALLOWANCE NEEDS SUITABLE REDUCTION BEING VERY EX CESSIVE. 4. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE LEGAL, STATUTORY, FACTUAL, ACCOUNTING AND ADMINISTRAT4IVE ASPECTS, NO DISALLOW ANCE AMOUNTING TO RS.2,21,902/-, RS.2700/- AND RS.21,500 /- OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED. THE DISALLOWANCES NEED DELETI ON. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ASSESSMENT MADE IS BAD I N LAW AND DESERVES ANNULMENT. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, NO ADEQUATE, SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN PROVIDED WHILE PASSING ASSESSM ENT ORDER. THE ASSESSMENT NEEDS ANNULMENT. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, NO ADEQUATE, SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN PROVIDED WHILE PASSING APPEAL ORDER. THE ASSESSMENT NEEDS ANNULMENT. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER/AMEND A ND/OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OR ALL GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE ACTUAL HEARI NG TAKES PLACE. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUND NO. 1 IS THAT THE LD. LD.CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RS. 2,21,902/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWAN CE OF DEDUCTION U/S 54FOF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRE D TO AS 'THE ACT'). 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL AND CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS OF SAREES PRINTING JOB-WORK IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF ITA NO.47/RJT/2014 BHARATBHAI NARSIBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR 2009-10 - 3 - M/S. PUSHPAM CREATION. THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM PROPRIETARY CONCERN, LOSS FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND ALSO HAS INCO ME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED TOTAL INCOME IN RETU RN FOR RS. 13,57,000/- ONLY. 5. ON VERIFICATION OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING THE IN COME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT FOR RS. 2,21,902/- FOR THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AMOUNTING TO R S. 18,90,140/- ONLY. HOWEVER, ON VERIFICATION OF THE SALE DEED, IT WAS F OUND THAT THE SAID PROPERTY IS IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE I.E. SMT. PUSHP ABEN BHARATBHAI BHUVA. 6. AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 54F OF THE A CT, THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE WHO DERIVES INCOME FROM L ONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSETS. HENCE, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F O F THE ACT AS THE PROPERTY WAS NOT PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THER EFORE, THE AO ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.2,21,902/- AND ADDED TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE, PREFERRED AN APPE AL BEFORE THE LD.CIT (A) WHO CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVIN G AS UNDER: 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED CAREFULLY THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A. O. THE A.R. ITA NO.47/RJT/2014 BHARATBHAI NARSIBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR 2009-10 - 4 - HAS RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN 349 ITR 80 TO SAY THAT EVEN IF THE PROPERTY IS R EGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANTS WIFE, THE BENEFITS U/S.54F CAN BE OBTAINED. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID JUDGMENT, IT IS NOT ICED THAT IT IS RENDERED IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT ON DIFFERENT FACTS. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE BENEFIT S U/S.54F ARE ALLOWED TO AN ASSESSEE IF THE CAPITAL GAINS ARE REI NVESTED IN A NEW PROPERTY EITHER PURCHASED OR CONSTRUCTED IN HIS OR HER NAME. THEREFORE, THE ACT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE IF THE PROP ERTY IS REGISTERED IN A DIFFERENT PERSONS NAME, THE BENEFI T U/S.54F CAN BE MADE APPLICABLE. TO THAT EXTENT, THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM MADE U/S.54F I\S IN ORDER. T HE ADDITION THUS MADE AT RS.2,21,904/- ON THIS COUNT IS SUSTAINED. 8. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT (A) , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. THE LD. AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 2. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD.A.O. IS ERRONE OUS. THE HON.DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. KAMAL WAHAL 351 ITR 04 HAS CONCLUDED AS UNDER: FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.54F, THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE NEED NOT BE PURCHASED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN HIS OWN NAME NOR IS IT NECESSARY THAT IT SHOULD BE PURCHASE D EXCLUSIVELY IN HIS NAME. A PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE PREFER RED AS AGAINST A LITERAL CONSTRUCTION (COPY ENCLOSED). 3. RELYING ON THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE HON.DELHI HIGH COURT IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD.A.O. MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. ITA NO.47/RJT/2014 BHARATBHAI NARSIBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR 2009-10 - 5 - 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPP ORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE ON HA ND HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,21,902/-ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROP ERTY. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED SUCH HOUSE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF HIS WI FE. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM THE BEN EFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT IF THE INVESTMENT IS MADE IN THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY IN HIS NAME. AS THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE O N HAND HAS NOT INVESTED IN HIS NAME AND INSTEAD HAS INVESTED IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE, THEREFORE THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT WAS DENI ED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT (A) SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 12. ON READING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F OF T HE ACT, IT WAS REVEALED THAT THERE IS NO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAI M THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT ON THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTI AL HOUSE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE. BUT WE NOTE THAT THE COURTS H AVE INTERPRETED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT LIBERALLY TO T HE EXTENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTI ON 54F OF THE ACT IF THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE NAME OF THE SPOUSE. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KAMAL WAHAL REPORTED I N 351 ITR 4 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO.47/RJT/2014 BHARATBHAI NARSIBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR 2009-10 - 6 - THEREFORE, THE PREDOMINANT JUDICIAL VIEW FOR THE P URPOSES OF SECTION 54F IS THAT THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE NEED NOT BE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS OWN NAME NOR IS IT NECESSARY THAT IT SHOULD BE PURCHASED EXCLUSIVELY IN HIS NAME. IT IS MOREOVER TO BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS NOT PURCHASED THE NEW HOUSE IN THE NAME OF A STRANGER OR SOMEBODY WHO IS UNCONNECTED WITH HIM. HE HAS PURCHASED IT ONLY IN T HE NAME OF HIS WIFE. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT THE ENTIRE INVE STMENT HAS COME OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS AND THAT THERE WAS NO CONT RIBUTION FROM THE ASSESSEE'S WIFE 12.1. THE ABOVE JUDGMENT ENTITLES THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DEDUCTION OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF THE INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT IF SUCH INVESTMENT IS MADE IN THE NAME OF THE WIFE OR PERSON DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE FACTS OF THE ABOVE CASE ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND SUBJECT TO THE CAVEAT THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE SIDE OF TH E SPOUSE/ CONNECTED PERSON IN SUCH INVESTMENT. 12.2. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO SUCH FIN DING IN THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW EVIDENCING THAT THERE WAS NO CAPI TAL CONTRIBUTION IN THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY FROM THE SID E OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS FACT NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE INCLINED TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR THE LIMITED VERIFI CATION OF THE FACT WHETHER THERE WERE ANY CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE INVESTMENT IN R ESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BY THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. IF YES, THEN THE DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT WILL BE REDUCED PROPORTIONATELY. ITA NO.47/RJT/2014 BHARATBHAI NARSIBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR 2009-10 - 7 - 12.3. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE RE ALSO SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE CASE OF MRS. JENIFER BHIDE REPORTED IN 349 ITR 80 WHERE THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS GIVEN SI MILAR FINDING AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KAMAL WAHAL. 12.4. HENCE, THE AO WILL ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AF RESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. 13. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND N O.2 IS THAT LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,700/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT TOWARDS SALES TAX LIABILITY. 14. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A DEDUCTION OF RS.2,700/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE PAYMENT MADE FOR A SALES TAX PENALTY. AS PER THE A SSESSING OFFICER, SUCH PENALTY IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE. 15. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE, PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE LD.CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 16. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.47/RJT/2014 BHARATBHAI NARSIBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR 2009-10 - 8 - 17. THE LD.AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 4. THE LD. A.O. HAS ALSO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2700/- CLAIMED AS EXPENSES BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF S ALES TAX PENALTY. SINCE PAYMENT TOWARDS SALES TAX PENALTY IS ALSO PAR T OF BUSINESS EXPENSES AS PER SETTLED POSITION NO DISALLOWANCE OU GHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE. THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 18. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 19. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE INSTANT CASE RELATES WHETHER THE PENALTY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE SALE TAX ACT IS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. THE ISSUE OF PENALTY PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE IS WELL SETTLED NOW BY THE SERIES O F JUDGMENTS WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SUCH AMOUNT COULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS D EDUCTION. REGARDING THIS, WE FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMEN T OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JOLLY STEE L INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. REPORTED IN 236 ITR 881 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDE R: THE CONTROVERSY WAS COVERED BY THE DECISION IN CIT V. VEGETABLE VITAMIN FOODS CO. (P.) LTD. [1994] 209 ITR840 , WHEREIN IT WAS CLEARLY HELD THAT NO PART OF THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTI ON 36(3) OF THE BOMBAY SALES TAX ACT, AS IT STOOD AT THE MATERIAL T IME, FOR DELAYED PAYMENT OF SALES TAX, WAS COMPENSATORY AND FOLLOWIN G THE ABOVE DECISION, THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. ITA NO.47/RJT/2014 BHARATBHAI NARSIBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR 2009-10 - 9 - 19.1. WE ALSO FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DELHI AUTOMOBILES REPORTED IN 272 ITR 381 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: SO FAR AS THE FIRST QUESTION IS CONCERNED, ON EXAM INATION OF THE FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECORDED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT P AID BY THE ASSESSEE AS PENALTY FOR LATE PAYMENT OF SALES TAX BUT IT WAS BY WAY OF INTEREST. AND IF THAT BE SO, THE ANSWER IS REQUIRED TO BE GIV EN IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE 19.2. THOUGH THE ABOVE JUDGMENT IS BASED ON THE I NTEREST FOR THE DELAYED PAYMENT OF SALES TAX, BUT AN INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN WHICH SUGGEST THAT THE PENALTY CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUC TION. 20. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THERE REMAINS NO AMBI GUITY THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE PENALTY OF RS. 2,700/- PAID UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SALES TAX ACT. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO I NTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A). THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 21. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.3 IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.21,500/- ON ACCOU NT OF TRAVELING EXPENSES. 22. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N HAS CLAIMED TRAVELING EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,43,728/- ONLY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FAILED TO PR OVIDE THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENSES. THEREFORE, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITA NO.47/RJT/2014 BHARATBHAI NARSIBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR 2009-10 - 10 - THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE HAS MADE THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS.21,500/- BEING 15% TRAVELING EXPENSES AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 23. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE, PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE LD.CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBS ERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED SUFFICIENT SUPPORTING PI ECES OF EVIDENCE IN RESPECT TO TRAVELING EXPENSES. 24. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) ASSES SEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 25. THE LD.AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 5. THE LD. A.O. HAS ALSO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.17,250/- OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS.1,43,728/- CONSIDE RING THE SAME AS OF PERSONAL ELEMENT. SINCE NO SPECIFIC ENTRY OF TR AVEL HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LD.AO., TO TREAT THE DISALLOWANC E AS PERSONAL ELEMENTS IS ERRONEOUS AND MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. W ITHOUT PREJUDICE, IN EITHER CASE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE AT 15% BEING VERY EXCESSIVE MAY KINDLY BE REDUCED TO A TOKEN FIGURE. 26. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 27. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. THE ISSUE IN THE INSTANT CASE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE TRAVELING EXPENSES MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING THAT THE PERSONAL ELEMENT OUT OF SUCH EXPENSES CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THE AO ITA NO.47/RJT/2014 BHARATBHAI NARSIBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR 2009-10 - 11 - REACHED THIS CONCLUSION BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF TRAVELING EXPENS ES. THUS THE DISALLOWANCE ON AN AD-HOC BASIS WAS MADE BY THE AO. 28. SAME WAS THE SITUATION EVEN BEFORE THE LD.CI T (A) AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE I N SUPPORT OF TRAVELING EXPENSES. THEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT (A). 29. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE LD. AR BEFORE US H AS ALSO NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT ( A). THE LD. AR HAS ALSO NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SPECIFYI NG THAT THE SIMILAR EXPENSES WERE CLAIMED IN THE EARLIER AND THE SUBSEQ UENT YEAR. THUS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE LD. AR WE ARE INCLINED NOT TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S. 30. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 04/03/2019 SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 04/03/2019 &.., .(.. / T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.47/RJT/2014 BHARATBHAI NARSIBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR 2009-10 - 12 - / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. , ( ) / THE CIT(A)-III, RAJKOT 5. 012 ((*+ , *+ , & /DR,ITAT, RAJKOT 6. 2=> ? / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 0 ( //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) $%, & / ITAT, RAJKOT 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 01.3.2019 (DICTATION-PAD 7- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 01.3.2019 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.4.3.19 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 4.3.19 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER