Sh. Naveen Sharma, Amritsar. V. The Income-tax Officer, Amritsar.

ITA 48/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80634 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

- 1 - ITA NO.48/ASR/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPE LLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMB ER, AND SH. B.P. JAIN, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.48/ASR/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) NAVEEN SHARMA 73, BHARAT NAGAR, BATALA ROAD, AMRITSAR. PAN:ARAPS6884K(APPELLANT) VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3) AMRITSAR. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. P.N.ARORA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SH. T ARSEM LAL, DR. DATE OF HEARIN G: 8.12.2014 DATE OF PRONOUN CEMENT: 30.12.2014 ORDER PER: B.P. JAIN (AM): THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ARISING FR OM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), AMRITSAR, DATED 12.11.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL. 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON THE PLEA OF NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND A LSO ON MERITS AND THEREBY UPHOLDING THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE A PPELLANT. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT AFFORDI NG SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE CASE. 3. THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ABOVE SAID GROUNDS OF APPEA L, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHO LDING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,57,240/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER BY DISALLOWING CONVEYANCE EXPENSES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS REIMBURSED THE CONVEYANCE/TRAVELI NG EXPENSES TO ITS EMPLOYEES/AGENTS AMOUNTING TO RS.4,11,643/- OUT OF RS.,4,57,240/-. - 2 - ITA NO.48/ASR/2013 4. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING A DDITION OF RS.54,848/- AND RS.1,56,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF 20% AD- HOC DISALLOWANCE FROM COMMISSION AND SALARY PAID BY THE APPELLANT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THAT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF EA CH PAYMENT WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDE RING THAT OBSERVATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE AGAIN ST THE FACTS AND BASED PURELY ON GUESS WORK WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND MA TERIAL ON RECORD. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DIS POSED OFF. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PURSUE GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 4. GROUND NO. 5 & 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THERE FORE, THEY DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 5. GROUND NO.3:- THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS APP EARING FROM AOS ORDER AT PAGE 1&2 WHICH ARE REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CONVEYANCE/TRAVELING EXPE NSES AT RS.4,57,240/- PAID TO THE VARIOUS PERSONS AND CONFI RMATORY LETTERS WERE ALSO ENCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSE L DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. DURING THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE PAYMENT OF CONVEYANCE EXPENSES LUMPSUM FOR MEETING THE EXPENDI TURE CONVEYANCE/TRAVELING FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF ONES D UTY. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE AS SESSEE - 3 - ITA NO.48/ASR/2013 CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD TRAVELING/CO NVEYANCE ON THE BASIS OF BILLS OF EXPENSES FILED BY THE CONC ERNED EMPLOYEE/PERSONS OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE A.Y.2006-07 DETAILS ENQUIRIES WERE MADE BY THE A.O. AND ON ENQUIRY IT WAS FOUND T HAT THE REGISTRATION NUMBERS OF TAXIS/CARS BEING THE VEHICL ES USED FOR THE TRAVELING AS CONVEYANCE WERE FOUND TO A NUMBER ALLOTTED TO MOPED OR MOTOR-CYCLE, SCOOTERS, TRACTORS ETC. AND T HE A.O. AFTER VERIFICATION CONCLUDED THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT GENUINE AND HAVE BEEN CLAIMED FICT ITIOUSLY AND DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD CONVEYANCE/TRAVELING. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE FULL DETAIL OF TH E EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD CONVEYANCE EXPENSES WITH THE MODE OF CONVEYANCE USED WITH FULL REGISTRATION OF THE VEHIC LES. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED WRITTEN RE PLY WHICH WAS RECEIVED ON 08.12.2009 AND THE RELEVANT PARA 2 OF T HE LETTER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 2. THERE IS A SHIFT FROM THE SYSTEM OF PAYING CONVEYANCE/TRAVELING ON THE BASIS OF BILLS PRODUCED BY THE EMPLOYEES TO REIMBURSING FIXED AMOUNT OF CONVEY ANCE /TRAVELING EXP. TO EMPLOYEES. I HAD DOUBT OF FALSE VOUCHERS BEING PRODUCED BY THE EMPLOYEES IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07. THEREFORE, FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2006 I ADOPTED A NEW POLICY OF PAYING ACTUAL - 4 - ITA NO.48/ASR/2013 TRAVELING/CONVEYANCE EXPENDITURE OR A FIXED AMOUNT, WHICHEVER IS LOW. FROM THE ABOVE STATED FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLEVERLY TRIED TO AVOID TO ENQUIRY REGARDING THE GE NUINENESS ON ACCOUNT OF THE TRAVELING/CONVEYANCE EXPENSES CLAIME D ON THE BASIS OF A.Y.2006-07 AND HAS GIVEN HIS REASONS THAT HE HAS CHANGED THE SYSTEM FROM REIMBURSING THE EXPENSES CL AIMED BY THE EMPLOYEES/PERSONS DOING JOB FOR HIM TO FIXED AM OUNT OF CONVEYANCE/TRAVELING EXPENSES. IT IS PERTINENT TO M ENTION HERE THAT THE FACTS OF FICTITIOUS CLAIMED MADE BY THE EMPLOYEES/PERSONS WORKING FOR HIM CAME TO THE NOTIC E OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S FOR THE A.Y.2006-07 I.E. DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 IN WHICH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE A.Y.2006-07 WERE COM PLETED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT HE HAS CHANGED HIS SYSTEM OF REIMBURSEMENT OF CLAIM TO FIXED AMOUNT OF CONVEYANCE/TRAVELING ALLOWANCE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS NOTHING BUT TO AVOID OF MAKING ANY DETAILED ENQUIRIES OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED ON THE BASIS OF A .Y.2006-07. SINCE, THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS SA ME AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADDUCED ANY FRESH EVIDENCE IN SUPP ORT OF HIS CONTENTION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF PAYM ENT OF - 5 - ITA NO.48/ASR/2013 TRAVELING/CONVEYANCE EXPENSES FROM REIMBURSEMENT BA SIS TO FIXED AMOUNT OF CONVEYANCE/TRAVELING EXPENSES IS GE NUINE AND CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE FULL PARTICULARS OF THE TRAVELING EXP ENSES CLAIMED BY EACH EMPLOYEE/PERSON AS DONE IN THE LAST YEAR I. E. A.Y.2006- 07 AND ACCORDINGLY IS REJECTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE EX PENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD TRAVELING EXPENSES AT RS.4,5 7,240/- ARE DISALLOWED PARTICULARLY KEEPING IN VIEW THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN PARA II ABOVE THAT ON RANDOM VERIFICATION THE SU MMON U/S 181 WAS ISSUED IN THE CASE OF SH. AKHIL ARORA, WHO FAILED TO PRESENT HIMSELF A PERSON IN CONFIRMATION OF THE REC EIPT OF PAYMENT UNDER THE HEAD COMMISSION AND CONVEYANCE/TR AVELING ALLOWANCE. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF TH E AO. 7. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.4:- THE BRIEF FACTS OF TH E CASE AS APPEARING AT PAGE 2 & 3 OF THE AOS ORDER WHICH REPRODUCED AS UNDER: IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS D EBITED THE COMMISSION PAID AT RS.2,74,240/-. DETAIL OF THE COM MISSION PAID WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH SHOWS THA T THE SAME HAS BEEN PAID TO VARIOUS PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE LETTERS OF CONFIRMATION FROM THESE PE RSONS. IN ORDER TO TEST CHECK THE LEGITIMACY OF THE AMOUNT DE BITED TO THE - 6 - ITA NO.48/ASR/2013 P&L A/C SUMMONS U/S 131(1) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED TO ONE OF THE PERSON NAMELY SH AKHIL ARORA, R/O 1376/7 , SHIV GALI, SWANK MANDI, AMRITSAR TO WHOM THE COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS.83,479/- SHOWN TO HAVE PAID BESIDES THE PAYMENT OF CONVEYANCE/TRAVELING AMOUNTING TO RS.25, 473/-. SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS ISSUED ON 04.12 .2009 REQUIRING THE PERSONAL ATTENDANCE OF THE ASSESSEE O N 09.12.2009 AT 4-00 P.M. ON THE GIVEN DATE ON 09.12. 2009 NEITHER SH. AKHIL ARORA ATTENDED THE OFFICE PERSONA LLY NOR ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE PROCE EDING WAS RECEIVED. IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS CLEAR T HAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES DEBITED ON ACCOUNT OF C OMMISSION PAID AT RS.83,379/- AND TRAVELING/CONVEYANCE PAID A T RS.25,473/- IS NOT FREE FROM DOUBTS. THEREFORE, THE EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER HEAD COMMISSION PAID CANNOT BE ACCEPT ED AS GENUINE AND FULLY VERIFIABLE PARTICULARLY WHEN THES E VERIFICATIONS COULD NOT BE MADE FROM THE LOCAL RESI DENT THEN THE POSITION IN THE CASE OF THE OUTSTATIONED PERSONS TO WHOM THE COMMISSION IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN PAID CANNOT BE TA KEN AS GENUINE AND HENCE CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN FULL AS BUSI NESS EXPENDITURE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS SAME AS DURIN G THE A.Y. - 7 - ITA NO.48/ASR/2013 2006-07 AND ALSO KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS DISCUSSE D BY THE A.O. DURING THE A.Y.2007-08, I, THEREFORE, TAKE 20% OF THE EXPENSES UNDER THE COMMISSION PAID AS IN GENUINE AN D UNVERIFIABLE AND THE SAME ARE DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOM E FILED. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS.7,80,000/- UNDER THE HEAD SALARY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE SAL ARY REGISTER WITH THE MODE OF PAYMENT. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY MADE, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL THAT NO SAL ARY REGISTER HAS BEEN MAINTAINED BUT PRODUCED DEBIT VOUCHERS ON ACCOUNT OF THE SALARY REGISTER HAS BEEN MAINTAINED BUT PRODUCE D DEBIT VOUCHERS ON ACCOUNT OF THE SALARY PAID WHICH INDICA TES THAT THE SALARY HAS BEEN PAID IN CASH TO ALL THE PERSONS WOR KING AT AMRITSAR AND OUTSTATION. HOWEVER, NO CONVINCING REA SONS FOR THE NON-MAINTENANCE OF THE SALARY REGISTER WHICH IS PERMANENT RECORD AND SOURCE OF VERIFICATION OF THE GENUINENES S OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED, WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE CAN MAINTAIN AND SI GN THE PAYMENT AND SALARY BY WAY OF THE DEBIT VOUCHERS THE N WHAT WAS THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FOR M AINTAINING THE SALARY REGISTER PARTICULARLY WHEN HE WAS UNDER OBLIGATION - 8 - ITA NO.48/ASR/2013 TO MAINTAIN SUCH RECORDS. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE AL SO DID NOT JUSTIFY THE PAYMENT OF THE SALARY W.R.T. HIS SIZE O F BUSINESS. IN THE GIVE CIRCUMSTANCE, THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN NOT BE ALLOWED IN FULL IN VIEW OF THE FACTS DIS CUSSED ABOVE AND MENTIONED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER F OR THE A.Y.2006-07. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES AS STATED ABOVE, 20% OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD SALARY IS TAKEN AS IN-GENUINE AND UNVERIFIABLE EXPE NSES AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7.A. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF A O. 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.3 AND 4 ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED T HE EXPLANATION THAT THERE IS SHIFT FROM THE SYSTEM OF PAYING CONVE YANCE ON THE BASIS OF BILLS PRODUCED BY THE EMPLOYEES AND TO REIMBURSE THE SAME OR FIXED AMOUNT OF CONVEYANCE/TRAVELING EXP. WHICHEVER IS LOWER TO EMPLOYEES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALWAYS CO-OPERATED IN T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND HAS NEVER AVOIDED ANY ENQUIRY AND TH ERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD AS ALLEGED BY THE A.O. THE AO HAS JUST SI MPLY FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE AO PASSED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 006-07 AND ACCORDINGLY HAD DISALLOWED THE ENTIRETY OF THE EXPE NSES OF 4,57,240/. WHEREAS IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR THE ASSESSEE WAS WELL AWARE OF THE FALSE VOUCHERS BEING PRODUCED AND SAME WAS TAKEN CA RE OF AND - 9 - ITA NO.48/ASR/2013 ACCORDINGLY THERE WAS A SHIFT IN METHOD OF PAYMENT OF CONVEYANCE EXPENSES, IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR. ALTERNATIVELY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH, A MRITSAR, VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 14.05.2012 HAD ALLOWED A RELIEF OF RS.1 LAC OUT OF ADDITION MADE OF RS.4,52,500/- IN THAT YEAR AND ACC ORDINGLY, A PROPORTIONATE RELIEF DURING THE YEAR MAY BE ALLOW ED. 9. AS REGARDS THE COMMISSION OF SALARY EXPENSES, TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT NON-APPEARANCE BY MR. AKHIL ARORA CANNOT MAKE THE AO TO DISALLOW THE 20% OF THE EXPENSES AND NON MAINTENANCE OF SALARY REGISTER, WHEREAS ALL THE VOUCHERS ARE MAINTAINED FOR SALARY PAID DULY RECEIPTED BY THE EM PLOYEES WERE PLACED BEFORE THE AO AND NO DEFECT IN THE SAME HAS BEEN POINTED OUT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE. ALTERNATIVELY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED AND PRAYED TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITS AR IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y.2006-07 ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE AO HAD RESTRICTED THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION A ND SALARY @ 5%. 10. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF BOTH T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS REGARDS THE CONVEYANCE EXPENSES, THE A O HAS FOLLOWED THE FINDINGS OF AO FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND HAD - 10 - ITA NO.48/ASR/2013 PROCEEDED TO DISALLOW THE CONVEYANCE AND TRAVELING EXPENSES IN TOTO WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD SHIFTE D FROM THE SYSTEM OF PAYING THE CONVEYANCE AND TRAVELING ON THE BASIS OF BILLS PRODUCED BY THE EMPLOYEES OR THE AMOUNT FIXED BY THE EMPLOYE R WHICHEVER IS LOWER, BY KEEPING IN MIND THE FALSITY OF THE VOUCHE RS PRODUCED BY THE EMPLOYEES DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COOPERATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO AVOID ANY ENQUIRY. HOWEVER, BY PERUSING THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE PRE SENT YEAR AND THE DECISION OF ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR IN ASSES SEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07,WE FIND THAT THERE IS EVERY POSSIBILITY OF LEAKAGE OF REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY T HE ADDITION IS RESTRICTED TO RS.2,57,240/- AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSE E GETS A RELIEF OF RS.2 LACS ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE A UTHORITIES BELOW ARE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY. THUS, GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.4, THE COMMISSION PAID TO SH. AKHIL ARORA WAS EXAMINED BY THE AO BUT SH. AKHIL ARORA DI D NOT RESPOND TO SUMMON U/S. 131(1) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY THE AO FOLLO WING THE DECISION OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 MADE A DISALLOWANCE @ 20% OF TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS.2 ,74,240/-. THE NON APPEARANCE OF SH. AKHIL ARORA CANNOT MAKE THE A O TO MAKE AN - 11 - ITA NO.48/ASR/2013 AD HOC DISALLOWANCE I.E. TO ACCEPT 80% OF EXPENSES AS GENUINE AND BALANCE 20% AS FALSE. THE AO HAD NOT MADE ANY FURTH ER ENQUIRY IN THIS REGARD. SIMILARLY AS REGARDS SALARY EXPENSES T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN THE SALARY REGISTER BUT IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED THE VOUCHERS WHICH INDICATES THE SALARIE S HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN PAID AND NO DEFECT IN THE SAME HAS BEEN POINT ED OUT. THE AO FOLLOWING THE FINDINGS OF HIS PREDECESSORS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAD DISALLOWED 20% OF THE EXPENSES. THOUGH THE ACTION OF THE AO IS THUS, NOT JUSTIFIED HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ADDITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION AND SALARY EXPENSE S HAS BEEN RESTRICTED AT 5% BY THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRIT SAR IN ITA NO.494/ASR/2011 DATED 14.05.2012 PLACED ON RECORD. KEEPING IN CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE POSSIBI LITY OF LEAKAGE OF REVENUE, WE RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE AT 5% TO MEET BOTH ENDS OF JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.4 OF THE ASSESSEE I S PARTLY ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.48/ASR/2013 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH DECEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER DATED: 30.12.2014 PK. PS - 12 - ITA NO.48/ASR/2013 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: NAVEEN SHARMA , 73, BHARAT NAGAR, BA TALA RAOD, AMRITSAR. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3), AMRITSAR 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.