LAXMI NARAYAN TAK, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 532/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 53223114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA JCIT DR DHK
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Corroborative evidences; Block assessment
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 153A; 145; 132

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 532, 533 & 534/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 TO 2006-07 SMT. PRABHA TAK L/H OF LATE SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN TAK PROP. M/S. GULAB CHAND LAXMI NARAYAN 205, TAK HOUSE, KATLA PUROHITJI KA, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ABFPT 4889 A VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :SHRI RAJ MEHRA, JCIT-. DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18/11/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 /11/2015 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM THESE ARE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE SAME ASSESSEE, ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) CENTRAL, , JAIPUR DATED. 23 -03-13 FOR AYS. 2003- 04; 05-06 & 06-07. ORDER APPEALED AGAINST AND ISSUE S BEING COMMON ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. CONCISE RESPECTIV E GROUNDS CHALLENGING THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS ARE AS UNDER:- ITA 532 /JP/2013 - AY 2003-04 1. UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES ON GRANDSONS MARRIAGE - RS. 5 LACS. 2. NOT ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING OF ADDITION WITH OTHER ADDITIONAL INCOME ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E. ITA NO.532/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN TAK VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,J AIPUR . 2 ITA 533 /JP/2013 - A Y 2005-06 1. DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 77,647/- U/S 40(A)(IA). ALTERNA TIVELY LD. CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT THE AO HAVING REJECT ED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) AND MADE THE ADDITIONS OF RS . 75,000/- NO SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS. 77,647/- CAN BE MADE AG AIN. 2. UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES ON MARRIAGE OF GRANDDAUGHTER R S. 7.50 LACS. 3. NOT ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING OF ADDITION WITH OTHER ADDITIONAL INCOME ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E. ITA 534 /JP/2013 - A Y 2006-07 1. DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 94,518/- U/S 40(A)(IA). ALTERNA TIVELY LD. CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT THE AO HAVING REJECT ED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) AND MADE THE ADDITIONS OF RS . 75,000/- NO SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS. 94,518/- CAN BE MADE AG AIN. 2. NOT ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING OF ADDITION WITH OTHER ADDITIONAL INCOME ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E. 2.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, DEALING IN THE BUSINESS OF PRINTED CLOTHES IN THE PROPRIETORSH IP CONCERN M/S GULAB CHAND LAXMI NARAYAN. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/ S 132 AND SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CARRIED OU T ON 06.01.2009 AT THE BUSINESS/RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF ASSESSEE AND H IS FAMILY MEMBERS. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CERTAIN LOOSE PAPER/DOC UMENTS WERE ALLEGED TO BE FOUND AND SEIZED BESIDES THE SEIZURE OF VALUA BLE ARTICLES AND CASH. THE ASSESSEE IS REGULARLY ASSESSED TO TAX AND HAD F ILED HIS REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) DECLARING RESPECTIVE TOTAL INC OME AT RS. 2,77,214/- ITA NO.532/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN TAK VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,J AIPUR . 3 FOR AY 2003-04; RS. 4,92,290/- FOR AY 2005-06 & RS. 5,48,497/- FOR AY 2006-07. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A, RETURNS OF INCOME WERE FILED FOR THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS . 3,02,814/- FOR AY 2003-04; 5,00,089/- FOR AY 2005-06 & RS. 6,54,750/- FOR AY 2006-07. DURING THE ASSESSMENTS U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 WERE FRAMED BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS / DISA LLOWANCES AFTER INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT, 1961 AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 8,77,814/- FOR AY 2003-04; RS. 14,52,740/- FOR AY 2005-06 & 7,94,268/- FOR AY 2006-07. 2.2 AGGRIEVED FROM THESE ORDERS, THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED FIRST APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL S SUSTAINING THE ABOVE ADDITIONS. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPE ALS. 2.3 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT APRO POS ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED EXPENSES ADDED FOR THE MARRIAGE OF GRAN D SON IN THIS REGARD, DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL MARRIAGE OF SHRI MANIS H KUMAR TAK, GRANDSON OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SOLEMNIZED ON 20.01.20 03. THE ENTIRE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS. 10,21,900/- SPENT ON MARRIA GE IS DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. THESE DRAWINGS BY VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS INCLUDING ASSESS EE WERE SUFFICIENT TO COVER EXPENSES ON THE MARRIAGE. DURING AY 2005-0 6 ASSESSEES GRAND- ITA NO.532/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN TAK VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,J AIPUR . 4 DAUGHTER MS. PRIYANKA TAKS MARRIAGE WAS SOLEMNIZED AGAINST THE WILL OF THE FAMILY AT ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ON 29.04.2004, AT A VERY SMALL SCALE AND ATTENDED BY LIMITED FAMILY MEMBERS. LOOKING AT THESE PECULIAR BACKGROUND OF MARRIAGE ONLY LIMITED FAMILY JEWELLER Y WAS GIVEN TO BRIDE. BESIDES MARRIAGE BEING LOW PROFILE EXPENDITURE AND OTHER CEREMONIES WERE INCURRED AND AS PER THE HINDU CUSTOMS ONLY BAR E NECESSARY JEWELLERY ETC. WAS GIVEN TO THE BRIDE OUT OF THE OLD FAMILY J EWELLERY. TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 3,67,905/- WAS CONTRIBUTED BY ASSESSEE AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBER S. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT NO INCRIMINATING MA TERIAL WHATSOEVER WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO INDICATE INCUR RING OF ANY UNDISCLOSED EXPENDITURE OTHER THAN RS. 10,21,900/- ON MARRIAGE OF MANISH TAK GRANDSON AND RS. 3,67,905/- FOR MARRIAGE OF GRANDDAUGHTER MS. PRIYANKA. ASSESSEE OFFERED DETAILED EXPLANATION BEFORE AO NAR RATING ALL THE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION THAT IN SEARCH ASSESSMENT ADDITI ONS FOR UNDISCLOSED EXPENDITURE CAN NOT BE MADE WITHOUT THE BASIS OF IN CRIMINATING MATERIAL INDICATING IN THIS BEHALF. LD. AO HOWEVER WITHOUT R ELYING ON ANY SEIZED OR INCRIMINATING MATERIAL ESTIMATED FURTHER UNDISCL OSED MARRIAGE EXPENSES AT RS. 5 LACS ON THE MARRIAGE OF MANISH IN AY 2003- 04 AND RS. 7.5 LACS ON THE MARRIAGE OF PRIYANKA IN AY 2005-06. THE AO O NLY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES MADE THESE ARBI TRARY ADDITIONS. ITA NO.532/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN TAK VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,J AIPUR . 5 SIMILARLY IN AY 2006-07 FOR GRANDDAUGHTER MS. PRIYA NKA TAKS ACTUAL MARRIAGE EXPENSES INCURRED BY FAMILY AMOUNTED RS. 3,67,905/- AS THE WEDDING BEING AGAINST THE FAMILY DESIRE, WAS SOLEMN IZED INCURRING BARE MINIMUM EXPENDITURE WITH ONLY LIMITED FAMILY JEWEL LERY FOR BRIDE, AT ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ON 29.04.2004. ARYA SAMAJ PROMOTE S ONLY AUSTERE MARRIAGES AND THE FUNCTION WAS LOW KEY ATTENDING B Y LIMITED FAMILY MEMBERS. IN THIS PECULIAR BACKGROUND OF MARRIAGE TO TAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 3,67,905/- INCURRED AND CONTRIBUTED BY ASSESSEE AND OTHER FAMI LY MEMBERS IS JUSTIFIED. LD. AO HOWEVER MADE THE ARBIT RARY ADDITION OF RS. 7.5 LACS ONLY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND WITHO UT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR CORROBORATIVE EVIDENC ES MADE THIS ARBITRARY ADDITION. THE AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT GRANDSON S MARRIAGE WAS CUSTOMARY HINDU MARRIAGE AND CONVENTIONALLY MAJOR E XPENDITURE IS BORNE BY BRIDAL SIDE. ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT FAM ILY JEWELLERY WAS USED FOR WEDDING AS PER COMMON CUSTOMS CONSEQUENTLY THE TOTAL FAMILY DRAWINGS WERE ADEQUATE TO MEET MARRIAGE EXPENSES. S IMILARLY GRAND- DAUGHTERS MARRIAGE WAS SOLEMNIZED UNDER NOT SO HAPP Y CIRCUMSTANCES THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON BOTH MARRIAGES WAS JUSTIFIE D. TO CREATE DELIBERATE SUSPICION ON RECORD, LD. AO HAS ASSUMED THAT SOME E XPENDITURE MIGHT HAVE BEEN INCURRED ON THE HOTEL, TAXI ETC. AS A MAT TER OF FACT ASSESSEE S FAMILY BELONGED TO JAIPUR AND ALL THE RELATIVES ARE RESIDENT OF JAIPUR THUS ITA NO.532/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN TAK VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,J AIPUR . 6 THERE IS NO BASIS FOR SUCH THEORETICAL ASSUMPTION, BESIDES LD. AO MAY HAVE CONDUCTED INQUIRIES IN THIS BEHALF. THUS THE E NTIRE ADDITION IS BASED ON WILD GUESS, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES HAVING NO L EGALLY ACCEPTABLE CORROBORATION. THE ENTIRE ADDITIONS IN THIS BEHALF ARE UNJUSTIFIED AND DESERVE TO BE DELETED. THE BINDING LEGAL PROPOSITIO N RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN SEARCH ASSESSMENT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS BRUSHED ASIDE IN PERFUNCTORY MANNER. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUPPORTED THE AOS ORDERS ON THIS ISSUE BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY S PECIFIC DETAIL IN RESPECT OF MARRIAGE EXPENSES. IN THIS REGARD IT IS SUBMITTE D THAT THE MARRIAGES WERE SOLEMNIZED 7-8 YEARS BACK, NO INCRIMINATING MA TERIAL WAS FOUND INDICATING THAT NO OTHER RECORD WAS AVAILABLE AND C ORROBORATING THE FACT THAT NO EXTRA EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED ON MARRIAGES . BESIDE WITH ELAPSE OF 7-8 YEARS ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE GONE TO MARKET FROM DOOR TO DOOR ASKING FOR EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THIRD PARTIES AN D FOR THEIR CONFIRMATIONS. SUCH EXERCISE WOULD HAVE BEEN LAUGHA BLE AND UNHEARD. THE OBJECTION ON MARRIAGE EXPENSES WAS FROM AO AND NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE BURD EN SQUARELY LIED ON AO TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRIES WITHIN THE FRAME WORK OF LAW, INSTEAD OF DISCHARGING STATUTORY BURDEN BY AO LD. CIT(A) HAS U NFORTUNATELY HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY SPECIFIC DETAI L IN RESPECT OF MARRIAGE ITA NO.532/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN TAK VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,J AIPUR . 7 EXPENSES THUS ARBITRARILY SHIFTING THE AOS BURDEN O N THE ASSESSEE THAT TOO AFTER A GAP OF 7-8 YEARS. ON LEGAL ISSUE ALSO LD. C IT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT NEITHER A SINGLE INCRIMINATING DOCU MENT WAS FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH INDICATING ANY UNDISCLOSED EXPENDI TURE INCURRED ON MARRIAGE OF GRANDSON OR GRANDDAUGHTER OF THE ASSESS EE NOR ANY INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LD. AO FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH OR TO SAY SO EVEN ANY OTHER EVIDEN CE WHICH CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT ASSESSEE INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE OUTSIDE HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON THESE MARRIAGES. IT IS AN ESTABLISHED L AW THAT NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN THE ORDERS PASSED U/S 153A IN ABSE NCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AND IN THIS CASE IS AN UNDIS PUTED FACT THAT THE LD. AO HAS MADE THE ESTIMATION WITHOUT ALLEGING OR RELY ING OR ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH THUS THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE IS CONTRARY TO SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITIONS IN T HIS BEHALF AND BASED ON ESTIMATION BASED PURELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE U/S 153A. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOL LOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: 1 . 27 TAX WORLD 367 ACIT V/S SHYAM BEHARI SHARMA WHETHER ADDITION CAN BE MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION? FURTHER HELD THAT SUSPICION HOWSOEVER STRONG MAY BE, CANNOT TAKE PLACE OF THE EVIDENCE. 2. 25 TAX WORLD 87 CIT V/S RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA (RAJ. HIGH COURT) HELD THE ASSESSMENT IS TO BE FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL THAT HAS COME IN POSSESSION OF THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WH ICH IS THE FOUNDATION OF ITA NO.532/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN TAK VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,J AIPUR . 8 PROCEEDINGS AND THE AO IS NOT CONFERRED WITH POWER TO MAKE ESTIMATION OF INCOME DEHORS THE MATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION. 3. PRABAL LAKHOTIA VS. ACIT, 114 TTJ 938 (JD) BLOCK ASSESSMENT COMPUTATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCO ME ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF ASSESSEES GRANDMOTHER TH AT A SUM OF RS. 6 TO 7 LACS WAS SPENT ON ASSESSEES MARRIAGE BY THE MATERNAL UNCLE OF ASSESSEE WHO HAS ADOPTED THE ASSESSEE, NO ADDITI ON COULD BE MADE IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 4. JAI STEELS VS. ACIT , 259 ITR 281 (RAJ.) 2.4 LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELO W AND CONTENDS THAT ASSESSEE IS A RICH PERSON AND MARRIAGES IN AFFLUENT FAMILIES ARE SOLEMNIZED WITH POMP AND SHOW. THE EXPENDITURE DISCLOSED BY TH E ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE LESS AND ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE H IS BURDEN IN DEMONSTRATING THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS REA SONABLE. 2.5 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS MENTIONED ABOVE REGA RDING THE MARRIAGES HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED. SIMILARLY IT IS A FACT EVID ENT FROM RECORD THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NO INCRIMINATING MATERI AL WHATSOEVER IN RESPECT OF BOTH MARRIAGES WAS FOUND. THERE IS NO RE LIANCE ON ANY SUCH INCRIMINATING MATERIAL EITHER BY AO OR LD. CIT(A). IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT IN SEARCH ASSESSMENT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE WITHOU T THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AS A RESULTS OF SEARCH , HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF JAI STEEL AND OT HER CITATIONS ITA NO.532/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN TAK VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,J AIPUR . 9 MENTIONED ABOVE HAVE CLEARLY LAID DOWN THIS PROPOSI TION. THESE ADDITIONS HAVING BEEN MADE IN SEARCH ASSESSMENTS U/S 153A AND ADMITTEDLY THERE BEING NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AS A RESULTS OF SEARCH RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES THE ADDITION I N RESPECT OF BOTH MARRIAGES DESERVE TO BE DELETED ON THIS LEGAL GROUN D. ON MERIT ALSO ASSESSEE HAS A CASE INASMUCH AS AFTER ELAPSE OF 7-8 YEARS ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE GONE TO MARKET FROM DOOR TO DOOR ASKING FO R EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THIRD PARTIES ON THE MARRIAGES OF HIS G RAND CHILDREN AND ASKING THEIR CONFIRMATIONS, EXPECTATION OF SUCH EXERCISE F ROM ASSESSEE IS UNJUSTIFIED. THE OBJECTION ON MARRIAGE EXPENSES WAS FROM AO AND NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND. IN THESE CIRCUMST ANCES THE BURDEN SQUARELY LIED ON AO TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRIES WITHI N THE FRAME WORK OF LAW, INSTEAD OF NOTICING NON DISCHARGING OF STATUTO RY BURDEN BY AO, LD. CIT(A) HAS UNJUSTIFIABLY SHIFTED THE BURDEN ON ASSE SSEE HOLDING THAT HE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY SPECIFIC DETAIL IN RESPECT O F MARRIAGE EXPENSES. THUS ON MERITS ALSO THESE ADDITIONS CANNOT BE SUSTA INED. IN VIEW THEREOF ASSESSEES GROUNDS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS AND 7.5 LACS QUA MARRIAGE EXPENSES OF GRANDSON AND GRANDDAUGHTER IN AY 2003-04 & 2005-06 ARE DELETED. ITA NO.532/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN TAK VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,J AIPUR . 10 2.6 ADVERTING TO REMAINING GROUNDS IN AY 2005-06 AN D 2006-07 IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF RS 77,647/ - AND RS. 94,518/- RESPECTIVELY, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ITAT IN ORDER DATED 23-4-2013 IN IT A NO 261/JP/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE (COPY PLACED ON RECORD) HOLDING THAT: 7. HEARD PARTIES. THE PECULIAR FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDING THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT C ORRECT AND COMPLETE PROCEEDED TO REJECT THE SAME BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT AND ESTIMATED THE INCOME TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT. THE ESTIMATED INCOME WAS IN SUBSTITUTION OF THE INCOME REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED U/S 29 OF THE ACT AND ALL THE DEDUCTIONS, WHICH ARE REFERRED TO U/S 29 OF THE ACT ARE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE SUCH AN ESTIMATE IS MADE. THIS WOULD ALSO MEAN THAT THE EMBARGO PLACED IN SECTION 40 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THAT BEING SO AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING OUR DECISION IN APPEA LS OF THIS GROUP IN ITA NO. 317 TO 320/JP/2013 AND FOR PARITY OF REASON AS ARE TAKEN THEREIN, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION IN MAKING SEPARAT E DISALLOWANCE U/S 40-A(IA) OF THE ACT. AS A RESULT, GROUNDS IN ASSESS EES APPEAL STAND ALLOWED AND GROUNDS IN REVENUES APPEAL STAND DISMI SSED. 2.7 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE COORDINATE ITAT BENC H ORDER IN THE ABOVE CITED CASE, IT IS HELD THAT WHEN BOOKS OF AC COUNTS ARE REJECTED U/S 145(3) THAN NO SEPARATE ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE U/S 4 0(A)(IA). THESE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. SINCE THE ASS ESSEES GROUNDS IN RESPECT OF MARRIAGE EXPENSES AND U/S 40(A)(IA) HAVE BEEN ALLOWED CORRESPONDING GROUNDS TAKEN BY ASSESSEE FOR ALLOWIN G TELESCOPING DO NOT SURVIVE AND ARE DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO.532/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN TAK VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2,J AIPUR . 11 3.0 IN THE RESULT ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 /11/ 2015 SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (R.P.TOLANI) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 30 /11/ 2015 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN TAK, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, JAIP UR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 532/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR