M/s. Chaudhary Enterprises, Bathinda V. The Income tax Officer, Bathinda

ITA 578/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4056 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-01-2019
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWINI KALIA
• Keywords: Commercial expediency; Onus to prove; TDS
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 578/ASR/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 CHOUDHARY ENTERPRISES, GANPATI AGRO COMPLEX, MALOUT ROAD, BATHINDA [PAN: AAEFC 2374B] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BATHINDA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. ASHWINI KALIA ( C.A.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING: 23.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07.02.201 9 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BATHINDA (CI T(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 10.07.2013, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTES TING ITS ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE AC T HEREINAFTER) DATED 02.12.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IN APPEAL IS QUA AN ADDITION IN THE SUM OF RS.4,14,900/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE CHARGES RECEIVABLE AS PER THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS AND THAT AS PER THE TAX DEDUCTION STATEMENT (FORM 26 A S), WHICH, AS PER THE PAYERS, STAND CREDITED TO THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR IN THEIR BOOKS, DEDUCTING TAX THEREON; THE LATTER BEING HIGHER BY THE IMPUGNE D SUM. THE ASSESSEE-FIRMS, A CLEAR AND FORWARDING (C&F) AGENT FOR SHRIRAM FERTIL IZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., ITA NO. 578/ASR/2013 (AY: 2008-09) CHOUDHARY ENTERPRISES V. ITO 2 NEW DELHI, EARNING IN THE MAIN HANDLING CHARGES AND RENT, BOOKS DISCLOSED HANDLING CHARGES AND RENT INCOME FOR THE YEAR AT RS .20,12,826 AND RS.2,59,120 RESPECTIVELY (THROUGH CREDIT TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ). THE CORRESPONDING FIGURES AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL FO R THE RELEVANT YEAR ARE AT RS.24,12,213 AND RS.2,74,633 RESPECTIVELY, RESULTIN G IN THE IMPUGNED DIFFERENCE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SAME TO BE DUE TO THE EX CESS AMOUNT HAVING BEEN ALREADY CREDITED TO THE OPERATING STATEMENT FOR AN EARLIER YEAR, I.E., ON THE RAISING OF THE RELEVANT BILLS, CREDIT FOR WHICH THOUGH HAS BEE N ALLOWED BY THE PRINCIPAL ONLY IN THE CURRENT YEAR AND, ACCORDINGLY, DEDUCTED TAX THE REON. AS NO RECONCILIATION, HOWEVER, WAS SUBMITTED, THE SAME WAS ADDED AS THE I NCOME FOR THE YEAR; THE ASSESSEE HAVING CLAIMED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF TAX DE DUCTED AT SOURCE, I.E., ON RS.26,86,846, IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. IN APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE FILED A RECONCILIATION STATEMENT (STATED AS ANNEXURE-B TO THE IMPUGNED ORD ER, WHICH THOUGH IS NOT ENCLOSED ALONG WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER). HOWEVER, E VEN AS PER THE SAME THE GROSS RECEIPTS WERE AT RS.21.79 LACS (FOR HANDLING CHARGE S) AND RS.2.53 LACS (FOR RENT), SO THAT DIFFERENCE TO A SUBSTANTIAL EXTENT REMAIN UNRE CONCILED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED BILLS OF THE EARLIER YEARS TO SUP PORT ITS CLAIM OF THE IMPUGNED SUM AS HAVING BEEN ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR AS INCOME FOR THOSE YEARS. THE ADDITION WAS, ACCORDINGLY, UPHELD, SO THAT, AGGRIEVED, THE A SSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT, BASED ON THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AND THE ASSESSEE-AGENT IN EACH OTHERS BOOKS OF ACC OUNT, APPEAR AT PAPER-BOOK (PB) PGS.10-11, ADMITTEDLY FURNISHED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE DIFFERENCE, AS A PERUSAL THEREOF SHO WS, IS ON ACCOUNT OF: (A) BILLS/CLAIMS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN AN EARLI ER YEAR CREDITED BY THE PRINCIPAL DURING THE CURRENT YEAR; ITA NO. 578/ASR/2013 (AY: 2008-09) CHOUDHARY ENTERPRISES V. ITO 3 (B) BILLS OF THE CURRENT YEAR NOT CREDITED BY THE P RINCIPAL TO THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT DURING THE CURRENT YEAR; AND (C) SERVICE TAX COMPONENT OF THE BILLS, BEING ACCOU NTED FOR SEPARATELY BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE, ADMITTING THE SAME, C ALLED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) TO VERIFY THE SAME IN TERMS OF RULE 46 A. HE EXAMINES THE SAME, IMPLYING THEIR ADMISSION, BUT DRAWS AN INCORRECT IN FERENCE THERE-FROM. FOR EXAMPLE, THE FIGURE OF RS.21,79,075, AS STATED BY H IM, IS NOT THE GROSS RECEIPT AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATES, BUT RS.24,02,322, STATED TO BE THE CORRECT FIGURE OF THE HANDLING CHARGES (INSTEAD OF RS.24,12,213). LIKEWIS E FOR THE FIGURE OF RS.2,53,252, STATED BY HIM IN RESPECT OF RENT. THE SECOND ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS THE ACCOUNTING OF THE CREDITS AT (A) ABOVE BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCO ME FOR AN EARLIER YEAR/S, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL IN ITS BOOKS FOR 30.11.2005 (PB PG. 19). THAT FOR FY 2006-07 WAS ALS O REQUIRED IN-AS-MUCH AS SOME OF THE BILLS STATED IN THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT PERTAIN TO THAT YEAR. WHY THIS WAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED ALONG WITH OR, IN ANY CASE, NOT CALLED FOR, INCLUDING THE RELEVANT BILLS, IF REQUIRED, TO VERIFY THE SAME, IS BEYOND U S, RESULTING IN A SIMPLE MATTER OF RECONCILIATION OF ACCOUNTS, WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEE N RESOLVED AT THE STAGE OF AO ITSELF, TRAVELLING TO US. WHY, AGAIN, WAS THE AO NO T REQUIRED TO VERIFY AND REPORT TO HIM BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS AGAIN ANYBODYS GUESS. SOM E DIFFERENCE STILL OBTAINS FOR WHICH AGAIN CLARIFICATION COULD HAVE BEEN SOUGHT, A ND THE MATTER SETTLED BY ISSUING CLEAR FINDINGS OF FACT. THIS IS CLEARLY UNFORTUNATE . THE MATTER, ACCORDINGLY, SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IS RESTORED TO THE FILE O F THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT, I.E., WITH REFERENCE TO T HE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTIES FOR THE CURRENT AND THE EARLIER YEARS AND/O R THE UNDERLYING BILLS/ACCOUNT STATEMENTS. IF THE AMOUNT COMPRISING THE IMPUGNED S UM HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR AS INCOME IN AN EARLIER YEAR (THOUGH CREDITED BY THE P RINCIPAL DURING THE CURRENT YEAR), ITA NO. 578/ASR/2013 (AY: 2008-09) CHOUDHARY ENTERPRISES V. ITO 4 THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE DIFFERENCE BEING TREATE D AS THE ASSESSEES INCOME MERELY BECAUSE TAX STANDS DEDUCTED THEREON FOR THE CURRENT YEAR. WE ARE NORMALLY LOATHE TO SET ASIDE A MATTER AFTER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, BUT THE PROCEDURE AS PER THE LAW (RULE 46A) IS MANDATORY, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN OBSERVED. THE BURDEN TO SATISFY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WITH REGARD TO THE VERACITY OF ITS CLAIMS IS ON THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAS NOT MET THIS BY FURNISHING THE RELEVANT DETAILS BEFORE HIM. WHY, AGAIN, WE WONDER, DID IT NOT PROSECUTE ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR SO LONG? RATHER, AS IT APPEARS, A PROPER REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY ITSELF SHOULD HAVE RESOLVED THESE ISSUES. CONTINUING FURTHER, WE MAY IN THIS REGARD CLARIFY THAT WE ARE NOT DECIDING AS TO WHETHER THE RELEVANT AMOUNTS STAND RIGHTLY REGAR DED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ITS INCOME FOR THE EARLIER YEAR (OR CURRENT YEAR) OR, I N CONTRADISTINCTION, RIGHTLY ALLOWED BY THE PRINCIPAL FOR THE CURRENT YEAR OR, AS CASE M AY BE, THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS, WHICH CONSTITUTES THE DIFFERENCE. INCOME, NO DOUBT, IS TO ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE RIGHT PERSON AND FOR THE RIGHT YEAR. THERE IS, HOWEVER, NO FINDING IN THE MATTER BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS. OUR LIMITED PUR VIEW, THEREFORE, IS THAT IF THE RELEVANT AMOUNTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADMITTED AS ITS INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE, FOLLOWING MERCANTILE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING, I.E., ON THE RAISING OF THE BILLS IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS, THE SAME CANNOT SU FFER TAX AGAIN WHEN THE CREDIT FOR THE SAME IS ALLOWED BY THE PRINCIPAL TO THE ASSESSE E. TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE STANDS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATES , I.E., ON RS.26.87 LACS. THE SAME, AS PER LAW, WOULD STAND TO BE ALLOWED FOR THE YEARS IN WHICH THE CORRESPONDING INCOME STANDS TO BE ASSESSED (SEC. 19 9). WE REFER TO THIS ASPECT AS THE CLAIM FOR TDS IS INCONSISTENT WITH LAW CONSIDER ING THAT AS PER THE ASSESSEE ONLY RS. 22.72 LACS IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED FOR THE CURREN T YEAR. THE ASSESSEE WOULD STAND TO BE ALLOWED CREDIT FOR THE DIFFERENCE FOR THE YEARS IN WHICH THE INCOME HAS BEEN BOOKED BY IT, WHICH WE OBSERVE TO BE AYS. 2006-07 A ND 2007-08. THE SAME SHOULD ITA NO. 578/ASR/2013 (AY: 2008-09) CHOUDHARY ENTERPRISES V. ITO 5 IN FACT FOLLOW AS A MATTER OF COURSE, I.E., ONCE TH E AO FINDS THAT THE INCOME TO THAT EXTENT HAS BEEN ASSESSED FOR THOSE (EARLIER) YEARS. WE COULD ALSO DIRECT THE SAME, SAVING THE ASSESSEE THE TEDIUM TO MOVE THE AO FOR T HE SAME. SO, HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT TO BE NOMINAL, WE ONLY CONSI DER IT PROPER THAT THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOWED CREDIT FOR THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATES FOR THE CURRENT YEAR. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. GROUND 2 IS IN RESPECT OF AN ADDITION FOR RS.1,6 4,433 ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL AND THE ASSESSEE, I.E., IN EACH OTHERS BOOKS; THE BALANCE OF THE PRINCIPAL IN THE ASSESSEE S BOOKS BEING AT RS.1,89,493 (DEBIT) AS AGAINST A CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.25,050 IN THE BOOKS OF THE PRINCIPAL. THE SAID DIFFERENCE STOOD ASSESSED AS INCOME IN VIEW OF IT BEING UNEXPLAINED, AND CONFIRMED IN APPEAL FOR THE SAME REASON, EVEN AS TH E ASSESSEE DID FURNISH AN ACCOUNT RECONCILIATION IN FIRST APPEAL (PB PGS. 12- 13) WHICH, AS IN THE CASE OF THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT QUA THE INCOME ACCOUNTS, WAS NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED AND/OR REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED. BEFORE US, THE ASS ESSEE WOULD CONTEND THAT THE ASSESSEES BOOKS REFLECT A HIGHER DEBIT BALANCE, I. E., RECEIVABLE, FROM THE PRINCIPAL. HOW COULD THEN THE SAID DIFFERENCE, EVEN ASSUMING N ON-RECONCILIATION OF THE DIFFERENCE, BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME? THE ARGUMENT H AS MERIT, AND IS ACCEPTED IN PRINCIPLE. HOWEVER, THE DIFFERENCE COULD CONSIST OF BOTH DEBIT AND CREDIT ENTRIES, AND NOT NECESSARILY CREDIT (BY THE PRINCIPAL). FURT HER, A NON-RECONCILIATION COULD IMPLY SOME ENTRY/S HAVING INCOME IMPLICATION HAVING BEEN OMITTED TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE. THAT IS, NO SURE INF ERENCE COULD BE DRAWN WITHOUT EXAMINING THE NATURE OF THE DIFFERENCE, WHICH MAY P ERTAIN TO EARLIER YEAR/S AS WELL, IN WHICH CASE THE INCOME IMPLICATION FOR THE CURREN T YEAR, IF ANY, WOULD NEED TO BE SEEN. WE HAVE RESTORED THE MATTER IN RESPECT OF GRO UND 1 TO THE AO FOR ESSENTIALLY ITA NO. 578/ASR/2013 (AY: 2008-09) CHOUDHARY ENTERPRISES V. ITO 6 THE SAME REASON, I.E., RECONCILIATION OF THE INCOME ACCOUNTS. THE ADJUSTMENT/RECONCILIATION AMOUNT QUA THE BILLS RAISED (SUBJECT MATTER OF GD. 1) WOULD HAVE A DIRECT BEARING ON THE ACCOUNT BALANCE AND THE IMPUGNED DIFFERENCE AS WELL. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ONLY CONSIDERED PROPER UND ER THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO, LIKEWISE, RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO FOR VER IFICATION OF THE SAID RECONCILIATION. THE ASSESSEE SHALL SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM/S, AND THE AO SHALL DECIDE ISSUING CLEAR FINDINGS OF FACT. WE DECIDE ACCORDING LY. 5. THE NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO AN ADDITION FOR RS.1 4,780 BEING THE STOCK SCRAPPED BY THE ASSESSEE, DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A C&F AGENT AND, THEREFORE, DOES NOT MAKE ANY PURCHASES O N OWN ACCOUNT. AS EXPLAINED TO US; TRUE, BUT THE PRINCIPAL, AT THE SAME TIME, D OES NOT TAKE BACK ALL THE UNSOLD GOODS, DECLINING SOME, WHICH ARE ACCORDINGLY SCRAPP ED, DEBITING THEIR COST TO THE OPERATING STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR. THIS IS CLAIMED T O BE IN FACT A REGULAR FEATURE OF THE TRADE AS SOME GOODS STAND TO BE SIMILARLY DECLI NED AND, ACCORDINGLY, SCRAPPED EACH YEAR. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IS WELL TAKEN . ALL THAT, THUS, THAT WAS REQUIRED BY THE LD. COUNSEL, SH. KALIA, TO SHOW US IS THAT THIS EXPLANATION WAS INDEED FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO AS ALSO, AND IN ANY CASE, THE LD. CIT(A). WE SAY SO AS BOTH THEIR ORDERS CONTAIN NO REFERENCE THERETO; RATHER, STATING OF NON-FURNISHING OF ANY QUANTITATIVE DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM AS THE REASON FOR NOT ADMITTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM, IMPLYING THAT NO SUCH EXPLANA TION WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THEM, WHICH IS INDEED SURPRISING, PARTICULARLY CONSIDERIN G THAT THE SAME, AS STATED, CONSTITUTES A REGULAR INCIDENT OF THE ASSESSEES TR ADE. SO, HOWEVER, THE AMOUNT IS NOMINAL, AND THE EXPENDITURE REASONABLE. FURTHER, T HE SAME WOULD STAND BORNE OUT BY THE DEBIT OF THE RELEVANT AMOUNT/S TO THE ASSESS EES ACCOUNT BY THE PRINCIPAL DURING THE YEAR, SO THAT THE SAME IN FACT IMPINGES ON THE ASSESSEES GD. 2 AS WELL. SUBJECT THEREFORE TO THE SAID AMOUNT HAVING BEEN CH ARGED BY THE PRINCIPAL TO THE ITA NO. 578/ASR/2013 (AY: 2008-09) CHOUDHARY ENTERPRISES V. ITO 7 ASSESSEES ACCOUNT OR OTHERWISE REFERABLE TO THE PR INCIPAL, WE DIRECT THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AS WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASO N TO DOUBT THE EXPLANATION OF SCRAPPING OF THE UNSOLD GOODS ON THEIR REFUSAL TO B E TAKEN BACK BY THE PRINCIPAL, AND WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN ACCEP TING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM, SUBJECT OF COURSE TO THE VERIFICATION AFORESAID. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 6. GROUND 4 IS QUA DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE AGGREGATING TO RS.49,0 02 INCURRED UNDER THE FOLLOWING HEADS: (A) ADVERTISEMENT RS. 5,650/- (B) FREIGHT EXPENSES RS. 5,960/- (C) JEEP EXPENSES RS.37,392/- THE SAME CAME TO BE DISALLOWED, AND CONFIRMED IN AP PEAL, AS THE SAME WERE NOT IN TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE PRINCIPAL (PB PGS. 46-51) REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE-AGENT, BUT BY THE PRINCIPAL. THAT I S, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE INCURRED THE SAME FOR ITS AGENCY BUSINESS WHICH IS GOVERNED BY THE RELEVANT AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSEES CASE IS THAT NOTHING STOPS IT FROM, IN ANY CASE, INCURRING THE STATED EXPENDITURE THE GENUIN ENESS OF WHICH IS NOT IN DOUBT, AS A MEASURE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND GIVEN OUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE MATTER. THE FIRST THING WE OBSERVE IS THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN AT ANY STAGE EXPLAINED AS TO WHY, DESPITE IT BEING THE PRINCIPALS OBLIGATION, H AS THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. SURE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT ALL EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS ARISES OUT OF A CONTRACTUA L OBLIGATION. HOWEVER, HERE IS A CASE OF AN AGENCY BUSINESS, GOVERNED BY AN AGREEMEN T AND, BESIDES, CONTROLLED BY THE PRINCIPAL. THEN THERE IS THE OVERARCHING CONSID ERATION OF SHOWING IT TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOS E OF THE SAID BUSINESS, WHICH IN ITA NO. 578/ASR/2013 (AY: 2008-09) CHOUDHARY ENTERPRISES V. ITO 8 ANY CASE OBTAINS. THAT IS, THE CLAIMED COMMERCIAL E XPEDIENCY IS TO BE PROVED. UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WAS THE ASSESSEE REQUIRED TO INCUR THE SAME HAS NOWHERE BEEN EXPLAINED. IT MAY, AGAIN, BE THAT THE SAME, INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST PLACE, WAS NOT REIMBURSED BY THE PRINC IPAL AND, THEREFORE, CAME TO BE BORNE (AND CLAIMED) BY THE ASSESSEE. WE SAY SO AS W E OBSERVE AN ENTRY IN RESPECT OF CREDIT OF THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSES BY T HE PRINCIPAL IN THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT. NO SUCH EXPLANATION HAS BEEN FURNISHED A T ANY STAGE, WHICH WOULD ADVANCE THE ASSESSEES CASE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENC Y, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE IN THE MINIMUM STATING THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE E XPENDITURE WAS INCURRED (OR CAME TO BE INCURRED) BY THE ASSESSEE, AS ALSO AS TO WHY WAS THE SAME NOT CLAIMED FROM THE PRINCIPAL. IN FACT, NO CASE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY HAS BEEN MADE OUT AT ANY STAGE, INCLUDING BEFORE US, WHERE THIS PLEA IS TAKEN FOR THE FIRST TIME. THE MATTER IS PRINCIPALLY FACTUAL AND, TOWARD WHICH THE RE ARE NO FACTS ON RECORD. EVEN AS THE BURDEN TO PROVE ITS RETURN AND THE CLAIMS P REFERRED THEREBY IS ON THE ASSESSEE, WHY SHOULD, WE ALSO WONDER, THE REVENUE A UTHORITIES DOUBT THE ASSESSEE ALL THE TIME, AND RATHER NOT GUIDE HIM IN THE MATTE R OF PRESENTATION OF THE FACTS OF ITS CASE; THE TAX PROCEEDINGS BEING NOT ADVERSARIA L IN NATURE. WE DO NOT, AT THIS STAGE, PARTICULARLY CONSIDERING THE NOMINALITY OF T HE AMOUNT UNDER REFERENCE, DEEM IT PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE AO FOR FRESH D ETERMINATION. TAKING THE CONSPECTUS OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INTO ACCO UNT, AND WITH A VIEW TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE, WE DIRECT ALLOWANCE OF 50% OF THE IMPU GNED EXPENDITURE. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 8. THE LAST AND FIFTH GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS IN RE SPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE ON VEHICLES, I.E., CAR, SCOOTER AND MOT OR CYCLE, AND TELEPHONIC DEVICES, I.E., TELEPHONE AND MOBILE, TOWARD PERSONAL USER, ESTIMATED AT OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE, AT RS.54,150. THE SAME STANDS ESTIMATE D THUS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ITA NO. 578/ASR/2013 (AY: 2008-09) CHOUDHARY ENTERPRISES V. ITO 9 ASSESSEE PROVING THE USER OF THE SAME AS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES; THERE BEING NO LOG BOOK FOR THE CARS, EXP ENDITURE ON WHICH CONSTITUTES THE BULK OF THE EXPENDITURE, WITH, RATHER, THE AO W ONDERING AS WHY SHOULD THE ASSESSEE REQUIRE AS MANY AS FOUR CARS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AT ANY STAGE SHOWN THE DISALLOWANCE AS NOT JUSTIFIED OR STANDS ESTIMATED I N EXCESS. THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE, HOWEVER, IS IN A REASONABLE SUM, I.E., AT RS.2.17 L ACS. WE, ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDER IT PROPER TO ESTIMATE THE NON-BUSINESS USER AT 1/6. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY, AND THE ASSESSEE GETS PART RELIEF. 9. WE MAY, IN PARTING, MAKE ANOTHER DIRECTION. ORDE RS SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL WITH DIRECTIONS, IN-AS-MUCH AS THERE IS NO TIME LIM IT FOR THEIR COMPLETION, ARE OFTEN CONSIGNED TO THE BACK BURNER TO LINGER FOR AN INDEF INITE TIME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SET ASIDE IS FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE, I.E., TO VE RIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ASSESSEES RECONCILIATION STATEMENTS QUA SOME INCOME ACCOUNTS AND THE ACCOUNT BALANCE, A MATTER WHICH OUGHT NOT TO HAVE TRAVELED TO THE TRIB UNAL IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE SAID VERIFICATION WOULD BE WITH REFERENCE TO THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT FOR THE CURRENT AND THE EARLIER (OR PERHAPS EVEN SUCCEEDING) YEAR/S. TH E AO IS DIRECTED TO COMPLETE THE SAID VERIFICATION WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS O F THE RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE, NEEDLESS TO ADD, SHALL EXTEND FULL COOPER ATION IN THE MATTER. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED ON THE AFORE-SAID TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FEBRUARY 07, 2019 SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 07.02.2019 /GP/SR PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT: CHOUDHARY ENTERPRISES, GANPA TI AGRO COMPLEX, ITA NO. 578/ASR/2013 (AY: 2008-09) CHOUDHARY ENTERPRISES V. ITO 10 MALOUT ROAD, BATHINDA (2) THE RESPONDENT: INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1( 2), BATHINDA (3) THE CIT(APPEALS), BATHINDA (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T. TRUE COPY B Y ORDER