ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan (Firm), New Delhi

ITA 5797/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81509 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S N BHATIA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 194C; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI JOGINDER SINGH : JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5797/DEL/2011 ASSTT. YR: 2008-09 ACIT CIR. 37(1), VS. LAKSHMIKUMARAN & SRIDHARAN ( FIRM) NEW DELHI. B-6/10, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAAFL 1585 H ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N. BHATIA DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AJAY VOHRA ADV. & SHRI ROHIT GARG ADV. DATE OF HEARING : 05-08-2014 DATE OF ORDER : 07-08-2014. O R D E R THIS APPEAL, BY THE DEPARTMENT , IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 27- -10-2010 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-XXVIII, NEW DELHI , IN APPEAL NO. 366/10-11, RELATING TO A.Y. 2008-09. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM OF ADVOCATES, PRACTICING IN CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS, SALES-TAX, S ERVICE TAX ETC. IT HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 10,7 0,59,150/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE INCOME AT RS. 10,85,78,859/-, INTER ALIA, MAKING FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: ITA 5797/DEL/11 AY 2008-09 2 (I) TDS U/S 194C NOT DEDUCTED U/S 40(A)(IA) RS. 57, 831 (II) TDS U/S 194C NOT DEDUCTED U/S 40(A)(IA) RS. 1 ,39,794/- (III) CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION RS. 6 ,26,400/- (IV) ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION WORK AT RESIDENCE RS. 83,13 1/- (V) PERSONAL EXPENSES AT RESIDENCE RS. 3,04,873/- 2.1. LD. CIT(A) WHILE ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEA L, DELETED THE AFORE- MENTIONED DISALLOWANCES. 2.2. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORIN G THE INCOME TAX PROVISION THAT TDS U/S 194C IS LIABLE EV EN ON A SINGLE PAYMENT ABOVE RS. 20,000 AS ONE OF THE SINGL E PAYMENT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE WAS OF RS. 34,495/-. 2. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING TH AT NORMS OVERRULE INCOME TAX ACT PROVISION ON THE ISSUE OF N ON DEDUCTION OF TAX ON PAYMENT OF RS. 1,37,794/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM TO KOKAD CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE, MUMBAI FOR OFFICE SPACE. 3. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN TREATING A S EXPENDITURE OF RS. 6,26,400/- ON ACCOUNT OF REPLACE MENT OF ASSET I.E. SUPPLY, ERECTION, TESTING AND COMMISSION ING OF MAIN PANEL AC SUPPLY, AS REVENUE IN NATURE. 4. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN IGNORING T HE CLEAR NARRATION ON BILLS OF EXPENDITURE AND HOLDING EXPEN DITURE OF RS. 83,131, RS. 73,967, RS. 2600 & RS. 2,28,306/- AS IN CURRED FOR PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES AS AGAINST PERSONAL EXPENDI TURE FOR RESIDENCE AS HELD BY THE AO. 3. BRIEF FACTS, APROPOS GROUND NO. 1, ARE THAT ASSE SSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO REPLY WHETHER TDS HAD BEEN MADE, IN TER ALIA, ON PAYMENTS ITA 5797/DEL/11 AY 2008-09 3 MADE TO X PRESS COMPUTER LTD. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED U/S 194C AS THE GROSS AMOUNT WAS LESS THAN RS. 50,000/- IN NUMBER OF CONTRACTS. ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, OBSERVED AS UNDER: THE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSES SEE AS PER LEDGER ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD REPAIR & MAINTEN ANCE:- SR. NO. PAYMENT MADE TO PARTY DATE OF PAYMENT EXPENSES (RS.) TDS LIABILITY U/S 1 X PRESS COMPUTER LTD., MUMBAI 01-08-2007 4120 194C 2. X PRESS COMPUTER LTD., MUMBAI 08-09-2007 2809 194C 3 X PRESS COMPUTER LTD., MUMBAI 01-11-2007 3352 194C 4 X PRESS COMPUTER LTD., MUMBAI 13-11-2007 34495 194C 5 X PRESS COMPUTER LTD., MUMBAI 01-02-2008 4494 194C 6 X PRESS COMPUTER LTD., MUMBAI 21-02-2008 8561 194C TOTAL 57831 3.1. AS THE PAYMENT EXCEEDED RS. 50,000/-, IN AGGRE GATE, AND ONE SINGLE PAYMENT EXCEEDED RS. 20,000/-, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HELD THAT THERE WAS VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194C. ACCORDING LY, HE DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE EXPENSES OF RS. 57,831/- PAID FOR AMC CHARGE S TO X PRESS COMPUTER LTD., MUMBAI U/S 40(A)(IA). 3.2. BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THA T THE TOTAL PAYMENTS MADE TO X PRESS COMPUTER LTD., MUMBAI WAS FOR AN AM OUNT OF RS. 49,270/- AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INCORRECTLY INCLUDED A PAYMENT FOR RS. 8561/- MADE TO M/S RICHO INDIA LTD. THEREFORE, THE AGGREGA TE PAYMENT DID NOT EXCEED RS. 50,000/- AND HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 194C WERE NOT ATTRACTED. LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, DELETED THE DISAL LOWANCE. 3.3. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) BECAUSE FACTUAL FIND ING REGARDING AGGREGATE ITA 5797/DEL/11 AY 2008-09 4 PAYMENT BEING NOT EXCEEDING RS. 50,000/- HAS NOT BE EN CONTROVERTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED . 4. BRIEF FACTS, APROPOS GROUND NO. 2, ARE THAT ASSE SSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MAD E TO KAKAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, MUMBAI FOR MAINTENANCE CHARGES AND TDS DE DUCTED THEREON. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO TWO NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT PAY MENT HAD BEEN MADE TO KAKAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, MUMBAI IN VIOLATION OF S ECTION 194C AND THEREFORE HE DISALLOWED RS. 1,39,794/- OBSERVING AS UNDER: THE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSES SEE AS PER LEDGER ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD REPAIR & MAINTENANCE:- SR. NO. PAYMENT MADE TO PARTY DATE OF PAYMENT (RS.) EXPENSES TDS 1 KAKAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, MUMBAI 01-05-2007 30219 194C 2 KAKAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, MUMBAI 01-08-2007 30219 194C 3 KAKAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, MUMBAI 01-11-2007 39678 194C 4. 194C -01-2008 39678 194C TOTAL 1,39,794 4.1. BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THA T NO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND NO REASONABLE O PPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENSES WERE IN THE NATURE OF REIMB URSEMENT OF EXPENSES. LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OBSERVING AS UN DER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. IN FACT M/S K AKAD CHAMBER & BUSINESS PREMISES CO-OP SOCIETY LTD. IS A REGISTERE D SOCIETY UNDER MAHARASHTRA SOCIETY ACT. THE APPELLANT IS A MEMBER OF THIS SOCIETY. IT PAYS THE MAINTENANCE CHARGES TO THE SOCIETY ON A MO NTHLY/ QUARTERLY BASIS TO MEET THE MONTHLY MAINTENANCE CHARGES OF THE BUIL DING. THERE IS NO TAXABLE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE SOCIETY TOWARDS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM ITS MEMBERS, FOR THESE MONTHLY & QUARTERLY CHA RGES. THERE IS NO PRACTICE OF DEDUCTION OF TDS THROUGHOUT MUMBAI FOR THE AMOUNTS PAID BY THE MEMBER TO THE SOCIETY TOWARDS THE MONTHLY/ QUAR TERLY CHARES IN RESPECT OF THE OFFICE PREMISES OR EVEN RESIDENTIAL PREMISES . FURTHER THERE IS NO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SOCIETY AND THE APPELLANT AS T HERE IS A PURE RELATION OF MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ITA 5797/DEL/11 AY 2008-09 5 CASE THE APPELLANT WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS AS PER SECTION 194C. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) AND DISALLOWING RS. 1,39,794/-. THE DISAL LOWANCE MADE IS THEREFORE, DELETED. 4.2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON T O INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) NOTED ABOVE BECAUSE IT IS NO T CONTROVERTED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT SOCIETY TO WHOM THE PAYMENT HAD BEE N MADE WAS HAVING NO TAXABLE INCOME. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE WAS MEMBER OF M/S KAKAD CHAMBER & BUSINESS PREMISES CO-OP SOCIETY LTD. AND, THEREFORE, IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE ME MBER WAS NOT TAXABLE ON THE GROUND OF CONCEPT OF MUTUALITY. WE, ACCORDINGLY , CONFIRM THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A). IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED . 5. BRIEF FACTS, APROPOS GROUND NO. 3, ARE THAT ASSE SSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH BILL OF M/S LEVEL ONE IN RELATION TO ELECTR ICAL EXPENSES OF RS. 6,96,000/- DEBITED UNDER THE REPAIR & MAINTENANCE H EAD. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE BILL FROM WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ICED THAT BILL RELATED TO SUPPLY, ERECTION, TESTING AND COMMISSIONING OF TPN CUBICLE TYPE MAIN PANEL FOR 415V 3-PHASE 4 WIRE 50 HZ AC SUPPLY WITH ALL CABLES. HE NOTED THAT NO TDS HAD BEEN MADE ON THIS PAYMENT WHICH WAS REQUIRED BECAUSE THIS PAYMENT WAS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF TECHNICAL SERV ICES AND CONTRACTUAL SERVICES. THUS, THERE WAS VIOLATION OF SECTION 194C / 194J CALLING FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA). HE POINTED OUT THAT THI S WAS IN THE CAPITAL FIELD AS THE SAID INSTALLATION OF AC SUPPLY ELECTRICAL EQUIP MENT PROVIDED ENDURING BENEFIT TO TH4E ASSESSEE. HE, THEREFORE, ALLOWED DE PRECIATION OF RS. 59,600/- @ 10% OF ELECTRICAL FITTINGS AND MADE A DISALLOWANC E OF RS. 6,26,400/-. ITA 5797/DEL/11 AY 2008-09 6 5.1. BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT AN A MOUNT OF RS. 14,338/- HAD BEEN DEDUCTED U/S 194C OF THE I.T. ACT ON THE T OTAL PAYMENT OF RS. 6,96,000/- @ 2.06%. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED ON RECORD FORM NO. 16A TO P ROVE THAT THE TDS WAS DEDUCTED AGAINST THIS EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, ASSES SING OFFICER ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT U/S 40(A)(IA). IT W AS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER CONTRADICTED HIS OWN STAND BY TAK ING THIS EXPENDITURE BOTH AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS CAPITAL EXPENDIT URE AT THE SAME TIME BECAUSE HE HAD DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE U/S 40(A) (IA), TREATING THE SAME AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND ALSO ALLOWED DEPRECIATION T REATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. NO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS, HOWE VER, ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN COURSE OF HEARING. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT MAIN PANEL FOR SUPPLY , ERECTION, TESTING AND COMMISSIONING OF TPN CUBICLE TYPE MAIN PANEL FOR 415V 3-PHASES 4 WIRE 50 HZ AC SUPPLY WITH ALL C ABLES WAS ONLY A REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING MAIN PANEL BECAUSE OF N ATURAL WEAR AND TEAR. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PLACE B4/158 WAS BEING USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE SINCE 1992. A COPY OF THE INCOME-TAX RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 1998-99 AND 2001-02 WERE FILED, WHICH SHOWED THAT T HIS LOCATION WAS BEING USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. IN ADDITION, THE I.T. R ETURN OF MR. V. SRIDHARAN WAS ALSO FILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE FACT THAT B4/158 WAS BEING USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE PHENOMENAL GROWTH OF THE BUS INESS REQUIRED USE OF OTHER BUILDINGS SITUATED AT B6/10 AND B6/13, WHICH WERE ALSO DISCLOSED IN THE INCOME-TAX RETURN. THE WORK OF REPLACEMENT OF C ORE CABLE AND THE MAIN PANEL OF THE ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION WERE CARRIED O UT AFTER A GAP OF ABOUT 15 YEARS IN THIS LOCATION. THEREFORE, THIS EXPENDITURE COULD NOT BE CAPITALIZED. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF EMPIRE JUTE CO. VS. CIT 124 1, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALL Y HELD THAT EVERY ITA 5797/DEL/11 AY 2008-09 7 ENDURING ADVANTAGE MAY NOT RESULT IN CAPITAL ASSE T AND IF THE SAME IS NOT CAPITAL ASSET, THE RELATING EXPENDITURE IS TO BE AL LOWED IN THE REVENUE FIELD. 5.2. LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR T HE FOLLOWING REASONS: (I) THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TDS 14338 U/S 194C @ 2. 06% AS FORM 16A AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE WAS CALLED F OR U/S 40(A)(IA). (II) THE AMOUNT SPENT WAS NOT IN THE CAPITAL FIELD BUT W AS ONLY A REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING MAIN PANEL BECAUSE OF N ATURAL WEAR AND TEAR AND THEREFORE IT WAS ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE O F EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD. 124 ITR 1. 5.3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BEFORE LD. CIT(A), AS NOTED EARLIER, HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE DE PARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TA KEN A CONTRADICTORY STAND. ON ONE HAND HE DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE ON THE GROUND THAT NO TDS WAS MADE U/S 194C AND ON THE OTHER HE TREATED THE E NTIRE EXPENDITURE IN THE CAPITAL FIELD AND ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION. SINCE T HE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) REGARDING TDS OF RS. 14,338/- MADE BY ASSESSEE U/S 194C HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED, THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE WAS CALLED FOR U/S 40(A)(IA). AS FAR AS THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE IS CONCERNED, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE MAIN PANEL WAS REPLACED AFTER A GAP OF 15 YEARS AND THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES WHICH WAS EVIDENT FROM THE COPY OF I.T. RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTA NCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). G ROUND IS DISMISSED. ITA 5797/DEL/11 AY 2008-09 8 6. BRIEF FACTS, APROPOS GROUND NO. 4 ARE THAT ASSES SING OFFICER NOTED THAT TWO BILLS OF M/S LEVEL ONE OF RS. 60,681/- AND RS. 22,450/- RELATED TO ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION. HE NOTED THAT THE NARRATIO N IN THE BILL WAS AS UNDER: BILL FOR ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION WORK AT MR. V. SH RIDHARANS RESIDENCE AT B-6/13, SAFDARJANG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI. 6.1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THAT THE OFF ICE IS AT BASEMENT AND REST ABOVE IS RESIDENCE PORTION. THEREFORE, HE DIS ALLOWED THE SUM OF RS. 83,131/- TREATING THE SAME AS PERSONAL EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT FOLLOWING BILLS RELATED TO THE R ESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF FAMILY MEMBERS: (I) BILL DATED 24-3-2008 FROM M/S K.L. SHARMA & SONS, C -4/130, SDA, NEW DELHI FOR RS. 73,967/- FOR PAINT ETC. WORK : - THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE WAS CUTTING ON T HE NARRATION IN THE BEDROOM OF ? SHRID. HE DISALLOWED THE EXPENDIT URE TREATING THE SAME AS PERSONAL EXPENDITURE. (II) BILL DATED 11-3-2008 PERTAINED TO DOORS AT B-4/158, RELATING TO RESIDENCE OF FAMILY MEMBERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OBSERVING THAT EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEE WAS PUTTI NG B6/10 SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE ADDRESS AS BILLING ADDRESS. (III) KV CONSTRUCTION COMPANY DATED 12-7-2007 FOR RS. 2,2 8,306/- RELATED TO B-4/158 (RESIDENCE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE I.T. RETURN) AND B-6/13, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE (RESIDENCE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE BILL). HE DISALLOWED THIS ALSO AS PERSONAL EXPENDITURE BEI NG RELATED TO RESIDENCE OF FAMILY MEMBERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY ITA 5797/DEL/11 AY 2008-09 9 MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 3,04,873/- (RS. 73,967 + 26 00 + 2,28,306). 6.2. BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT IN THE I.T. RETURN OF SHRI V. SRIDHARAN FOR A.Y. 2006-07 IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT MR. V. SRIDHARAN WAS USING THE HOUSE AT OM RATAN BUILDING, WORLI, MU MBAI FOR HIS RESIDENCE AND THE PROPERTY AT B6/13 WAS BEING USED FOR BUSINE SS PURPOSE. THE EXTRACT OF THE STATEMENT ENCLOSED WITH THE I.T. RETURN WAS FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A). IN ADDITION, THE PASSPORT AND THE DRIVING LICENSE ALSO BORE THE RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS OF MR. V. SRIDHARAN AT MUMBAI. THUS, IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT THE ENTIRE PREMISES WAS BEING UTILIZED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES O NLY AND THE ASSESSEE HAD CORRECTLY CONSIDERED THE SAID EXPENDITURE AS BUSINE SS EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER SOUGHT ANY CLARIFICATION ON THE BILLS. THEREFORE, THE SUM OF RS. 83,131/- COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. 6.3. AS REGARDS THE AMOUNT PAID TO M/S K.L. SHARMA & SONS OF RS. 73,967/-, TO MEET THE EXPENSES TOWARDS PLASTIC PAIN TING WORK CARRIED OUT AT C-4/130, SDA, NEW DELHI, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT TH E DETAILS ACCOMPANYING THE INCOME TAX RETURN FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ALSO DISCLOS ED THAT THE PROPERTY AT C4/130 SDA WAS USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. THEREFORE , THIS COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS PERSONAL EXPENDITURE. ITA 5797/DEL/11 AY 2008-09 10 6.4. AS REGARDS SUM OF RS. 2600/- PAID TO M/S K.L. SHARMA & SONS FOR REPAIRING FLOOR SPRING DOOR/ RACK SHELF AT B4/158, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IN THE INCOME-TAX RE TURN IT WAS CLEARLY DISCLOSED THAT PROPERTY AT B4/158 CONTINUED TO BE USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND HENCE QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE DID NOT ARISE. 6.5. AS REGARDS THE PAYMENT OF RS. 2,28,306/- MADE TO M/S K.V. CONSTRUCTION CO. TOWARDS MAINTENANCE WORK AT B4/158 AND B6/13, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI, THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT BOTH THESE PREMISES WERE BEING USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES ONLY AND, THEREFORE, THE PAYMENT OF RS. 2,11,494/- (NOT RS. 2,28,306/-) COUL D NOT BE DISALLOWED. LD. CIT(A) DISALLOWED THE DISALLOWANCE. 6.6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFOR E LD. CIT(A), WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND WHICH WERE DULY SUPPORTED BY THE EXTRACT OF INCOME-TAX RETURNS FILED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT, IT IS EVIDENT THAT SHRI V. SHRIDHARAN W AS RESIDING AT MUMBAI AND THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT DELHI WERE PRI MARILY USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE ONLY AND, THEREFORE THERE, WAS NO QUESTION OF ANY DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND OF PERSONAL USE OF THE P REMISES. THE ITA 5797/DEL/11 AY 2008-09 11 GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A), DELETING THE ADDITION IN QUEST ION. 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07-08-2014. SD/- SD/- ( JOGINDER SINGH ) ( S.V. MEHROTRA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 07-08-2014. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR