ITO, Jaipur V. CHAND SINGH, Jaipur

ITA 588/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99527 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH AGARWAL CA DHK
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Depreciation

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF; D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NOS. 588/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 . THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR. CUKE VS. SHRI CHAND SINGH, PROP. M/S.CHAND FILLING STATION, ROAD NO. 12, VKI AREA, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. ABWPS 6364 C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA (ADDL.CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY S BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (C.A.) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 17.11.2015. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27/11/2015. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI LALIET KUMAR, J.M. THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT (A)-II, JAIPUR DATED 22.03.2013. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL ARE AS UNDER :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN :- I) RESTRICTING THE TRADING ADDITION TO RS. 3,85,828/- AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,25,634/- MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. II) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO BY MAKING DISALLOWANCES OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES. 2 ITA NO. 588/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 ITO VS. SHRI CHAND SINGH, JAIPUR. III) ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80U, WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE RU NS A PETROL PUMP SITUATED AT ROAD NO. 12, VKI AREA, JAIPUR. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009-10 THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS PROFIT OF RS. 20,55,325/- ON THE TOTAL TURNOV ER OF RS. 18,77,81,075/- GIVING A GP RATE OF 1.09%. THE GP RATE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IS SAME AS THAT OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR I.E. 2008-09. HOWEVER, THE TURNOVER FOR THE PREVIOUS YEA R WAS RS. 15,27,83,644/-. THUS THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIALLY INCR EASED IN COMPARISON TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSE E HAS CLAIMED SHORTAGE OF STOCK OF HSD (DIESEL) AT 27,043 LITER AGAINST THE TOTAL PURC HASE OF 39,54,000 LITER AND MS (PETROL) AT 10,844 LITER AGAINST THE TOTAL PURCHASE OF 9,47,000 LITER. THE SHORTAGE WAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. HOW EVER, THE AO HAS POINTEDLY MENTIONED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL SHORTAGE OF 27,043 LITER OF DIESEL, THE SHORTAGE OF 6496 LITER WERE FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2009 WHEREAS SMA LL SHORTAGE OF MS PETROL WERE SHOWN IN THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2009. LIKEWISE, IN RES PECT OF DIESEL, THE SHORTAGE/WASTAGE CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF DIESEL IS 0.68% AND IN RESPEC T OF PETROL 1.15%. THE OIL COMPANIES ARE GIVING THE BENEFIT OF TRANSPORTATION, WASTAGE T O THE ASSESSEE AND IN CASE OF DIESEL, IT WAS 0.25% AND IN CASE OF PETROL IT WAS 0.75%. WHILE CALCULATING THE SHORTAGE BY THE PETROL COMPANIES I.E. IBP, HP, BP ETC., THEY HAD TA KEN INTO CONSIDERATION ALL PARAMETERS INCLUDING THE POSSIBLE PILFERAGE ETC. AND THEREAFTE R THE FIGURE OF 0.25% IN RESPECT OF DIESEL AND IN RESPECT OF PETROL 0.75% HAVE BEEN WOR KED OUT. THE AO AFTER EXAMINING 3 ITA NO. 588/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 ITO VS. SHRI CHAND SINGH, JAIPUR. THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, HAS FOUND THAT THE REASONING OF EXCESSIVE SHORTAGE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. FURTHER, THE AO HAD COMPARED THE CASE OF M/S. BPS AUTOMOTIVES RUNNING PETROL PUMP AT JAIPUR AND HAS MENTIONED THAT IN THE SAID CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE GP @ 2.12% AGAINST THE TURNOVER OF RS. 16.63 CRORES FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR. 3. THE AO AFTER RECORDING THE SATISFACTION ON COMPA RISON OF CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THAT OF M/S. BPS AUTOMOTIVES HAS GIVEN A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE CALLING UPON TO GIVE REPLY AS TO WHY GP RATE OF 2.12% BE NOT APPLIED AFT ER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE THROUGH COUNSEL HAS FIL ED REPLY AND HAS SUBMITTED THE SALE RATE IS GOVERNED BY THE PETROLEUM COMPANIES AN D THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CONTROL ON IT. THE GP SHOWN IN EARLIER YEAR IS ALSO SAME. TH E AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, AND THEREFORE, HE REJECTED T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AFTER INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145(3) AND THEREAFTER ESTIMATED THE GP RATE OF 2.12%. 4. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT (A) HAS UPHELD THE REJECTION OF BO OKS AS THE CLOSING STOCK WAS NOT VERIFIABLE AND FURTHER HAS HELD THAT THE BILLS VOUC HERS FOR EXPENSES LIKE REPAIRS, ELECTRICITY AND MAINTENANCE ARE NOT POSSIBLE TO BE MAINTAINED. HOWEVER, WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE I.E. APPLYING GP RATE OF 2.12% AS AGAINST THE DECLARED RATE OF 1.09% BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN THE FOLLOWING F INDING AND HAVE RESTRICTED THE GP RATE TO 1.30% INSTEAD OF 1.09% :- IT IS SEEN THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE APPELLANT INC REASED TO RS. 18,77,81,075/- IN COMPARISON TO LAST ASSESSMENT YEA R THAT IS AY 4 ITA NO. 588/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 ITO VS. SHRI CHAND SINGH, JAIPUR. 2008-09 SHOWN AT RS. 15,27,83,644/-, BUT THE GP RAT E HAS BEEN SHOWN AT 1.09% WHICH IS SAME AS SHOWN IN AY 2008-09 . IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE ENTIRE CONTEXT AND FACTS PUT ON RECORD IT WOULD BE JUST TO APPLY GP RATE OF 1.30% INSTEAD OF 1.09% DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT IN PROPORTION TO TH E INCREASE IN SALES. THE GROSS PROFIT WORKS OUT TO RS. 24,41,153/ - (1.30% OF RS. 18,77,81,075) INSTEAD OF RS. 20,55,325 SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. THE TRADING ADDITION IS UPHELD OF RS. 3,85,828/- (R S. 24,41,153 RS. 20,55,325/-). THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS. 15,39,806/- (RS. 19,25,634 RS. 3,85,828). AS THE TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 3,85,828/- HAS BEEN UPHELD, THE EXPENSES DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2 ,00,000/- IS TREATED TELESCOPED IN IT, IN OTHER WORDS THE DISALL OWANCE OUT OF EXPENSES OF RS. 2,00,000/- DOES NOT SURVIVE. 5. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (A), THE REV ENUE IS BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. D/R FOR THE REVENUE HAS SUBMITTED THAT T HE ORDER PASSED BY AO WAS CORRECT AND WAS BASED ON THE COMPARISON WITH ANOTHE R ASSESSEE CARRYING ON THE SAME BUSINESS AS THAT OF ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE AN D THE SAID ASSESSEE, NAMELY, M/S. BPS AUTOMOTIVES SITUATED AT TEEN MURTHY CIRCLE, J.L .N. MARG, JAIPUR WITHIN THE CITY OF JAIPUR. NO REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT (A) FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE COMPARABLE CASE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASS ED BY LD. CIT (A) IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. NO REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN FOR RESTRICTING T HE GP AT 1.30% AS AGAINST 2.12%. 7. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET HAS SUBMITTED THAT NO CROSS OBJECTION HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE REJECTIO N OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SEC.145(3), AND HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ESTIMATION M ADE BY THE AO FOR GP OF 1.30% IS 5 ITA NO. 588/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 ITO VS. SHRI CHAND SINGH, JAIPUR. CORRECT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPARIS ON WITH M/S. BPS AUTOMOTIVES IS NOT CORRECT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT TO DISTINGUISH THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THAT OF THE SAID M/S. BPS AUTOMOTIVES ON THE GROUND THAT M/ S BPS AUTOMOTIVES IS SITUATED IN THE HEART OF THE CITY WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS SITUA TED AT VKI AREA WHICH IS ON THE HIGHWAY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MAJOR SA LE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF DIESEL WHEREAS IN RESPECT OF M/S. BPS AUTOM OTIVES IT IS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PETROL. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE, IT WAS CONTENDED THA T THE ASSESSEES CASE IS NOT COMPARABLE WITH THAT OF M/S.BPS AUTOMOTIVES AS BOTH ARE STANDING ON DIFFERENT FOOTING. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ALLEGED SHORTAGE OF HS DI ESEL AND MS PETROL IF CONVERTED INTO VALUE OF MONEY, WHICH COMES TO RS. 796734/- AND THE GP ON THE SAID AMOUNT WOULD COME TO RS. 8685/- ONLY. IT WAS, THEREFORE, CONTEN DED THAT THE FIGURE OF SHORTAGE IS NOT EXORBITANT AND IS REASONABLE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO EXPECTED TO INSPECTION BY VARIOUS AGENCIES I.E. PET ROLEUM MINISTRY, WEIGHT & MEASUREMENT, FOOD ADULTERATION AND NOBODY HAS RAISE D ANY OBJECTION TO THAT EXTENT. RELIANCE PLACED BY LD. A/R IN THE CASES OF M/S. GO DHRA ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. VS. CIT, 225 ITR 746 (SC), AJAY GOYAL VS. ITO, 99 TTJ 164 (JD.) AND KANSARA BEARINGS P. LTD. VS. ACIT, 270 ITR 235 (RAJ.) ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE MAY RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) BEFORE US. SINCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE AO UNDER SEC. 14 5(3), THEREFORE, TO ESTIMATE THE 6 ITA NO. 588/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 ITO VS. SHRI CHAND SINGH, JAIPUR. GROSS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS REQUIRED TO EST IMATE THE GP BASED ON THE COMPARISON OF THE GP, IF AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF THE SAME TRAD E. WE FIND THAT THE CASE OF M/S. BPS AUTOMOTIVE, JAIPUR IS COMPARABLE WITH THAT OF THE A SSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS SAME AS THAT OF M/S. BP S AUTOMOTIVE. BOTH ARE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF SALE OF PETROL AND DIESEL. BOTH THE PARTIES ARE SITUATED AT JAIPUR. BOTH THE PARTIES ARE WORKING AS DEALER FOR THE OIL COMPA NIES. BOTH THE PARTIES ARE MONITORED BY THE SAME STATUTORY AGENCIES LIKE PETROLEUM AGENC Y, WEIGHT & MEASUREMENT. BOTH THE PARTIES ARE HAVING THE NAME NATURE OF BUSINESS, THEREFORE, ARE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE ACCOUNTS FOR EXPENSES IN THE FORM OF MAINTENANC E, ELECTRICITY BILL ETC. THEREFORE, THE PROFIT OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE REQUIRED TO BE AT THE SAME RANGE. THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT IT HAS THE MAJOR ELE MENT OF DIESEL SALE, IN FACT GOES AGAINST HIM. THE RATE OF EVAPORATION OF DIESEL IS F AR LESS AS COMPARED TO PETROL, THEREFORE, THE LOSSES FOR MS PETROL WILL BE MORE TH AN THAT OF HS DIESEL. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT APPROVE THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT ( A). ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) IS, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF AO IS UPHELD. APPEAL IS ALLOWED ON THIS GROUND AND THE ESTIMATION ARRIVED AT BY THE AO IS R ESTORED TO RS. 19,25,634/-. WE MAY ADD THAT THE BEST GUIDE FOR ESTIMATION OF TRADING R ESULT AFTER REJECTING OF BOOKS, IN OUR VIEW IS COMPARABLE CASE AND IN SOME CASES THE PAST HISTORY. IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE THE COMPARABLE CASE IS AVAILABLE, THEREFORE THE GP RATE IS ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF COMPARABLE CASE. 7 ITA NO. 588/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 ITO VS. SHRI CHAND SINGH, JAIPUR. 9. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES. ON EXAMINAT ION OF DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO OBSERVED THAT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT , THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED RS. 16,55,209/- UNDER VARIOUS HEADS LIKE BUILDING MAINT ENANCE, CONVEYANCE, DEPRECIATION, ELECTRICITY INTEREST ON BANK, OFFICE EXPENSES, REPAI RS AND MAINTENANCE OF PUMP, SALARY TO STAFF ETC. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BILLS/VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENSES, THE SAME ARE NOT SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION, HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT MOST OF THESE EXPENSES ARE NOT SUPPORTED WITH BILLS AND VOU CHERS AND IT IS FAIR AND REASONABLE TO DISALLOW A SUM OF RS. 2,00,000/-. THEREFORE, HE ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,00,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. AGAINST THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED T HE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT (A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- IT IS SEEN THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE APPELLANT INC REASED TO RS. 18,77,81,075/- IN COMPARISON TO LAST ASSESSMENT YEA R THAT IS A.Y. 2008-09 SHOWN AT RS. 15,27,83,644/-, BUT THE GP RAT E HAS BEEN SHOWN AT 1.09% WHICH IS SAME AS SHOWN IN AY 2008-09 . IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE ENTIRE CONTEXT AND FACTS PUT ON RECORD IT WOULD BE JUST TO APPLY GP RATE OF 1.30% INSTEAD OF 1.09% DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT IN PROPORTION TO TH E INCREASE IN SALES. THE GROSS PROFIT WORKS OUT TO RS. 24,41,153 (1.30% OF RS. 18,77,81,075/-) INSTEAD OF RS. 20,55,325/- SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. THE TRADING ADDITION IS UPHELD OF RS. 3,85,828/- (R S. 24,41,153 RS. 3,85,828). AS THE TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 3,85, 828/- HAS BEEN 8 ITA NO. 588/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 ITO VS. SHRI CHAND SINGH, JAIPUR. UPHELD, THE EXPENSES DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,00,000/- IS TREATED TELESCOPED IN IT, IN OTHER WORDS THE DISALLOWANCE O UT OF EXPENSES OF RS. 2,00,000/- DOES NOT SURVIVE. 11. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD . D/R FOR THE REVENUE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF COMPARABLE, THE GROSS PROFIT WAS CALCULATED @ 2.12% WHEREAS THE AO HAS ONLY ADDED ONLY 12% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS S UBMITTED THAT THE SAID ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUSTAINED. 12. PER CONTRA, THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ESTIMATED, THE LUMP SUM DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,00,00 0/-, OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER VARIOUS HEADS, IS UNJUSTIFIED AS THE TELESCOPING OF TRADING ADDITION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. HE, THEREFORE, REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 13. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE WE HAVE ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BA SIS OF COMPARABLE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO ADOPT THE HAIR SPILT APPROACH AN D THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO IS BEREFT OF ANY MERIT. THEREFORE, WE DISALLOW THE ADD ITION OF RS. 2,00,000/- ON THIS HEAD AND THE GROUND NO. 2 OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 14. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80U. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 50,000/- U/S 80. ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO SUBMIT COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF PRESCRIBED MEDICAL BOARD IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM, V IDE NOTE SHEET ENTRY DATED 9 ITA NO. 588/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 ITO VS. SHRI CHAND SINGH, JAIPUR. 12.12.2011. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO. THE DEDUC TION OF RS. 50,000/- CLAIMED U/S 80U IS HEREBY DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INC OME. 15. ON APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A), THE LD. CIT (A) A LLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- THE APPELLANT FOUGHT BRAVELY FOR INDIA AS ARMY C APTAIN IN 1971 WAR AND SUFFERED INJURIES, DUE TO WHICH HE HAD TO L EAVE ARMY AND WAS ALLOTTED PETROL PUMP BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. AF TER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALL OW 80U DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT, AS PER COPY OF MINISTRY O F DEFENCE LETTER ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-1 OF THIS ORDER ALONG WITH DIS ABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 17.8/1987 OF ARMY HOSPITAL, DELHI CANT., CERTIFYING THE DISABILITY AS RECURRENT THROMBOPHLEDITIES OF LEFT LOWER AND LEFT UPPER LIMB. IN ANNEXURE-1 OF THIS ORDE R ARE ALSO ENCLOSED APPRECIATION LETTER FROM THE PRIME MI NISTER, LETTER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS SHOWING SANCTION OF DISABILITY PEN SION, A HINDI ARTICLE ON THE APPELLANT WHICH WERE SUBMITTED TO TH E AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL. DENIAL OF 80U IN TH IS CASE HAS CAUSED IMMENSE MENTAL AGONY TO THE APPELLANT WHICH IS HOPED WILL END WHEN APPEAL EFFECT IS GIVEN TO THIS ORDER IN TI ME. 16. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD . D/R SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO B E RESTORED. 17. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A/R OF THE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) DELET ION THE ADDITION. 10 ITA NO. 588/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 ITO VS. SHRI CHAND SINGH, JAIPUR. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AT PAGE 1 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE RELEVANT RULES ARE GIVEN AT PAGES 11 & 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE CLAIM OF DISABILITY PENSION IS AT PAGE 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THESE DOCUMENTS AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DISTURB THE FINDING GIVEN BY LD. CIT (A). IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE WAS CAPTAIN IN 1971 WAR AND WAS GIVEN PRE-MATURE RETIRE MENT BY THE MEDICAL BOARD OF ARMY. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 8 0-U. 19. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/11/201 5. SD/- SD/- VH-VKJ-EHUK YFYR DQEKJ (T.R. MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 27/11/2015 DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE ITO WARD 4(2), JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- SHRI CHAND SINGH, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 588/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR 11 ITA NO. 588/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 ITO VS. SHRI CHAND SINGH, JAIPUR.