ACIT, Kota V. BHIM SINGH, Kota

ITA 596/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5346 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G R PAREEK
• Assessee Lawyers: M C BHANDARI C A DHK
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 56

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, 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 NO. 596 & 597/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 & 11-12 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA. CUKE VS. M/S.BHIM SINGH (H.H. MAHARAO SHRIBRIJRAJ SINGHJI SAHIB OF KOTAH), UMMED BHAWAN, KOTA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AAAHB 7814 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ C.O. NOS. 29 & 30/JP/2014 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 596 & 597/JP/2014) FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 & 11-12 . M/S.BHIM SINGH (H.H. MAHARAO SHRI BRIJRAJ SINGHJI SAHIB OF KOTAH), UMMED BHAWAN, KOTA. CUKE VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AAAHB 7814 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI G.R. PAREEK (JCIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY S BY : SHRI M.C. BHANDARI (C.A) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 05.04.2016. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/04/2016. ORDER PER: LALIET KUMAR, J.M. THE APPEALS BY REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIONS BY ASS ESSEE ARISE FROM THE ORDER DATED 27/06/2014 OF LD. CIT (A), KOTA, BY RAI SING FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 2 ITA NOS. 596 ,597 & CO 29, 30/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SHRIBHIM SINGH JI, KOTA. GROUNDS IN REVENUE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN:- (I) ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, HOLDING TH AT THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DEEMED AS INDIVIDUAL INST EAD OF HUF TAKEN BY A.O.; (II) ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 10(19A) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF RENTAL INCOME FROM UMED BHAWAN PALACE AMOUNTING TO RS. 50,61,933/-; (III) HOLDING THAT THE RECEIPTS FROM ITC LTD. AMOU NTING TO RS. 39,59,066/- ARE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS & PROFESSION INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHE R SOURCES HELD BY A.O.; (IV) HOLDING THAT INCOME FROM INTEREST ON BANK FDR S AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,32,663/- IS ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES HELD BY A.O.; (V) HOLDING THAT INCOME FROM SAROVAR COMPLEX AMOUN TING TO RS. 2,37,744/- IS ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME INS TEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHER HOUSE PROPERTY HELD BY A.O.; (VI) RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF BUSINESS EXPENSES TO RS. 5,97,945/- AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 26,89,726/- MADE BY A.O.; (VII) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LIBERTY TO RAISE ADDITI ONAL GROUND AND TO MODIFY/AMEND THE GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS IN REVENUE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2011-12. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN:- (I) ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, HOLDING TH AT THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DEEMED AS INDIVIDUAL INST EAD OF HUF TAKEN BY A.O.; 3 ITA NOS. 596 ,597 & CO 29, 30/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SHRIBHIM SINGH JI, KOTA. (II) ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 10(19A) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF RENTAL INCOME FROM UMED BHAWAN PALACE AMOUNTING TO RS. 50,61,933/-; (III) HOLDING THAT THE RECEIPTS FROM ITC LTD. AMOU NTING TO RS. 47,40,775/- ARE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS & PROFESSION INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHE R SOURCES HELD BY A.O.; (IV) HOLDING THAT INCOME FROM INTEREST ON BANK FDR S AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,82,596/- IS ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES HELD BY A.O.; (V) HOLDING THAT INCOME FROM SAROVAR COMPLEX AMOUN TING TO RS. 2,48,472/- IS ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME INS TEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHER HOUSE PROPERTY HELD BY A.O.; (VI) RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF BUSINESS EXPENSES TO RS. 6,79,568/- AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 28,97,839/- MADE BY A.O.; (VII) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LIBERTY TO RAISE ADDITI ONAL GROUND AND TO MODIFY/AMEND THE GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. GROUNDS IN CROSS OBJECTIONS IN A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011 -12. 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEAL) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IS NOT ACCEPTING A LSO THE ALTERNATIVE GROUND THAT BESIDES ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 10(19A), THE RENTAL INCOME OF UMMED BHAWAN PALACE FROM STRUCTURE AND LAND REQUISITIONED BY DEFENCE DEPARTMENT IS NEITHER ACCRUED NOR AROSE NOR RECEIVE D THIS YEAR, AS THE RENTAL IS IN DISPUTE IN WRIT PETITION BEFORE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT FILED BY DEFENCE DEPAR TMENT AND QUANTUM THEREOF IS NEITHER SETTLED NOR DETERMIN ED AT ALL. HENCE NOT TAXABLE ON THIS SCORE IN ALTERNATIVE GR OUND ALSO. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEAL) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS NOT ALLOWED DEDUCT ION OF SENOR CITIZEN QUANTUM OF EXEMPTION AS PROVIDED UNDE R SCHEDULE FIRST OF SECTION. 2 (PART-1) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 AS IT 4 ITA NOS. 596 ,597 & CO 29, 30/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SHRIBHIM SINGH JI, KOTA. IS ALLOWABLE IN THE STATUS AS OF INDIVIDUAL, AS T HE APPELLANT AGE IS MORE THAN 65 YEARS OLD. THE SAME DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES YOUR HONOUR TO KINDLY ALLOW TO ADD, ALTER OR NEW ANY GROUND ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HE ARING. 2. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE TREATI NG THE STATUS OF HUF AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INDIVIDUAL. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN ON 29/03/2011 DECLAR ING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 38,64,112/-. A NOTE NO. 5 HAS ALSO BEEN GIVEN AT TH E BOTTOM OF THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH R EADS AS THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE HUF BUT AS PER THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 27(II) OF I.T. ACT, 1961, THE STATUS IS TO BE TAKEN AS INDIVIDUAL AS PER LAW, HENCE ACCORDINGLY TAKEN AS AS ABOVE. LATE H.H. MAHARAO B HIM SINGHJI OF KOTA WAS THE RULER OF THE ERSTWHILE KOTA STATE BEFORE ITS ME RGER INTO THE UNION OF INDIA. MAHARAO BHIM SINGHJI EXPIRED IN THE YEAR 1991. AFTE R HIS DEATH, THE HUF IS SHOWN TO HAVE COME INTO EXISTENCE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURNS IN HUF STATUS IN THE EARLIER YEARS BUT AS STATED ABOVE NOW STATUS IS BEING CLAIMED AS OF INDIVIDUAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE AS THERE IS NO MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE FACT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE S REPLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AS HUF. 5 ITA NOS. 596 ,597 & CO 29, 30/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SHRIBHIM SINGH JI, KOTA. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER , THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO HAD GIVEN DETAILED FINDING AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE ITA T JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08. ACCORDINGLY, HE DECIDED THE ASSESSEES STATUS AS INDIVIDUAL. 4. NOW THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE ISSUE IN YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION BUT BOTH THE PARTIES FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 610 TO 613/JP/2010 IN PRECEDING YEA RS, THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE REVENUE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND. 5. THE SECOND GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWIN G EXEMPTION U/S 10(19A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER RE FERRED TO AS THE ACT) IN RESPECT OF RENTAL INCOME FROM UMMED BHAWAN PALACE A MOUNTING TO RS. 50,61,933/- AND RS. 2,31,648/-. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RENTAL INCOME FROM UMMED BHAWAN COMPOU ND AT RS. 2,31,648/- FROM THE DEFENCE DEPARTMENT AND COMPENSA TION OF RS. 50,61,933/- RECEIVED FROM THE DEFENCE DEPARTMENT. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY. HE HAS NOT TREATED THIS INCOME EX EMPTED. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6 ITA NOS. 596 ,597 & CO 29, 30/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SHRIBHIM SINGH JI, KOTA. THE EXEMPTION U/SEC. 10(19) IS ALLOWABLE AND ALLO WED AS PER APPELLATE ORDERS IN THE PAST. THE EXEMPTION U/S 10(19A) DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. 7. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RENTAL INCOME FROM UMMED BHAWAN PALACE, WHICH IS TA XABLE WITHIN THE INCOME TAX LAW AS IN PAST THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT AC CEPTED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION ON THE FACTS AS WELL AS ON LAW, THEREFOR E, HE REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED A/R. SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ARGUED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY TH E HONBLE ITAT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE , HE REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN PAST, SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LE ARNED CIT(A). IN A.Y. 2007-08 PASSED IN ITA NO. 610 TO 613/JP/2010, THE C OORDINATE BENCH DECIDED THIS ISSUE AS UNDER:- THESE TWO ISUES ARE DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOLL OWING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1986-87 TO 1990-91 (S UPRA). RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AT PAGE 50 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THEREAFTER ALSO THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THIS ORDER A LLOWED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. SINCE THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR EARLI ER YEARS, THEREFORE, WE 7 ITA NOS. 596 ,597 & CO 29, 30/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SHRIBHIM SINGH JI, KOTA. SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO ISSUES ALSO. BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORD INATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DIFFER WITH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE RE VENUES APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 10. GROUND NO. 3 IS AGAINST TREATING THE RECEIPTS FROM ITC LIMITED AMOUNTING TO RS. 39,59,066/- AS BUSINESS INCOME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS. 39,59,066/- FROM ITC LIMITED AND SHOWN THIS INCOME IN THE RETURN AS BUSINESS INCOME, WHICH WAS TREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS HELD IN PAST BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AND P ROFESSION ON THE GROUND THAT IN PAST THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ITAT ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE ACCEPTED THE FACT BEFORE US T HAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN PRECEDING ORDERS BY VARI OUS DECISIONS OF THE ITAT, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DIFFER WITH THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN PRECEDING YEAR. ACCO RDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THIS GROUND. 11. GROUND NO. 4 IN REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST TH E INTEREST ON BANK FDR AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,32,663/- AS ASSESSABLE AS BUSINE SS INCOME INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN I NTEREST ON FDR AT RS. 8 ITA NOS. 596 ,597 & CO 29, 30/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SHRIBHIM SINGH JI, KOTA. 5,32,663/- UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THIS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES U/S 56 OF THE ACT BY CONSIDERING THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECIS ION IN THE CASE OF BENGAL AND ASSAM INVESTORS LIMITED VS. CIT 59 ITR 547. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND TR EATED THIS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 12. THE LEARNED D.R. ARGUED THAT THIS ISSUE IS CO VERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND IN PAST THE INTEREST INCOME ON FDR HAS BEEN HELD UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, WHICH HAS BEEN FAIRLY ACCEPTED BY THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILAR ISSUE WAS INVOLVED IN THE PAST AND THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND INTEREST INCOME WAS HELD TO BE TREATED INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES AND NOT BUSINESS INCOME. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DIF FER WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH GIVEN IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE I N A.Y. 2007-08. THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 13. GROUND NO. 5 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST TH E INCOME FROM SAROVAR COMPLEX AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,37,744/- IS ASSESSABLE A S BUSINESS INCOME INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS. 3,39,635/- AS INCOME FROM SAROVAR COMPLEX AND AFTER CLAIMING 3 0% STANDARD DEDUCTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NET TOTAL ASSESSABLE HOUSE P ROPERTY INCOME AS RS. 2,37,744/-. 9 ITA NOS. 596 ,597 & CO 29, 30/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SHRIBHIM SINGH JI, KOTA. 14. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THIS ADDITION BEFORE T HE LEARNED CIT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT THROW ANY LIGHT ON HIS REASON FOR T REATING THE INCOME FROM A SAROVAR COMPLEX AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. FURT HER IN THE APPEAL ORDER FOR A.Y. 2005-06, SIMILAR DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BASED ON HIS OPINION THAT MOTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO EARN REN TAL INCOME, WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND THE RENTAL INCOME FROM SAROWAR COMPLEX WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ACCORDINGLY, HE DELETED THE ADD ITION. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 15. THE LEARNED D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 16. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED A.R. ARGUED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD COMMERCIAL SHOPS IN SAROWAR COMPLEX, WHICH IS A BUS INESS PROPERTY AND EARNED INCOME OF RS. 2,37,744/- UNDER THE HEAD INCO ME FROM BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THESE RECEIPTS UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AND PROFESSION, IN EARLIER YEAR, NO APPEAL HAS BEE N FILED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CONSISTENTLY SHOWING RENTAL INCOME FROM THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AND 10 ITA NOS. 596 ,597 & CO 29, 30/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SHRIBHIM SINGH JI, KOTA. PROFESSION, WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOT ONLY IN THIS YEAR BUT IN THE PRECEDING YEARS ALSO. THE LEARNED D.R. HAD NOT CONTROVERTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 18. GROUND NO. 7 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST DI SALLOWANCE OUT OF BUSINESS EXPENSES OF RS. 5,97,945/- AGAINST THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS. 26,89,726/-. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENSES UNDER VARIOUS HEAD FOR EARNING OF INCOME AS WELL AS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED W ERE RS. 29,89,726/- OUT OF WHICH ONLY RS. 3,00,000/- HAD BEEN ALLOWED AND REMA INING AMOUNT OF RS. 26,89,726/- WAS DISALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF REASONIN G GIVEN IN EARLIER YEARS AS IN A.YS. 1997-98 TO 1999-2000, 2002-03 AND 2004-05. 19. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE L EARNED CIT(A), WHO HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL PARTIALLY BY FOLLOWING HIS PREDE CESSORS ORDER IN PRECEDING YEARS AND ITAT ORDER DATED 31/7/2007 AND HE RESTRIC TED THIS ADDITION AT RS. 5,97,945/- BEING 20% OF TOTAL CLAIM OF RS. 29,89,72 6/-. 20. NOW THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARN ED CIT(A) IS BEFORE US. THE LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 11 ITA NOS. 596 ,597 & CO 29, 30/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SHRIBHIM SINGH JI, KOTA. 21. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED A.R. PLACED RELIAN CE UPON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AT PAGE NO. 18 PARAGRAPH 4.82 AND I TAT ORDER AT PAGE NO. 184 IN ITA NO. 147 & 148/JP/2005 IN GROUND NO. 8, W HICH HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE BENCH ON PAGE NOS. 90 AND 91 AND DIS ALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED 20% OF TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THER EFORE, HE REQUESTED TO FOLLOW THE EARLIER ORDER OF HONBLE ITAT. 22. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BO TH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE P RESENT ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 147 & 148/JP/2005 FOR A.Y. 2001-02 AND 20% EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. THUS, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 23. IN RESPECT OF ITA NO. 597/JP/2014 FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IN ITA NO. 596/JP/ 2014 FOR A.Y. 2010-11, ARE EXACTLY THE SAME EXCEPT THE QUANTUM OF FIGURES. THEREFORE, ON THE SAME BASIS, WE DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 5 97/JP/2014 FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12. 24. WITH REGARD TO THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PRESSED BEFORE THIS BENCH, SO THE SAME ARE HEREBY DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 12 ITA NOS. 596 ,597 & CO 29, 30/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SHRIBHIM SINGH JI, KOTA. 25. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND CROSS OBJECTIONS STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/04/2016 . SD/- SD/- VH-VKJ-EHUK YFYR DQEKJ (T.R. MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR, DATED : _28/04/2016 DAS/ COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA. 2. M/S. BHIM SINGH (H.H. MAHARAO SHRI BRIJ RAJ SING H JI), KOTA. 3. THE CIT (A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE D/R 6. GUARD FILE (I.T.A. NO. 596 & 597/JP/2014 & .C.O. NO. 29 & 30/JP/2014) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.