Smt. Sajjandevi B.Jain, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Range-2, Surat

ITA 609/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 60920514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 15-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

, , , , , , ! !! !' '' ' ! ! ! !. .. .$ '$ $ '$ $ '$ $ '$ , % % % % & & & & IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : D BENCH : AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, HONBLE J.M. & SHRI A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY, HONBLE A.M.) ' '' ' . ITA NO. 609/AHD./2009 : '( - 2005-2006 SMT. SAJJANDEVI B. JAIN, SURAT VS- ITO, OSD- 1, RANGE-2, SURAT (PAN : AAEFM 1986D) ( )* /APPELLANT) ( +,)* /RESPONDENT ) )* - . / APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARDIK VORA, A.R. +,)* - . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.L.YADAV, SR.D.R. /0 - 1% / DATE OF HEARING : 15/12/2011 2$' - 1% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/01/2012 / ORDER PER SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A)-II, SURAT IN APPEAL NO. CAS/II/245/07-0 8 DATED 12.12.2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006 PASSED UNDER SECTION 250 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT . 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FIVE GRO UNDS, WHEREIN GROUND NOS.4 AND 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREF ORE, DO NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WE LL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.12,86,373/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALL EGED INGENUINE CREDIT. ITA NO.609-AHD-2009 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,118/- BEING 1/5 TH OF VEHICLE EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS W ELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,849/- BEING 1/5 TH OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL FILED ITS RETURN O F INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,09,573/- ON 30.09.2005 ALONG WITH AUDITED ACCOUNTS. THE RETURN WAS INITIALLY PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AND SUBSE QUENTLY THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS CO MPLETED ON 30.11.2007 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 3.1 THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRAD ING OF ART SILK CLOTH AND THE TURNOVER FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR WAS RS.1,44, 86,532/- AND DECLARED GROSS PROFIT AT 9.38% AS AGAINST 8.97% DIS CLOSED IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT TO NINE SUPPLIERS/CREDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE OUT OF WHI CH REPLY WAS RECEIVED IN FOUR CASES AND FOR THE OTHERS, LETTERS WERE RETU RNED UN-SERVED. THEREAFTER, THE LD. AO MADE A DETAILED INVESTIGATIO N AND ARRIVED AT THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION: THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE PURCHASES FROM THE OPEN MARKET IN CASH BY MAKING SPOT PAYMENT AND PROCURED/CREATED BO GUS PURCHASE BILLS IN THE NAME OF NON EXISTENT PARTIES WITH AN INTENTION TO COVER UP / INTRODUCE HIS UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT, IN PURCHASES/STOCK IN THE FORM OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. ITA NO.609-AHD-2009 3 SUBSEQUENTLY IT HAD ISSUED THE CHEQUE TO ALL TOGETH ER DIFFERENT PERSONS AND HAP SQUARED UP THE ACCOUNTS OF THE SO C ALLED CREDITORS EITHER BY DISCOUNTING THROUGH SHROFFS AND GETTING B ACK THE CASH OR BY PAYMENTS OF CERTAIN OTHER UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES O R INVESTMENT OR HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE. THUS THE ASSESSEE INTRODUCED HIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME FOR PURCHASES OF FABRICS AND LATER ON BY MAKING PAYMENT S TO THE BOGUS CREDITORS THE CASH WAS RECEIVED BACK BY IBE.,ASSEIS EE. LOOKING TO THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, UNDERSIGNED IS OF THE OPINION THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT CORRECT AND COMPLETE IN THE SENSE THAT THE SAME DOES NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL STATUS OF AFFAIRS OF TH E ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED U/S 145(3) OF THE A CT. THUS IT IS CONCLUSIVELY PROVED THAT CREDITORS AMOUN TING TO RS 12,86,373/- HAVE ALREADY PAID OFF OUT OF UNDISCLOSE D INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED. CONSEQUENTLY THE LIABILITY TO THAT EXTENT HAS CEASED AND EVENTUALLY THE SO CLAIME D CREDITORS ARE BOGUS. AT LAST, AFTER DISCUSSING ALL THE ASPECTS OF THIS M ATTER AND LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, A SUM OF RS. 12,86,373/- IS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS THAT ALL THESE CREDITORS (LIST ENCLOSED) WHICH ARE MERELY BO OK ENTRIES AND HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID OFF IN CASH. THEREFORE, IT I S ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT TRADE CREDIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN BALANCE SHEET IS NOT GENUINE AND ESTABLISHED CREDITS, THEREFORE THE WHOL E AMOUNT IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE CORRESPONDING ASSETS HAS BEEN CREATED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. IT MAY BE REITERATED THAT ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE PURCHASE THE GOODS IN CASH USING HER UNACCOUNTED MONEY AND ONLY WITH A VI EW TO COME- UP THE PURCHASES CORRESPONDING TO THE SALE SUCH BOG US BILLS HAVE BEEN PREPAID OR PROCURED AND THEREBY HAS CREATED TH E UNPROVEN CREDITS IN BALANCE SHEET. THIS IS PROVED BEYOND DOU BT THAT SUCH TRADE CREDITS ARE NOT GENUINE ONE AND PURCHASE ARE NOT ESTABLISHED. THAT IS WHY IT IS MOST REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIABLY TO ADD AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,86,373/- IN THE TOTAL INCOME' OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.609-AHD-2009 4 3.2 THE DETAILS OF SUCH CREDITORS ARE AS UNDER:- SR. NO. NAME OF CREDITOR CREDIT BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2005 1 M/S. AASHIRVAD TEXTILES 48490 2 M/S. KOMAL SILK TRADERS, 48590 3 M/S. NEW LIGHT CREATION 47520 4 M/S. RAJESHWARI SILK MILLS 49277 5 M/S. VAISHALI SAREES 57297 6 M/S. GANESH SILK FABRICS 46332 7 M/S. GURU KRUPA TEXTILES 45840 8 M/S. IMAGE FASHION 51410, 9 M/S. JAGDAMBA SILK MILLS 53321 10 M/S JAY DURAGA TEXTILES 25476 11 M/S JAY GAJANAN TEXTILE 37256 12 M/S. JAIN FABRICS 47720 13 M/S. JAPAN TEXTILES 26822 14 M/S. JAY BHAWANI SYNTHETICS 43950 15 M/S. KARISMA FABRICS 46451 16 M/S KASHISH SAREES 44130 17 M/S. KHUSBU TEXTILES 47734 18 M/S. MAHAVIR SILK MILLS 50049 19 M/S. MARUTI TEXTILES 27430 20 M/S. NIKITA FABRICS 49324 21 M/S. PRIYA TEXTILES 37147 22 M/S. RAKHEE PRINTS 36500 ITA NO.609-AHD-2009 5 23 M/S. RONAK FASHIPN 38550 24 M/S. SHABNAM TEXTILES 45030 25 M/S. SHEEV SYNTHETICS 49687 26 M/S. SHREE GOPAL SYNTHETICS 43836 27 M/S. SONU FASHIONS 45123 28 M/S. TRISHNA SILK MILLS 49453 29 M/S. YOGITA SYNTHETICS, 47268 TOTAL 1286378 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE, THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. A.O. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE. 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE DETAILED FINDI NGS AND CONCLUSION OF THE AO, AND THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE AR, BOTH IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS ALSO IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE FIRST QUESTION WHICH ARISES IS THAT, IF THE ASSESSEE HAD ISSUED ADVANCE BLANK CHEQUES TO TH E AGENTS IN KEEPING WITH THE MARKET PRACTICE THEN, WHERE AND HO W DID THE ASSESSEE GET THE NAMES OF THE ACTUAL SUPPLIERS. THI S QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED EITHER IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE FAILURE TO EXPLAIN AND A NSWER THIS QUESTION CLEARLY MEANS THAT THE EXPLANATION PROVIDE D IS AN AFTER- THOUGHT, AS CLAIMED BY THE AO. SECONDLY, HOW WAS IT THAT SOME OF THE PURCHASES WHICH WERE ESTABLISHED AS GENUINE HAD THE CORRECT, NAMES OF THE SUPPLIERS? THE CHEQUES WERE DEPOSITED IN THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS AND WERE WITHDRAWN BY THEM, WHI LE THE PURCHASES WHICH WERE TREATED AS BOGUS HAD TRAVELLED TO THE ACCOUNTS OF CERTAIN OTHER PARTIES. SOME OF THE SUPP LIERS WERE NOT THE SAME AS THOSE WHO WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE SUPPLIED GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE. IF THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF MARKET PRACTIC E IS TO BE ACCEPTED THEN, THE SAME PRACTICE WOULD HAVE TO BE A PPLICABLE AND EVIDENCED IN THE CASE OF ALL THE SUPPLIERS. SIMILAR WAS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE BILLS RAISED BY THE SUPPLIERS. TH E GENUINE BILLS HAD ITA NO.609-AHD-2009 6 THE NAME OF THE SUPPLIERS, COMPLETE ADDRESS AND TEL EPHONE NO., WHILE THE BOGUS SUPPLIER AND BILLS DID NOT HAVE SUC H INFORMATION. FOURTHLY, IF THE ASSESSEE WAS PURCHASING ON CREDIT AS RIGHTLY QUESTIONED BY THE AO, WHERE WAS THE NEED OF ISSUING ADVANCE CHEQUES, AND THAT TOO BLANK CHEQUES. FIFTHLY, IF TH E CHEQUES WERE TO BE DISCOUNTED FROM THE SHROFFS, IT COULD NOT HAV E TAKEN 6-21 MONTHS FOR THE SO-CALLED SUPPLIERS TO APPROACH THE SHROFFS. NONE OF THESE QUERIES HAVE BEEN ANSWERED BY THE AR, WHO HAS BASICALLY BEATEN AROUND THE BUSH, AND HAS ARGUED IN VERY GENE RAL AND VAGUE MANNER AGAINST THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE AO. IN HIS DETAILED ARGUMENTS AS REPRODUCED IN PAGES 13-14, IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE AO AS TO WHY THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS 12,86,373 WAS TO BE DISALLOWED AND TREATED AS THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME/IN VESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FOR SUCH REASON THAT THE RATIO OF VIJAY PROTEINS (SUPRA) CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE'S CASE, QU ITE CONTRARY TO THE PLEA TAKEN BY THE AR. THE AO'S ACTION IS THEREFO RE SUSTAINED, AND THE ADDITION OF THE SUM OF RS 12,86,373 IS CONFIRMED. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. A.R. SUBMI TTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. AO DID NOT DOUBT THE PURCHASE MADE BY THE A SSESSEE SINCE THEY WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE STOCK REGISTER AND ACCOUN TED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D MADE PAYMENTS TO THE CREDITORS BY CHEQUE. SINCE THE PURCHASE OF CLOT H WAS MADE THROUGH AGENTS WHO ACTED AS INTERMEDIARIES BETWEEN THE MANU FACTURER OF THE CLOTH AND THE ASSESSEE, BLANK CHEQUES WERE GIVEN TO THE AGENTS, WHO, IN TURN, HANDED OVER THE SAME TO THE ACTUAL SELLERS OF THE CLOTH. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE M ANUFACTURER OF THE CLOTHS. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED FOR THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE BUT HAS ONLY DO UBTED THE BILLS TO BE BOGUS AND INFLATED. THE LD. A.R. VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE GENUINE PURCHASES AND THEREFORE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT CANNOT BE ADDED TO HIS INCOME. SINCE THE AO HIMSELF HAS NOT D OUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE BUT ONLY HAD DOUBTED TH E BILLS TO BE BOGUS/INFLATED, FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTIENS LTD. REPORTED IN 58 ITD ITA NO.609-AHD-2009 7 428, 25% OF THE PURCHASES MAY BE ADDED TO THE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF ITA T, AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASES OF M/S. BHOLANATH POLY FAB P. LTD. VS- I TO IN ITA NO.137/AHD/2009 AND M/S. RAJ EXPORTS VS- ACIT IN I TA NO.1827/AHD/2005 AND M/S. SANKET STEEL TRADERS VS- ITO IN ITA NO.2801/AHD/2008. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D R STOUTLY OPPOSED T O THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A.R. AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE UPHELD AS HE HAS RIGHTLY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THA T THE ENTIRE PURCHASE OF RS.12,86,373/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE BOGUS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 1 TO 192 PAGES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE LD. AO HAS MADE AN EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION AND HAS RIGHTLY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT CERTAIN SUNDRY CREDITORS ARE NOT GE NUINE. FURTHER HE HAS DRAWN AN INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCH ASE IN THE OPEN MARKET BY PAYING CASH AND CREATED BOGUS BILLS IN TH E NAME OF THE NON- EXISTENT PARTIES. THE LD. AO HAS ALSO RIGHTLY COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT CORRECT A ND ARE INCOMPLETE IN THE SENSE THAT THE SAME DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL S TATE OF AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE AOS DOU BT WAS NOT WITH RESPECT TO GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE BUT HIS DOUBT WAS ON LY WITH RESPECT TO PURCHASE OF MATERIALS FROM THE GREY MARKET AND TO C OVER UP THAT FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD GENERATED BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS WITH IN FLATED COST. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, IT WOULD NOT BE JUST TO AD D THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.12,86,373/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PO INTED OUT BY THE LD. ITA NO.609-AHD-2009 8 A.R., CONSIDERING THE RATIO OF THE CASE DECIDED BY THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTIENS LTD. ( SUPRA ) WILL BE SQUARELY APPLICABLE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT MADE A CATEGORIC AL FINDING REGARDING AS TO WHY THIS CASE WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACT S OF THE ASSESSEES CASE BUT SIMPLY BRUSHED IT ASIDE WITH THE COMMENT IN HIS DETAILED ARGUMENTS AS REPRODUCED IN PAGES 13-14, IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE AO AS TO WHY THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS 12,86,373 WAS TO BE DISALLOWED AND TREATED AS THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME/IN VESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FOR SUCH REASON THAT THE RATIO OF V IJAY PROTEINS (SUPRA) CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE'S CASE, Q UITE CONTRARY TO THE PLEA TAKEN BY THE AR. THE AO'S ACTION IS THEREF ORE SUSTAINED, AND THE ADDITION OF THE SUM OF RS 12,86,373 IS CONFIRMED . 7.1 CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. AO AND FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF T HE DECISION IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASES OF M/S. BHO LANATH POLY FAB P. LTD. VS- ITO IN ITA NO.137/AHD/2009 AND M/S. RAJ E XPORTS VS- ACIT IN ITA NO.1827/AHD/2005 AND M/S. SANKET STEEL TRADERS VS- ITO IN ITA NO.2801/AHD/2008, RELIED ON BY THE LD. A.R., WE RES TRICT THE ADDITION TO 12.5% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. T HUS, 12.5% OF RS.12,86,373/- I.E. RS.1,60,797/- IS ADDED TO THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF THE ADDITION OF RS.12,86,373/- ADDED BY THE LD. AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AO IS HEREBY D IRECTED TO MAKE ADDITION, AS INDICATED ABOVE. THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. REGARDING GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED MOTOR CAR EXPENSES OF RS.17,271/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A BLE TO PRODUCE THE ITA NO.609-AHD-2009 9 BILLS AND VOUCHERS TO ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM OF EXPEND ITURE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT ALL THE SE EXPENSES WERE MADE BY CASH. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT MAINTAINED ANY LOG BOOK TO PROVE THAT HE HAS NOT USED THE VEHICLE FOR PERSONAL PURPOSE. THEREFORE, THE LD. AO DISALLOWED 1/5 TH OF THE MOTOR CAR EXPENSES I.E. RS.3,454/- AND 1/5 TH OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON MOTOR CAR I.E. RS.1,664 /- AND THUS MADE AN ADDITION AGGREGATING TO RS.5118/-. 8.1 FURTHER, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD. AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.19,247/- TOWARDS TELE PHONE EXPENDITURE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY CALL REGI STER, THE LD. AO DISALLOWED 1/5 TH OF SUCH EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.3,849/- WITH THE INFERENCE THAT THE PERSONAL USE OF THE TELEPHONE CA NNOT BE RULED OUT. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THESE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. AO. 10. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MOTOR CAR WAS USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PERSONAL PURPOSE BY T HE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE TEL EPHONE WAS INSTALLED IN THE OFFICE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME COULD NECESSARILY HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND NOT FOR T HE PERSONAL PURPOSES. IT WAS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THESE ADDI TIONS MADE BY THE LD. AO MAY BE DELETED. 11. THE LD. D.R. OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A.R. AND SUPPORTED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE REVENUE. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY MATERIALS TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE E XPENDITURE, THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITIONS OF RS.3,454/-, RS.1664/- A ND RS.3,849/- WITH ITA NO.609-AHD-2009 10 REGARD TO MOTOR CAR EXPENSES, DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON VEHICLES AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES RESPECTIVELY. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. 3 - 2$' 4'( 13 / 01 /201 2 $ 5 - 60 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.MOHAN ALAN KAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 13/01/2012 - -- - +17 +17 +17 +17 87'1( 87'1( 87'1( 87'1(- -- - 1. )* 2. +,)* 3. '' 1 /= 4. /=- - 5. 76 +1 , , @ 6. 6 B3 , C/ 'E , @ TALUKDAR/ SR. P.S.