Meena Gupta, Saharanpur V. ACIT, Saharanpur

ITA 6138/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1244 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS NAMITA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Rule of consistency
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.6138/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `E NEW DELHI SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.6138/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 MS MEENA GUPTA, VS ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX, PROP. M/S SHIVAM INTERNATIONAL CIRCLE-2, TRADERS, KOTA HOUSE, SAH ARANPUR. CLUBLAY CIVIL LINES, BAJORIA RAOD, SAHARANPUR. (PAN: ABRPG8004E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.N. GUPTA RESPONDENT BY : MRS. NAMITA S. PANDEY, SR.DR O R D E R PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR DATED 14.9.2012 IN APPEAL NO.307/11-1 2/MZR FOR AY 2009- 2010. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSE E READ AS UNDER:- 1.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) MUZAFFARNAGAR (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE CIT(A) FOR SHORT) ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,83,853/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE (SAHARANPUR) (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE AO FOR SHORT) OUT OF ITA NO.6138/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 2 INTEREST CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AT RS.15,51,412/- ON UNSECURED LOAN@ 16%. 1.2 THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GENERALITY OF GRO UND OF APPEAL NO. 1.1 ABOVE, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES, THE DISALLOWANCE IS HIG HLY EXCESSIVE. 2.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.68,110/- MADE BY THE AO OUT OF CAR EXPENSES TO RS.30,000/- CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.68,110/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2.2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GENERALITY OF GRO UND OF APPEAL NO.2.1 ABOVE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30,000/ - MADE BY THE CIT(A) IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 3.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 24,449/- MADE BY THE AO OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES T O RS,10,000/- CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.24,449/- MADE BY THE AO. 3.2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GENERALLY OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3.1 ABOVE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 10,000 /- MADE BY THE CIT(A) IS EXCESSIVE, 4.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20,000/- MADE BY THE AO OUT OF FREIGHT & CARTAGE AND TRAVELING EXPENSES TO RS, 15,000/- CIT(A) SHOULD HA VE DELETED THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. ITA NO.6138/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 3 4.2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GENERALITY OF GRO UND OF APPEAL NO.4.1 ABOVE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15,000 /- MADE BY THE CIT(A) IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS AP PEAL ARE THAT THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS AND NOTICE U/S 1 43(2) AND 142(1) ALONG WITH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WERE SERVED ON THE ASSE SSEE AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS AND FINALIZED THE ASSESSMENT ON TOTAL INC OME OF RS.21,69,700 AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.15,01,050 AS DECL ARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR WHICH WAS PARTLY ALLOWED AND NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WITH THE GROUND AS MENTIONED H EREINABOVE IN THIS ORDER. GROUND NO. 1.1 & 1.2 4. APROPOS GROUND NOS. 1.1 AND 1.2, WE HAVE HEARD R IVAL ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORD B EFORE US. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.3,83,853/- WITH A WRONG OBSERVATION THAT THE INT EREST HAS BEEN PAID TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH AN INTENTION TO INCREASE THEIR INCOME AND TO REDUCE THE PROFIT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY OBSERVED THAT THE ASS ESSEE RECEIVED INTEREST ITA NO.6138/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 4 @8% ON THE DEPOSITS AND SECURITIES AND, ON THE OTHE R HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST @16% PER ANNUM TO THE FAMILY MEMBER C REDITORS ON UNSECURED LOANS. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY CON TENDED THAT DENYING THE CONTENTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) CONFIRMED THE ABOVE ADDITION WITH A PERVERSE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A REASONABLE DISALLOWANC E OF INTEREST BY RESTRICTING THE INTEREST @12%. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) ONLY CONSIDERED T HE AMOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN AND AVAILABLE CASH AS ON 31.3.2009 I GNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED REASONABLE CASH BALANCE IN HIS HANDS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE LOAN ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER (PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 12 TO 120) WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED A REAS ONABLE BALANCE IN HIS BANK LOAN ACCOUNT TO MEET HIS DAY TO DAY BUSINESS E XIGENCIES AND REQUIREMENTS. ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS ALS O SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST @8% ARE BEING RECEIVED FROM J.K. PAPER LTD. OF WHIC H THE ASSESSEE IS A DISTRIBUTOR AND THE DEPOSIT GIVEN TO THAT COMPANY I S A MANDATORY AND NECESSARY PART OF BUSINESS CONTRACT WITH M/S J.K. P APER LTD. THEREFORE, THIS PERCENTAGE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWING A P ART OF INTEREST PAID ON UNSECURED LOAN. ITA NO.6138/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 5 5. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTEN TION TOWARDS A COMPUTATION CHART OF EXPENSES AND SUBMITTED THAT TH E INTEREST ON UNSECURED LOAN @16.5% HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DURING THE PRECEDING YEARS I.E. 2007-08 AND 2008-09 AND ON THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE I S ENTITLED TO FULL ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID ON UNSECURED LOAN AND DISALLOWANCE IN THIS REGARD CANNOT BE HELD AS JUSTIFIED. 6. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, LD. DR SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID INTEREST @16% PER ANNUM ON UNSECURED LOANS REC EIVED FROM HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WHICH IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE AS PER GENERALL Y APPLICABLE BANK INTEREST I.E. @12% PER ANNUM. THE DR FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT ON THE CLOSING OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. 31.3.2009, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHO WN UNSECURED LOANS MORE THAN RS.1.1 CRORE AND LIQUID CASH OF RS.43.92 LAKH WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE WAS NOT TENABLE THAT THE ENTIRE UNSECURED LOANS WERE USED FOR MAKING BUSINES S TRANSACTIONS. THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF B OTH THE PARTIES AT THE OUTSET WE OBSERVE THAT ADMITTEDLY, THE AMOUNT OF DE POSIT OF JK PAPER LTD. IS NOT A LOAN BUT IT IS A DEPOSIT BY THE DISTRIBUTOR T O THE MANUFACTURING COMPANY ITA NO.6138/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 6 UNDER SELLING AND DISTRIBUTOR AGREEMENT WHICH IS MA NDATORY TO OBTAIN A DISTRIBUTORSHIP. THE DR HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS POIN T THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED INTEREST ON UNSECURED LOAN @16.5% DURING TH E EARLIER TWO YEARS TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS IT IS APPARENT FR OM THE DEBIT NOTES AND DETAIL OF INTEREST CHARGED FROM THE DEBTORS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CHARGING INTEREST @18% FROM ITS DEB TORS (PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 7 TO 11). FROM THE STATEMENT OF BANK LOAN ACCO UNT, AVAILABLE FROM PAGE NO. 12 TO 120 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE ALSO OBSERVE TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS REASONABLY MAINTAINING ITS LIQUID CASH TO MEET HIS BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS. FROM THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PAYIN G 24% PER ANNUM INTEREST TO M/S JK PAPER LTD. IF PAYMENT IS MADE BEYOND 30 D AYS FROM THE DATE OF INVOICE. THIS VITAL POINT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED OPINION THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHOULD REASONABLY FOLLOW THE PR INCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY UNTIL AND UNLESS THERE IS A VALID REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE UNAB LE TO SEE ANY VALID REASON AVAILABLE TO THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO TAKE A DIFFER ENT VIEW WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY TAKEN IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. A S WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADVANCED ANY DEPOSIT OR LOAN @ 8% PER ANNUM BUT THE ITA NO.6138/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 7 AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT WITH M/S JK PAPER LTD. IS A DEPOS IT WHICH IS NECESSARY TO SECURE DISTRIBUTORSHIP AND IT IS FOR BUSINESS PURPO SE ONLY. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CHARGING 18% INTEREST FROM ITS DEBTORS AND ASSESSEE IS ALSO UNDER OBLIGATION TO PAY 24% PER ANNUM INTEREST TO M/S JK PAPER LTD. IF PAYMENT IS DELAYED BEYOND 30 DAYS. IN THIS SITUATI ON, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1.1 AND 1.2 ARE ALLOWED AND ADDITION MADE IN THIS REGARD IS DELETED. GROUND NO. 2.1 & 2.2 9. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.68,110 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF CAR EXPENSES TO RS.30, 000 AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30,000 IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING A SEPARATE CAR FOR HIS PERSONAL USE AND THE EXPENSES CLAIMED I N THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT PERTAIN TO THE VEHICLE EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. 10. LD. DR REPLIED DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E. A Y 2006-07, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE DI SALLOWANCE OF ITA NO.6138/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 8 RS.6000 OUT OF CAR PETROL EXPENSES AND RS.8000 OUT OF CAR DEPRECIATION ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE BY THE PROPRIETOR ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS SITUATION, THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE TUNE OF RS.30,000 CANNOT HELD A S UNJUSTIFIED. THE DR SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 11. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE OBSERVE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE C AR WAS EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES BY PRODUCING THE LOG BOOK OF THE CAR BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. A PART OF CAR EXPENSE AND DEPREC IATION HAD BEEN DISALLOWED DURING THE PRECEDING YEARS AND THE SAME FINDING HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ANY COUNT. IN THIS S ITUATION, ADDITION AS PARTLY CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) CANN OT BE HELD AS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO . 2.1 AND 2.2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DEVOID OF MERITS AND WE DISMISS THE SAM E. GROUND NO. 3.1 & 3.2 12. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.24,449/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF TELEPH ONE EXPENSES OF RS.10,000 AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED ITA NO.6138/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 9 THAT A PART DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX(A) IS VERY EXCESSIVE AND THE SAME SHOULD BE FULLY ALLOWED . 13. THE DR SUBMITTED THAT AS PER COMPUTATION CHART OF EXPENSES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 13 0 & 131, RS.3000 HAS BEEN ADDED BACK BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE AY 2006-07, THEREFORE, THIS ADDITION CANNOT BE HELD AS UNJUSTIFIED. THE DR ALS O SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE TELEPHONE WAS EX CLUSIVELY USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THERE WAS NO PERSONAL USE BY THE ASSES SEE. ON CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DR HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE TELEPHONE EXPENSE S HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO DURING THE PRECEDING YEARS TO THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY VALID REASON TO MAKE A PART DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,000 BY THE CIT(A). FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW F ROM THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, WE HOLD THAT PART D ISALLOWANCE CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND IT WAS MADE WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE BASIS. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 3.1 AND 3.2 ARE ALLOWED AND ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE DELETED. ITA NO.6138/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 10 GROUND NO. 4.1 & 4.2 14. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) CONFIRMED A PART DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 5000 OUT OF FREIGHT AND CARTAGE AND TRAVELING EXPENSES AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) WAS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE AND WITHOUT ANY REASON. 15. ON BARE READING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE OBS ERVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20,000 WITH AN OBSERVATION THAT THE FREIGHT AND CARTAGE EXPENSES WERE EITHER P ARTLY VOUCHED OR SUPPORTED BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS AND IN ABSENCE OF PROPER VERI FICATION OF THESE EXPENSES IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.15,000 WITH FOLLO WING OBSERVATIONS:- THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AD HAD MADE ADDITION OF 20,000/- ON THE GROUND THAT SOME OF THE VOUCHERS WERE PARTLY VOUCHED OR SUPPORTED BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS. ON THE OTHER HAND THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT THE EXP ENSES DEBITED UNDER THE AFORESAID HEADS WERE INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. FROM THE PERUSAL COPIES OF LEDGE R ACCOUNTS IN TRAVELLING IT IS GATHERED THAT THE APPE LLANT AND HER FAMILY MEMBERS MADE VISITS TO VARIOUS PLACE S AND STAYED THERE FOR MANY DAYS. THUS IT IS NOT UNDE RSTOOD WHAT BUSINESS PURPOSE WAS SOLVED BY SUCH VISITS OF MANY DAYS STAY. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THE NATURE OF SUCH VISITS. HOWEVER, THE DISALLOW ANCE ITA NO.6138/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 11 MADE OUT OF FREIGHT CHARGES (INWARD) IS CALLED FOR AS SUCH EXPENSES ARE INCURRED IN CASH. FURTHER, THE APPELL ANT HAS ALSO FURNISHED COPY OF SUCH EXPENSES WHICH ARE CONSIDERED REASONABLE CONSIDERING THE SALES/PURCHAS ES MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THUS UNDER THE FACTS OF THE IT WOULD REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED IN THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO RS.15,000- AS AGAINST RS.20,000/- MADE BY THE AO. THUS THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR RELIEF AT RS.5,000/- ON THIS SCORE. GR OUND OF APPEAL NO.4 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 16. ON SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE BOARD, THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL ADMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT AND HER FAMILY MEMBERS MADE VISI TS TO VARIOUS PLACES AND STAYED THERE FOR MANY DAYS WHICH WAS NOT FOR BUSINE SS PURPOSES. HE HAS NOT CONTENDED THIS FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURN ISHED ANY SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THE NATURE OF SUCH VISITS EITHER BEFORE THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW OR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IN THIS POSITION, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WI TH THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) AND PART DISAL LOWANCE AS RESTRICTED TO RS.15,000 DESERVES TO BE UPHELD AND WE UPHOLD TH E SAME. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 4.1 AND 4.2 ARE DISALLOWED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ITA NO.6138/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10 12 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.02.2013. SD/- SD/- (T.S KAPOOR) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 15 TH FEBRUARY 2013 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR