Sri. HARISH M. AGGARWAL - THANE, MUMBAI V. ADDL. CIT Rg. 1 THANE, MUMBAI

ITA 6243/MUM/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2750 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 16-09-2009
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2004
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANURAG PRASAD
• Keywords: Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income; Proportionate interest; Assessment record

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VP & SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM I.T.A. NO. 6243/MUM/04 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) SHRI HARISH M. AGGARWAL AGGARWAL ESTATES, CHITALSAR MANPADA, S.V. ROAD, THANE-400 610 PAN: AAOPA2367G VS. THE ADDL. CIT RANGE 1 THANE APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI VIMAL PUNAMIYA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI ANURAG PRASAD O R D E R DATE OF HEARING: 16.09.2009 DATE OF ORDER: 15.12.2009 PER R.K. PANDA, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 22 ND JULY, 2004 OF THE CIT(A)-I, THANE, RELATING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER : 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,80,938/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON TOTAL ACTIV ITY OF THE BUSINESS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM INTEREST ON SB ACCOUNT, FDS, BONDS, DEB ENTURES AS WELL AS DIVIDEND AND INTEREST ON RBI BONDS, ETC. THE ASSES SEE HAS SHOWN LOSS RS.1,17,219 AGAINST THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN THE RETURN AFTER CLAIMING EXPENDITURE OF RS.2,47,943 AGAINST THE INT EREST AND OTHER INCOME OF RS.4,86,823. HE NOTED THAT ITEMS LIKE PROFESSIO NAL FEES AND DEPRECIATION ON CAR ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINES S INCOME ALSO. THE BIFURCATION OF THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.2,47,943 WAS N OT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO I.T.A. NO. 6243/MUM/04 SHRI HARISH M. AGGARWAL ================= 2 HAVING DIVIDEND INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. H E NOTED THAT OUT OF TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,86,823 INCOME OF RS.1,31,562 W AS SUBJECT TO TAX AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.3,53,261 WAS TAX EXEMPT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS WORKED OUT PROPORTIONATE EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTA BLE TO TAXABLE INCOME AT RS.67,005. THE NET INCOME FROM OTHER SO URCES WAS THUS WORKED OUT AT RS.64,557 UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AGAINST THE LOSS OF RS.1,17,219 CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THUS THERE WAS AN ADDITION OF RS.1,81,776. 4. IN APPEAL, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. WHILE DOING SO HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AL READY CLAIMED EXPENSES PERTAINING TO INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS C LAIMED NET PROFIT FROM ITS BUSINESS OF AGGARWAL ESTATES AT RS.23,459. BOO KS OF ACCOUNT PERTAINING TO BUSINESS OF M/S. AGGARWAL ESTATES ARE SEPARATELY AUDITED. HE OBSERVED THAT ONCE THE NET PROFIT OF RS.23,459 I S DECLARED IT IS PRESUMED THAT ALL THE EXPENSES INCURRED WITH THE BU SINESS OF AGGARWAL ESTATES HAVE ALREADY BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE RETURN. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS.2,47,993 AGAINST THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. SINCE THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS HAD ALREADY BEEN SEPARATELY SHOWN, EXPENDITURE OF RS.2, 47,943 PERTAINS TO INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ACCORDING TO THE CIT (A) THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS HAVING TWO PARTS I.E., INTEREST P ART IS TAXABLE AND THE DIVIDEND INCOME, PPF INTEREST AND RBI BONDS, ETC., ARE EXEMPT FROM TAX. SINCE NO EXPENDITURE CAN BE ALLOWED AGAINST THE EXE MPTED INCOME, THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT THE PROPORTIONATE EXPENDITU RE ATTRIBUTABLE TO TAXABLE INCOME WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED. HE ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A),THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS GENUINE. HOWEVER, A REASONABLE ESTI MATE SHOULD BE MADE TOWARDS PROPORTIONATE INTEREST FOR EARNING TAX FREE INTEREST AND DIVIDEND INCOME. SINCE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND UPHELD I.T.A. NO. 6243/MUM/04 SHRI HARISH M. AGGARWAL ================= 3 BY THE CIT(A) IS ON HIGHER SIDE, HE SUBMITTED THAT A REASONABLE ESTIMATE SHOULD BE MADE. 6. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BO TH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE VOLUMINOUS PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF R S.2,47,943 AGAINST THE OTHER INCOME OFRS.4,86,823. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPU TE TO THE FACT THAT THE INCOME OF RS.4,86,823 CONSISTS OF TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.1,31,562 AND TAX FREE INCOME OF RS.3,53,261. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPU TE TO THE FACT THAT THE BIFURCATION OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.2,47,943 WAS NOT G IVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE AS TO WHICH PART OF THE INTEREST INCOM E IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME AND WHICH PART OF THE INTEREST EXPEND ITURE IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO TAXABLE INCOME. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE ALSO COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE THE REASONABLE ES TIMATE ACCORDING TO HIM. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN APPORTIONING THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO TAXABLE INCOME AS WELL AS EXEMPT INCOME. SINCE ACCORDING TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.67,005 ONLY IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO TA XABLE INCOME OF RS.1,31,562 WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(A), TH EREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY CALCULATION, THE SAME IS UPHELD. IN T HIS VIEW OF THE MATTER THIS GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 2 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UN DER: 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN SUST AINING AN ADDITION OF RS.20,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTUR AL INCOME TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 9. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED I.T.A. NO. 6243/MUM/04 SHRI HARISH M. AGGARWAL ================= 4 AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,72,210 AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. T HE ASSESSEE HAD PREPARED SEPARATE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FO R THIS PURPOSE. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SALE OF VEGETABLES AND SALE OF G RASS, ETC., SHOWING GROSS RECEIPT OF RS.2,29,350. AS AGAINST THIS INCO ME ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF WAGES, SEED AND FERTILISE RS AT RS.47,140. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE CHA LLANS IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS REG ARD EXCEPT TWO 7/12 EXTRACTS PERTAINING TO ITS LAND AT MANPADA, THANE A ND LAND AT PALASDHARI, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE SIZE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND PAST RECORDS ESTIMATED SUCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.1,22,210. THUS HE TREATED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.50,000 AS INCOME F ROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 10. IN APPEAL, THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20,000 OUT OF RS.50,000 TREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UN DISCLOSED INCOME. WHILE DOING SO HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SH OWN NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.1,41,391 DURING THE A.Y. 2001-01, RS.1 ,78,924 DURING THE A.Y. 1999-2000 AND RS.99,195 DURING A.Y. 1998-99. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN INCOME FROM PARSURAMPURIA GROUP FRO M THE AGRICULTURAL FIRM AT RS.1,39,867 DURING A.Y. 1995-96, RS.41,499 DURING A.Y. 1999-2000 AND RS.3,000 DURING THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. H E OBSERVED FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE ABOVE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE PAST. FURTHER THE ASSES SEE HAS PRODUCED EVIDENCE OF AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS DURING THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, HE RESTRICTED THE DISA LLOWANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AT RS.20,000. AGGR IEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. 11. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE AGRICULTU RAL ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN DISPUTE. FURTHER THE AGRICULTUR AL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE PAST . WE FIND THE INCOME DECLARED DURING THE YEAR AT RS.1,72,200 IS MORE OR LESS IN COMMENSURATE WITH THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1,41,391 DURING THE A .Y. 2000-01 AND I.T.A. NO. 6243/MUM/04 SHRI HARISH M. AGGARWAL ================= 5 RS.1,78,924 DURING THE A.Y. 1999-2000. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS PREPARED SEPARATE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THIS PU RPOSE. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20,000 FROM AGRICULTURA L INCOME BY THE CIT(A) APPEARS TO BE ON HIGHER SIDE. CONSIDERING THE TOTA LITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED T O PRODUCE CHALLANS IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,000, IN OUR OPINION, WILL BE REASONABLE AND W ILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 2 BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 3 BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER : 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,31,357/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL FOR HO USING PURPOSE. 13. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING TWO FLATS I.E., ONE AT SAKET COMPLEX, THANE AND THE OTHER HOUSE PROPERTY AT MADHUBAN CHS LTD. (MADHUBAN), CHEMBUR. THE ASSESSE E WAS GETTING RENTAL INCOME OF RS.43,200 FROM SAKET COMPLEX, THAN E. THE OTHER HOUSE AT CHEMBUR WAS NOT COMPLETED. THE ELECTRICITY AND WATER SUPPLY WAS YET TO BE GIVEN TO THIS FLAT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO TED THAT THE MADHUBAN FLAT AT CHEMBUR WAS PURCHASED WITH A LOAN OF RS.10 LAKHS FROM ANZ GRINDLAYS BANK. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST OF RS.1,31 ,357 AGAINST THIS MADHUBAN HOUSE PROPERTY. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLA IMED LOSS FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS.98,957. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST OF RS.1,31,357 OUT OF MADHUBAN FLAT U/S. 2 4(1)(VI) OF THE ACT. HE HELD THAT INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL IS ALLOWED O NLY AFTER THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ACQUIRED OR CONSTRUCTED. SINCE THE PROPER TY IS YET TO BE COMPLETED, HE DISALLOWED THE INTEREST OF RS.1,31,35 7 AGAINST THE MADHUBAN PROPERTY. 14. IN APPEAL, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. WHILE DOING SO HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AL READY BEEN GIVEN DEDUCTION FOR FLAT AT SAKET U/S. 24(1) AT RS.10,800 . AS FAR AS MADHUBAN I.T.A. NO. 6243/MUM/04 SHRI HARISH M. AGGARWAL ================= 6 PROPERTY, CHEMBUR IS CONCERNED THE PROPERTY IS YET TO BE COMPLETED. HE OBSERVED THAT THE WORK WAS YET TO BE COMPLETED IN R ESPECT OF ELECTRICITY AND WATER SUPPLY. OCCUPATION WAS NOT PERMITTED BY THE BMC AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ANNUAL VALUE AT NIL. THEREFORE, DEDUCTION U/S. 24(1)(VI) CANNOT BE GIVEN SINCE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY IS YET TO BE COMPLETED. HE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 15. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FOR RS.36,00,000 AND HAS OBTAINED LOAN FROM ANZ GRINDLAYS BANK. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE BUILDING IS READY BUT NO COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS GIVEN. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID BMC CHARGES, ELECTRICITY CHARGES, SOCIETY CHARGES, ETC., AND HAS OCCUPIED THE FLAT. THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE IS ALSO GIVEN. THEREFORE, TH E INTEREST HAS TO BE ALLOWED. 16. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE FACTS AS STATED IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE CIT(A)S ORDER ARE CONTRADICTORY TO THE FACTS STATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE HELD THAT THE OCCUPATION WAS NOT PERMITTED BY THE BMC AND ELECTRICITY WORK WAS INCOMPLETE AND THERE W AS NO WATER SUPPLY, WHEREAS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SU BMITTED THAT HE HAS PAID ELECTRICITY CHARGES, BMC CHARGES, SOCIETY CHAR GES, ETC, AND HAS OCCUPIED THE FLAT. WE THEREFORE, DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DI RECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EV IDENCE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS OCCUPIED THE FLAT AND HAS FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS FOR ALLOWING THE INTEREST U/S. 24(1)(VI). THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 4 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UN DER: THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS.25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWAN CE OF I.T.A. NO. 6243/MUM/04 SHRI HARISH M. AGGARWAL ================= 7 EXPENDITURE EITHER OF PERSONAL NATURE OR IN THE NAT URE OF NON- INCIDENTAL TO BUSINESS OF AGGARWAL ESTATE. 18. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED EXPENDITURE OF RS.25,000 AGAINST THE INC OME OF AGGARWAL ESTATE. WHILE DOING SO HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD SHOWN EARNING OF RENTAL INCOME AND LETTING OUT CHARGES AT RS.6,26 ,510 AND MISCELLANEOUS INCOME OF RS.5990. AFTER CLAIMING THE VARIOUS EXPE NSES THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED NET PROFIT OF RS.23,459. SINCE THE VARIO US EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS, OF FICE EXPENSES, SALARY, TELEPHONE, ETC., ARE BY SELF SIGNED VOUCHERS, THERE FORE, PERSONAL USE OF CONVEYANCE AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES CANNOT BE RULED O UT. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED RS.25,000 ON ESTIMATE BASIS WHICH HAS BE EN UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). 19. WE FIND IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT S UCH EXPENSES WERE NEVER DISALLOWED IN THE PAST OR IN THE SUBSEQU ENT YEARS AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE AUDITED. HOWEVER, THE UNDISPU TED FACT IS THAT THE EXPENSES ARE NOT FULLY SUPPORTED BY PROPER VOUCHERS SINCE MOST OF THE VOUCHERS ARE SELF MADE. IT IS THE SETTLED PROPOSIT ION OF LAW THAT FOR CLAIMING ANY EXPENDITURE AS GENUINE THE ONUS IS ALW AYS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE TO THE SATISFACTION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE BUSINESS. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE ADMITTEDLY MOS T OF THE VOUCHERS RELATING TO CONVEYANCE ARE SELF MADE AND IN ABSENCE OF MAINTENANCE OF ANY LOG BOOK, PERSONAL USE OF TELEPHONE CANNOT BE R ULED OUT. THEREFORE, SOME DISALLOWANCE IS JUSTIFIED. HOWEVER, DISALLOWA NCE OF RS. 25,000 APPEARS TO BE ON HIGHER SIDE. WE, THEREFORE, RESTR ICT SUCH DISALLOWANCE TO RS.10,000. THIS GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDI NGLY PARTLY ALLOWED. 20. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 5 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UN DER: 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.25,500 (30000-4500-255 00) ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE NON-INCIDENT AL TO BUSINESS OF AGGARWAL HABITATS. I.T.A. NO. 6243/MUM/04 SHRI HARISH M. AGGARWAL ================= 8 21. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED RS.25,500 OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES AGAINS T THE INCOME OF AGGARWAL HABITATS ON THE GROUND THAT MOST OF THE VO UCHERS ARE SELF MADE AND PERSONAL USE OF CONVEYANCE AND TELEPHONE COULD NOT BE DENIED. WE FIND THE ABOVE GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 4 BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED T HEREIN, WE HOLD THAT A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,000 OUT OF RS.25,500 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL BE JUST AND REASONABLE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT AC CORDINGLY. THIS GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED. 22. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 15 TH DECEMBER, 2009. SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 15 TH DECEMBER, 2009 COPY TO: (1) THE APPELLANT, (2) THE RESPONDENT, (3) THE CIT(A)-I, THANE, (4) THE CIT-I, THANE, (5) THE DR, D BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI TPRAO