The ACIT, 1(1), Bhopal V. M/s Paris Gift House, Bhopal

ITA 68/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 98949 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R R MEENA
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Unexplained investment; Gift; Business income; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Source of fund; Onus to prove
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

ACIT VS. PARIS GIFT HOUSE ITA NOS. 68 AND 100/IND/2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNA L INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 68/IND/2013 A.Y.2006-07 ACIT 1(1) BHOPAL ::: APPELLANT VS M/S PARIS GIFT HOUSE BHOPAL PAN AAEFP 6180E ::: RESPONDENT ITA NO. 100/IND/2013 A.Y.2006-07 M/S PARIS GIFT HOUSE BHOPAL ::: APPELLANT VS ACIT 1(1) BHOPAL ::: RESPONDENT REVENUE BY SHRI R.R. MEENA ASSESSEE BY NONE DATE OF HEARING 12.8 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 . 9 . 2015 ACIT VS. PARIS GIFT HOUSE ITA NOS. 68 AND 100/IND/2013 2 O R D E R PER SHRI B.C. MEENA, AM BOTH THESE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND TH E ASSESSEE EMANATE FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)- I, BHOPAL, DATED 19.11.2012. 2. ITA NO. 100/IND/2013 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. T HIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 22.5.2013 ON WHICH DATE THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS ACCEPTED AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED. THEREAFTER, TH IS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON SEVERAL DATES BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THIS APP EAL WAS FINALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 12 TH AUGUST, 2015 ON WHICH DATE ALSO THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI R.R. MEENA, LEARNED SENIOR DR WAS PRESEN T FOR THE REVENUE. 3. FROM THE ABOVE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSE, IT SEEMS TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING HER APPEAL. IT ACIT VS. PARIS GIFT HOUSE ITA NOS. 68 AND 100/IND/2013 3 WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION ON THE APPOIN TED DATE. MERE FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQU IRES EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JU DICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: I) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 AND 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. II) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAOHOLKAR V. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER: IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE ACIT VS. PARIS GIFT HOUSE ITA NOS. 68 AND 100/IND/2013 4 PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. III) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE NON-PROSECUTION. 5. IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, IN GROUND NO. 1 THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS,.11,63,046/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES FOR RENOVATION OF SHOP U/S 69 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ACIT VS. PARIS GIFT HOUSE ITA NOS. 68 AND 100/IND/2013 5 DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN PRAS 5.1. TO 5.6 OF ITS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW :- 5.6 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. FROM THE FACTS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN TOTAL INVESTMENTS FOR SHOP RENOVATION AT RS.24,02,168/- IN THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS (A.Y. 2005-06 RS.2,37,131/-; A.Y. 2006-07 RS. 10,79,387/- & A.Y. 2007-08 RS.10,85,650-/-. THE A.O. HAD REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER WHO HAD ESTIMATED THE INVESTMENT IN THE SHOP RENOVATION AT RS.21,97,500/-. THUS, THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN INVESTMENT MORE THAN THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER AND HENCE IN REGARD TO THE QUANTUM OF INVESTMENT, NO ADVERSE VIEW CAN BE TAKEN. HOWEVER, CERTAIN BILLS RELATED TO SHOP RENOVATION WERE IMPOUNDED MARKED AS LPS-3 DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. ON VERIFICATION OF THESE BILLS WITH THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SHOP RENOVATION PREPARED BY THE APPELLANT IT WAS NOTICED THAT AS ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT BILLS OFRS.15,754/- WERE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE APPELLANT. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO NOT ACCOUNTED FOR INVESTMENT OF RS.1,27,372/- CLAIMING THAT THESE WERE ACIT VS. PARIS GIFT HOUSE ITA NOS. 68 AND 100/IND/2013 6 NOT ACTUAL BILLS AND ONLY ESTIMATES BUT THIS EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT TENABLE AS THESE DOCUMENTS ALSO RELATED TO THE MATERIAL UTILIZED FOR RENOVATION. THEREFORE, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.1,43,126/- PERTAINING TO THE BILLS WHICH WERE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR WAS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE SHOP RENOVATION. AS REGARD THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT FOR INVESTMENT IN SHOP RENOVATION, IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE INVESTMENT MADE IN F.Y. 2004-05 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2005-06 OF RS.2,37,131/- WAS SHOWN AS INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT FIRM AND DULY REFLECTED IN THE ASSETS OF THE FIRM. HOWEVER, INVESTMENT MADE IN SHOP RENOVATIONFOR SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. F.YS.2005-06 & 2006-07 THOUGH THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE APPELLANT FIRM BUT THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT WAS DEBITED IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNER SHRI SUJAN SINGH AS HE WAS THE OWNER OF SHOP. ON PERUSAL OF THE IMPREST ACCOUNT/CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF PARTNER SHRI SUJAN SINGH APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF APPELLANT FIRM WHEREIN THE PAYMENTS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHOP RENOVATION WERE DEBITED, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS IN CASH WERE SHOWN TO BE RECEIVED FROM SHRI SUJAN SINGH, PARTNER IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT : ACIT VS. PARIS GIFT HOUSE ITA NOS. 68 AND 100/IND/2013 7 DATE AMOUNT (RS.) 4.7.2005 2,95,000.00 5.8. 2005 1,95,000.00 5.9.2005 1,88,000.00 8.10.2005 1,63,328.49 10.11.2005 50,000.00 TOTAL U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT,91,328.49 REGARDING THE SOURCE OF CASH INTRODUCED IN THE NAME OF SHRI SUJAN SINGH, THE APPELLANT EXPLAINED THAT THE SOURCE OF AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN THE HANDS OF SHRI SUJAN SINGH WAS AS UNDER :- OPENING CASH BALANCE RS.2,55,000/- ACIT VS. PARIS GIFT HOUSE ITA NOS. 68 AND 100/IND/2013 8 AMOUNT RECEIVED IN ADVANCE GIVEN IN PREVIOUS YEAR 1,59,681/- NEW ADVANCE RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR 4,40,000/- CASH RECEIVED FROM JASVINDER KAUR W/O SHRI SUJAN SINGH 60,000/- RS.6,69,681 TOTAL- RS.9,14,681/- AS REGARDS THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM EARLIER YEAR ADVANCES AND THE NEW ADVANCES RECEIVED, THE APPELLANT FURNISHED FOLLOWING SUMMARY :- S.NO. NAME OPENING BALANCE TRANSACTI OS CLOSING BALANCE DEBIT CREDIT 1 AJJU MIYA ABDUL AJIJ 19500 19500 2 ASHISH ARORA 19000 3 ASHISH MAHESHWARI 19500 DR 39000 19500 4 GULSHAN 19500 19500 5 GURCHARAN SINGH 19500 19500 6 HANIF BHAI 18000 18000 7 KANHIYALAL NEW DELHI 18500 18500 ACIT VS. PARIS GIFT HOUSE ITA NOS. 68 AND 100/IND/2013 9 8 KRISHNA KANT TIWARI 19500 19500 9 LAJWANTI LAL NEW DELHI 18500 DR 38000 19500 10 MAHESH ROARA,NEW DELHI 19500 19500 11 MAYA DEVI 16000DR 35000 19000 12 NEWAND MAL NEW DELHI 19500 19500 13 PRAMOD KUMAR DEMBLA 18500 18500 14 RAMESH GOLANI 11181DR 29681 18500 15 ROBAT, BHOPAL 19500 19500 16 SANJAY KUMAR DEMBLA NEW DELHI 19000 DR 38000 19000 17 SHREE CHAND ROARA NEW DELHI 19000DR 38500 19500 18 SITA RAM 19000DR 38000 19000 19 SMT. JYOTI DEMBLA NEW DELHI 19000DR 38500 19500 20 SUNDER SINGH 19500 19500 21 SURENDER 18500DR 38000 19500 22 TARIQ 19000 19000 23 VIJAY 18500 18500 TOTAL 159681DR 599681 440000CR AS MENTIONED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY COGENT AND IMPEACHABLE EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN SATISFACTORILY THE ACIT VS. PARIS GIFT HOUSE ITA NOS. 68 AND 100/IND/2013 10 SOURCES OF ADVANCES RECEIVED BY PROVING IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE APPELLANT HAD ONLY FURNISHED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THESE LENDERS WHICH DID NOT GIVE ANY DETAIL ABOUT THEIR SOURCES OF INCOME AND DETAILS ABOUT THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE A.O. THAT COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE LENDERS WERE ALSO NOT FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT AND EVEN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE LENDERS AS SPECIFICALLY ASKED WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT REGARDING NON-SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION BEFORE THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF DETAILS OF PERSONS FROM WHOM ADVANCES ACIT VS. PARIS GIFT HOUSE ITA NOS. 68 AND 100/IND/2013 11 HAD CLAIMED BE RECEIVED IN CASH THAT DUE TO PAUCITY OF TIME IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO COLLECT PAN AND RETURNS FROM ALL THE PERSONS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE SINCE THE BURDEN OF PROOF WAS UPON THE APPELLANT. FURTHER IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT ALL THE ADVANCES HAD BEEN CLAIMED TO BE RECEIVED IN CASH FOR AN AMOUNT AROUND OF RS. 19,500/- EACH I.E. LESS THAN RS.20,000/-. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITY, THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT OF RECEIVING ADVANCES OF AROUND RS.19,500/- EACH FROM 23 PERSONS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS GENUINE TRANSACTION. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF CASH INTRODUCED IN THE NAME OF ACIT VS. PARIS GIFT HOUSE ITA NOS. 68 AND 100/IND/2013 12 SHRI SUJAN SINGH TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8,91,328/- REMAINED UNEXPLAINED WHICH WAS SHOWN TO BE UTILIZED FOR PAYMENTS MADE TO VARIOUS PARTIES TOWARDS SHOP RENOVATION AND HAS TO BE TREATED INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THUS, THE TOTAL ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE WORKS OUT TOBE RS.891328/- + RS.1,43,126 = RS.10,34,454/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS.10,34,454/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.21,97,500/- MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THUS, THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF RS.11,63,046/- (RS.2197500 RS.1034454). 6. THE LEARNED DR FAILED TO BRING ANYTHING ADVERSE TO THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED ACIT VS. PARIS GIFT HOUSE ITA NOS. 68 AND 100/IND/2013 13 CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 7. IN GROUND NO. 2 THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.2,42,525/- OUT OF RS.7,21,138/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME ESTIMATED BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT. 8. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN PARA 6.4 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER :- 6.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF APPELLANT AND THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. REGARDING THIS ISSUE. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE A.O. HAD POINTED OUT VERY SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ABLE TO REBUT SUCH DEFECTS. THESE DEFECTS ARE DEFINITELY OF THE NATURE ACIT VS. PARIS GIFT HOUSE ITA NOS. 68 AND 100/IND/2013 14 WHICH WARRANTS APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF IT ACT. THEREFORE,THE ACTION OF THE A.O. FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) OF IT ACT IS CONFIRMED. AS REGARDS ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AND APPLICATION OF NP RATE, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN TOTAL SALE OF RS.1,91,44,130/- AND THE A.O. HAD APPLIED NP RATE OF 5% AS AGAINST 1.84% SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT EVEN AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND APPLICATION OF PROVISION OF SEC. 145(3) THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT GET UNFETTERED POWERS TO MAKE ASSESSMENT AT ANY INCOME. THE INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED EITHER BY PREVIOUS RESULTS OR ON THE BASIS OF SOME COMPARABLE CASES AND REFERENCE CAN BE MADE ACIT VS. PARIS GIFT HOUSE ITA NOS. 68 AND 100/IND/2013 15 ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS FOR SUCH PROPOSITION OF LAW :- 1. GANGA PRASAD SHARMA VS. CIT (1981) 132 ITR 87(MP) 2. RAMDAS JUGANI VS. CIT (2006) 288 ITR 356 (MP) 3. SHRI RAM, JHAWAR LAL VS. ITO (2005) 98 TTJ 639(ITAT JODHPUR) THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS ACCORDINGLY DETERMIN ED KEEPING IN VIEW OF RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVEMENTIONED DECISIONS OF HON'BLE COURTS. IN THIS CONNECTION IT MAY BE NOTED THAT IN IMMEDIATE PRECED ING A.Y. 2005-06 THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN NP RATE OF 1.9 1% ON TOTAL SALES OF RS.1,73,61,777/-. THE A.O. HAD AP PLIED 5% NP RATE ON SUCH SALES WHEREAS THE FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 627/2007-08 DATED 02.04.2008 RESTRICTED THE NP RATE AT 2.5%. IN FURTHER APPEAL THE HON'BLE ITAT IN ITA NO. ACIT VS. PARIS GIFT HOUSE ITA NOS. 68 AND 100/IND/2013 16 392/IND/2008 VIDE ORDER DATED 20.4.2010 CONFIRMED THE FINDING OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN RES PECT OF NP RATE. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,91,44,130/- HAD NOT SHOWN VERY SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE AND THEREFORE KEEPING IN VIEW THE PAST HIS TORY OF THE CASE IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO APPL Y NP RATE OF 2.5% AFTER ALLOWING INTEREST AND SALARY TO THE PARTNERS. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO APPL Y NP RATE OF 2.5% ON TOTAL TURNOVER SHOWN. THE NET PROFI T WOULD WORK OUT AT RS.4,78,603/- (2.5% OF RS.1,91,44,130/-_ AS AGAINST RS. 7,21,138/- DETERMINED BY THE A.O. (RS.9,57,206 RS.2,36,068 AFTER ALLOWING INTEREST AND SALARY PAYMENT). THUS, THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.2,42,535/- (RS.7,21,138 ACIT VS. PARIS GIFT HOUSE ITA NOS. 68 AND 100/IND/2013 17 RS.4,78,603) IN THIS GROUND. THE GROUND OF APPEAL I S ACC PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. THE LD. DR FAILED TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF T HE LEARNED CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THIS GROUND O F THE REVENUES APPEAL ALSO. 10. IN GROUND NO. 3 THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE GROUND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,55,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ON ACCOUNT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF CAR. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 7.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND FINDINGS OF THE A.O. IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE CAR WAS PURCHASE FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.4,47,712/- ON 15.11.2003 AND AS ADMITTED BY ACIT VS. PARIS GIFT HOUSE ITA NOS. 68 AND 100/IND/2013 18 THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM SHRI SUJAN SINGH WAS GIVEN TO THE DAUGHTER OF THE PARTNER IN HER MARRIAGE. THUS, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE CAR WAS NOT PURCHASED FOR BUSINESS AND WAS ALSO NOT USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON THE CAR WAS NOT ALLOWABLE TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. IT WAS CLARIFIEDBY THE AR THAT NO INTEREST WAS CHARGED IN THE P&L A/LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE INVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHASE OF THE SAID CAR. THE DETAILS OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED, ON THIS CAR IN DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AS FURNISHED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT ARE AS UNDER :- ACIT VS. PARIS GIFT HOUSE ITA NOS. 68 AND 100/IND/2013 19 CAR PURCHASED ON 15.11.2003 RS.4,47,712 DEPRECIATION CLAIMED AND ALLOWED A.Y. AMOUNT 2004-05 RS.44,771 2005-06 RS.80,588 2006-07 RS.10,103 RS.1,35,462 SINCE THE VEHICLE WAS NOT UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OF THE FIRM, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DISALLOW THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AS MENTIONED ABOVE IN RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. IN A.Y. 2004-05 OF RS.44,771/-; IN A.Y. 2005-06 OF RS.80,588/- & IN A.Y. 2006-07 OF RS.10,103/-. SUBJECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF ABOVE DEPRECIATION, THE ADDITION OF RS.2,55,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. IS DELETED. THUS, THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ACIT VS. PARIS GIFT HOUSE ITA NOS. 68 AND 100/IND/2013 20 11. THE LD. DR FAILED TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THIS GROUND O F THE REVENUES APPEAL ALSO. 12 IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE AND THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON IST SEPTEMBER, 2015 SD SD (D.T. GARASIA) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IST SEPTEMBER, 2015 DN/-