Shri Prashant Manharlal Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 8/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5745 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Permanent establishment

Judgement Text

, MH MHMH MH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD LOZJH IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EGKOHN IZL KN] LOZJH IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EGKOHN IZL KN] LOZJH IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EGKOHN IZL KN] LOZJH IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EGKOHN IZL KN] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.08/AHD/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) PRASHANT MANHARLAL SHAH PROP. PRASHANT AUTO PARTS 4, INDIA ESTATE B/H. RELIEF HOTEL SANAND ROAD, SARKHEJ AHMEDABAD. / VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), AHMEDABAD. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AEAPS 0277 H ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N. DIVATIA, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING 27/06/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30/06/2017 !' / O R D E R PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XVI, AHMEDABAD, DATED 30/10/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09. 2. ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEA LS. I.A THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 ON 30-10-2013 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 BY C1T(A)-XV1, ABAD UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAI M OF EXTRA ITA NO.08/AHD/2 014 PRASANT MANHARLAL SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - WORK AND OTHER EXPENSES AGGREGATING TO RS.10.65 LAK H IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NAT URAL JUSTICE. I.B THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPERLY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO T HE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10.65 LACS. II.A THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF FOLLOWING E XPENSES WHILE COMPUTING LTCG ON SALE OF HOUSE PROPERTY.: (I) STAMP DUTY RS. 42,145 (II) LIFE TIME MAINTENANCE CONTRIBUTION RS. 2,02, 920 (III) EXTRA CIVIL WORKS RS. 5,80,607 (IV) PAINTING EXPENSES RS. 2,09,100 (V) TERMITE EXP. RS. 25,000 (VI) GEB ELEC. CHARGES RS. 40,000 II.B THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE DISALLOW ANCE OF ABOVE SAID EXPENSES OF RS. 10.65 LACS. III.A THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE BY WAY OF BILLS AND PROOF OF PAYMENT OF IMPUGNED EXPENSES. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE AO DURING THE REMAND PROCE EDINGS AND BEFORE CIT(A) IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN COMPLETELY IGNORED. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER:- THE APPELLANT M/S. PRASHANT TRADERS IS A PROPRIETARY CONCERN AND DOING TRADING BUSINESS OF AUTO PARTS. IN COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FR OM TIME TO TIME AND ITA NO.08/AHD/2 014 PRASANT MANHARLAL SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - SUBMITTED NECESSARY STATEMENTS AND SUPPORTING AS RE QUIRED AND ALSO PRODUCED NECESSARY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. BEING DISSATI SFIED WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER. I. THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER AGAINST THE DISALLOW ANCE OF DEDUCTION OF RS.10,65,000/- OF SECTION 54 OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER NOT GRANTED TH E DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES FOR STAMP DUTY RS.42,145/- RS.40,000/- GEB CHARGES RS.2,02,920/- LIFE TIME MAINTENANCE PAID BY CHEQUE NO. 283228 RS.25000/- TE RMITE CHARGES AND RS.7,89,000/- THE AMOUNT OF EXTRA WORK OF PLUMBING-PAINTING AND ADDITIONAL WORK. II. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER ASKED FOR PROOF OF ALL SUCH PAYM ENTS AND SUPPORTING BUT DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCE THE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE IN THE POSSESSION IN THE ASSESSEE, I T WAS MISPLACED. ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE S SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION. 3.2 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APP ELLANT HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- ITA NO.08/AHD/2 014 PRASANT MANHARLAL SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - KINDLY REFER TO THE PERSONAL DISCUSSION IN THE ABO VE MATTER AND THE REMAND REPORT DATED 16-08-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. THE ABOVE APPEAL HAS NOW BEEN FIXED FOR APPEAR ON 2 9-10-2013 AND WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING FURTHER SUBMISSION S IN THE MATTER. THE SUBMISSIONS ARE GIVEN IN THE SAME SERIAL ORDER IN W HICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCUSSED THE POINTS IN RESPECT OF THE EXTRA WORK OF RS.10,65,000/-IN THE REMAND REPOT. 1. REGARDING STAMP DUTY OF RS. 42,145/- THAT WAS PAID IN CASH. THE 50% OF THE STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION FEES, TOTALING TO RS.42,145/- WAS PAID ON 11-03-2008 OUT OF THE CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 50,000/- FROM THE ACCOUNT OF AXIS BANK LTD. BY CHEQUE NO.156887 DTD. 05-03-2008. A CO PY OF THE BANK STATEMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN BEFORE THE ITO 7(1) AHMEDABAD DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, A COPY OF THE SAME HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. THE DISALLOWANCE OF THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN M ADE BY THE A.O. ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO SUFFICI ENT CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT ON THE DA TE OF PAYMENT. THE A.O. IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS STATED T HAT 'ON VERIFICATION OF CASH FLOW AND BANK ACCOUNT STAT EMENT, NO CASH ON HAND WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF PAYMENT'. HOWEVER, THE A.O. HAS NOT MENTION ED THE FIGURE OF THE CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT ON THE DATE OF PAYMENT. . 2. LIFE TIME MAINTENANCE RS. 2,02,9207- DISALLOWED BY THE AO. ACCORDING TO THE A.O. THE AMOUNTS DO NOT MATCH WITH EACH OTHER BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT THE CHEQUE NO. 243228 FOR RS. 2,02,920/- WAS PAID TO THE SOCIETY ON 23-04-2008 WHILE THE CHEQUE AMOUNT WAS FOUND TO BE ONLY RS.2,00,000 /- ACCORDING TO THE A.O. SO THERE WAS NO TALLY IN THE FIGURES OF THE CLAIM AND THE ACTUAL AMOUNT O F THE CHEQUE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE SOCIETY FO R THIS PURPOSE. THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE BY ITA NO.08/AHD/2 014 PRASANT MANHARLAL SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 5 - SAYING THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,920/- WAS PAID IN CASH OVER AND ABOVE THE CHEQUE FOR RS. 2,00,000/-. THIS COULD BE VERIFIED FROM THE CASH BOOK OF THE APPELLA NT FOR THIS YEAR. THE APPELLANT WOULD FURTHER LIKE TO EXPL AIN THE FACTUAL POSITION AS FOLLOWS: 'IN FACT WE HAVE PAID LIFE TIME MAINTENANCE AT THE TIME OF POSSESSION. GENERALLY, IT IS THE PRACTICE OF ALL TH E DEVELOPERS AND CONTRACTORS CHARGING LIFE TIME MAINTENANCE PER SQUARE YARD OR SQUARE FEET AND THEY ARE SAYING THAT THIS WOULD BE MAINTENANCE DEPOSIT. THE REAL MEANING OF THE POSSESSION LETTER WOULD BE - IF THE SAID AMOUNT IS NOT FOUND SUFFICIENT OR UTILIZED DURING T HE FIRST FIVE, TEN OR FIFTEEN YEARS , THEY SHALL CHARGE THE MAINTENANCE IN EQUAL PROPORTION EVERY MONTH. IT IS A FACT THAT DUE TO INFLATION YEAR AFTER YEAR THERE HAS BEEN INCREASE IN THE ELECTRICITY CHARGES AND THE SALARIE S OF THE SECURITY GUARDS AND SWEEPERS HAD TO BE INCREASED FR OM TIME TO TIME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SOCIETIES HAD TO INCUR MORE AND MORE EXPENDITURE YEAR AFTER YEAR AND THE MAINTENANCE DEPOSIT GET FULLY UTILIZED AND THEREFOR E, ONE HAS TO APPRECIATE THE REAL MEANING OF THE CLAUSES I N THE POSSESSION LETTER. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WOUL D NOT BE PROPER TO DISALLOW THE MAINTENANCE DEPOSIT EXPEN SES CLAIMED IN THIS CASE.' 3. EXTRA CIVIL WORK RS.5,80,607/ - DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. AS PER THE REPORT OF THE ITO THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE PERSON(S) FOR VERIFICATION OF THIS EXPE NDITURE AS THE 'ABSTRACT BILLS WERE FOUND TO BE WITHOUT SIG NATURES OF THE PERSONS CONCERNED. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE THOSE PERSONS AND HENCE THE ITO HAS GIVEN ADVERSE REPORT IN THIS BEHALF. HOWEVER, ACCORDING T O THE APPELLANT WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT THE PERSONS COU LD NOT BE TRACED OUT AS ALREADY MORE THAN 5 YEARS HAVE ELA PSED. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT THE AMOUNT OF RS.3 LAKHS WAS PAID BY CHEQUE NO.243208 OF BANK OF INDIA; AND ANOT HER ITA NO.08/AHD/2 014 PRASANT MANHARLAL SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 6 - CHEQUE NO.346654 ON TEXTILE TRADERS BANK A/C OF APPELLANT'S WIFE AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.2,35, 000 AND ODD WAS PAID IN CASH TO THE WORKERS FROM TIME T O TIME. SINCE THE EXTRA CIVIL WORK WAS CARRIED OUT SO ME 5 YEARS AGO , IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONTACT THE PERSONS WHO HAD CARRIED OUT THAT WORK IN THE PAST. THIS BEING GENUI NE EXTRA CIVIL WORK THE EXPENDITURE MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED. 4. PAINTING WORK WITH MATERIAL RS. 2,09 L 100/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN AN ADVERSE REPORT BECAUSE ACCORDING TO HIM THE SIGNATURES AS WELL AS THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS WHO HAD DONE THI S WORK ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PR ODUCE THOSE PERSONS BEFORE THE ITO AS THE WORKERS FOR PAI NTING AND COLORING JOB WERE BROUGHT FROM THE AMBAWADI MARKET AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO TRACE OUT THOSE PE RSONS AFTER THE LAPSE OF MORE THAN 5 YEARS. IT IS A FACT THAT THE LABOURERS OF DIFFERENT SKILLS DO GATHER ON THE ROAD , KNOWN AS THE AMBAWADI CHOWK, EVERY MORNING AND THE PERSON S, WHO ARE IN NEED OF SKILLED LABOUR FOR A PARTICULAR JOB, SELECT THE PERSONS FROM AMONG THOSE WHO HAD GATHERE D THERE ON THAT DAY. THERE IS NO PERMANENT MARKET THE RE. BUT IT IS A FACT THAT THE WORKERS DO GATHER THERE E VERY MORNING FOR 2-3 HOURS AND THOSE, WHO ARE PICKED BY THE NEEDY PERSONS/CONTRACTORS, DO CARRY ON THE JOB AND AS THEY DO NOT HAVE PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENTS, IT IS RA THER IMPOSSIBLE TO LOCATE THOSE PERSONS AFTER THE LAPSE OF YEARS. SECONDLY, THOSE LABOURERS HAVE TO BE PAID REMUNERAT IONS IN CASH AS THEY DO NOT HAVE BANK ACCOUNTS. THERE IS FORCE IN THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME MA Y BE ACCEPTED AND THE EXPENDITURE BE ALLOWED. 5. TERMITE CHARGES RS. 25,000/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SUBMITTED AN ADVERSE REPO RT ON THIS COUNT ALSO BECAUSE THE APPELLANT COULD NOT GIV E HIM THE COMPLETE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS WHO HAD ITA NO.08/AHD/2 014 PRASANT MANHARLAL SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 7 - CARRIED OUT THIS WORK. THE NAME OF ONE NAYAN PANCHA L HAD ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS SUBMISSION DATED 26-07-2013. THIS PERSON HAD CARRIE D OUT THIS JOB. SINCE HE HAD DISCONTINUED HIS BUSINES S, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE PERSON BEFORE THE I TO FOR VERIFICATION. IT IS COMMON PRACTICE IN AHMEDABAD TO GET THE WORK OF TERMITE CONTROL BEFORE OCCUPYING THE NE WLY BUILT HOUSE PROPERTY. THE APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED BE FORE THE ITO A COPY OF THE PAYMENT VOUCHER SUBMITTED WIT H THIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 25,000/- WAS PAID OUT OF CASH ON HAND. 6. GUIARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD CHARGES PAID RS. 40,000/- ACCORDING TO THE ITO, THE APPELLANT IS JOINT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND DESPITE THIS FACT HE HAS CLAIMED FULL AMOUNT OF GEB CHARGE OF RS.60,000/-. HOWEVER THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE COPY OF THE BILL FOR GEB CHAR GES NOR HE COULD PROVE THE PAYMENT OF THAT AMOUNT. ACCO RDING TO THE APPELLANT, THE GEB CHARGES WERE PAID TO THE CONTRACTOR, AS THE CONTRACTORS NORMALLY PAY TO THE GEB ON BEHALF OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY. THE AP PELLANT IS, THEREFORE, NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE THE COP Y OF THAT BILL PAID TO GEB. 7. SCHOOL FEES PAID RS.12,000 /- TO D.C.PATEL COLLEGE. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERIFIED THAT THE FEE S OF RS.12,000/- WERE PAID BY THE APPELLANT BY CHEQUE ON 17- 04-2007 AND HENCE HE HAS SUBMITTED A FAVOURABLE REP ORT IN THIS BEHALF. 3.3 WHILE DECIDING THE MATTER LEARNED CIT(A) HELD T HAT GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1, 2 & 3 ARE ALL REGARDING AN ADDITION O F RS.10,65,000/- MADE BY THE AO UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS BY REDUCING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.54 OF THE IT ACT. ALL THE GROUNDS ARE BEING ITA NO.08/AHD/2 014 PRASANT MANHARLAL SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 8 - INTERCONNECTED TAKEN TOGETHER. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN D ISCUSSED IN PARA-3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO NOTED THAT APPELLANT H AD CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF RS. 33,95,000/- SO AS TO INDIC ATE LTCG OF RS.11,617/- THE AO NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY, WHICH W AS JOINTLY HELD WAS PURCHASED FOR RS.14,20,000/- AND FURTHER WORK CONTR ACT WAS DONE OF RS.32,40,000/- THUS THE ASSESSEE'S SHARE CAME TO RS . 23,30,000/- (32,40,000 + 14,20,000/2). AS AGAINST THIS THE APPE LLANT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.33,95,000/- LEAVING A DIFFERENCE OF RS.10,65,000/-. ON BEING QUERIED THE APPELLANT EXPLAINED TO THE AO THA T SOME EXTRA WORK WAS CARRIED OUT FOR RS.10,65,000/- FOR WHICH THE IM PUGNED BILLS WERE NOT THEN READILY AVAILABLE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDE NCE FROM THE APPELLANT THE AO MADE THE ADDITION. 3.4 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT BECAUSE OF SHIFTING OF THE HOUSE SOM E BILLS ETC COULD NOT BE PRODUCED AND HENCE VIDE AN APPLICATION DTD. 23-0 1-2013, THE APPELLANT REQUESTED FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES COM PRISING BILLS ETC OF THE IMPUGNED EXPENSES OF RS.10,65,000/- AS WELL AS IN RESPECT OF AN ADDITION OF RS.12,000/- MADE BY THE AO U/S. 80C. TH E MATTER WAS REMANDED TO THE AO FOR COMMENTS ON ADMISSIBILITY ON ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND ON THE JUSTIFICATION OF EVIDENCES PRO DUCED. IN COMPLIANCE THEREOF REMAND REPORT WAS RECEIVED ON DT. 16-08-201 3. ITA NO.08/AHD/2 014 PRASANT MANHARLAL SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 9 - 3.5 LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER STATED THAT HE HAS CAREF ULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE ARGUMENTS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF ADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46 A IS CONCERNED, IT IS SEEN THAT THE SAME CAN BE ADMITTED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE PROVIDED THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO FILE THE SAME BEFORE THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND BEFORE ADMISSI ON OF SUCH EVIDENCES, THE A O IS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF OFFER ING HIS COMMENTS ON ADMISSIBILITY THEREOF. IN THE REMAND REPORT MENTION ED SUPRA, IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT OFFERED ANY COMMENTS OBJECTING TO ADMISSION OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. PERUSAL OF APPELLANT S REQUEST INDICATES THAT THE IMPUGNED EVIDENCES COULD NOT BE PRODUCED T O THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF SHIFTING OF A HOUSE. THE REASON GIVEN BY THE APP ELLANT APPEARS TO BE JUSTIFIED. CONSEQUENTLY, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT T HE AO HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A DISCUSSED SUPRA AND REASON OF THE APPELLANT ARE APPARENTLY JUSTIFIED THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE ADMITTED UNDER RULE 46A. 4. LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBM ISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE ARGUMENTS TAKEN BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. IT IS A SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT AN EXPENDITURE IS TO BE ALLOWED IF IT IS SUPPORTED BY BOTH REQUISITE BILL AND MODE OF PAYMEN T. IN CASE IN CASH IT IS TO BE SUPPORTED BY CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK AND I N CASE BY CHEQUE, BY CHEQUE ENTRIES. THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE A PPELLANT IN THIS CASE ITA NO.08/AHD/2 014 PRASANT MANHARLAL SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 10 - EVEN THOUGH OPPORTUNITY WAS ALLOWED TO PRODUCE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCES. THE ARGUMENT OF APPELLANT THAT EXPENSES ARE CUSTOMA RY IN NATURE CANNOT BE ALLOWED UNLESS SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND VALID PROO F OF PAYMENT AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMP UGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND WE HAVE HEARD T HE LEARNED AR AND DR BOTH. LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A), WHEREAS IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FAILED TO PR ODUCE ANY BILLS AND DETAILS WITH REGARD TO SO CALLED EXPENDITURE BUT AS SESSEE HAS PAID A SUM OF RS.42,145/- ON STAMP DUTY ON 11/03/2008 OUT OF C ASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS.50,000/- FROM THE ACCOUNT OF AXIS BANK LTD. BY C HEQUE NO.156887 DT. 05/03/2008. A COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT HAS AL READY BEEN BEFORE THE ITO, AHMEDABAD DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, A COPY OF THE SAME HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK ENCLO SED HEREWITH FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACT, WE ALLOW RS.42,145/- AND REST OF THE EXPENDITURE ARE NOT ALLOWED AS ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY SUPPORT FOR THE SO CALLED EXPENSES. AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET ASSESSEES INCOME IS RS.1 LAKH PER YEAR. A PE RSON WHO IS HAVING SUCH A LOW INCOME, CANNOT SPEND THIS MUCH OF AMOUNT . THEREFORE WE PARTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL. ITA NO.08/AHD/2 014 PRASANT MANHARLAL SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 11 - 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30/06/2017 SD/- SD/- IZNHI DQEKJ IZNHI DQEKJ IZNHI DQEKJ IZNHI DQEKJ DSFM;K DSFM;K DSFM;K DSFM;K EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LNL; L; L; L; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/06/2017 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ! '! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. %&' ( / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( () / THE CIT(A)- 5. +, - ..&' , &' , 01! % ! / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. - 23 4 / GUARD FILE. # $ / BY ORDER, + . //TRUE COPY// %/$ '( ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD