Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow V. Shri Mazhar Hussain, Lucknow

ITA 844/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 84423714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J J MEHROTRA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.844/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 SHRI MAZHAR HUSSAIN, 2/182, VISHWAS KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW PAN AAOPH 0611 A VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-VI, LUCKNOW CO NO.42/LKW/2014 (IN ITA NO.844/LKW/2014) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-VI, LUCKNOW VS SHRI MAZHAR HUSSAIN, 2/182, VISHWAS KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW PAN AAOPH 0611 A RESPONDENT APPELLANT SHRI AMIT NIGAM, DR APPELLANT BY SHRI J.J. MEHROTRA, CA RESPONDENT BY 16 /0 9 /2015 DATE OF HEARING 07 / 10 /2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CO IS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THESE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, LUCKNO W DATED 22.08.2014 FOR AY 2011- 12. 2 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE . THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), L UCKNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN ALLOWING THE CLA IM OF PROFESSIONAL CHARGES OF RS.6 LACS, EVEN WHEN THE AS SESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE CONFIRMATION OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM PROFESSIONAL CHARGES WERE PAID. 3. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIN D THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSER VATION ON PAGE 20 OF HIS ORDER:- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FINDING GIVEN BY A.O. IN A SSESSMENT ORDER AND REMAND REPORT, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT AND COMMENTS ON REMAND REPORT FILED DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AN D I FIND THAT THE EXPENSES OF RS. 6.00,000/- WAS INCURRED ON PROFESSI ONAL CHARGES BY THE APPELLANT PAID TO M/S NEURO SURGERY CLINIC IN LIEU OF SERVICES RENDERED TO APPELLANT. THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY APPELLANT AR E INCIDENTAL TO HIS MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANCY AND SAME ARC ALLOW ABLE EXPENSES. THE PAYMENT STATED TO BE PAID OF RS.2,00,000/- THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON AND RS.4,00,000/- SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING LIABILITY WHICH WAS PAID IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE PAYMENTS WERE DULY REFLECTED I N THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF APPELLANT AND THE RECIPIENT M/S. NEURO SURGERY CLINIC HAS DULY SHOWN THE RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL CHARGES FROM APPELLANT IN ITS ITR. KEE PING IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS I HOLD THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIS ALLOWING THE ALLOWABLE PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD OF CONSULTANCY CHARGES AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS. 6,00,000/- IS LIAB LE TO BE DELETED. THUS THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS. 6,00,000/-. 5. FROM THE ABOVE PARA, FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A ), IT IS SEEN THAT HE HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT OUT OF THIS AMOUNT OF RS.6.00 LAKH PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S NEURO SURGERY CLINIC IN LIEU OF SER VICES RENDERED TO THE ASSESSEE, 3 THE PAYMENT OF RS.2.00 LAKH WAS MADE THROUGH ACCOUN T PAYEE CHEQUE AND RS.4.00 LAKH WAS SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING LIABILITY, WHICH WAS PAID IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE RECIPIENT M/S NEURO S URGERY CLINIC HAS DULY SHOWN THE RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL CHARGES FROM THE ASSESSEE IN ITS INCOME TAX RETURN. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT THESE EXPE NSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE INCIDENTAL TO HIS MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANCY AND SAME ARE ALLOWABLE EXPENSES. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THESE FI NDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 IS REJECTED. 6. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER:- 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), L UCKNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN ALLOWING THE CLA IM OF MEDICAL PATHOLOGY EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.2.50 LACS IGNORI NG THE FACTS THAT IT IS ALWAYS THE PATIENT WHO BEAR THE PATHOLOG Y CHARGES & NOT THE DOCTOR HIMSELF. 7. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIN D THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATION ON PA GE 21 OF HIS ORDER:- ON EXAMINATION OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT AND COMMENTS ON REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE APPELLANT DURING APPELLA TE PROCEEDINGS AND FINDING GIVEN BY THE A.O. IN ASSESSMENT ORDER, AND I FIND THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,5 0,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES OF MEDIEAL PATHOLOGY CLINIC EXPENSES. THESE EXPENSES WERE INCIDENTAL TO APPELLANT PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY AND A RE ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS/ PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES. MOREOVER THE PAYMENTS WERE M ADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THE RECIPIENT M/S. MEDICAL PATH OLOGY CLINIC HAS DULY DISCLOSED THE RECEIPTS OF THE CHARGES OF RS. 2,00,0 00/- IN ITS ITR. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I HOLD THAT THE A.O. WAS NO T JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE 4 DISALLOWANCES OF RS.2,50,000/- UNDER THE HEAD OF ME DICAL PATHOLOGY EXPENSES AND SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/. THUS THE APPELLANT G ETS RELIEF OF RS. 2,50,000/-. 9. FROM THE ABOVE PARA REPRODUCED FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), IT IS SEEN THAT REGARDING THIS EXPENDITURE ALSO, CATEGORICAL FINDIN GS WERE GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE INCIDENTAL TO ASSESSEES PROFESS IONAL ACTIVITIES AND ARE ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND PAYMENTS WERE MADE THRO UGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THE RECIPIENT M/S MEDICAL PATHOLOGY CLINIC HAS DULY DIS CLOSED THE RECEIPTS OF THIS AMOUNT IN ITS INCOME TAX RETURN. SINCE LD. DR OF THE REVEN UE COULD NOT CONTROVERT ANY OF THESE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A), WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.2 IS ALSO REJECTED. 10. GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER:- 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LUC KNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS & MA INTENANCE AT RS.1,84,720/-, IGNORING THE FACTS THAT NO VOUCHERS FOR PURCHASE & MAINTENANCE OF SANITARY INSTALLATION WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATI ON AT PAGE 21 OF HIS ORDER:- CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT A ND COMMENTS ON REMAND REPORT, I FIND THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED AR E INCIDENTAL TO HIS PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY. MOREOVER THESE EXPENSES WERE SUPPORTED BY PROPER BILLS & VOUCHERS AND PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH BAN K ACCOUNT. THE A.O. DID NOT RAISE ANY DOUBT IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES INCURRED AND PAYMENT 5 THEREOF. SINCE THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE OF BUILDING WHICH WAS USED BY APPELLANT FOR HIS MED ICAL PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY. THEREFORE, THE EXPENSES INCURRED OF RS. 1 ,84,720/- CANNOT BE SAID NON PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES INCURRED OR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I HO LD THAT AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,84,720 /- AND SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDI TION OF RS.1,84,720/-. THUS THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.1,84,720/-. 13. FROM THE ABOVE PARA REPRODUCED FROM THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(A) ALSO, IT IS SEEN THAT FOR THIS EXPENSES ALSO, SIMILAR FINDINGS ARE G IVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THESE ARE PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES DULY SUPPORTED BY PROPER BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH BANK ACCOUNT. HE HAS ALS O GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS AND MA INTENANCE OF BUILDING, WHICH WAS USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS MEDICAL PROFESSION AL ACTIVITIES. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO PARTICULARLY WHEN THE LD. DR OF THE REVENUE COULD N OT CONTROVERT ANY OF THESE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 3 IS ALSO REJECTED. 14. GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER:- 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LUC KNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION @ 10% FROM 25% OF THE VEHICLE RUNNING EXPENSES, CAR INSUR ANCE AND DEPRECIATION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE EVEN W HEN THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINITY OF HIS CLAIM . 15. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT 20% DISALLOWANCE OUT OF VEHICLE EXPENSES WAS MADE BY THE AO ON ADHOC BAS IS, BUT THIS FACT IS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE AND HIS SON HAD OWNED TWO VEHICLES IN THEIR OWN NAMES AND THE ASSESSEE DENIED USING OFFICIAL CA RS FOR PERSONAL USE. THIS FACT IS 6 ALSO NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF NON MAINTENANCE OF LOG BOOK OF VEHICLE. UNDER THESE FACTS, LD. CIT(A) HAS REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF VEHICLE EXPENSE S FROM 20% MADE BY THE AO TO 10%. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE F IND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, GROUND NO.4 IS ALSO REJECTED. 17. GROUND NO.5 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER: - 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LUC KNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE AD DITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL INCOME OF RS.29,26,650/- RE LAYING ON SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE MADE BEFORE HIM AND WITH OUT GIVING ANY FINDING. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE ITI'S FACTUAL ENQUIRY REPORT REGARDING PRIVATE PRACTICE OF ASSESSEE BEING DONE FROM RESIDENCE. 18. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 19. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATION ON PA GE 19 OF HIS ORDER :- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF APP ELLANT, COMMENTS ON REMAND REPORT AND FINDING GIVEN IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AND REMAND REPORT I FIND MUCH FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF APPELLANT THAT T HE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PRIV ATE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT DURING THE ASSES SMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE A.O. DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND EVEN IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS WHICH CO ULD PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT PRIVATE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL CONS ULTANCY IN LIEU OF PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. OF RS. 43,80,000/-. I FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS TAKEN THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS WITHOU T CONDUCTING THE NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AND BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON REC ORD TO JUSTIFY THE HUGE UNDISCLOSED PROFESSIONALS RECEIPTS OF RS.43,80,000/ -. AS EVIDENT FROM THE RETURN INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT THAT HE HAD RE CEIVED PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL RECEIPTS FROM SAHARA HOSPITAL AND DISCLOS ED NET PROFESSIONAL INCOME AT RS.1,28,81,200/-. THE AO DID NOT BRING AN Y MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH COULD PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS VIOLATED T HE TERMS & CONDITION OF 7 PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL SERVICES MADE WITH SAHARA HOSPITAL IN RESPECT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY HIM IN LIEU OF HU GE PROFESSION RECEIPTS. THE INSPECTORS REPORT DOES NOT SPEAK ABOUT THE ANY PRIVATE PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE DONE BY APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE APPELLANT EARNED INCOME FROM ANY CONSULTANC Y/ PROFESSIONAL CHARGES IN LIEU OF PRIVATE PRACTICE OTHER THAN SERV ICES RENDERED BY APPELLANT TO SAHARA HOSPITAL AS PER TERMS & CONDITI ONS MENTIONED IN AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF A PPELLANT AND ACCORDINGLY FOUND NOT DISCLOSED IN HIS ITR. KEEPING IN VIEW OF ABOVE OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I HOLD THAT THE PROFESSIONAL PRIVATE MEDICAL CONSULTANCY ESTIMATED BY A.O. OF RS.43,80,000(GROSS) AND RS. 29,26,650/- NET AFTER ALLOWING EXPENSES AT RS.14,53,350/-, WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND J USTIFICATION. THE: ADDITION OF RS.29,26.650/- MADE BY A.O. UNDER THIS HEAD IS CONSIDERED UNJUSTIFIED AND SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. THE A .O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,26,650/-. THUS THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS. 29,26,650/-. 20. FROM THE ABOVE PARAS, WE FIND THAT CATEGORICAL FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE AO DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL O N RECORD, WHICH COULD PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE TERMS AND CONDITION O F PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES CONTRACT MADE WITH SAHARA HOSPITAL FROM WH ICH THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED NET PROFESSIONAL INCOME AT RS.1,28,81,200/-. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE AO HAS TAKEN THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPT WITHOUT CONDUCTI NG THE NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AND WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE HUGE UNDISCLOSED PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS OF RS.43,80,000/-. BASED ON THESE FINDINGS , LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE NET INCOME OF RS.29,26,650/- OUT OF PROFESSIONAL RECEIP T ALLEGED BY THE AO OF RS.43.80 LAKH BY HOLDING THAT THIS ADDITION IS WITHOUT ANY B ASIS AND THEREFORE, NOT JUSTIFIED. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT ANY OF T HESE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) AND COULD NOT POINT OUT THAT ANY MATERIAL HAVE BEEN BRO UGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO IN SUPPORT OF THIS ALLEGATION THAT THERE WAS UNDISCLOS ED PERSONAL RECEIPT OF RS.43.80 LAKH. HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO.5 IS ALSO REJECTED. 8 21. GROUND NO.6 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER:- 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LUC KNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.1,00,000/- MADE TREATING THE INCOME FROM AGRICUL TURE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSES SEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF HOLDING OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND EVIDENCE REGARDING SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. 22. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 23. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A), ON THIS BASIS THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS OWNED AGRICULTURAL LAND APPROX 10 BIGHAS IRRIGATED ON WHICH AGRICULTUR AL ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OUT THROUGH AGRICULTURAL LABOURS. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN EARLIER AND LATER YEARS AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO WITHOUT TAKING ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE. LD. CIT(A) HA S ALSO REFERRED TO TRIBUNALS ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DR. CHANDRA GUPTA VS. ACIT, IN ITA NO.268/LKW/2011 DATED 25.06.2014. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, WE DO NO T FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. ACC ORDINGLY, GROUND NO.6 IS ALSO REJECTED. 24. GROUND NO.7 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER:- 7. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LUCK NOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.55,396/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF ELEC TRICITY EXPENSES IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY COGENT EVIDENCE EITHER BEFORE CIT(A) OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. 25. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 9 26. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT CLEAR FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) ON PAGE 22 OF HIS ORDER THAT TH E AO MADE THIS ADDITION AT THE RATE OF 50% OF EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF ELECTRICAL CH ARGES WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD, WHICH COULD PROVE THAT THE ELEC TRICAL EXPENSES DEBITED AND CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BOOKS INCLUDED THE E LECTRICAL EXPENSES OF ASSESSEES RESIDENCE. AT AGAINST THIS, IT IS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT AS PER ASSESSEE, TWO ELECTRIC METERS ARE INSTALLED SEPARATELY AT HIS RES IDENCE. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO BECAUSE WHEN SEPARATE ELECTRIC METERS ARE INSTALLED AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ELECTRIC FROM OFFI CIAL METER WAS USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE WITHOUT BRINGING ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RE CORD. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.7 IS ALSO REJECTED. 27. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. 28. NOW WE TAKE UP CO OF THE ASSESSEE. 29. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CO AR E AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION OF RS, 29,26,650/- AS THE GROUND NO0 5 TAKEN BY THE DEPART MENT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT IN AS MUCH AS THE ID. CIT(A) H AS DULY DISCUSSED THE ADDITION IN THE APPELLATE ORDER AND GIVEN FINDI NG THEREON. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.L,00,000/- AS THE GROUND NO. 6 TAKEN BY THE DEP ARTMENT IS ALSO FACTUALLY INCORRECT IN AS MUCH AS EVIDENCE OF HOLDI NG OF AGRICULTURE LAND IN FORM OF KHASRA, KHATAUNI OF THE AGRICULTUR E LAND WAS DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE C OURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. THAT THE ID. CIT(A) IS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELET ING AN ADDITION OF RS,55,396/- ON ACCOUNT OF 50% OF ELECTRICITY EXPEN SES DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY CONFRONTATION TO THE RESPONDENT, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT. 10 4. THAT THE ID. CIT(A) IS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETI NG THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD, MERELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECT URES. 5. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ID. CIT(A) DESER VES TO BE UPHELD. 30. WE FIND THAT ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN THE CO ARE MERELY IN THE SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THREE ISS UES AND WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, ALL THESE THREE ISSUES ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY ON AL L THESE THREE ISSUES. HENCE, THE CO OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTOUS. IN THE RE SULT, CO IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 31. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS CO OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (A.K . GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED: 07/10/2015 AKS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGI STRAR