SHRI HARISH CHAND JAGWAYAN, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 850/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91863 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 45 year(s) 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-1970
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEENA JEPH JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 850/JP/2011 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI HARISH CHAND JAGWAYAN F-79A, ROAD NO. 6C, VKIA ,JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ACIT CIRCLE- 4 JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AANPJ 9220 G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJESH GUPTA, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :SMT. NEENA JEPH, JCIT LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 12/05/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 /06/2015 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) II, JAIPUR DATED 12-07-2011 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2007-08 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CONCISE GROUNDS AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FA CTS IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO OF SALARY AND BO NUS TO THE EXTENT OF 15% PAID TO SMT. SWEETY JAGWAYAN AND FURT HER IN ENHANCING IT TO 100% OF SALARY AND BONUS WITHOUT TA KING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT HER SALARY AND BONUS ARE VERY R EASONABLE LOOKING TO HER WORK, RESPONSIBILITY AND PERFORMANCE AND NO OPPORTUNITY IS ALLOWED BEFORE MAKING ENHANCEMENT. ITA NO. 850/JP/2011 SHRI HARISH CHAND JANGWAYAN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4 , J AIPUR 2 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO OF WHOLE OF SALA RY AND BONUS FOR RS. 1,74,000/- PAID TO SHRI UTKARSH JAGWAYAN WI THOUT CONSIDERING NEW FACTS OF THE YEAR. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN CONFIRMING 15% DISALLOWANCE OUT OF 20% ALLOWANCE MA DE BY AO FOR VEHICLE RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSE, CONVEY ANCE EXPENSES, SCOOTER EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION ON VEHI CLE ONLY AS PER ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION WITHOUT ANY POSITIVE FIN DING. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN CONFIRMING 15% OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF 20% DISALLOWA NCE MADE BY AO OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION OF TE LEPHONE INSTRUMENT ONLY AS PER ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION W ITHOUT ANY POSITIVE FINDING, IGNORING THE FACTS MENTIONED IN A SSESSEE'S REPLY. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING 15% DISALLOWANCE OUT OF 20% DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO ON DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLE AND TELEPHONE. 2.1 BRIEF FACTS ARE - THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED PAYMENT OF SALARY AND BONUS TO SMT. SWEETY JAGWAYAN I.E. SONS WIFE AND SHRI IS HU JAGWAYAN, ELDER SON, BEING RELATED PERSON SPECIFIED IN TERMS OF SE CTION 40(2)(B) OF THE ACT, LD. AO DISALLOWED 15% OF SUCH PAYMENTS IN CASE OF SMT. SWEETY AND 50% IN CASE OF SON HOLDING THE PAYMENTS TO BE EXCES SIVE AND UNREASONABLE. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW AS TO SHRI UTK ARSH JAGWAYAN, SECOND SON OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS REGULAR STUD ENT OF B.COM (SECOND YEAR) HAVING NO PAST ADEQUATE EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLE DGE OF THE BUSINESS ITA NO. 850/JP/2011 SHRI HARISH CHAND JANGWAYAN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4 , J AIPUR 3 AND HE COULD NOT DEVOTE MORE TIME IN THE BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE 15% DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE AS EXCESSIVE. 2.2 APROPOS SMT. SWEETY JAGWAYAN, DAUGHTER-IN-LAW O F THE ASSESSEE WAS A COMMERCE GRADUATE CLAIMING TO BE LOOKING AFTE R THE ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. SHE WAS GIVEN SALARY OF RS. 55,000/- AND RS. BONUS OF RS. 11,000/- DURING THE Y EAR. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT HER SALARY AND DISALLOWANCE WERE DISALLOWED BY 50% BY THE AO . 2.3 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL CONTENDING THAT BOTH OF THEM WERE WORKING AND RENDERING THE ACTUAL SERVI CES FOR THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS. SON WAS IN-CHARGE OF PRODUCTION OF THE FA CTORY AND WAS LOOKING AFTER THE QUALITY OF PRODUCTION AND PLANT PERFORMAN CE AND SWEETY WAS LOOKING AFTER ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT AND ADMINISTRATIO N. THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION WERE MADE THROUGH CHEQUES ON REGULAR BASIS . AFTER SOMETIME, THE SON HAS ESTABLISHED HIS OWN FACTORY WHICH WAS E ARNING GOOD PROFITS. IT SHOWS THAT HE WAS SKILLED AND POSSESSED GOOD EXPERI ENCE ACQUIRED WHILE MANAGING ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS. THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ISHU JAGWAYAN WAS RECORDED WHO CONFIRMED THE RENDERING OF SERVICES AN D RECEIVING THE PAYMENT OF SALARY AND BONUS BY CHEQUES IN THE CASE OF SMT. SWEETY JAGWAYAN THE DISALLOWANCES WERE ENHANCED TO ACQUI RE SALARY AND BONUS BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS ; ITA NO. 850/JP/2011 SHRI HARISH CHAND JANGWAYAN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4 , J AIPUR 4 3.2. AS FAR AS SALARY TO SMT. SWEETY JAGWAYAN IS CONCERNED, THE APPELLANT HAS MERELY SUBMITTED A GENERAL EXPLANATION THAT SHE WAS A COMMERCE GRADUAT E AND WAS LOOKING AFTER ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE OF RENDERING ACTUAL SERVICES HAS BEEN FILED. FURTHER, LATE ON SH E HAS ALLEGEDLY LEFT THE SERVICES OF THE APPELLANT AND JO INED THE BUSINESS OF HER HUSBAND. THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY APPOINTMENT LET TER IN HER NAME. THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT AND NATURE OF WORK HAVE NOT BEEN SPECIFIED BY THE APPELLANT. THE FACT THAT SHE WAS LOOKING AFTER FINANCIAL MANAGEMEN T WITHOUT AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE WILL NOT ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM SALARY IN THE NAME OF A HOUSEWIF E. EVEN OTHERWISE DOING B.COM JUST MEANS THAT SHE IS EDUCATED BUT IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER SHE IS PROFESSIONALLY COMPETENT TO DO THE JOB ENTRUSTED TO HER I.E. ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT. THE APPELLANT WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE SATISFACTORY EVIDEN CE TO SHOW THAT SMT. SWEETY JAGWAYAN BEING A HOUSEWIFE HAD RENDERED ACTUAL SERVICES COMMENSURATE TO HER HI GH SALARY. IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO WHAT HER RESPONSIBILITY AND IF THAT IS NOT KNOWN, HOW HER PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS THEREOF COULD BE EVALUATED. 3.3 IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED T O SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE AS REGARDS THE RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE BY SMT. SWEETY JAGWAYAN. I AM THEREFORE, CONSTRAINED TO DISALLOW SALARY AND BONUS OF RS. 66,000/- PAID TO HER SINCE SAME IS IN THE NATURE OF AN EXPENDITURE FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES. I, THEREFORE , DIRECT THE AO TO ENHANCE THE ADDITION TO RS. 66,000 /- INSTEAD OF RS. 9900/- MADE BY HIM. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND ENHANCED. SINCE THE TOTAL INCOME AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE PRESENT APPELLATE ORDER DOES NOT EXCEED THE ASSESSED INCOME, NOTICE F OR ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME IS NOT NECESSARY. ITA NO. 850/JP/2011 SHRI HARISH CHAND JANGWAYAN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4 , J AIPUR 5 2.4 THE LD. CIT(A) RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW S:- (I) BALLY JUTE CO. LTD. VS. CIT (158 ITR 736), KOL. (II) BIRLA JUTE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. CIT , 128 ITR 23 4 2.5 APROPOS SHRI UTKARSH JAGWAYAN, THE LD. CIT(A) R EPRODUCED THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS AS UNDER:- 4. IN THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,74,400/- BEING DISALLOWANCE OF WHOLE OF THE SALARY OF RS. 1,45,000 /- AND BONUS OF RS. 29,400/- PAID TO SHRI UTKARSH JAGWAYAN DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. BEFORE ME, THE COUNSE L OF THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT THE AO HAD ERRED IN LAW A ND IN FACTS IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF WHOLE OF THE SALARY AND BONUS FOR RS. 1,74,000/- PAID TO SHRI UTKARSH JAGWA YAN FOLLOWING JUDGMENT OF MY PREDECESSOR IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT SHRI UTKARSH JAGWAYAN HAS FULLY DEVOTED IN ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS A FTER COMPLETION OF HIS STUDIES AND HE ATTENDED ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS AND OFFERED SUITABLE COPIES OF REPLIES OF THE AO AND HIS STATEMENT WAS NOT RECORD EVEN THROUGH A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE OFFERED FOR THE SAME. SHRI UTKARSH JAGWAYA N, SON OF THE ASSESSEE WAS LOOKING AFTER GENERAL ADMINISTRATI ON AND PERFORMANCE OF LABOUR/ STAFF. THE SALARY OF RS. 10, 000/- PER MONTH FOR PART OF THE YEAR AND RS. 15,000/- PER MON TH THEREAFTER WAS ALLOWED TO HIM. IN ADDITION, BONUS O F RS. 29,400/- WAS ALSO BEING TO HIM. THE PAYMENTS WEE MA DE THROUGH CHEQUES ON REGULAR BASIS. NOW A DAYS, HE WA S FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAY TO DAY WORKING IN THE ASSESSEE' S FACTORY. SHRI UTKARSH JAGWAYAN WAS A PART TIME EMPLOYEE OF T HE ASSESSEE DURING EARLIER TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS. HE WA S A REGULAR STUDENT OF B.COM (2 ND YEAR) AND B.COM (3 RD YEAR) DURING THE PERIOD COVERED UNDER ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5-06 AND 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY. HE WAS ATTENDING ASSESSEE 'S OFFICE ITA NO. 850/JP/2011 SHRI HARISH CHAND JANGWAYAN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4 , J AIPUR 6 BETWEEN 2.00PM TO 8.00 PM REGULARLY ON THOSE YEARS. HIS SALARY WAS DISALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF MISCONCEPTION THAT HE WAS NOT WORKING AT ALL AND HE DID NOT HAVE EXPERIEN CE OR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ASSESSEE'S WORKING. IN PRIVATE SECT OR SALARY IS DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF RESPONSIBILITY, PERFO RMANCE AND RESULTS. THEREFORE, SALARY PAYMENTS WERE VERY REASO NABLE AND COULD NOT BE COMPARED WITH EMOLUMENTS OF OTHER IRRESPONSIBLE EMPLOYEES. THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX AP PELLATE TRIBUNAL VIDE THEIR JUDGEMENT DATED 10-09-2010 IN I TA NO. 1654/JP/2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 RESTORED B ACK THE MATTER OF DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY OF SHRI UTKARSH JA GWAYAN TO THE AO FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH. IT WAS PRAYED T O DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 2.6 THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT :- (I) 4.1. SHRI UTKARSH WAS STUDYING IN SECOND YEAR B.COM AND THAT TOO AS A REGULAR BASIS BY JOINI NG THE COLLEGE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO WORK ON FULL TIME BA SIS UNLESS IT IS PROVED WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. DURING THE COUR SE OF STATEMENT RECORDED AS WELL AS IN ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS BESIDES THE STATEMENT, NO EVIDENCE COULD BE GIVEN T HAT WHETHER GENUINELY HE WAS SERVING THE BUSINESS OF AP PELLANT PARTICULARLY WHEN HIS ELDER BROTHER AS WELL AS OTHE R EMPLOYEES WERE GIVEN SALARY WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION. (II) 4.2. SHRI UTKARSH JAGWAYAN HAD COMPLETED HIS GRADUATION AND THEREFORE, SALARY AND BONUS PAID TO HIM COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS C ONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SHRI UT KARSH JAGWAYAN WAS RENDERING ANY SERVICE TO THE APPELLANT . A PERSON WITH B.COM. DEGREE IS NOT PROFESSIONALLY COM PETENT TO LOOK AFTER OVERALL MANAGEMENT OR LABOUR RELATION S. THIS KIND OF JOB CAN BE LOOKED AFTER ONLY BY A PROFESSIO NAL HOLDING MBA DEGREE OR A PERSON HAVING REQUISITE EXPERIENCE. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THIS KIND OF EXPLANA TION THAT SHRI UTKARSH JAGWAYAN WAS LOOKING AFTER THE MANAGEM ENT ITA NO. 850/JP/2011 SHRI HARISH CHAND JANGWAYAN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4 , J AIPUR 7 AND PERFORMANCE OF LABOUR, IS TOTALLY PREPOSTEROUS AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. FURTHER HE WAS PAID SALARY OF R S. 1,74,000/- WHICH IS QUITE SUBSTANTIAL AS COMPARED T O HIS EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS. EVEN IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, HE COULD NOT REPLY SATISFACTORY TO THE VARIOUS QUER IES PUT TO HIM BY THE AO. THE COUNSEL OF APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT SALES OF THE ASSESSEE HAD INCREASED FROM RS. 2.55 C RORES TO RS. 12.24 CRORES DUE TO THE EFFORTS MADE BY SHRI UT KARSH JAGWAYAN. I DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO COMMENT UPON THIS ASPECT SINCE IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SELF SE RVING STATEMENT WHICH REMAINS UNSUBSTANTIATED. THE COUNSE L OF THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY APPOINTMENT LE TTER IN HIS NAME. THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT AND NATURE OF WORK HA VE NOT BEEN SPECIFIED BY THE APPELLANT. THE FACT THAT HE W AS LOOKING AFTER GENERAL MANAGEMENT WITHOUT AN IOTA OF EVIDENC E WILL NOT ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM SALARY IN THE NAM E OF HIS SON. (III) 4.3 FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF MY PREDECESSOR FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 & ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 AND THE DECISION OF KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF B IRLA JUTE MANUFACTURING. CO. LTD. (SUPRA), I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,74,000/- MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 2.7 APROPOS 20% DISALLOWANCE OUT OF VEHICLE EXPENSE S, TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION, THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTE D IT TO 15% FOLLOWING THE ITAT JUDGMENT IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2006-07. 2.8 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET CONTENDS THAT WHILE MAKING ENHANCEMENT IN THE CASE OF SMT. SWEETY JAGWA YAN, NO ENHANCEMENT NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE NOR A NY OPPORTUNITY WAS ITA NO. 850/JP/2011 SHRI HARISH CHAND JANGWAYAN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4 , J AIPUR 8 PROVIDED IN THIS BEHALF. THE ADDITION IS MADE WITH OUT CONFRONTING THE ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL TO THE ASSESSEE. 2.9 APROPOS THE ISSUE OF SHRI UTKARSH JAGWAYAN, THE ITAT HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005- 06 AND 2006-07. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPREC IATE THIS ASPECT AND ASSESSEE'S FURTHER EXPLANATION THAT BUSINESS ACUMEN OF SHRI UTKARSH JAGWAYAN CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE FACT THAT SUBSEQU ENTLY HE LEFT ASSESSEE'S EMPLOYMENT AND STARTED OWN FACTORY WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT HE WAS CAPABLE OF RENDERING SERVICES AND THE EXPEND ITURE WAS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS WI TH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF SALARY AND BONUS TO PAID TO SHRI UTKARSH JAGWAY AN ON HIS ACTUAL RENDERING OF SERVICES. THIS BENCH OF ITAT HAS SET A SIDE THE ISSUE TO FIND OUT THAT SHRI UTKARSH JAGWAYAN HAD STARTED HIS INDE PENDENT BUSINESS OR NOT AND THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN ALL THES E CRUCIAL ASPECTS ON MERITS AND DECIDE IT AFRESH. 2.10 APROPOS REMAINING GROUNDS IN RESPECT OF VEHICL E MAINTENANCE, DEPRECIATION AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES, IT IS PLEADED THAT 15% DISALLOWANCE AS RETAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS EXCESSIVE. 2.11 THE LD. DR IS HEARD. ITA NO. 850/JP/2011 SHRI HARISH CHAND JANGWAYAN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4 , J AIPUR 9 2.12 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. APROPOS GROUND ABOVE SMT. SWEE TY JAGWAYAN, THE LD. DR COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EITHER HEARD ON THIS ASPECT OR NOTICE AS TO ENHANCEMENT OF THE AMOUNT WA S SERVED ON HIM. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ENHANCEMENT CANNOT B E SUSTAINED. CONSEQUENTLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FI LE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE IT AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 2.13 APROPOS THE ISSUE OF SHRI UTKARSH JAGWAYAN, TH E ITAT ORDER IN EARLIER YEARS WAS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH SHOUL D HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. THE PLEADINGS OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO GAI NFUL EMPLOYMENT OF SHRI UTKARSH JAGWAYAN AND HIS INDEPENDENT WORKING O F ESTABLISHING THE FACTORY WAS TO BE PROPERLY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BESIDES THE OUTCOME IN EARLIER YEARS SET ASIDE ORDER SHOULD ALSO HAVE B EEN CONSIDERED. THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE B ACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN VIEW OF ABOVE OBSERVAT IONS. 2.14 APROPOS REMAINING GROUNDS ON ACCOUNT OF 15% D ISALLOWANCE IN VEHICLE EXPENSES, DEPRECIATION AND TELEPHONE EXPENS ES, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE ITAT ORDER AND NO SPECIFIC CASE IS MAD E OUT BEFORE US AS TO HOW THE VIEW ADOPTED SHOULD BE DEVIATED. THUS IN TH E ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE UNABLE TO CONFIRM THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ITA NO. 850/JP/2011 SHRI HARISH CHAND JANGWAYAN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 4 , J AIPUR 10 ON THIS ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE. REMAINING GROUNDS ON THESE MISC. DISALLOWANCE ISSUES ARE DISMISSED. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/06/2015. SD/- SD/- VH-VKJ-EHUK VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (T.R. MEENA) (R.P.TOLANI) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 12 /06/2015 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI HARISH CHAND JAGWAYAN, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 4, JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.850/JP/2011) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR