M/s Mangal Rice Mills, Kurukshetra V. Addl. CIT, Kurukshetra

ITA 915/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8254 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 145(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 915/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S MANGAL RICE MILLS, VS THE ADDL.CIT, CHHAPRA ROAD, KURUKSHETRA RANGE, SHAHABAD (M), KURUKSHETRA. DISTT. - KURUKSHETRA. PAN: AAEFM0783E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ROHIT GOEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.02.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.03.2017 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), KARNAL DATED 12.07.2 016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. I HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. ON GROUND NO. 1, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 2 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT RATE. THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OF A RICE SHELLER AND TRADING OF RICE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED GROSS PROFI T OF RS. 47,82,009/- AT TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS. 6.16 CR GI VING GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 7.76% AS COMPARED TO GROSS PRO FIT 2 RATE OF 8.43% DECLARED LAST YEAR ON THE TOTAL TURNO VER OF RS. 4.15 CR. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT THERE WAS ADDITIONAL SALE OF RS. 200.7 0 LACS, THE GROSS PROFIT RATE COMES TO 6.38%. IT IS WIDE ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE THAT WITH THE INCREASE IN SALES, GROSS PROFIT RATE GOES DOWN. THUS, TOTAL GP RATE REDUCED IS MARGINAL DUE TO INCREASE IN SALES. THE ASSESSING O FFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE IS USING THE PADDY PURCHASED FO R MILLING BUT HAS ALSO SOLD PART OF THE PADDY. THE P ADDY BASMATI SOLD AT AVERAGE SALE PRICE PER QUINTAL WAS LESSER THAN THE AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE. THERE IS NO REASO N TO MAKE THE SALE OF PADDY AT LOWER RATES. SIMILAR IS POSITION IN RESPECT OF RICE PERMAL OUTSTATION. PURCHASE PRICE IS HIGHER AND SALE IS LOWER. THE RICE BASMATI ACCOUNT SHOWS THAT AVERAGE COST OF BASMATI PRODUCE IS @ RS. 1977.64 WH EREAS THE AVERAGE SALE PRICE IS ONLY @ RS. 1709.63 PER QU INTAL. THERE IS NO REASON FOR ASSESSEE TO SELL THE RICE BA SMATI AT A RATE MUCH LOWER THAN THE RATE OF PRODUCTION. THE A SSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, NOTED THAT THERE IS NO SOLID RE ASON FOR DECLINE IN GROSS PROFIT RATE. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE TURNOVER FROM 4.15 TO 6.16 CR, APPLIED AVERAGE GROSS PROFIT RATE @ 8.09% AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2 LACS. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THE SAME REASONING, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I DO NOT FI ND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION. THE LD. 3 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S AMARNATH & SONS VS ITO IN ITA 227/2012 DATED 18.04.2012 (PB-56) IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT AND BOOKS HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED. NO SPECIFIC DEFECTS HAVE BEEN POINT ED OUT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THEREFORE, SIMILAR ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ENHANCEMENT OF GP WAS DELETED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT AR WA S JUSTIFIED IN SUBMITTING THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FOR REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND APPLYING AVERAGE GP RATE, HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN REASONS FOR MA KING ESTIMATED ADDITION, EVEN THOUGH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED. ON THE FACE OF THE FINDING S OF AUTHORITIES BELOW, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE PR ODUCED THE EVIDENCE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN MAINTENANCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN THE BOOK RESULTS HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED UN DER SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER M ERELY FINDING GP RATE HAS DECLINED AND FOUND THAT THE SAL E PRICE COULD NOT BE LESS THAN THE PURCHASE PRICE OF VARIOUS ITEMS AS WELL AS OF THE PRODUCTION, APPLIED HIGHER GROSS PROFIT RATE. MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS LOW GP IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, BY ITSELF IS NO GR OUND TO MAKE THE ADDITION BY APPLYING HIGHER GROSS PROFI T RATE UNLESS SPECIFIC DEFECTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN MAINTENANCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE . 4 THE GP CAN NEVER BE STATIC IN EACH YEAR. THE ASSES SEE ULTIMATELY HAS SHOWN INCOME, THEREFORE, THE ISSUE INVOLVED SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FROM POINT OF VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. THE BUSINESSMAN. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER CANNOT STEP INTO THE SHOES OF BUSINESSMAN TO DETERM INE SALE RATE OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE NO SPECIFIC DEFEC TS IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HA VE NOT BEEN REJECTED, THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADHOC ADDITION OF RS. 2 LACS TO THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER , I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE TH E ADDITION OF RS. 2 LACS. 4(I) IN THE RESULT, GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 OF APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. ON GROUND NO. 2, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 10,04,000/- UNDER SECTION 68 ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE ARE FRESH ADDITIONS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF FOLLOWING UNSECURED LOANS : I) SHRI JANAK RAJ SABKA RS. 2 LACS II) SMT. SHWETA GARG RS. 1.6 LACS III) SMT. PINKI GUPTA RS. 1.54 LACS IV) SMT. ASHU GARG RS. 1.80 LACS V) SMT. SUMAN GARG RS. 1.50 LACS VI) SMT. SAROJ RANI RS. 1.60 LACS 5(I) THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO FILED COPIES OF THE ACCO UNTS OF ALL THE UNSECURED LOANS, PHOTO COPY OF THEIR BANK 5 ACCOUNTS, BALANCE SHEET OF THE CREDITORS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FILING OF ITR BY THEM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISCUSSED EACH AND EVERY CREDITOR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NOTED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE CREDITS. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRME D THE ADDITION BECAUSE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF ALL THE CREDITORS. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO ALL THE DOCUME NTS FILED BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT AFFIDAVITS OF ALL THE CREDITORS WERE FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ADVERSE LY COMMENTED UPON AND NOT OBJECTED TO BY AUTHORITIES BELOW. FOR ABUNDANT PRECAUTION, HE HAS MOVED APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE I. E. AFFIDAVITS OF CREDITORS. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED DURI NG THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THESE AFFIDAVITS ARE PART OF THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE ESTABL ISHED IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, THEIR CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER. ON T HE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDERS OF AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE C REDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. 6 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN THE CAS E OF SHRI JANAK RAJ SABKA, ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT HE IS AGRICULTURIST OWNING A BOUT 6 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HE HAS RAISED AGRICU LTURE LOAN AGAINST KISSAN CREDIT CARD FROM STATE BANK OF INDIA, BABYAL BRANCH AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,49,000/- ON 01.06.2007 AS TERM LOAN AND HAS AVAILED CC LIMIT OF RS. 2 LACS. HE HAS WITHDRAWN RS. 2 LACS ON 01.06.2007 AND RS. 1,49,000/- AS TERM LOAN. OUT OF THIS AMOUNT, RS .2 LACS WAS DEPOSITED IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, SHAHABA D MARKANDA IN BANK ACCOUNT ON 04.06.2007 FROM WHERE CHEQUE OF RS. 2 LACS WAS ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON 04.06.2007. APART FROM THAT, CREDITOR HAS AGRICULTURE INCOME OF SUGARCANE, PADDY AND WHEAT AN D MADE VARIOUS DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJ AB NATIONAL BANK, SHAHABAD. THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED THROUGH ANY EVIDENC E OR MATERIAL ON RECORD. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT, BANK ACCOUNT AND BANK ACCOUNT OF LOAN OF THE ASSESSEE AR E FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. 7(I) IN THE CASES OF REMAINING CREDITORS, THE AS SESSEE FILED THEIR AFFIDAVITS, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ITRS, BA LANCE SHEET, COPY OF BANK ACCOUNTS. IN THE COPIES OF THE BALANCE SHEET, APART FROM THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION, G IVEN AS CREDITS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL BY THE REMAINING CREDITORS, EARLIER BALANCES OF THE CREDIT S GIVEN TO ASSESSEE ARE ALSO MENTIONED, THEREFORE, HIGHER 7 AMOUNTS OF CREDITS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF RESPECTIVE CREDITORS. THESE EVIDENCES CLEARLY SHOW THAT THESE CREDITORS H AVE ALSO ADVANCED OTHER LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIE R YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF FRESH ADDITION TO THE ACCOUNT OF THESE CRE DITORS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THESE REMAINING CREDITORS HAVE FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCO ME UNDER SECTION 44AF. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE SE REMAINING CREDITORS, MORE OR LESS THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN DECLARED AS THEIR INCOME, THEREFO RE, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE INC OME DECLARED BY THESE CREDITORS WITH THEIR EARLIER ACCUMULATED CAPITAL, PROVED THERE ARE SUFFICIENT BALANCES AVAILABLE TO THEM TO GIVE THE SMALL AMOUNT AS CREDIT TO THE ASSESSEE. THESE EVIDENCES ON RECORD CLEARLY SHOW THAT ALL THE CREDITORS HAVE CONFIRMED GIVING OF LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR AFFIDAVITS WHICH H AVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THE CAS E OF SHRI JANAK RAJ, SUFFICIENT AMOUNT IS AVAILABLE TO T HE CREDITOR OUT OF BANK ACCOUNT. THE CC LIMIT AND TER M LOAN ACCOUNT IS SUPPORTED BY THE COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENTS. 7(II) IN THE CASES OF REMAINING CREDITORS, THEY HAVE FILED COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FILING OF RETU RN OF INCOME SHOWING THEIR INCOME DECLARED UNDER SECTION 8 44AF OF THE ACT AS PER CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, SUPPORTED BY COPIES OF THEIR BALANCE SHEET SHOWING AMOUNTS AVAILABLE TO THEM AND IN EARLIER YEAR ALSO, THEY HAVE ADVANCED LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE. NOTHING HAS BE EN BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE IF ANY ADVERSE VIEW HAVE BEEN TAKEN AGAINST THESE CREDITORS IN PRECEDING ASSESSME NT YEARS BECAUSE BALANCE SHEET OF THESE CREDITORS SHOW THE CREDITS ARE COMING FROM THE EARLIER YEARS. THESE EVIDENCES ON RECORD CLEARLY SHOW AND PROVE THE CRED IT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND THEY HAVE GIVEN GEN UINE LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING HIST ORY OF THE CREDITORS GIVING LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE IN EARLI ER YEAR AS WELL AND PRESENT LOANS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, I AM OF THE VIEW THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THA T ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER. I, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 10,04,000/-. GROUND NO. 2 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED. 8. ON GROUND NO. 3 ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 68,280/- OUT OF INTEREST ON ACC OUNT OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN TO SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AND SMT. ANU GUPTA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED FROM T HE DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS THAT THERE ARE DEBTORS AS SHRI SUNIL KUMAR RS. 1,94,000/- AND MS. ANU GUPTA R S. 9 5 LACS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THESE ARE NOT TRADE DEBTORS BUT AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED BY ASSESSEE WITHOUT CHARGING INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT SHRI SUNIL KUMAR IS BROTHER OF THE PARTNER SHIFTED TO LADWA FOR INDEPENDENT BUSINESS H AS LATER ON, ADVANCE OF RS. 1,94,000/- AGAINST THIS A DEPOSIT OF RS. 4,71,125/- WAS STANDING WITH FIRM BE FORE 31.03.2005 IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE SMT. KUSUM RANI. IT WAS DECIDED THAT TILL SHRI SUNIL KUMAR DOES NOT PAY THE AMOUNT, INTEREST SHALL NOT BE PAID TO HIS WIFE SMT. KUSUM RANI AGAINST HER DEPOSIT OF RS. 4,71,125/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWING DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJ AB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES 286 ITR 1 DISALLOWED INTEREST IN A SUM O F RS. 68,280/-. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDIT ION. 9. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I DO NOT FI ND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PB-27 WHICH IS LIST OF UNSECURED LOANS AS ON 31.03.2008 SHOWING AMOUNT OF RS. 4,71,125/- STANDING IN THE NAME OF SMT. KUSUM RANI, WIFE OF SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AS UNSECURED LOAN AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THAT TOTAL UNSECURED LOANS WITHOUT INTEREST ARE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN A SUM OF RS. 39,64,375/-. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE RELIED UPON DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. 3 81 ITR 10 107 IN WHICH IT WAS FOUND THAT ADVANCE OF ABOUT RS. 10.29 CR TO THE ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN WAS COVER ED BY THE CAPITAL AND INTEREST FREE RESERVES AVAILABLE WI TH THE ASSESSEE. HON'BLE HIGH COURT RELYING UPON DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE UTILI TIES & POWER LTD. 313 ITR 340 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT, IF THERE ARE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE, A PRESUMPT ION WOULD ARISE THAT INVESTMENT WOULD BE OUT OF INTERES T FREE FUNDS GENERATED OR AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY, IF INTEREST FREE FUNDS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INVESTMENT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE MORE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES AR E AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND PARTICULARLY IN THE C ASE OF SMT. KUSUM RANI, THEREFORE, ADDITION IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. THE LD. DR, HOWEVER, RELIED UPON ORDE RS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. CONSIDERING FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF T HE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS AVAILABILITY OF INTEREST FR EE FUNDS IN A SUM OF RS. 39.64 LACS AND THAT THERE IS UNSECU RED INTEREST FREE LOAN OF SMT. KUSUM RANI, W/O SHRI SUN IL KUMAR IN A SUM OF RS. 4,74,125/-. THESE WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET OUT THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES G IVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF DECISI ON OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), I SET ASIDE O RDERS OF 11 AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION. THIS GR OUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11. ON GROUND NO. 4, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED ADHOC ADDITION OF RS. 70,000/- OUT OF LABOUR EXPENSES. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT VOUCHERS PRODUCED ARE NOT COMPLETED AND ARE NOT FULLY SIGNED BY THE RECIPIENT , THEREFORE, SAME ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 70,000/-. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS ) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I DO NOT F IND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT I N THE MAINTENANCE OF THE VOUCHERS OF EXPENSES AND THE EXA CT AMOUNT TO BE DISALLOWED, WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKIN G ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EXPENDITURES. I SET ASID E THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION . GROUND NO. 4 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1 ST .MARCH,2017. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH