LAXMI NARAYAN HIMMATRAMKA, Jaipur V. ITO, JHUNJHUNU

ITA 973/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2127 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM RAI DCIT DR DHK
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 973/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 LATE SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN HIMMATRAMKA TH.L/H SHRI JHANDI PRASAD HIMMATRAMKA P.O. CHIRAWA -333 026 CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 2, JHUNJHUNU LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AACPH 7931 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :SMT. POONAM RAI, DCIT-. DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 13/04/2017 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 /04/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-35, NEW DELHI (CAMP OFFICE AT JAIPUR), DATED 29-09-2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 RAISING THEREIN FOLLOWING G ROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE REJECTION OF BOOK S OF ACCOUNT BY AO BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 (3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. APPELLANT PRAYS THE REJECTION O F BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAY PLEASE BE HELD BAD IN LAW. ITA NO.973/JP/2016 LATE SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN HIMMATRAMKA VS. ITO, WARD- 2 , JHUNJHUNU . 2 1.1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 83,689/- MADE BY AO BY APPLYING GRO SS PROFIT RATE OF 4% AS AGAINST GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 3.73%% DECLARED BY ASSESSEE BY IGNORING THE PAST HISTORY W HICH IS FAVOURALE TO ASSESSEE . APPELLANT PRAYS ADDITION SO MADE MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD HOC DISALLOWA NCE OF RS. 46,080/- MADE BY AO OUT OF WAGES, GENERAL EXPEN SES AND SALARY BEING 20% OF TOTAL EXPENSES. APPELLANT P RAYS ADDITION SO MADE MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 2.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 1 AND 1.1 OF THE ASSESSEE, B RIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION T HE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF KIRANA GOODS ON WHOLE SALE BASIS IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. CHIRANGI LAL LAXMIN NARAYAN AT CH IRAWA. THE AO ON PERUSAL OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE NOT ICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD DECLARED TH E GROSS PROFIT OF RS. 11,60,840/- ON DECLARED TOTAL SALES OF RS. 3,11,13, 214/- IN TRADING ACCOUNT BY SHOWING A GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 3.73% WHICH IS VE RY LOW IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS. THE AO ON SCRUTINY OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NO TICED VARIOUS DEFECTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED DAY TO DAY STO CK REGISTER AND QUANTITY-WISE DETAILS OF ITEMS. THE AO FURTHER NOTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED COMPLETE BILLS AND VOUCHERS REGARDING PURCHASE EXPENSES IN TRADING ACCOUNT. THE AO NOTED THAT THE AUDITOR IN A UDIT REPORT HAD ITA NO.973/JP/2016 LATE SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN HIMMATRAMKA VS. ITO, WARD- 2 , JHUNJHUNU . 3 COMMENTED THAT EXPENSES DEBITED ARE PARTLY VOUCHED AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVIDED THE QUANTITY DETAILS. THE AO OBSERVED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THESE DEFECTS, TRADING RESULTS DECLARED BY THE ASS ESSEE CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED AND TRUE GROSS PROFIT AND CLOSING STOCK CANNOT BE DEDUCED. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE ASSESSEE WAS OFFERED OPPORTUN ITY BY THE AO TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT MAY NOT BE INVOKED AND GROSS PROFIT @ 4% MAY NOT BE APPLIED O N DECLARED TURNOVER OF RS. 3,11,13,214/-. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE RE PLY BEFORE THE WHO OBSERVED THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AS ROUTINE REPLY AND IT HAD NO FORCE. THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER PRO DUCED THE DAY TO DAY STOCK REGISTER NOR QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF THE COMM ODITIES. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE AO HAD INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND APPLIED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE @ 4% ON TOTAL TUR NOVER OF RS. 3,11,13,214/-. THE AO THUS WORKED OUT THE GROSS PRO FIT AT RS. 12,44,529/- INSTEAD OF RS. 11,60,840/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE AO THUS ADDED THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS. 83,689/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.2 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO BY OB SERVING AS UNDER:- 4.8 IN THE PRESENT CASE JUSTIFICATION FOR G.P. RA TE HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED. MOREOVER, THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS NOT MAINTAINED BILLS/VOUCHERS, STOCK REGISTER WHICH CAN ITA NO.973/JP/2016 LATE SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN HIMMATRAMKA VS. ITO, WARD- 2 , JHUNJHUNU . 4 SUBSTANTIATE ITS VARIOUS CLAIMS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES AO HAS NO OPTION BUT TO ESTIMATE THE TRADING ACCOUNT. MORE OVER, THE AO HAS ESTIMATED G.P. OF 4% CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF TRADE. I FIND THE ACTION OF THE AO AS REASONABLE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION GROUND NO. 2 IS DISMISSED. 2.3 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS WRONGLY APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 22-07-201 HAD SUBMITTED THE FINAL QUANTITATIVE TALLY IN RESPECT OF THE ITEMS DEALT W ITH BY HIM GIVING COMPLETE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF THE GOODS INVOLVED . THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AO WHILE REJECTING THE PLEA OF THE A SSESSEE HAD NEITHER POINTED OUT A SPECIFIC DISCREPANCY IN THE QUANTITAT IVE DETAILS SO SUBMITTED NOR HE HAD GIVEN ANY COMPARABLE CASE WHEREIN A HIGH ER GROSS PROFIT RATE THAN THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN SHOWN. THE LD. AR OF TH E ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE BHAWANI SILICATE INDUSTRIES , 236 TAXMAN 596. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE CHART FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS AS UNDER:- A.Y. SALES G.P. G.P. % 2010-11 3,11,13,214.00 1,16,084.00 3.73 2009-10 3,51,65,882.00 9,64,532.00 2.74 2008-09 3,05,87,851.00 21,855.00 0.71 ITA NO.973/JP/2016 LATE SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN HIMMATRAMKA VS. ITO, WARD- 2 , JHUNJHUNU . 5 THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1. MALANI RAMJIVAN JAGANNATH VS.ASST. CIT (RAJ.), 3 16 ITR 120 2. HARIDAS PARIKH V ITO [2009] 29 SOT 13 (JODH.)(UR O) 3. ASHOK KUMAR & CO. V. ITO [2004] 2 SOT 518 (ASR.) (SMC) 4. CM. FRANCIS & CO. (P.) LTD. V. CIT [77 ITR 449] (KERALA) 5. ASSTT. CIT V. L.M.P. TRACTORS (P.) LTD. [2005] 1 48 TAXMAN 52 (MAG.) (AHMEDABAD ) 6. ACIT VS. KANHAIYALAL CHOUDHARY [ITAT JAIPUR BENC H]: THE ACCEPTED PAST HISTORY IS THE BEST GUIDE AND WHE N THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED BETTER RESULTS, THE DECLARED RESULTS TO BE ACCEPTED AND NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE THEREIN. 7. CIT VS. JAIMAL RAM KASTURIMAL [ RAJ]: WHERE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE REJECTED,THE NP RAT E SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION T HE PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE, WHICH IS THE BEST GUIDE TO PAS S A BEST JUDGEMENT ORDER. 8. ACIT VS. SHRI LAXMI NARAIN AGARWAL (ITAT JAIPUR) - [ITA NO. 44/JP/2014- ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09, DATED: 26/10 /2015]: WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE THAT DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH CO ULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR . THERE IS NO SPECIFIC D EFECT AS POINTED OUT BY THE AO. IN CASE OF ESTIMATION OF PROFIT, HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOTAN LIME KHANIJ UDYO G (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE IS A BEST SO URCE FOR ESTIMATION. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT AN ESTIMATE ARRIVED AT BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES CANNOT BE INTERFERED WITH UNLESS THE ESTIMATE IS DE MONSTRATED TO BE ARBITRARY OR UNJUSTIFIED. THE LD. DR COULD NOT DEMO NSTRATE THIS ASPECT. IN VIEW THEREOF AND RESPECTFULLY THE DECISION OF HO NBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOTAN LIME KHANIJ UDYOG (SUPRA) AND ALSO ITAT JODHPUR DECISION IN THE CASE OF AJAY GOYAL VS. ITO, 99 TTJ 164, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF ESTIMA TION IS UPHELD. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . ITA NO.973/JP/2016 LATE SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN HIMMATRAMKA VS. ITO, WARD- 2 , JHUNJHUNU . 6 CONCLUSIVELY, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THA T THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE WRONGLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145( 3) OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE RESULTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ACCEPTED AND THE TRADING ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 4% AS AGAINST 3.73% AS DECLARED BY T HE ASSESSEE MAY BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 2.4 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORD ERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 2.5 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED FROM THE RECORDS T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED THE DAY TO DAY STOCK REGISTER OR QUANTIT ATIVE DETAILS OF COMMODITIES. IT IS ALSO NOTED FROM THE ASSESSMENT O RDER THAT THE AUDITOR IN THE AUDIT REPORT HAD COMMENTED THAT THE EXPENSES DE BITED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY VOUCHED AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVIDE D THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED COMPLETE BILLS AND VOUCHERS REGARDING PURCHASES CLAIMED IN TRADING ACCOUNT. THE AO THUS INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF TH E ACT AND APPLIED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 4% ON TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS. 3 ,11,13,214/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH GROSS PROFIT COMES TO RS. 12, 44,529/-. HOWEVER, ITA NO.973/JP/2016 LATE SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN HIMMATRAMKA VS. ITO, WARD- 2 , JHUNJHUNU . 7 THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 3.73% ON WHICH GROSS PROFIT COMES TO RS. 11,60,840/-. THE AO THUS ADDED A DIFFERENCE OF RS.83,689/- (RS. 12,44,529 MINUS RS. 11,60,840/-) W HICH IN FIRST APPEAL HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL, IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS THAT T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE RIGHTLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. AS REGARDS THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS. 83,689/-, IT IS N OTED THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS I.E. 2008-09-, 2009-10 AND 2010-11 ARE AT 0.71%, 2.74% AND 3.73% RESPECTIVELY. THUS LOOKING TO THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE BEING EN GAGED IN THE TRADING OF KIRANA GOODS, THE ADDITION IS SUSTAINED TO THE EXTE NT OF RS. 15,000/-. THUS THE ASSESSEE WILL GET THE PARTIAL RELIEF OF RS. 68, 689/-. 3.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 2, BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE A RE THAT THE AO DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD OBSERVED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 22,702/- ON ACCOUNT OF WAGES PAYMENT, DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 14,700/- ON ACCOUNT OF GENERAL EXPENSES AND DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 1,93,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY PAYMENT TO STA FF IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE CO MPLETE DETAILS / DOCUMENTS AND VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF THESE EXPENSE S BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH COMPLETE BILL, DETAILS/ VOUCHERS/ DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ITA NO.973/JP/2016 LATE SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN HIMMATRAMKA VS. ITO, WARD- 2 , JHUNJHUNU . 8 THESE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY HIM IN THE PROFIT AND LOS S ACCOUNT. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THERE ARE CHANCES OF INFLATING THE E XPENSES BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN ORDER TO COVER UP ANY POSSIBLE LEAKAGE ON T HIS ACCOUNT, HE DISALLOWED 20% OUT OF THE ABOVE EXPENSES I.E. RS. 4 6,080/- (20% OF RS. 2,30,402/-, [22702+14700+193000] AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IN FIRST APPEAL HAS BE EN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4.11 GROUND NO. 5: IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOW ANCE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES OUT OF WAGE PAYMENT, GENERA L EXPENSES, SALARY PAYMENT TO STAFF (OFFICE EXPENSES) . FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO HA S MADE SUCH ADHOC ADDITIONS TO COVER UP THE ELEMENT OF PER SONAL USES OF SUCH ASSETS AND FACILITIES. REGARDING THESE ADDITIONS, IT IS A COMMON BELIEF THAT, IN ABSENCE OF PROPER RE CORDS, THE POSSIBILITY OF INVOLVEMENT OF PERSONAL USAGE IN SUC H TYPE OF EXPENSE CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI KANHAILAL JANGID (217 CTR 354) ALSO APPROVED THE CONCEPT OF ADHOC ADDITION ON LUMP SUM BASIS, IF THE RELEVANT DETAILS ARE NOT FOUND AVAILA BLE TO SUPPORT OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, I FIND THE DISALLOWANCES WHICH IS ONLY 20 % OF THESE EXPENSES AS JUSTIFIED. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND N O. 3 OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.973/JP/2016 LATE SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN HIMMATRAMKA VS. ITO, WARD- 2 , JHUNJHUNU . 9 3.2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR DELETION OF ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 46,080/- CONF IRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR OF THE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE SUBMITTED BE FORE THE AO WHO HAD NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT AND GENERALIZED THE SAME BY DISALLOWING THE EXPENSES. THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRE D WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND UNDER THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT THE PROPORTION OF EXPENSES TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER DECLAR ED AND ACCEPTED ALSO REVEALS THAT THE SAME ARE QUITE REASONABLE AND THER E IS NO ROOM FOR ANY PERSONAL EXPENSES BEING INCLUDED IN THE SAME FOR WH ICH HE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS AS UNDER:- NAME OF EXPENSES AMOUNT CLAIMED % OF TURNOVER RS. 3,11,13,214/- WAGES 14,700.00 0.047% GENERAL EXPENSES 22,702.00 0.073% SALARY TO STAFF 1,93,000.00 0.62% 3.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORD ERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ITA NO.973/JP/2016 LATE SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN HIMMATRAMKA VS. ITO, WARD- 2 , JHUNJHUNU . 10 3.4 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED FROM THE ASSESSMEN T RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD DE BITED A SUM OF RS. 22,702/- ON ACCOUNT OF WAGES PAYMENT, DEBITED A SU M OF RS. 14,700/- ON ACCOUNT OF GENERAL EXPENSES AND DEBITED A SUM OF R S. 1,93,000/-ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY PAYMENT TO STAFF IN THE PROFIT A ND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE AO FOR WANT OF COMPLETE BILLS, DETAILS/ VOUCHERS, DOCU MENTS AND CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THESE EXPENSES DISALLOWED 20% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 2,30,402/ WHICH COMES TO RS. 46,080/- AND IN FIRST APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL, IT IS NOTED THAT SINCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESS EE HAS BEEN REJECTED, THEREFORE, THE ESTIMATED ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE TO THIS EFFECT RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S.A. BUILDERS VS. CIT , 288 ITR 1 AND EMPIRE JUTE CO. LTD. VS. CIT,124 1. THEREFORE, IN V IEW OF ABOVE DECISIONS AND VARIOUS OTHERS DECISIONS OF HON'BLE H IGH COURT, NO SEPARATE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE EXPENSES DEBITED IN T HE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEADS WAGES, GENERAL EXPENSES AN D SALARY TO STAFF IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HENCE, LOOKING TO THE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ITA NO.973/JP/2016 LATE SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN HIMMATRAMKA VS. ITO, WARD- 2 , JHUNJHUNU . 11 CASE, I DIRECT TO DELETE THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 46,080/- CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THUS GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED. 4.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 /04/2017 . SD/- HKKXPUN ( BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 18 /04/ 2017 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- LATE SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN HIMMATRAMKA THROUGH L/H SHRI JHANDI PRASAD HIMATRAMKA 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 2, JHUNJHUNU 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. 973/JP/2016 ) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR