ACIT, Meerut v. Dr. T.P. Aggarwal, Meerut

ITA 2365/DEL/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2014 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 236520114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAMPA0922P
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2365/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, Meerut
Respondent Dr. T.P. Aggarwal, Meerut
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 24-04-2014
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 24-04-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 20-11-2013
Next Hearing Date 20-11-2013
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 18-05-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH H NEW DELHI) BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1981/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01) ITA NO.1982/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) ITA NO.2310/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) ITA NO.2364/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) ITA NO.2365/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE VS. DR. T.P. AGGARWAL MEERUT. 61 SHIVAJI ROAD MEERUT. ( PAN : AAMPA0922P) CO NO.188/DEL/2010 (IN ITA NO.2364/DEL./2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) CO NO.189/DEL/2010 (IN ITA NO.2365/DEL./2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) DR. T.P. AGGARWAL VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 61 SHIVAJI ROAD MEERUT. MEERUT. ( PAN : AAMPA0922P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.1981 1982 2310 2364 & 2365/DEL/2010 CO NOS.188 & 189/DEL/2010 2 ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI K. SAMPATH RAJIV SINGHAL AN D RAMIT KAKKAR ADVOCATES REVENUE BY : SHRI R.S. MEENA CIT DR O R D E R PER B.C. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIO NS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATE FROM THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. C IT (APPEALS) MEERUT. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN EYE SURGEON BY PROFESSION. T HE ASSESSEE WAS EMPLOYEE OF M/S. AGARWAL EYE HOSPITAL DURING THE RE LEVANT PERIOD. HE WAS ALSO DOING THIS PROFESSION SEPARATELY. A SEARCH AN D SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL AND PROFESSIONAL PRE MISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 27.10.2005. NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS OF REVENUES APPEALS IN ITA NOS.1981 1982 2364 & 2365/DEL./2010 ARE SAME THEREFORE THE SAME ARE BE ING DECIDED HEREIN AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE GROUNDS IN ITA NO. 1981/DEL/2010 ARE ONLY REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS PERVERSE IN AS MUCH AS IT IS BASED ON WRONG FACTS REGARDING EXISTENCE OF BANK AC COUNT OF HUF FROM 1982-83 TO 1999-2000 WHEN NO SUCH BANK ACCOUNT WAS NEITHER FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH NOR WAS IT PRODUCED IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS PERVERSE IN AS M UCH AS IT IS BASED ON WRONG FACTS REGARDING EVIDENCE OF EXISTENC E OF HUF BEING ITA NOS.1981 1982 2310 2364 & 2365/DEL/2010 CO NOS.188 & 189/DEL/2010 3 FOUND AND SEIZED IN COURSE OF SEARCH VIDE ANNEXURE 16-22 WHEN NO SUCH EVIDENCE WAS ACTUALLY SEIZED. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS PERVERSE IN AS M UCH AS HE HAS DRAWN INFERENCE REGARDING EXISTENCE OF HUF AND GENU INENESS OF INVESTMENT MADE IN ASST. YEAR 2000-01 ON THE BASIS OF ASSTT. OF HUF FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2004-05 THAT TOO WHEN THE RETURN OF HUF FOR 2004-05 WAS FILED AFTER THE SEARCH. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS PERVERSE IN AS M UCH AS HE TOTALLY OMITTED TO CONSIDER THE MAIN GROUND OF ADDI TION THAT THE ASSESSEE IN COURSE OF SEARCH HAD SURRENDERED INVEST MENT IN KVP/NSC TO THE EXTENT OF 30 LACS AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 5. THAT THE CIT(A) VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES BY ADMITTING FRESH EVIDENCE BY WAY OF PO ST MASTER'S REPORT WITHOUT GIVING THE A.O. AN OPPORTUNITY TO EX AMINE THE EVIDENCE. 6. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MEERUT BEING E RRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND THE GRO UNDS OF THE APPEAL AS AND WHEN NEED ARISE. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.2310/DEL/2010 E XCEPT THE GROUND NOS.1 1A AND 1B GROUND NOS.2 TO 7 ARE SAME AS IN OTHER F OUR APPEALS STATED ABOVE. GROUND NOS.1 1A AND 1B IN ITA NO.2310/DEL/2010 REA D AS UNDER :- 1. WHETHER THE CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDING THA T ON MONEY PAYMENT OF 30 LACS FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT SHIV ALIK MALVIYA NAGAR NEW DELHI STATED ON OATH U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH HAD NO EVIDENCIARY VALUE IN ABSENC E OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES. 1(A). IN DOING SO THE CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT BY ITSELF HAS EVIDE NCIARY VALUE AS PROVIDED IN THE SAID SECTION & THE ONUS IS ON THE A SSESSEE TO PROVE OTHERWISE. ITA NOS.1981 1982 2310 2364 & 2365/DEL/2010 CO NOS.188 & 189/DEL/2010 4 1(B) IN COMING TO THE ERRONEOUS LEGAL FINDING REGAR DING EVIDENCIARY VALUE OF STATEMENT U/S. 132(4) THE CIT (A0 FAILED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SETTLED POSITION OF LAW ON THIS ISSUE IN FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- I. SURJEET SINGH CHHABRA VS. UNION OF INDIA (1997) 1 S CC 508/509 II. T.S. KUMARASWAMY V. ASSTT. CIT (1998) 65 ITD 188 (M AD.). III. V. KUNHAMBU & SONS V. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 235 (86 TA MAN 477) (KERL.) IV. HOTEL KIRAN VS. ASSTT. CIT (2002) 82 ITD 453 (ITAT PUNE). THE GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION NO.188/DEL/2010 AND 1 89/DEL/2010 ARE ALSO THE SAME. THE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION NO.188/DE L/2010 READ AS UNDER :- 1. THAT HE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS PERVERSE IN AS MUCH AS IT IS BASED ON WRONG FACTS REGARDING EXISTENCE OF BANK AC COUNT OF HUF FROM 1982-83 TO 1999-2000 WHEN NO SUCH BANK ACCOUNT WAS NEITHER FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH NOR WAS IT PRODUCED IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS PERVERSE IN AS MUCH AS IT IS BASED ON WRONG FACTS REGARDING EVIDENCE OF EXISTENC E OF HUF BEING FOUND AND SEIZED IN COURSE OF SEARCH VIDE ANNEXURE 16-22 WHEN NO SUCH EVIDENCE WAS ACTUALLY SEIZED. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS PERVERSE IN AS MUCH AS HE HAS DRAWN INFERENCE REGARDING EXISTENCE OR HUF AND GENU INENESS OF INVESTMENT MADE IN ASSTT. YEAR 2000-01 ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT OF HUF FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 THAT TOO WHEN TH E RETURN OF HUF FOR 2005-06 WAS FILED AFTER THE SEARCH. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS PERVERSE IN AS MUCH AS HE TOTALLY OMITTED TO CONSIDER THE MAIN GROUND OF ADDI TION THAT THE ASSESSEE IN COURSE OF SEARCH HAD SURRENDERED INVEST MENT IN KVPINSC TO THE EXTENT OF 30 LACS AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 5. THAT THE CIT (A) VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE LT. RULES BY ADMITTING FRESH EVIDENCE BY WAY OF POS T MASTER'S REPORT WITHOUT GIVING THE A.O. AN OPPORTUNITY TO EX AMINE THE EVIDENCE. ITA NOS.1981 1982 2310 2364 & 2365/DEL/2010 CO NOS.188 & 189/DEL/2010 5 6. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) BEING ERR ONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE A. O. BE RESTORED. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND ANYONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL AS STATED ABOVE AS AND WH EN NEED FOR DURING SO MAY ARISE. 3. THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.1981 & 1982/DEL/2010 EMAN ATE FROM THE ORDER OF CIT (A) MEERUT DATED 09.02.2010 AND THE A PPEALS IN ITA NOS.2310 2364 & 2365/DEL/2010 EMANATE FROM THE ORD ER OF CIT (A) MEERUT DATED 16.02.2010. THE CROSS OBJECTION NO.18 8/DEL/2010 AND CROSS OBJECTION NO.189/DEL./2010 ARE FILED IN RESPONSE TO ITA NO.2364/DEL/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND ITA NO.2365/DEL/201 0 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY. 4. WHILE PLEADING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ON THE ISSUE OF EXISTENCE OF THE HUF AND GENUINENESS OF IN VESTMENT MADE IN KVP/NSC THE FINDING OF THE CIT (A) IS PERVERSE AS IT IS BASED ON WRONG FACTS THAT THERE WAS A BANK ACCOUNT OF HUF IN EXIST ENCE FROM 1982 TO 1999- 2000 WHEN THERE WAS NO SUCH BANK ACCOUNT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT EVIDENCES OF E XISTENCE OF THE HUF WERE FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH VIDE A NNEXURE 16 TO 22 WHEN NO SUCH EVIDENCE WAS ACTUALLY SEIZED. HE ALSO SUBM ITTED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME OF HUF WAS FILED AFTER THE SEARCH FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2005-06. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS IGNORED THE FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NOS.1981 1982 2310 2364 & 2365/DEL/2010 CO NOS.188 & 189/DEL/2010 6 SURRENDERED INVESTMENT IN NSC/KVP AS UNDISCLOSED IN COME DURING THE SEARCH OF INCOME AND HE ALSO PLEADED THAT CIT (A) H AS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES BY A DMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY WAY OF POST MASTERS REPORT WITHOUT GIV ING THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH INDERPRASTHA S AHAKARI BANK WAZIRPUR DELHI WAS BELONGING TO M/S. TRILOK PRAKASH AGARWAL HUF. ON 20.09.1992 THERE WAS A WITHDRAWAL OF RS.13 500/- OUT OF WHICH AN FDR WAS MADE AND IT BECAME RS.25 608/- AFTER ACCUMULATION OF THE INT EREST WHICH WAS FURTHER REINVESTED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALWAYS MAINTAINING A CONSISTENT STAND THAT HIS HUF M/S. TRILOK PRAKASH AGARWAL HUF HAS COME INTO EXISTENCE SINCE LONG AND THE FDR/NSC/KVP HAVE BEEN PURCHASED FROM THE FUNDS AND REINVESTED BY THE HUF ONLY. THESE IN VESTMENTS WERE FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND WERE IN THE NAME OF THE COPA RCENER/KARTA OF THE HUF AND THE INCOME OF THESE INVESTMENTS WAS NOT OVER TH E LIMIT OF TAXABLE INCOME THEREFORE NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE HUF FOR THOSE YEARS. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE EVIDENCES WHICH ARE PART OF THE SEIZED RECORD CLEARLY SHOW THAT M/S. TRILOK PRAKASH AGARWAL HUF H AS MADE THE INVESTMENT IN ALL THESE SECURITIES AND THE SAME HAS BEEN REINVESTED IN THE ITA NOS.1981 1982 2310 2364 & 2365/DEL/2010 CO NOS.188 & 189/DEL/2010 7 SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE COPIES OF CERTIFICATES FROM THE POST MASTER DEPICTING MATURITY AND REPAYMENT OF THESE SECURITIES ARE ONLY THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENT THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE HUF IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM AND FINALLY HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. SOME OF THE EVIDE NCES ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED WERE PART OF THE SEIZED RECORD. THE BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS WERE SEIZED AS PER ANNEXURE F OF PANCHNAMA. THE INVESTMENT IN NSCS/KVPS WERE FROM THESE BANK ACCOUNTS AND M/S. TR ILOK PRAKASH AGARWAL HUF HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN SEVERAL YEARS IN FDR/NSC AND ON MATURITY THE SAME HAS BEEN REINVESTED IN SUBSEQUEN T YEARS. THESE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE IN THE NAME OF COPARCENER/KAR TA. THE INCOME-TAX RETURN OF HUF COULD NOT BE FILED DUE TO INCOME BEIN G BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS WE FIND NO FAULT IN T HE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD. WE ALSO HOLD THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF POST MASTER WITH REGARD TO THE MATURITY OF THE KVP/NSC WAS ONLY IN SUPPORT OF THE ALREADY EXISTING EVIDENCES WHICH PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF HUF AND SOUR CE OF THE INVESTMENT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS ALL THE GROUNDS IN ITA NOS. 1981 1982 2364 & 2365/DEL/2010 AND GROUND NOS.2 TO 7 IN ITA NO.2310/ DEL/2010 ARE DISMISSED. ITA NOS.1981 1982 2310 2364 & 2365/DEL/2010 CO NOS.188 & 189/DEL/2010 8 7. IN ITA NO.2310/DEL/2010 GROUND NOS.1 1A AND 1B IS RELATED TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE ON MONEY PAYMENT OF RS.30 LACS FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT SHIVALIK MALVIYA NAGAR NEW DELHI ON TH E BASIS OF STATEMENT MADE U/S 132(4) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. 8. THE REVENUE CLAIMS THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED U /S 132(4) OF THE ACT HAS EVIDENCIARY VALUE AND TO PROVE OTHERWISE THE ON US IS ON THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO TAKE INTO ACCO UNT THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW AND RELIED ON THE CASE LAWS MENTIONED IN THE GR OUNDS OF APPEAL ITSELF. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. THERE WAS NO CORROBORATO RY EVIDENCE FOUND OR SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION. THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR HAVING DIFFERENT FACTS THEREFORE THESE CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF SURJEET SINGH CHHABRA VS. UOI CITED SUPRA THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT AND IT IS A CRIMINAL CASE AND N OT A CASE UNDER THE INCOME- TAX ACT. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF T.S. KUMARASWAMY V . ASSTT. CIT CITED SUPRA THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED IN NORMAL COURSE WHEREAS IN ASSESSEES CASE IT WAS RECORDED IN THE NIGHT AT 3.00 AM. ASSES SEE WANTED TO PURCHASE THE PEACE AT ANY COST. THEREFORE THE RATIO OF THE SE CASES CANNOT APPLIED TO ITA NOS.1981 1982 2310 2364 & 2365/DEL/2010 CO NOS.188 & 189/DEL/2010 9 ASSESSEES CASE. THE RETRACTION HAS BEEN MADE IN S HORT TIME BY FILING AN AFFIDAVIT WITH DIRECTOR GENERAL (INV.) LUCKNOW. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE. WE FIND THAT THE PROPERTY IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A STATEME NT IS NOT OWNED BY HIM. THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY IS IN HIS WIFES NAME SMT. MUKUL AGGARWAL THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT 1961 CANNOT BE INVOKED IN ASSESSEES CASE. FURTHER NO EVIDENC E OF ANY ON MONEY WAS FOUND OR SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION. THE S TATEMENT WAS RECORDED AT THE ODD HOURS IN THE NIGHT. ASSESSEE HAD RETRACTED FROM SUCH STATEMENT IMMEDIATELY BY FILING AN AFFIDAVIT. THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (INV.) U.P. LUCKNOW O N 07.11.2005 IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE SEARCH PARTY CONFRONTED HI M AT AROUND 3.00 AM IN THE MORNING OF 28.10.2005 WHEN HE WAS TOO TIRED AND WEAK AND IN THAT SITUATION HE WAS NOT HAVING ANY OTHER OPTION BUT T O OBEY RAIDING PARTY AND HE KEPT ON SIGNING WHATEVER DOCUMENT WHICH HAS BEEN PUT BEFORE HIM AND HE MADE IT CLEAR THAT ANY SURRENDER RECORDED IN THE STATEMENT IS BASELESS FALSE AND WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE. HE DENIED ABSOLUT ELY HIS LEGAL CONSENT BY THE DISCLOSER. REVENUE HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO DISPROVE THE CONTENTS OF THIS AFFIDAVIT. WE ALSO FIND THAT THIS ADDITION WA S MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT AND THERE IS NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WH ATSOEVER FOUND AND ITA NOS.1981 1982 2310 2364 & 2365/DEL/2010 CO NOS.188 & 189/DEL/2010 10 SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION. THE ASSESSEE H AS CATEGORICALLY RETRACTED FROM THIS STATEMENT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEV ER ON THE RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT ANY ON MONEY WAS PAID FOR THE PUR CHASE OF THE PROPERTY. CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.286/2/2003 IT (INV.) DATED 10.0 3.2003 ALSO DISCOURAGES SUCH CONFESSIONS WHERE CONCURRENCE IS T AKEN WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE. SUCH FORCED ADMISSION WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT OF DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE TREATED AS ADMISSION WHEN SAME ARE ALSO RETRACTED IMMEDIATELY BY WAY OF FILING AFFIDAVIT. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS WE CONFIRM THE DELETION OF ADDITION AND ACCORDINGLY GROUND NOS.1 1A AND 1B ARE DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS BEING ITA NOS.19 81 & 1982/DEL/2010 ITA NO.2310/DEL/2010 AND ITA NOS.2364 & 2365/DEL/20 10 ARE DISMISSED. 12. NOW WE TAKE CROSS OBJECTIONS CO NOS.188 & 189 /DEL/2010 IN ITA NOS.2364 & 2365/DEL.2010) FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CROSS OBJECTIONS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE WHERE IN THE CIT (A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF CAR DEPRECATION OF 1 /8 TH ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE. IN BOTH THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 20 05-06 THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 50% OF THE CAR DEPRECIATION AND CAR RUNNING EXPENSES AGAINST THE PROFESSIONAL INCOME. THE CIT (A) HAS R EDUCED THIS TO 1/8 TH OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAI NING A LOG BOOK FOR THE USE OF CAR AND IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH THA T THERE IS NO PERSONAL USE. ITA NOS.1981 1982 2310 2364 & 2365/DEL/2010 CO NOS.188 & 189/DEL/2010 11 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED CAR RUNNING EXPENSES B UT IT WAS ONLY THE DEPRECIATION WHICH WAS RESTRICTED TO 1/8 TH . AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE HOLD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING LOG BOOK FOR THE USE OF CAR. HE HAS NOT DEBITED CAR RUNNING EXPENSES WHICH SHOW THAT THE CA R WAS BEING USED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES ALSO. NO LOG BOOK IS BEING MAINT AINED. THEREFORE WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED AND SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PART DEPRECIATION ON THE CAR EXPENSES. BOTH THE CROSS O BJECTIONS STAND DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS BEING ITA NOS.19 81 1982 2310 2364 & 2365/DEL/2010 AND CO NOS.188 & 189/DEL/2010 ARE DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF APRIL 2014. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 24 TH DAY OF APRIL 2014 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A) MEERUT. 5.CIT(ITAT) NEW DELHI. AR ITAT NEW DELHI.