ACIT, CC-25,, v. Sri Prem Properties Pvt. Ltd.,,

ITA 4419/DEL/2005 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 441920114 RSA 2005
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 4419/DEL/2005
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, CC-25,,
Respondent Sri Prem Properties Pvt. Ltd.,,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 09-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted I
Tribunal Order Date 09-04-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 06-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 06-04-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 21-11-2005
Judgment Text
ITA NO.3895 & 4419 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL GANDHI HONBLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3895/DEL/2005 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 M/S SRI PREM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VS ASSTT.COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX PREM NURSERY A BLOCK CENT RAL CIRCLE 25 GOPAL NAGAR NAJAFGARH NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. ITA NO. 4419/DEL/2005 ASSTT. YEAR: 2001-02 ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS M/S SRI PRE M PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. CENTRAL CIRCLE 25 NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI VED JAIN RANO JAIN & SH.V. M OHAN RESPONDENT BY: SH. MOHD. MOHSIN ALAM O R D E R PER VIMAL GANDHI PRESIDENT THESE TWO APPEALS ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTH ER BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF CIT(A). SINCE COMMON ISSUES WERE INVOLVED THESE APPEALS WERE HEA RD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS DEALING IN REAL ESTATE. A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE OFFICE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 17.10.2000 AND SOME ITA NO.3895 & 4419 2 INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN THE COMPUTER IN STALLED WITH THE ASSESSEE WHICH SHOWED THAT THERE WAS SUPPRESSION OF SALES IN THE BLOCK PERIOD. SEPARATE ASSESSMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR BLOCK PERIOD UPTO 17.10.2000 UNDER CHAPTER XIV HAS BEEN MADE WHICH IS ADMITTEDLY SUBJECT MATTER OF CONSIDERATION BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS APPEAL. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WE ARE CONCERNED WI TH REGULAR ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02. 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR THE SAID YEAR SUBMITT ED A RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.4 48 370 ON 30 TH OCTOBER 2001. IN THE SAID RETURN THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED TOTAL SALES AT RS.2 19 78 235/-. ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL DISCOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH HAS B EEN TERMED AS DIRECTORY BINDATA AND WHICH CONTAINED BALANCE SHEETS AND PR OFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD UPTO 17.10.2000 A ND AFTER EXAMINATION OF ABOVE ACCOUNTS THE AO CONCLUDED THAT 2/3 RD OF TOTAL SALES WERE NOT DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. TAKING INTO ACCO UNT THE ABOVE FACT ADDITION WAS MADE FOR UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE BLO CK PERIOD. 4. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION AND AS PER ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 24.3.2004 THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY SALE PRICE OF LAND SOLD AND FURTHER WHY RATES ADOPTED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. NO REPLY WAS FILED BY ITA NO.3895 & 4419 3 THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ACCORDINGLY HELD KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT 2/3 RD OF TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION IS NOT BEING REFLECTED IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AN ADDITION OF RS.4 39 56 470 IS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES. ACCORDINGLY ABOVE SUM WAS ADDED IN THE ASSESSMENT. 5. THE ASSESSEE IMPUGNED ABOVE ADDITION IN APPEAL B EFORE THE CIT(A). IT WAS CONTENDED THAT SALES AND PURCHASES WERE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AO HAD FOUND NO DISCRE PANCY IN THOSE ACCOUNTS. THE ADDITION OF RS.4 39 56 470 WAS BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL ON RE CORD. THE ADDITION WAS BASED ON PRESUMPTION OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES AND WITH REMARKS LIKE THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE SOLD LAND AT MUCH HIGHER RATES WHICH SHOWED THAT ASSESSMENT IS BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. I T WAS STATED THAT AO DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS SUPPOR TED BY AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AN AUDIT REPORT. THESE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T COULD BE REJECTED ONLY UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 AND BY POINTING OUT ERRORS IN THE ACCOUNT. NEITHER ANY ERROR WAS POINTED OUT NOR ANY SUPPRESSI ON OF SALE WAS SHOWN. THEREFORE ADDITION MADE WAS TOTALLY UNSUSTAINABLE. EVEN IN THE BLOCK PERIOD NO SUPPRESSION OF SALE WAS FOUND. IT WAS S PECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THAT NO ADDITION FOR ASSTT.YEAR 2001-02 (UPTO 17.10.2000 ) WAS MADE FOR SUPPRESSION OF SALE IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. THERE FORE THERE WAS NO ITA NO.3895 & 4419 4 JUSTIFICATION TO MAKE ADDITION IN THE REGULAR ASSES SMENT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS DAULAT RAM RAWATMULL 87 ITR 359 AND K.P. VARGHESE VS ITO 131 I TR 597. LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. HE NOTED THAT FOR THE B LOCK PERIOD ASSESSEE HAD HIMSELF SURRENDERED INCOME BY STATING THAT CERTAIN SALES HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED IN THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE AO IN HIS REBU TTAL TO THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EMPHASIZED THIS FACT. HE NOTED T HAT BLOCK PERIOD COVERED PART OF THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. TILL 17 .10.2000. LD. CIT(A) FURTHER FOUND THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE PERIO D 1.4.2000 TO 17.10.2000 HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE B LOCK PERIOD AND THEREFORE ASSESSMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME HERE WAS NOT JUSTI FIED. AS ASSESSMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME UPTO 17.10.2000 WAS SUBJECT OF C ONSIDERATION BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION THE AO IN PRESENT ASSESSMENT WAS CONCERNED WITH THE PERIOD 18.10.2000 TO 31.3.2001. HE FURTHER NOT ED THAT OUT OF TOTAL SALES OF RS. 2 19 78 235 SALE OF RS.532 52 200 RELATED T O THE PERIOD 18.10.2000 TO 31.3.2001 I.E. POST SEARCH PERIOD. AS SETTLEMENT C OMMISSION WAS DEALING WITH THE QUESTION OF INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD UPT O 17.10.2000 THE LD. CIT(A) SAW NO JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING ADDITION REL ATING TO THE PERIOD COVERED BY SEARCH I.E. UPTO 17.10.2000. THUS THE ADDITION MADE FOR PRE- ITA NO.3895 & 4419 5 SEARCH PERIOD FALLING IN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR WAS DI RECTED TO BE DELETED. THIS DELETION HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE IN THEI R APPEAL. 6. REGARDING SALE OF POST SEARCH PERIOD THE MAIN C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SUPPRE SSION OF SALE OR ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. BE FORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED DETAILS OF SALES OF PRE AND POS T SEARCH PERIOD. AFTER EXAMINING DETAILS LD. CIT(A) DID NOT AGREE THAT AD DITION FOR POST SEARCH PERIOD WAS MADE ON SURMISES AND THERE WAS NO PROOF THAT ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAD MADE SALES OUT OF ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HE HE LD THAT EVEN IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE APPELLANT WA S MAKING SALES OUT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT AP PELLANT WAS MAKING SALES OUT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH HE HAS HIMSELF SURRE NDERED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR BLOCK PERIOD IT COULD NO T BE ASSUMED THAT AFTER THE BLOCK PERIOD ASSESSEE BECAME TOTALLY HONEST AN D LAND WAS SOLD AS RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THERE WAS NO REC EIPT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER DID NOT AGREE THAT ADDITION OF 2/3 RD OF SALE CONSIDERATION WAS CORRECT AND THAT ASSESSEE SHOWED ONLY 1/3 RD OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED. HE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT CERTA IN SALES AND THEREAFTER WORKED OUT ADDITION TO BE MADE FOR THE TOTAL PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION AT RS.31 29 750 AS PER WORKING GIVEN BY HIM AT PAGE 8/ 9 OF THE IMPUGNED ITA NO.3895 & 4419 6 ORDER. THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) HAS BE EN CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE SHORT QUEST ION BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IS WHETHER THE INFERENCES DRAWN ON THE BASIS OF MATERI AL AND FINDING RECORDED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT COULD BE APPLIED IN THE REG ULAR ASSESSMENT. THE AO AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS JACKED UP SALE CON SIDERATION TAKING 1/3 RD OF THE SAME AS DISCLOSED AND 2/3 RD RECEIVED OUTSIDE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS HE HAD DONE IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT A GREED WITH ABOVE APPROACH ALTHOUGH HE ALSO REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT AS SESSEE WHO HAD BEEN DISHONEST IN THE PAST WAS LIKELY TO BECOME HONEST I N THE POST SEARCH PERIOD. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND THE LD. CIT(A) PROCEEDED T O COMPUTE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) MADE HIS CALCUL ATION BASED UPON ESTIMATED PRICE OF DEVELOPED AND UNDER-DEVELOPED PL OTS AND SUSTAINED PART OF ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. 8. COURTS UNDER THE EVIDENCE ACT ARE ENTITLED TO RA ISE PRESUMPTION OF CONTINUITY. WE HOWEVER HAVE DOUBT WHETHER ASSESSME NT ON SUCH PRESUMPTION OF POST SEARCH PERIOD IS SUSTAINABLE I N LAW. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF CONTINUITY CANNOT BE APPLIED UNIVERSALLY WITHOUT RESTRICTION. IT IS DIFFICULT TO HOLD THAT THE MATE RIAL FOUND IN ONE GIVEN YEAR IN ITA NO.3895 & 4419 7 SEARCH CAN BE USED AFTER SEARCH PERIOD TO REJECT AS SESSEES ACCOUNTS AND MAKE ADDITION. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT EVERY ASSES SMENT SHOULD HAVE SOME LIVE LINK OR RATIONAL CONNECTION WITH MATERIAL FOR THE YEAR INVOLVED. ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE BASED MERELY ON PRESUMPTION OF CONTINUED DISHONESTY AS DRAWN IN THIS CASE. LD. CIT(A) HAD SUSTAINED A DDITIONS FOR POST SEARCH PERIOD BY ESTIMATING VALUE OF DEVELOPED AND UNDER-D EVELOPED PLOTS WITHOUT MAKING IT CLEAR ON THE RECORD WHAT PLOTS (LOCATION AND OTHER PARTICULARS) WERE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND WHETHER SIMILAR PLOTS WERE SOLD IN THE POST- SEARCH PERIOD. WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND ON HIS INFERENCE OF CONTINUED DISHONESTY ADDITION AS SUST AINED BY LD. CIT(A) CANNOT BE UPHELD. 9. AFTER GIVING DEEP THOUGHT TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINAL ASSESSMENT OF THE BL OCK PERIOD ITS BASIS AND THE DETAILS OF PLOTS SOLD IN THAT PERIOD IS RELEVANT AN D IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT OF THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERA TION PARTICULARLY THE POST SEARCH PERIOD. PERHAPS ON ACCOUNT OF LIMITATI ON AUTHORITIES COULD NOT WAIT FOR THE FINAL ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSI ON. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT ASSESSEE IS SELLING DEVELOPED AND UND ER-DEVELOPED PLOTS AFTER PURCHASING LAND IN BULK. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED LY MADE SURRENDER OF INCOME IN THE BLOCK PERIOD. IT HAS TO BE SEEN WHET HER THE PLOT SOLD IN THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IN THE BLOCK PERIOD ARE SIMILAR (SITUATION AND OTHERWISE) AND CAN BE RELIED UPON AS A GOOD MATERIA L FOR POST SEARCH PERIOD. BASIS. FOR EXAMPLE IF A PLOT SOLD IN SEARCH PERIO D IS ADJACENT TO PLOT SOLD IN ITA NO.3895 & 4419 8 POST SEARCH PERIOD WITH SIMILAR SPECIFICATION AND L OCATION AND HAS BEEN SOLD AT PRICE X ON WHICH FURTHER SURRENDER OF Y HAS BEEN MADE AND IN THE POST SEARCH PERIOD THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY DISCLOSED X T HE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY Y SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME. T HERE IS NO CLEAR FINDING ON THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER NOR RELEVANT MATERIAL ON THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF SUCH MATERIAL ARE ALSO NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE US. TH E USE OF SOME MATERIAL HAS ALSO BEEN OBJECTED TO UNDER RULE 46A AND THEREFORE IT IS APPROPRIATE TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE REVENUE. THEREFORE IT IS DEEME D APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR MAKING A FRESH ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AN D IN THE LIGHT OF OBSERVATIONS MADE ABOVE. 10. AS FAR AS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS CONCE RNED WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHEN ASSESSMENT OF BLOCK PERIOD UPTO 17.10.200 0 IS PENDING ADJUDICATION WITH THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE AO TO MAKE SEPARATE ADDITION OF UND ISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2000 TO 17.10.2000 IN THIS REGULAR ASSES SMENT. LD. CIT(A) THEREFORE RIGHTLY DELETED SUCH ADDITION FOR THE A BOVE PERIOD. WE THEREFORE FIND NO SUBSTANCE IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 11. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION WE REMIT T HE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO RE-COMPUTE ASSESSEES INCOME. ITA NO.3895 & 4419 9 12. IN THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.18 25 699 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION OF SITE EXPENSES. THE AO DISALLOWED ABOVE CLAIM BY OBSERVI NG THAT NO DETAIL OF SUCH EXPENSES WAS AVAILABLE IN THE LEDGER. THE ASS ESSEE FURTHER DID NOT PRODUCE ANY VOUCHER BILLS IN SUPPORT OF ABOVE EXPEN SES. THE AMOUNT WAS ALSO CLAIMED BY MAKING AN ENTRY ON THE LAST DAY OF THE YEAR. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE OBSERVATION EXPENSES WERE DISALLOWED. 13. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE POIN TED OUT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE CLAIMED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSI NESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF SITE AND DEBITED IN THE SITE EXPENSES ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT IT HAD FILED DETAIL OF SITE EXPENSES VIDE LETT ER DATED 30.1.2004. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THESE EXPENSES RELATED TO TH E DEVELOPMENT OF LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT EXPENSES WE RE TO BE INCURRED ON LEVELING OF LAND BY EITHER REMOVING OVERBURDEN OF S OIL AND MUD OR BY FILLING PITS IN THE LAND. THE PROVISION OF EXPENSES MADE W AS JUSTIFIED ON THE BASIS OF MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOTED BY LD. CIT(A) A T PAGE 9 AND 10 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) HELD THE VIE W THAT EXPENSES ON PROVISION BASIS COULD NOT BE ALLOWED AND THESE WOUL D BE ALLOWED IN THE YEAR ITA NO.3895 & 4419 10 IN WHICH THEY ARE ACTUALLY INCURRED. ACCORDINGLY ADDITION AND DISALLOWANCE OF RS.18 25 699 WAS CONFIRMED. 14. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 56 OF THE PAPER BOOK REPRESENTING COPY OF THE SITE EXPENSES PAYABLE ACCOUNT. THE SAID COP Y CONTAINED DETAILS OF PAYMENT ACTUALLY MADE IN THE NEXT YEAR TO TWO PARTI ES. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY PRAYED THAT PROVISION OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BE ALLOWE D. 15. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE AGREE WITH THE LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT PROVISION OF EXPENSES RELATING TO PLOTS ALREADY SOLD COULD BE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION AS THE ASSESSEE WAS ADMITTEDL Y FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. AS OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER DETAIL OF EXPENSES WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER. LD. CIT(A) ALSO DID NOT EXAMINE THE DETAIL AS HE WAS OF THE VIEW TH AT EXPENSES ARE TO BE ALLOWED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE EXPENSES ARE ACTUA LLY INCURRED. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT EXPENSES WERE ACTUALLY INCUR RED AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON THE BASI S OF MATERIAL ON RECORD WE ARE UNABLE TO RECORD A FINDING THAT EXPENSES UND ER CONSIDERATION WERE SITE EXPENSES RELATING TO PLOTS ALREADY SOLD. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE CAN BE EXAMINED BY THE AO IN THE LIGHT OF OUR OBSER VATIONS RECORDED ABOVE. ITA NO.3895 & 4419 11 THEREFORE FOR RE-DETERMINATION OF THE EXPENSES TH E ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 16. THAT IN THE NEXT TWO GROUNDS THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED DISALLOWANCE OF MOTOR CAR AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES. IT WAS URGED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT DISALLOWANCE OF EXPEN SES IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY FOR PERSONAL USE OF CAR OR TELEPHONE WAS NO T SUSTAINABLE. IF DIRECTOR OR MANAGEMENT HAD USED FACILITY OF CAR OR TELEPHONE FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES ADDITION COULD BE CONSIDERED ONLY IN THEI R HANDS AS A PERQUISITE BUT NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE AGREE WITH THE ABOVE SUBMISSION AND DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER T HE HEADS MENTIONED ABOVE. 17. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN TERMS STATED WHEREAS THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9.4.2010. SD/- SD/- ( A.K. GARODIA ) ( VIMAL GANDHI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT DT. 9TH APRIL 2010 GS ITA NO.3895 & 4419 12 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. M/S SRI PREM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. NEW DELHI. 2. ACIT CC 25 NEW DELHI. 3. CIT(A)-XXVI NEW DELHI. 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER DY.REGISTRAR