Shri Bhanwarla Sharma, Ahmedabad v. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-2(2),, Ahmedabad

ITA 489/AHD/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 48920514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AJQPS4134E
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 489/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant Shri Bhanwarla Sharma, Ahmedabad
Respondent The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-2(2),, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 31-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 28-03-2011
Next Hearing Date 28-03-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 13-02-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : B BENCH : AHMEDABAD (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL V.P. AND HON'BLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA J.M .) ITA NOS.483 TO 489/AHD./2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1998-1999 TO 2002-2003 & 2004-20 05 TO 2005-2006 BHANWARLAL SHARMA AHMEDABAD VS.- ACIT CEN TRAL CIRCLE-2(2) AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (PAN : AJQPS 4134E) (RESPONDE NT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI GAURAV NAHATA A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN SR.D.R. O R D E R PER BENCH : ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T SEVEN SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 11- 12-2008 OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A PPEALS)-III AHMEDABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-1999 TO 2002-2003 AND 2004-2 005 TO 2005-2006. AS ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD ON THE SAY DAY AND ARGUED BY THE COMMON REPRESENTATIVE THEREFORE THESE ARE DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVEYANCE. 2. THE YEAR-WISE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HESE APPEALS ARE AS UNDER: ITA NO.483/AHD/2009 : ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998- 1999 1. THE LD. CIT APPEALS III AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING APPELLATE ORDER DATED 11/12/2008 FOR A.Y. 1998-99 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT BY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.75 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF H OUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 2. THE LD. CIT APPEALS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.4 00 000/- U/S.68 FOR THE CASH CREDIT RECEIVED FROM SHRI DEEPAK JAISWAL. 2.1 ITA NO.484/AHD/2009 : ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999- 2000 1. THE LD. CIT APPEALS III AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING APPELLATE ORDER DATED 11/12/2008 FOR A.Y. 1990-00 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT BY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.75 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF H OUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 2. THE LD. CIT APPEALS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2 00 000/- U/S.68 FOR THE CASH CREDIT RECEIVED FROM SHRI R. SHAH. ITA NOS.483 TO 489-AHD-09 2 2.2 ITA NO.485/AHD/2009 : ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000- 2001 1. THE LD. CIT APPEALS III AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING APPELLATE ORDER DATED 11/12/2008 FOR A.Y. 2000-01 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT BY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.75 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF H OUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 2. THE LD. CIT APPEALS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.7 66 000/- U/S.68 FOR THE CASH CREDIT RECEIVED. 2.3 ITA NO.486/AHD/2009 : ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001- 2002 1. THE LD. CIT APPEALS III AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING APPELLATE ORDER DATED 11/12/2008 FOR A.Y. 2001-02 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT BY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.75 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF H OUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 2. THE LD. CIT APPEALS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.93 390/- U/S.68 FOR THE CASH CREDIT RECEIVED FR OM SHRI SANJAY SHAH. 2.4 ITA NO.487/AHD/2009 : ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002- 2003 1. THE LD. CIT APPEALS III AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING APPELLATE ORDER DATED 11/12/2008 FOR A.Y. 2002-03 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT BY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.2 00 000/- AS UNACCOUNTE D EXPENSES ON FOREIGN TOUR. 2. THE LD. CIT APPEALS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 83 027/- AS UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ON DOMESTIC TRAVEL. 3. THE LD. CIT APPEALS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.75000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 2.5 ITA NO.488/AHD/2009 : ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004- 2005 1. THE LD. CIT APPEALS III AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING APPELLATE ORDER DATED 11/12/2008 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT BY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.75 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF H OUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 2. THE LD. CIT APPEALS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.9 24 823/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LAND SI TUATED AT BHAT. 3. THE LD. CIT APPEALS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 52 952/- FOR UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES ON TRAVEL. 2.6 ITA NO.489/AHD/2009 : ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005- 2006 1. THE LD. CIT APPEALS III AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING APPELLATE ORDER DATED 11/12/2008 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT BY CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF VEHICLE EXP./DEPRECIATI ON OF RS.1 00 000/- ON VEHICLE. ITA NOS.483 TO 489-AHD-09 3 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN GR OUND NO.1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2001-02 AND 2004-05 AND GROUND NO.3 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 IS THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.75 000/- EACH IN EACH OF THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 3.1 ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS CONTENDED T HAT THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO FOR MAKING THE ADDITION IS THAT WITHDRAWALS FOR HOU SEHOLD PURPOSES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE SMT. HEENABEN SHARMA BETWEEN THE PERI OD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2004-05 WAS RS.11.60 LAKHS. THE AO OBSER VED THIS AS INADEQUATE CONSIDERING THE INVESTMENT OF RS.9.44 LAKHS IN FIXTURE AND FITT INGS AS WELL AS IN OTHER HOUSEHOLD ITEMS ELECTRONIC GOODS AIR CONDITIONERS ETC. WHICH WERE INVENTORISED AS PER ANNEXURE VF DURING THE SEARCH. THE AO WAS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THIS WAS INADEQUATE WHEN THE EXPENSES OF ELECTRICITY FOOD EDUCATION TRAVEL E TC. WERE CONSIDERED. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.75 000/- FOR EACH OF THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS. 3.2 ON APPEAL BETWEEN THE CIT(A) IT WAS ALSO CONTE NDED THAT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WAS ON THE BASIS OF SURMISE AND UNWARRANTED CONSIDERING THE AVAILABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SMALL FAMILY OF THREE ETC. IN THIS REGARD THE DECISIONS OF ITAT REPORTED IN 58 TTJ 0409 AND 57 TTJ 0639 WER E CITED. 3.4 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS THE LD. CIT( A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN APPELLATE ORDER FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN PARA 10.1 AT PAGE 5 WHICH IS EXTRACTED BELOW. THE CONTENTIONS WERE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. THE IN VENTORY OF ITEMS PREPARED AS PER ANNEXURE AF DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF RES IDENCE REVEALED A LARGE NUMBER OF EXPENSES FIXTURES/FITTINGS SUCH AS AIR CONDITIONERS GYMNASIUM ELECTRONIC ITEMS ETC. THE A.O. HAD SOUGHT DETAILS OF COST/DATE OF PURCHASE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 22/3/2006 WHICH WERE NOT FURNISHED. THE APPELLANT HAD ITSELF SHOWN FURNITURE AND FIXTURES OF RS. 9 44 511/- IN A TRIA L BALANCE FILED FOR A. Y. 2004-05 OF WHICH HOWEVER NO BREAK UP WAS GIVEN. THUS THE WIT HDRAWALS OF THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE HEENABEN ESTIMATING I.E. RS.11 60 000/- M THE PERIOD RELEVANT FOR A.Y. 1998-99 TO A.Y. 2004-05 HAS TO BE SEEN IN THIS CO NTEXT WHEN THE VALUE OF HOUSEHOLD ASSETS ITSELF APPROXIMATES RS.10 LAKHS. THUS DESPITE THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE FAMILY WAS SMALL AND IT HAD ACC ESS TO OWN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS WERE NOT ADEQUATE. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON ESTIMATED AVERAGE I.E. AT RS.75 000/ - FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS THEREFORE NOT EXAGGERATED OR UNJUSTIFIED. IT IS T HEREFORE CONFIRMED AND THE RELATED GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS.483 TO 489-AHD-09 4 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING SHRI GAURAV NAHATA A.R. APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONTENDED THAT THERE ARE ONLY THREE ME MBERS IN THE ASSESSEES FAMILY. THE WITHDRAWALS MADE ARE SUFFICIENT. THE PAYMENT FOR EL ECTRONIC GOODS AS WELL AS FIXED ASSETS/FURNITURES WERE MADE SEPARATELY AND THE HOUS EHOLD WITHDRAWALS SHOWN ARE ADEQUATE. THE RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECIS ION OF ITAT AHMEDABAD C BENCH IN THE CASE OF MANHARLAL KASTURCHAND CHOKSHI VS- A CIT REPORTED IN 61 ITD 55 (AHD.). 6. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN SR.D.R. APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF ITAT C BENCH AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF MANHARLAL KASTURCHAND CHOKSHI ( SUPRA ) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. HE SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER BEFORE BOTH THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES BELOW NOR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE EVIDENCE THAT T HE WITHDRAWALS MADE ARE EXCLUSIVE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN FIXTURE AND FITTINGS SUCH AS AIR CONDITIONERS GYMNASIUM ELECTRONIC ITEMS ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HAVING NO OPT ION BUT TO ESTIMATE THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE TOTAL WITHDRAWALS ESTIMATED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS ABOUT RS.90 000/- PER MONTH AS AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW FO R HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES EXCLUDING INVESTMENT MADE IN ELECTRONIC GOODS FURNITURE AND FIXTURE GYMNASIUM AIR CONDITIONERS ETC. IS ONLY RS.20 000/- PER MONTH. THE ESTIMATE OF ABOUT RS.90 000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND RIGHTL Y CONFIRMED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). THEREFORE THE VIEW TAKEN BY T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) BE UPHELD. 7. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES WE HAVE CAREFULLY G ONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WERE CONSIDERE D. THE RATIO OF DECISION OF ITAT AHMEDABAD C BENCH IN THE CASE OF MANHARLAL KASTUR CHAND CHOKSHI ( SUPRA ) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF ASSESSEES CASE. HOWEVER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN PARA 6.2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE COST OF PURCHASE AND SOURCE OF ACQUISIT ION OF THE ITEMS MENTIONED IN THE LIST PREPARED VIDE ANNEXURE VF. AS PER THIS INVENTORY T HE ASSESSEE IS HAVING NUMBER AIR ITA NOS.483 TO 489-AHD-09 5 CONDITIONERS T.V. SETS A GYMNASIUM BESIDES OTHER HOUSEHOLD ITEMS AND ELECTRONICS ITEMS AND FURNITURE. THE RELEVANT PART OF NOTICE DATED 12 .03.2006 IS AS UNDER: ' DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AT YOUR RES IDENCE AN INVENTORY OF VALUABLE ARTICLES WAS PREPARED. I AM ENCLOSING THE COPY OF SUCH INVENTORY WITH THIS LETTER. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS O F COST OF PURCHASE OF EACH ITEM ALONG WITH THE DATE OF PURCHASE. ALSO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR PLEA SE PREPARE SEPARATE LIST. IN CASE OF FAILURE TO FURNISH THE SPECIFIC DETAILS AN D EXPLANATION OF THE SOURCE IN THIS REGARD THE APPROPRIATE ADDITION WOULD BE MADE WH ICH MAY LEAD TO ESTIMATION OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES .' 7.1 IN PARA 6.3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONE D THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS CALLED FOR INSTEAD SUBMITTED A GENERA L REPLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MENTIONED THAT IN THE TRIAL BALANCE FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN FURNITURE AND FIXTURE (BUNGALOW) AT RS.9 44 511/- U NDER THE HEAD FIXED ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE BREAK UP OF THIS AMO UNT. HE TOOK THE VIEW THAT THIS AMOUNT IS REPRESENTING THE FURNITURE AND FIXTURES WHICH AR E WALL MOUNTED AND THE MODIFICATION AND/OR IMPROVEMENT CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE BUNGALOW FROM TIME TO TIME. IT MIGHT ALSO INCLUDE SOME OF THE MOVABLE FURNITURE OR HOUSEHOLD GOODS. HE ACCORDINGLY ESTIMATED THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THE ITEMS MENTION ED IN THE LIST WOULD BE IN THE RANGE OF RS.10 LAKHS. HE ACCORDINGLY TOOK THE VIEW THAT AS T HE INVESTMENT OF RS.9 44 511/- SHOWN IN THE TRIAL BALANCE ALSO REPRESENTS IMPROVEMENT/MO DIFICATION IN BUNGALOW AND THE FIXTURES FITTED IN THE WALLS IT CAN BE SAID THAT T HE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE HOUSEHOLD ITEMS ELECTRONIC GOODS WOULD NOT BE COVERED FULLY BY THE INVESTMENT OF RS.9 44 511/- SHOWN IN TRIAL BALANCE. ON THIS BASIS HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.75 000/- PER MONTH ON AN AVERAGE BASIS FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECORDED THE INVESTMENT OF RS.9 44 511/- WHICH HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THUS THE DISPUTE IS ONLY WHETHER THIS INCLUDES THE COST OF ELECTRONIC ITEMS OR NOT. ADMITTEDLY IN OUR OPINION THIS DID NOT INCLUDE ALL THE ELECTRONIC ITEMS BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MADE IMPROVEMEN T/MODIFICATION IN BUNGALOW AND FIXTURE FITTED IN THE WALLS ETC. FROM TIME TO TIME . WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO BIFURCATE THIS INVESTMENT INTO WALLS/ MODIFICATI ON OF BUNGALOW AND INVESTMENT MADE IN ELECTRONIC GOODS FURNITURE AND FIXTURE ETC. IN OU R OPINION IT WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS .75 000/- IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS REDUCED TO RS.50 000/- FOR EACH OF THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE ITA NOS.483 TO 489-AHD-09 6 ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF RS.50 000 /- EACH IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS. RESULTANTLY GROUND NO.1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2001-02 AND 2004-05 AND GROUND NO.3 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2002-03 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. GROUND NO.2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 AND 2001-02 IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.4 LAKHS 2 LAKHS RS.7 66 000/- AND RS.93 390/- RESPECTIVELY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FOR CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. THIS ADDITION IS CONFIRMED B Y THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT BEF ORE NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION. THE LD. CO UNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE ARRANGED THE LOAN AND HE COULD NOT OBTAIN THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTIES. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PENALISED FOR MAKING THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THESE GENUINE CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.2 LAKHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 -2000 THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM SHRI R. SHAH THE COPY OF ACCOUNT IS APPEARING AT PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK. AS PER THIS COPY OF ACCOUNT ON 18.08.1998 THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.1 LAKH AND THEREAFTER RECEIVED RS.1 LAKH ON 21.08.1998. HE ACCORDINGLY CONTENDED THAT AT LEAST IN RESPECT OF T HIS CASH CREDIT ONLY PEAK AMOUNT SHOULD BE ADDED I.E. ONLY RS.1 LAKH. WE FIND CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION OF RS.2 LAKHS FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 IS REDUCED TO RS.1 LAKH AND REMAINING ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTIO N 68 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998- 1999 2000-2001 AND 2001-02 ARE CONFIRMED. AS A RES ULT GROUND NO.2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-1999 2000-2001 AND 2001-02 IS REJECTED AND GROUND NO.2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. THE FACTS RELATING TO CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN G ROUND NO.2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IS THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.8 46 352/- FOR THE 40% SHARE OF HEENABEN IN LAND CONTAINED IN SURVEY NO.188 189 AND 191 AND FOR HER 33% SHARE IN LAND CONTAINED IN SURV EY NO.186/1 186/2 AND 186/3. IN THE ITA NOS.483 TO 489-AHD-09 7 IMPUGNED ORDER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THIS ADDITION IN THE CASE OF JOINT OWNER HEENABEN FOR TH E SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR . ON THIS BASIS THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CON FIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.9 24 823/-. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. IT IS PERTINENT T O NOTE THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS CON FIRMED THIS ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES WIFE NAMELY SMT. HEENABEN. THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE OWNERS. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.9 24 823/- CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. WE THEREFORE DECLINE TO INTERFERE . THUS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 12. GROUND NO.1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 TAK EN BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF VEHICLE EXPENSES/DEP RECIATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 LAKH. 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED RS.1 65 890/- OUT OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEA LS) RESTRICTED THE SAME TO RS. 1 LAKH. LOOKING TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT EXPENDED OF RS.9. 44 LAKHS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 LAKH WHICH IS CO NFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. WE THEREFORE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. THUS THIS ONLY GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPE AL IS REJECTED. RESULTANTLY THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 14. THE FACTS RELATING TO CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN G ROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 IS THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2 LAKHS FOR UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES ON FOREIGN TOUR AND RS.1 83 027/- ON DOMESTIC TRAVEL. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSES SING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.7 08 837/- OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.6 64 916/- AS IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EXPENDITURE OF RS.2 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF VISIT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS MINOR SON JITENDRA SHARMA TO UAE UK AND NETHERLAND BETWEEN 20 TH MAY 2001 TO 2 ND JUNE 2001 WERE BORNE BY SHRI JAGDISH M. JOSHI BUT VISIT TO UK AND ITA NOS.483 TO 489-AHD-09 8 NETHERLAND OF JITENDRA SHARMA WAS NOT MENTIONED/ SP ONSORED AND THIS WOULD MEAN AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.2 LAKHS WHICH HE TREATED AS UNE XPLAINED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 15. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX(APPEALS) IT WAS CONTENDED THAT EXPENDITURE WAS MADE BY JAGADISH M. JOSHI AND IT WAS NOT MENTIONED INADVERTENTLY IN HIS LETTER AND IN FACT AN AMENDED LETTER WAS RECEIVED FROM SHRI JAGDISH M. JOSHI STATING THAT THE EXPENSES WERE MADE BY HIM . THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT SAID JAGDISH M. JOSHI HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE NA TURE AND SOURCE OF STATED EXPENSES INCURRED BY HIM AND/OR THE REASON FOR THIS GENEROSI TY IN SPONSORING SUCH TOUR. THIS INDICATES ONLY A QUIT PRO QUO ARRANGEMENT. HE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.2 LAKHS. 15.1 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.1 83 027/- UNDER SECTION 69 IN RESPECT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE HIS WIFE AND SON BY AIR TO DIFFERENT DOMESTIC DESTINATIONS. BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THIS EXPENDITURE WAS MADE BY ONE M/S. JOHNY WALKER TOBAC CO PRODUCTS AND ONE RAJESH SHAH & ASSOCIATES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ENQUIRIES WITH THE TRAVEL AGENT M/S. BTI SITA AND M/S. JOHNY WALKER TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND FOUND TH AT M/S. JOHNY WALKER DENIED ANY PAYMENTS MADE TO THE TRAVEL AGENT BTI SITA BETWEEN JANUARY 2001 TO 31 ST DECEMBER 2004. ON THIS BASIS HE TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD BOOKED THE TICKETS IN THE NAME OF OTHER CONCERNS FOR PERSONAL JOURNEY AND THUS THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.1 83 027/- WAS ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED PERSONAL EXPENSES. THIS ADDITION IS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IN THE IMPUGNE D ORDER. 16. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE THE ASSESSEE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 17. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. COUNS EL OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE BOTH THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHO RITIES BELOW. 18. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUPP ORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). 19. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. LOOKING TO THE TOTALITY OF THE F ACTS AND EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATION ITA NOS.483 TO 489-AHD-09 9 FURNISHED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED TRAVELLING EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.3 8 3 027/- (RS.2 LAKHS PLUS RS.1 83 027/) WAS RIGHTLY MADE AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). WE THEREFORE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. BOTH THE GROUN DS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED. 20. GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 2005 IS AGAINST CONFIRMING OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 52 952/- FOR UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES ON TRAVEL. 21. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HIS WIFE AND HIS SON HAD MADE JOURNEY BY AIR TO DIFFERENT DO MESTIC DESTINATION FOR WHICH VIDE LETTER DATED 09.03.2006 THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE E XPENDITURE THEREON WAS MADE BY ONE M/S.JOHNY WALKER TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND ONE RAJESH SH AH & ASSOCIATES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ENQUIRIES WITH THE TRAVEL AGENT M/S. B TI SITA AND M/S. JOHNY WALKER TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND FOUND THAT M/S. JOHNY WALKER D ENIED ANY PAYMENTS MADE TO THE TRAVEL AGENT BTI SITA BETWEEN JANUARY 2001 TO 31 ST DECEMBER 2004. ON THIS BASIS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD BOOKED THE TICKETS IN THE NAME OF OTHER CONCERNS FOR PERSONAL JOURNEY AND THUS THE SA ID EXPENDITURE WAS ITS OWN PERSONAL EXPENSES. 22. ON APPEAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE SAME. 23. BEFORE US THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED ON DOUBTS AND SUSPICION. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HE POINTED OUT THAT BEFORE NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE RECEIPTS OBTAINED BY M/S. JOHNY WALKER TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND ONE RAJESH S HAH & ASSOCIATES IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE FOR TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF ASSESSEE AN D HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHICH MAY KINDLY BE UPHELD. ITA NOS.483 TO 489-AHD-09 10 24. RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WERE CONSIDERED. IT IS PERTIN ENT TO NOTE THAT BEFORE NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ANY E VIDENCE INDICATING THAT PAYMENT WAS MADE BY M/S. JOHNY WALKER TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND ONE RAJESH SHAH & ASSOCIATES. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ADDITI ON WAS RIGHTLY MADE AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). WE THEREFORE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. 25. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-1999 TO 2002-2003 & 2004-2005 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED WHEREAS THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006 IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COU RT ON 31.03.2011 SD/- SD/- (G.D.AGRAWAL) (T.K. SHARMA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 31/03/2011 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO:- (1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE DEPARTMENT. (3) CIT (A.) CONCERNED. (4) CIT CONCERNED. (5) D.R. ITAT AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT AH MEDABAD. TALUKDAR/ SR. P.S.