The ITO, Ward-4(4),, Baroda v. Smt. Sarjulaben Rameshchandra Shah, Baroda

ITA 752/AHD/2013 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 75220514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AVUPS3643Q
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 752/AHD/2013
Duration Of Justice 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant The ITO, Ward-4(4),, Baroda
Respondent Smt. Sarjulaben Rameshchandra Shah, Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 18-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 08-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 08-10-2013
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 14-03-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.752/AHD/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4) BARODA. VS SMT. SARJULABEN RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH 24 ANUPAM SOCIETY JETALPUR ROAD ALKAPURI BARODA. PAN: AVUPS3643Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI J.P. JHANGID SR.D.R. ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI DIVYAKANT PARIKH / DATE OF HEARING : 08/10/2013 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18/10/2013 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-III BARODA DATED 19.12.2012. GROUN D NO.1 READS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW T HE CIT(A)-III BARODA HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF COST OF IMPRO VEMENT OF RS.13 66 000 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE CAPITAL GAINS ON HOU SE PROPERTY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE COST WAS BORNE ON HO USE PROPERTY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE COST WAS BORNE BY TH E LESSEE COMPANY TULSI LOGISTICS WAY BACK IN F.Y. 2004-05 WHEREIN THE ASS ESSEE HAS HAD BEEN A CONTINUING DIRECTOR AND THE PAYMENTS PURPORTED TO B E MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER FOUR YEARS TO TULSI LOGISTICS AND AFTER SALE OF HOUSE PROPERTY ON VARIOUS DATES SUCH AS 08.10.2008 21.10.2009 & ON 31.01.200 9 IN ORDER TO REDUCE LTCG WAS AN ADOPTION OF A COLOURABLE DEVICE. ITA NO.752/AHD/2013 ITO BARODA VS. SMT. SARJULABEN RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH FOR A.Y. 2009-10 - 2 - 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) DATED 11.11.2011 WERE THAT THE A SSESSEE IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY HAS PURCHASED A HOUSE PROPERTY FOR A SUM O F RS.14 58 715/- ON 10 TH FEBRUARY 2004. THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION AS N OTED BY THE AO WAS THAT THE SAID HOUSE WAS RENTED OUT TO M/S. TULS I LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. FOR A MONTHLY RENT OF RS.20 000/- W.E.F. F.Y. 2003- 04. IT WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE SAID COMPANY. 3. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS SOLD DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 13 TH JUNE 2008 AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS FOLLOWS: ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE SAID PROPERTY ON 13.06.2008 FOR A TOTAL SUM OF RS.1 11 00 000. 1. LESS:- A. TRANSFER EXPENSES (BROKERAGE) RS.5 22 000 B. LAND & BUILDING (F.Y. 03-04) RS.18 33 637 C. IMPROVEMENT COST (F.Y. 04-05) RS. 59 411 D. IMPROVEMENT COST (F.Y. 08-09) RS. 13 66 000 TOTAL RS. 32 59 048 .. RS. 73 18 952 A. THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED INTO THE CAPITAL GAIN A/C. NO.66025872837 WITH STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER 54 RS. 40 00 00 0 B. INVESTED WITH NHAI AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 54 EC RS. 33 00 000 RS. 73 00 000 . TOTAL LONG TERM GAIN SHOWN BY ASSESSEE RS. 18 952 4. A SUM OF RS.13 66 000/- WAS STATED TO BE AN EXP ENDITURE INCURRED BY THE SAID COMPANY OVER THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION T OWARDS RENOVATION. THE PROPERTY WAS VACATED BY THE COMPANY. IT WAS NOT ED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID A SUM OF RS.13 66 000/- TO M/ S. TULSI LOGISTICS PVT. LTD ON VACATING THE PROPERTY. THE EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ITA NO.752/AHD/2013 ITO BARODA VS. SMT. SARJULABEN RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH FOR A.Y. 2009-10 - 3 - EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE SAID COMPANY WHICH WAS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE; HENCE CLAIMED AND ALLOWED THE DEPRECI ATION IN THE HANDS OF THE SAID COMPANY. THE OBJECTION OF THE AO WAS THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS WRONGLY CLAIMED AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT BECAUSE IT WAS SPENT BY THE SAID COMPANY. IT HAS ALSO BEEN OBJECTED BY THE AO T HAT THE SAID COMPANY HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT TH EREFORE NO FURTHER DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AS SESSEES EXPLANATION WAS THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS RETURNED BACK BY T HE ASSESSEE TO THE SAID COMPANY WHEN THE TENANCY WAS REVOKED. THEREFOR E IT WAS AN IMPROVEMENT TOWARDS THE COST OF THE PROPERTY; HENCE DEDUCTED FROM THE CAPITAL GAIN. THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED AND HELD THA T THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT WAS NOT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN OWNE R OF THE PROPERTY BUT IT WAS SPENT BY THE COMPANY WHO WAS SIMPLY A TE NANT OF THE PROPERTY. THE AMOUNT WAS PAID BY PASSING A GENERAL ENTRY IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. FINALLY THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE. BEING AGGRIEVED THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY IT WAS HELD THAT THE DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED BY TH E SAID COMPANY AS PER THE EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 32(1) OF IT ACT. WHEN THE COMPANY VACATED THE PROPERTY THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECOVERED FROM TH E ASSESSEE BEING THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE FINDING OF LEARNED CIT(A ) WAS AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND APPELL ANTS SUBMISSIONS. IN THIS CASE THE TENANT OF THE PROPERTY HAD MADE SOME CONS TRUCTIONS IN THE BUILDING AND HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AS PER EXPLANATION 1 O F SECTION32(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. AT THE TIME OF VACATING THE B UILDING THE APPELLANT PAID THE COST OF SUCH CONSTRUCTION TO THE TENANT. THUS AFTER MAKING THIS PAYMENT THE APPELLANT BECAME EXCLUSIVE OWNER OF SUCH CONSTR UCTION. HENCE APPELLANTS CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.13 66 000 I S COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF THE BUILDING IS CORRECT. SUCH COST OF IMPROVEMENT W AS RELEVANT FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN WHEN THE APPELLANT SOLD THE BUILDING AND NOT FOR ITA NO.752/AHD/2013 ITO BARODA VS. SMT. SARJULABEN RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH FOR A.Y. 2009-10 - 4 - THE PURPOSES OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 54F. HENCE THE APPELLANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE THIS EXPENDITURE FROM HER CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT. THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH BANK ACCOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. THUS THE PAYMENT IS N OT UNDER DISPUTE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT H AS RIGHTLY CLAIMED THIS AMOUNT AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CO MPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IT IS ALSO SEEN FROM THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY INDEXATION OF THIS AMOUNT AS IT HAD BEEN PAID IT IN THE YEAR OF SALE OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY. HENCE DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.13 66 000/- MADE BY THE AO IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 6. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE LEARNED SR.DR MR. J.P. JHANGID APPEARED AND VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THIS IS THE CAS E WHERE THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE SAID COMPANY HAD ATTEMPTED TO CLAIM DOUBLE DEDUCTION ON THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS THE RENOV ATION OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. HE HAS PLEADED THAT THE EXPEN DITURE WAS NOT INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN OWNER BUT IT WAS IN CURRED BY THE SAID COMPANY AS A TENANT. HE HAS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE SA ID COMPANY HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE SAID EXPENDITURE; THERE FORE ON THAT VERY AMOUNT AGAIN THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED DED UCTION AGAINST THE DECLARED CAPITAL GAIN. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF LEARN ED DR THEREFORE IS THAT A DOUBLE DEDUCTION WAS WRONGLY ALLOWED BY LEAR NED CIT(A). 7. FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE LEARNE D AR MR. DIVYAKANT PARIKH APPEARED AND PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE VERDICT OF LEARNED CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE NOTED THAT IN THIS CASE AN INTERESTING F EATURE IS THAT A TENANT CAN CLAIM AN EXPENDITURE IF INCURRED AS CAP ITAL EXPENDITURE ON THAT RENTED BUILDING; ALTHOUGH NOT OWNED BY HIM BUT OCCUPIED BY HIM UNDER LEASE OR AS A TENANT. THE IT ACT PRESCRIBED A DEEMING PROVISION THAT SUCH A TENANT IS ENTITLED FOR THE EXPENDITURE AS IF THE BUILDING IS ITA NO.752/AHD/2013 ITO BARODA VS. SMT. SARJULABEN RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH FOR A.Y. 2009-10 - 5 - OWNED BY HIM. THE EXACT LANGUAGE OF EXPLANATION 1 T O SECTION 32(1) READS AS FOLLOWS: WHERE THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE I S CARRIED ON IN A BUILDING NOT OWNED BY HIM BUT IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESS EE HOLDS A LEASE OR OTHER RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY AND ANY CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IS I NCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION ON THE C ONSTRUCTION OF ANY STRUCTURE OR DOING OF ANY WORK IN OR IN RELATION TO AND BY W AY OF RENOVATION OR EXTENSION OR OR IMPROVEMENT TO THE BUILDING THEN THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CLAUSE SHALL APPLY AS IF THE SAID STRUCTURE OR WORK IS A BUILDING OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8.1 DUE TO INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 32 (1) THE FIRST OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT SURVIV E BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY; WHO WAS UNDISPUTE DLY A TENANT OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAD RIGHTLY CLAIMED DEPRECIAT ION ON THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION O F ANY STRUCTURE IN RELATION TO THE RENOVATION OR EXTENSION OR IMPROVEM ENT OF THE BUILDING IN QUESTION. THE FIRST VEHEMENT OBJECTION OF LEARNED S R.D.R. MR. J.P. JHANGID THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. 8.2 THE NEXT VEHEMENT OBJECTION OF LEARNED DR IS TH AT BY SUCH PLANNING THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE COMPANY HAVE C LAIMED A DOUBLE DEDUCTION ON THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT. IN THIS CONNECTIO N OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN ON THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF M/S. TULSI LO GISTICS PVT. LTD. CO. FOR A.Y. 2009-10 WHEREIN A SUM OF RS.1 82 041/- WA S OFFERED UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS PRESCRIBED U/S. 5 0 OF IT ACT. THIS SECTION IS INCORPORATED AS A SPECIAL PROVISION FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN IN CASE OF DEPRECIABLE ASSET. HENCE IT IS EX PLAINED THAT THE SAID COMPANY HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE AFORESAID A MOUNT AT THE TIME WHEN THE AMOUNT WAS SPENT TOWARDS RENOVATION. THERE AFTER WHEN THE EXPENDITURE WAS RECOVERED THEN IT WAS TREATED AS CA PITAL GAIN. THE ITA NO.752/AHD/2013 ITO BARODA VS. SMT. SARJULABEN RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH FOR A.Y. 2009-10 - 6 - AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION WAS NATURALLY ADJUSTED SO AS TO OFFER SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE BALANCE AMOUNT AS PRESCRIBED U/ S.50 OF THE IT ACT. IN OUR OPINION THERE WAS NO FALLACY IN THE METHOD & MA NNER IN WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT WERE APPLIED BY THE ASSESS EE. 9. OUR ATTENTION HAS 0BEEN DRAWN ON THE DEPRECIATIO N CHART WHEREIN AN AMOUNT OF RS. 8 LAC UNDER THE HEAD BUILDING ACC OUNT AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.5 66 000/- UNDER THE HEAD FURNITURE AND FIXT URE TOTALING RS.13 66 000/- WAS REDUCED FROM THE WDV OF THE BLO CK OF ASSETS BECAUSE OF THIS REASON AND CONSIDERING THE COMPUTAT ION OF THE SAID BLOCK OF ASSETS WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THIS ARGUM ENT OF LEARNED DR THAT THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO CLAIM DOUBLE DEDUCTION ON T HE SAID CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 10. THE THIRD PLANK OF ARGUMENT IS THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM IMPROVEMENT COST AGAINST THE CAPITAL GAI N EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION WAS THAT TH E PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS PURCHASED FOR A SUM OF RS.14 58 715/- WHICH WAS SOLD WITHIN FOUR YEARS FOR A SUM OF RS.1 11 00 000/-. MEANING THEREB Y THE IMPROVEMENT COST HAD A DIRECT EFFECT ON THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS HELD IN THE CASE OF NAOZAR CHENOY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (1998 ) 234 ITR 95 (AP) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: WHETHER AS REGARDS AMOUNT PAID BY ASSESSEE TO TENAN T FOR VACATING PREMISES SINCE IT HAD NEXUS WITH TRANSACTION AS WI THOUT TENANT VACATING PREMISES BUILDING COULD NOT BE SOLD ASSESSEE WAS E NTITLED TO DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF SAID AMOUNT WHILE COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN OF BUILDING SOLD. HELD YES 10.1. MOREOVER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATER IAL TOWARDS NOT REASONABLE TO PRESUME AGAINST THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ITA NO.752/AHD/2013 ITO BARODA VS. SMT. SARJULABEN RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH FOR A.Y. 2009-10 - 7 - DISCUSSION MADE HEREINABOVE WE FIND NO FORCE IN TH IS GROUND OF THE REVENUE; HENCE HEREBY DISMISSED. 11. GROUND NO.2 IS REPRODUCED BELOW: ON THE FACTS AND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW T HE CIT(A)-III BARODA HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CONSTRUCTION COST OF RS.8 03 841 WITHOUT APPRECIATING FACTS THAT THE BILLS CLEARLY DENOTED T HE NAME OF SHRI H.R. SHAH AND NOT THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OP ENED A CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT WITH STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA. THE ASSESSE E HAS DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.40 000/- IN THE SAID ACCOUNT TO CLAIM A D EDUCTION U/S.54 OF IT ACT. IT WAS FOUND BY THE AO THAT A SUM OF RS.8 33 8 41/- WAS SPENT OUT OF THE SAID CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT. HOWEVER THERE WERE 25 BILLS OF THE SAID AMOUNT WITHDRAWN WHICH WERE IN THE NAME OF THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE. THE UNDISPUTED FACT WAS THAT THOSE BILLS WERE IN RE SPECT OF THE BUILDING MATERIAL PURCHASED. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT A HOUSE WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOR THE PURP OSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW HOUSE THE BUILDING MATERIAL WAS PURCHASED H OWEVER THE BILLS WERE MADE IN THE NAME OF THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE BU T THE ADDRESS ON THOSE BILLS WERE THE ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSTR UCTION. THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED AND ACCORDING TO HIM THE AMOUNT WITHD RAWN FROM THE SAID ACCOUNT WAS NOT SPENT AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT HENCE THE CLAIM TO THAT EXTENT WAS DISALLOWED. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CAR RIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY LEARNED CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED TH E FACTS OF THE CASE AND THEREUPON ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE AND APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS. IN THIS CASE THOUGH CERTAIN BILLS ARE IN THE NAME OF THE SON OF THE APPELLANT BUT IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ADDRESS GIVEN ON THE BILLS IS OF ANUP AM SOCIETY WHERE THE APPELLANT IS CONSTRUCTING HER NEW BUILDING. THE PAY MENTS FOR THE PURCHASES AGAINST SUCH BILLS HAVE ALSO BEEN MADE FROM THE CAP ITAL GAIN ACCOUNT ITA NO.752/AHD/2013 ITO BARODA VS. SMT. SARJULABEN RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH FOR A.Y. 2009-10 - 8 - MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT AFTER DUE VERIFICATION BY THE BANK. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES APPELLANTS EXPLANATION THAT SINCE H ER SON WAS LOOKING AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSE AND HENCE CERTAIN BIL L WERE ISSUED IN HIS NAME BY THE SUPPLIERS IS A REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE EXP LANATION. THERE IS NO DOUBT IN THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED THESE MATERIALS AND PAID FOR THEM FROM HER CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT. HENCE DISA LLOWANCE OF RS.8 03 841/- MADE BY THE AO IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AND HE IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW EXEMPTION U/S.54 ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH PAYMENT. 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AT SOME LENGTH. TH E UNCONTROVERTED FACT IS THAT A NEW HOUSE WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT ANUPAM SOCIETY BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE AM OUNT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT TOWARDS THE CONSTRUCT ION EXPENDITURE OF THE HOUSE. THE AO HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE BILLS IN QUESTION WERE IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING MATERIAL TO BE USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE. MERELY BECAUSE THE BILLS WERE IN THE NAME O F SON WHO HAD GONE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO PURCHASE THE BUILDING MATERIAL THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE. IN OUR OPINION THE DISALLOW ANCE WAS MERELY ON SUSPICION. IF THE AO IS NOT IN POSSESSION OF ANY EV IDENCE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS SPENT BY THE SON FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE OTHER TH AN THE PURPOSE AS EXPLAINED THEN IT WAS NOT JUSTIFIABLE TO PRESUMABL Y DISALLOW THE CLAIM. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND REVERSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. TH IS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 18/10/2013 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI SR. P.S. TRUE COPY ITA NO.752/AHD/2013 ITO BARODA VS. SMT. SARJULABEN RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH FOR A.Y. 2009-10 - 9 - / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-III AHMEDABAD 5. / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) / ITAT AHMEDABAD