TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of the assessee. Addition on the car running expenses restricted to 10% During the scrutiny proceedings - Held that:- the AO asked for the log book but the assessee submitted that no log book has been maintained. Therefore, the estimation made by the AO and restriction made upto 10% by the Ld.CIT(A) is justifiable. Once the AO or appellate authority raised certain queries and the assessee failed to properly respond the same, the authorities below were quite justified to disallow the expenditure, keeping in view the nature & size of assessee’s business and other attending facts & circumstances of the case. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 194/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 22-8-2017 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH . L . P . SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh . Sanjeev Kawtra, CA For The Respondent : Sh . Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr . DR ORDER PER L . P . SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 01.10.2013 of the CIT(A)-XXVIII, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds:- 1 . That the Order passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,70,00,000 Less 1. Indexed cost of Acquisition (19992000) 22,30,000 289 582 3336401 2. Indexed cost of Acquisition 33750 389 582 50494 3. Indexed cost of Acquisition 197340 406 582 282886 4. Indexed cost of Acquisition 165708 426 582 226389 5. Indexed cost of 92765 447 582 103892 Acquisition 6. Charges ICICI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was unable to submit, therefore, the AO disallowed 1/5 of the car running expenses of ₹ 22,400/- and added back to the income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the addition of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The assessee submitted detailed written submissions before the Ld.CIT(A) and after considering the written submissions and AO s order, the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) is as under:- 5 . 3 To verify the fact the appellant was asked to confirm the date of purchase of a plot, and produce the documents evidencing Registry of the plot and also to produce the financial Statement for the year 1999 - 2000 and 2000 - 01 . In response the appellant produced Conveyance Deed showing that the property had been registered on 02 . 07 . 2003, at Rs . 24,61,564 /- for which Rs . 3,07,750 /- had been paid as Stamp Duty . Further, as per the Financial Statement for the year ending 31 . 03 . 2000 and 31 . 03 . 2001, the value of the Suncity Plot had been shown at Rs . 11,15,000 /- in the balance sheet of the appellant i . e . Dr . Sunil Kumar Jain . The interest payment to ICICI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther the assessee took loan from Bank of Baroda for the final payment and the property was got registered in the name of the assessee and his wife jointly. The loan was re-paid with the interest. The payment is also part of the cost of acquisition. The interest has not been debited in the value of assets is not relevant. In this regard, he also relied on the judgement of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs CIT 82 ITR 363 {1971} [SC]. He also submitted that the loan was taken and utilized for the objective for which it was taken. Utilization of loan for the purpose, it was taken the most important thing while giving loan claim for the interest. The housing loan was utilized for construction/purchase of house. The loan was not only used for the purchase of plot. The very purpose of the loan was taken for the purchase/construction of the house. He relied on the following judgements:- (i) CIT v Mithlesh Kumari [1973] 92 ITR 9 (Delhi); (ii) CIT v Travancore-Cochin Chemicals Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 24 (Ker.) (FB); (iii) Addl. CIT v K.S.Gupta [1979] 119 ITR 372 (AP); and (iv) CIT v Maitheryi Pai [1985] 152 ITR 247 (Ker.) 10. He further submitted that the case laws relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
