IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD Before Shri S.S. Godara, JM, & Shri Manish Borad, AM. ITA No. 1514/Ahd/2013 Asst. Year: 2008-09 Shri Gopal Munghra, Vs. ITO, Wd-2(4), Surat. 3048, World Trade Centre, Ring Road, Surat. Appellant Respondent PAN AHRPM1568K Appellant by Shri M. K. Patel, AR Respondent by Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 15/9/2016 Date of pronouncement: 16/9/2016 ORDER PER Manish Borad, Accountant Member. This appeal by assessee for asst. year 2008-09 is directed against order of ld. CIT(A)-II, Surat, dated 28.03.2013 vide appeal No. CAS-II/465/2010-11 passed against order u/s 143(3) of IT Act, 1961 (in short Act) framed on 23.12.2010 by ITO Wd-2(4), Surat. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- 2. Briefly stated facts of case are that assessee is individual earning income from providing services as valuer and consulting engineer. Return of income was for Asst. Year 2008-09 was filed on 6.10.2008 declaring total income at Rs.4,41,728/-. ITA No. 1514/Ahd/2013 2 Asst. Year 2008-09 case was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS. After discussion income was assessed at Rs.7,01,587/- after making addition at Rs.2,59,859/- towards disallowance of expenses at Rs.1,07,859/- and unexplained cash credit at Rs.1,52,000/-. When matter came up before ld. CIT(A) assessee could not place any material information in support of his grounds towards addition of Rs.1,52,000/- u/s 68 of Act for unexplained cash credit and same was therefore, dismissed. As regards disallowance of expenses of Rs.1,07,587/- calculated by ld. Assessing Officer by making 20% disallowance on total expenses of Rs.5,39,298/-. Ld. CIT(A) partly deleted addition by sustaining disallowance of expenses to 10% i.e. @ 50%. 3. Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before Tribunal. 4. First we take ground no.1 which reads as under :- 1. On facts and in circumstances of case as well as law on subject, learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming action of assessing officer to disallow 10% of various expenses which work outtoRs.53,929/-. 5. Ld. AR submitted that expenditure of Rs.5,39,298/- are general expenses and were incurred for day to day business purposes. However, ld. Assessing Officer made ad hoc disallowance at 20%. 6. Ld. DR supported orders of lower authorities. ITA No. 1514/Ahd/2013 3 Asst. Year 2008-09 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused material on record. We observe that ld. Assessing Officer has just made ad hoc disallowance towards element of personal expenditure but could not place any specific finding to disprove claim of assessee. This ad hoc disallowance was further restricted to 10%. In given facts and circumstances of case, we are of view that in order to meet ends of justice, disallowance of Rs. 26965 being 5% of Rs.5,39,298/- will be sufficient to cover personal element of expenditure. We accordingly do so. As result, this ground is partly allowed. 8. Ground no.2 reads as under 2. On facts and in circumstances of case as well as law on subject, learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 1,52,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/ s.68 of I.T. Act. 9. During course of assessment proceedings ld. Assessing Officer observed that unsecured loan of Rs.1,52,000/- was shown. On going through details it was observed that unsecured loan in cash of Rs.19,000/- each from 8 parties were taken during year. However, assessee was unable to furnish any detail to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of aforesaid depositors. Further before ld. CIT(A) also nothing was furnished by assessee towards identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of creditors of Rs.1,52,000/-. Now when assessee is in appeal ITA No. 1514/Ahd/2013 4 Asst. Year 2008-09 before Tribunal, ld. AR could not make any contention to support ground taken in appeal. 10. On other hand, ld. DR supported orders of lower authorities. 11. We have heard rival contentions and perused material on record. We find that against impugned addition made by ld. Assessing Officer and further confirmed by ld. CIT(A) towards cash credit of Rs.1,52,000/- u/s 68 of Act ld. AR has nothing to substantiate in order to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of unexplained cash credit of Rs.1,52,000/- is not proved. We find no reason to interfere with order of ld. CIT(A). This ground is dismissed. 12. Ground nos. 3 & 4 are of general nature, which need no adjudication. 13. In result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on 16th September, 2016 Sd/- sd/- (S.S. Godara) (Manish Borad) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated 16/9/2016 Mahata/- ITA No. 1514/Ahd/2013 5 Asst. Year 2008-09 Copy of order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT concerned 4. CIT(A) concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard File BY ORDER Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation: 15/09/2016 2. Date on which typed draft is placed before Dictating Member: 16/09/2016 other Member: 3. Date on which approved draft comes to Sr. P. S./P.S.: 4. Date on which fair order is placed before Dictating Member for pronouncement: __________ 5. Date on which fair order comes back to Sr. P.S./P.S.: 6. Date on which file goes to Bench Clerk:16/9/16 7. Date on which file goes to Head Clerk: 8. date on which file goes to Assistant Registrar for signature on order: 9. Date of Despatch of Order: Gopal Munghra v. ITO, Wd-2(4), Surat