2007 (7) TMI 335

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nes installed at the business premises. The AO disallowed 20 per cent of Rs. 28,672 on the premise that personal user of the telephones could not be ruled out. This disallowance was restricted to 10 per cent by learned CIT(A). 3. I have heard rival submissions said circumspected the entire evidence available on record. There seems to be force in the submission of learned Authorised Representative that all the three telephones towards which expenses of Rs. 28,672 has been claimed are installed at the business premises of the assessee and therefore, there is no question of personal user of the telephone. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand after supporting the appellate order also submitted that a non business user of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ese deposits were made out of withdrawals from the bank. However, the dates of withdrawals from the bank account were found to be 5th May, 2003 and 7th Aug., 2003 as against dates of deposit in the cash book being 3rd May, 2003 and 6th Aug., 2003, respectively. Since the dates of withdrawals were after the dates of deposits in the cash books, when queried, it was explained that due to improper maintenance of accounts this discrepancy occurred otherwise the withdrawals in question are relatable to cash book deposits. It was further explained that the assessee had employed a part time accounts clerk who would visit to shop 4-5 times in a month to make relevant entries in the cash book with the help of certain notings, bills, bank deposits, sl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee, the impugned anomaly had occurred. Before CIT(A) the assessee filed affidavit of the accounts clerk who affirmed the plea taken by the assessee. Since this affidavit of Shri Hari Mohan Agarwal. part time accounts clerk, was produced before learned CIT(A) it was not admitted as evidence. But still, even if this affidavit is ignored the case of the assessee throughout has been that due to wrong passing of entry in the books this discrepancy occurred. So in my considered opinion, when the AO has not been able to establish that these cash withdrawals made on 3rd May, 2003 and 6th Aug., 2003 are not related with the cash deposits and when the assessee has explained the reasons for inadvertent mistake having been committed by the accoun....