DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

131, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the activity of the assessee falls under the ambit of business by holding that the block of assets of the assessee consists of building, furniture & electrical fittings, equipment & vehicle and computer. With regard to the building, furniture & electrical fittings, which form an integral part of the building, the assessee’s claim

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

131, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the activity of the assessee falls under the ambit of business by holding that the block of assets of the assessee consists of building, furniture & electrical fittings, equipment & vehicle and computer. With regard to the building, furniture & electrical fittings, which form an integral part of the building, the assessee’s claim

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

131, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the activity of the assessee falls under the ambit of business by holding that the block of assets of the assessee consists of building, furniture & electrical fittings, equipment & vehicle and computer. With regard to the building, furniture & electrical fittings, which form an integral part of the building, the assessee’s claim

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

131, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the activity of the assessee falls under the ambit of business by holding that the block of assets of the assessee consists of building, furniture & electrical fittings, equipment & vehicle and computer. With regard to the building, furniture & electrical fittings, which form an integral part of the building, the assessee’s claim

KESAVAN VANITHAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2451 & 2452/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19

131/-. He also had a land in Neelankarai which was sold and a house property was purchased in Kodaikanal. 15. Under Section

ITO, TRICHY vs. N.CHANDRAN, TRICHY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

131 of the Act of the contractor and assessee found that the assessee has offered "16,67,500/- income from said property in the assessment year 2013-14, as income from business and not under income from house property. ITA No.1791/Mds/2015. :- 4 -: The Assessing Officer under surmises based on the subsequent years return of assessment year 2013-14 presumed

ITO, NON-COPORATE WARD-19(6), CHENNAI vs. SHRI.GOMATHINAYAGAM RATHINASABAPATHY, EKKADUTHANGAL CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

property\n116\n13.12.2022 Appeal Hearing notice issued by the first 117\nappellate authority\n18.12.2022 Response filed before the first appellate 123\nauthority\n14.12.2019 Response to the show cause notice dated 126\n11.12.2019\nissued during assessment\nproceedings\nR. Sivasubramanian V. Income Tax Officer, 131\nWard 1(1), Salem Income Tax Appellate\ntribunal, Chennai Bench –ITA No 01/Mds/2013\nSupplementary response filed before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MUTHULAKSHMI VELLAISAMY, TIRUPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

house\nproperty and consequently claiming exemption under section 54,\nthe seller filed the computation of income paying Rs. 1,83,576\nas tax, which was quite evident from the conflicting statements\ngiven by the seller and the conflicting income-tax returns filed by\nhim that his action of admitting sale consideration and paying tax\nwas nothing but an obvious effort

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. KALYANI CONSTRUTIONS (P) LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.468 & 469/Mds/2003 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1998-99 & 1999-2000 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Kalyani Constructions Pvt. Income Tax, V. Ltd., Central Circle Ii(5), No.9, Bazullah Road, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 017. Pan : 1-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property”. However, the CIT(Appeals) found that the annual letting value cannot be estimated. The CIT(Appeals) also referred the judgments of Apex Court in Dewal Daulat Raj Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1980) 122 ITR 700 and Mrs. Sheel Kauchish v. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 435 and found that the annual letting value should be determined

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. KALYANI CONSTRUTIONS (P) LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.468 & 469/Mds/2003 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1998-99 & 1999-2000 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Kalyani Constructions Pvt. Income Tax, V. Ltd., Central Circle Ii(5), No.9, Bazullah Road, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 017. Pan : 1-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property”. However, the CIT(Appeals) found that the annual letting value cannot be estimated. The CIT(Appeals) also referred the judgments of Apex Court in Dewal Daulat Raj Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1980) 122 ITR 700 and Mrs. Sheel Kauchish v. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 435 and found that the annual letting value should be determined

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. RAJKUMARI , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

house property, capital gains claimed under the head ‘capital gain’ and deductions claimed under Chapter VIA of the Act. We noted that the assessment order in this case was framed by AO only on 20.12.2019 but it was under mistaken notion or mistaken belief or may be under new technical effect of cut paste has pasted the relevant assessment order

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

131 of the Act to the buyers. According to the Assessing Officer, the said summons returned un-served and by considering the agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney dated 24.10.2008, he held that the sale is completed. Accordingly, by allowing indexed cost of acquisition, the Assessing Officer determined the capital gains at ₹.2,34,72,242/-. 6 I.T.A

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

131 of the Act to the buyers. According to the Assessing Officer, the said summons returned un-served and by considering the agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney dated 24.10.2008, he held that the sale is completed. Accordingly, by allowing indexed cost of acquisition, the Assessing Officer determined the capital gains at ₹.2,34,72,242/-. 6 I.T.A

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

131 of the Act to the buyers. According to the Assessing Officer, the said summons returned un-served and by considering the agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney dated 24.10.2008, he held that the sale is completed. Accordingly, by allowing indexed cost of acquisition, the Assessing Officer determined the capital gains at ₹.2,34,72,242/-. 6 I.T.A

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

131 of the Act to the buyers. According to the Assessing Officer, the said summons returned un-served and by considering the agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney dated 24.10.2008, he held that the sale is completed. Accordingly, by allowing indexed cost of acquisition, the Assessing Officer determined the capital gains at ₹.2,34,72,242/-. 6 I.T.A

SMT. DEVAKUMARI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-11, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.Corrigendum To I.T.A. No.3066/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Devakumari, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 48, Venkata Maistry Street, Income Tax, Mannady, Chennai 600 001. Non Corporate Circle 11, [Pan:Aagpd0150L] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) शु""प" आदेश /Corrignendum Order Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No. 3066/Chny/2019 As Well As The Appeal Filed By The Revenue In Ita No. 3181/Chny/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Were Disposed Off By The Division Bench ‘B’, Chennai Benches, Chennai Vide Common Order Dated 13.09.2023. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Brought To The Notice That There Is A Typographical Error In Last Sentence In Para 9 Of The Order, Wherein, The Bench Has Observed That The Element Of Personal Usage Cannot Be Ruled Out In The Absence Of Production Of Electricity Bills & Thereby, The Addition To The Extent Of ₹.2,00,000/- Has Been Sustained Out Of Addition Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A). However, It Was Also Mentioned That The “Balance Addition Of ₹.3,00,000/- Stands Sustained” Is A Typographical Error.

131 of the Act to Shri S. Srinivasalu to appear before him and to record the statements. It appears that the ld. CIT(A) has also not bothered to make enquiry before confirming the addition. Once the assessee has furnished detailed confirmation of payment of ₹.8,83,600/- on accounts of factory maintenance expenses, to prove the identity of Shri

ACIT, NCC-11,, CHENNAI vs. SMT. DEVAKUMARI,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3066/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Devakumari, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 48, Venkata Maistry Street, Income Tax, Mannady, Chennai 600 001. Non Corporate Circle 11, Chennai. [Pan:Aagpd0150L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3181/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Devakumari, Income Tax, No. 48, Venkata Maistry Street, Non Corporate Circle 11(1), Mannady, Chennai 600 001. Chennai.

131 of the Act to Shri S. Srinivasalu to appear before him and to record the statements. It appears that the ld. CIT(A) has also not bothered to make enquiry before confirming the addition. Once the assessee has furnished detailed confirmation of payment of ₹.8,83,600/- on accounts of factory maintenance expenses, to prove the identity of Shri