Arvind Retail Ltd. (Since merged with Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ltd.), Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

CO 17/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7688 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: L P JAIN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; Question of law; Bad and doubtful debts; Tax effect; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 40(a)(ia); 194C; 201(1); 201; 194A; 13; 37; 139

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ITA NO. 3669/AHD/2015 (REVENUE) ( /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) AND CO NO.17/AHD/2016 - AY 2011-12 (ASSESSEE) THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1) AHMEDABAD / VS. M/S.ARVIND RETAIL LTD. (SINCE MERGED WITH ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD.) ARVIND MILL PREMISES NARODA ROAD AHMEDABAD-380 025 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAGCA 2637 Q ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT & CROSS OBJECTOR ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI L.P. JAIN, SR.DR / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VARTIK R. CHOKSHI WITH SHRI BIREN SHAH, ARS / DATE OF HEARING 10/01/2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28/01/2020 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS)1, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-V I/DCIT, CIR- 1/190/2014-15 DATED 18/10/2015 ARISING IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HEREINA FTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 28/03/2014 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTION THEREOF. ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 2 - 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN IT A NO. 3669/AHD/2015 FOR AY 2011-12, WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HO LDING THAT THE DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT IS PART OF COMPUTERS AND ELIGIBLE FOR DEP RECIATION AT 60%. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIR ECTING THE AO TO VERIFY THE FACTS AND IF THE PAYEE COMPANY HAS OFFERED THE INTE REST OF RS.2,61,55,578/- AS INCOME IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME, DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) SHALL NOT SURVIVE. THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT THE A MENDMENT MADE IN SECTION 40(A)(IA) WITH EFFECT FROM 01-04-2013 IS APPLICABLE FOR A.Y. 2011-12 ALSO. ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO T HE EXTENT MENTIONED ABOVE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE HIS TRUE INCOME /BOOK PROFIT. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED TO THE AB OVE EXTENT. THE APPELLANT CRAVES, TO LEAVE, TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 3. THE FIRST RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN GROUND NO. 1 IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION @ 60% ON D ATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT TREATING THEM AS COMPUTER. 4. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PUBLIC COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN RETAIL BUSINESS OF APPARELS. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 2,93,17,617/- @ 60% ON I TS BLOCK OF ASSETS CLASSIFIED UNDER DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT WHICH IS CONSISTING OF SOFTWARE, LAPTOP, DESKTOP, PRINTER SCANNER, ETC. 4.1. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT DE PRECIATION ON DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWABLE @ 15% ONLY AS THE SAME IS NOT ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 3 - COMPUTER. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO DISALLOWED RS.2,19,88 ,212/- BEING EXCESS DEPRECIATION AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LEARN ED CIT (A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUBMITTED AS UNDER: I. THE AO RESTRICTED THE DEPRECIATION TO 15% ONLY MERE LY ON THE BASIS THAT IT HAS CLASSIFIED THE COMPUTERS UNDER THE BLOCK OF ASSETS AS DATA PROCESSING MACHINERY. II. IT HAS FILED A DETAILED CHART OF THE EQUIPMENTS/ITE M OF ASSETS CLASSIFIED UNDER THE HEAD DATA PROCESSING MACHINERY. SUCH EQUIPMENTS/ITE M OF ASSETS INCLUDE COMPUTERS, LAPTOP, DESK TOP, PRINTERS, SCANNERS, MO DEMS AND ROUTERS AS WELL AS OTHER ITEMS WHICH CANNOT BE USED WITHOUT THE USE OF THE COMPUTERS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT ALL THE DEVICES WHICH ARE NECESSARY AND USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH COMPUTERS ARE TREATED AS PART OF T HE COMPUTERS. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE EXPLANATION ATTACHED TO THIS SECTION 36(1)(XI) AS THE WORD COMPUTER WAS NOT DEFINED UNDER THE ACT. III. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT IT HAS INTANGIBLE AS SETS IN THE FORM OF SOFTWARE, AS SHOWN IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, WHICH CANNOT BE USED WITHOUT THE COMPUTERS. BUT THE AO IGNORED THIS FACTUAL ASPECT A ND TREATED THE COMPUTER AS PLANT AND MACHINERY. IV. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO THE SCHEDULE XIV OF T HE COMPANIES ACT 1956 WHERE THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION WAS PRESCRIBED WITH RESPEC T TO CERTAIN ASSETS WHICH WERE CLASSIFIED AS 4. DATA PROCESSING MACHINES INCLUDIN G COMPUTERS (NESD). V. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT IT WAS ALLOWED DEPRE CIATION ON DATA PROCESSING MACHINERY AT THE RATE OF 60% TO THE SAME AS COMPUTE R IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 4.2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUB MISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OBS ERVED THAT THE ITEMS OF THE ASSETS /EQUIPMENTS CLASSIFIED UNDER THE HEAD DA TA PROCESSING EQUIPMENTS ARE MAINLY REPRESENTING THE COMPUTERS AND OTHER ITE MS WHICH ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THE COMPUTERS AS THESE OTHER ITEMS CANNOT BE USED WITHOUT THE USE OF THE COMPUTERS. ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 4 - 4.3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS ALLOWED DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 60% ON THE ITEMS/BLOCK O F ASSETS CLASSIFIED UNDER THE HEAD DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENTS TREATING THEM A S COMPUTERS IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT-A DELETE D THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED DR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO CLARITY TO THE FACT WHETHER THE ITEMS CLASSIFIED UNDER THE HEAD DATA PR OCESSING EQUIPMENTS REPRESENT COMPUTERS AND ITS CONNECTED DEVICES. AS S UCH THIS FACT WAS NOT VERIFIED IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THEREFORE, NO REFERENCE CA N BE MADE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING ASSESSM ENT WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US F ILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING FROM PAGES 1 TO 249 AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DETA ILS OF THE ITEMS FALLING UNDER THE HEAD DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT WERE FURNI SHED WHICH WAS DULY CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HELD THAT SUCH ITEMS UNDER THE HEAD DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT S ARE COMPUTERS AND OTHER DEVICES ARE CONNECTED TO IT. THE LEARNED AR I N SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION DREW OUR ATTENTION ON PAGES 96 TO 99 OF THE PAPER B OOK WHERE THE DETAILS OF THE ITEMS OF DATA PROCESSING MACHINERY WERE PLACED. THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE AU THORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 5 - 6.1. BOTH THE LEARNED DR AND THE AR BEFORE US REL IED ON THE ORDER OF THE RESPECTIVE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS FAVOURABLE TO THEM. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH T HE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE PRECEDING D ISCUSSION WE NOTE THAT THE AO IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS A LLOWED THE DEPRECIATION ON THE BLOCK OF DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT AT THE RA TE OF 60% ON THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 7.1. SIMILARLY, WE ALSO NOTE THAT THERE WAS AN AD DITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,18,73,028/- UNDER THE BLOCK OF DATA PROCESSIN G EQUIPMENTS. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GIVEN VERY CLEAR-CUT FINDING TH AT ALL THE ADDITION OF THE ITEMS IN THE BLOCK REPRESENTS THE COMPUTERS AND OTH ER CONNECTED DEVICES. ACCORDINGLY THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ALLOWED THE DEP RECIATION AT THE RATE OF 60% ON THE ADDITION OF SUCH ITEMS. THE RELEVANT FIND ING OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) STANDS AS UNDER: 3.3. . ON PERUSAL OF DETAILS SUBMITTED BY T HE APPELLANT IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ADDITION MADE TO DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT ARE PERTAINING TO COMPUTER AND COMPUTER RELATED ITEMS SUCH AS LAP TOP S, DESK TOPS, PRINTERS, SCANNERS, MODEMS AND ROUTERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS PROCEEDED TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT BLOCK C ONTAIN NAME DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE T RUE CHARACTER OF ASSETS. MAJORITY ASSETS AS STATED HEREIN ABOVE ARE COMPUTER S ONLY AND REMAINING ASSETS ARE PART OF COMPUTERS ONLY AS THE SAME CANNO T BE USED SEPARATELY WITHOUT THE USE OF COMPUTER. 7.2. THE LEARNED DR AT THE TIME OF HEARING HAS NO T POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 6 - 7.3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, A QUERY WAS RAISED F ROM THE BENCH TO THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE WHETHER THE ITEMS OF TH E ADDITION UNDER DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENTS WERE VERIFIED BY THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LEARNED AR COULD NOT MA KE ANY SATISFACTORY REPLY. ACCORDINGLY, WE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE A ND FAIR PLAY, EXPRESSED TO SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) TO THE AO TO VERIFY WHETHER THE ITEMS OF ADDITION ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THE COMPUTERS. B UT AT THE TIME OF DICTATION, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GIVEN VERY CLE AR FINDING ABOUT THE ADDITION OF THE ITEMS UNDER THE HEAD DATA PROCESSIN G EQUIPMENTS ARE COMPUTERS/CONNECTED DEVICES WHICH WAS NOT CONTROVER TED BY THE LEARNED DR APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE ITEMS OF ADDITION FOR RS. 1,18,73,028/- UNDER DATA PROCESSIN G EQUIPMENTS. 7.4. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE ONUS WAS ON IT TO HIGH LIGHTS THE INFIRMITIES IN THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT-A BUT THE LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE FAILED TO DO SO. IN HOLDING SO WE DRAW SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAMA KRISHNA JEWELLERS REPORTED IN 52 TAXMANN.COM 23 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: FURTHER, REVENUE WAS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND WAS THE APPELLANT BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL. THEY SHOULD HAVE HIGHLIGHTED AND POINTED OUT THE FACTUAL INACCU RACIES AND THE INCORRECT FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. EVEN BEFORE US, EXCEPT FOR THE REMAND REPORTS, WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED IN SOME A PPEALS, NO OTHER DETAILS AND PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN FILED TO CHALLENGE THE FA CTUAL FINDINGS RECORDED AS PERVERSE. ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 7 - 7.5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEPRE CIATION ON DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENTS AT THE RATE OF 60% FOR THE REASONS AS DI SCUSSED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). HENCE THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. THE SECOND ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THA T THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO VERIFY WHETHER THE REC IPIENTS OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 2,61,55,578/- HAS OFFERED IN ITS RETURN OF INCO ME AND IF YES, THEN NO DISALLOWANCE IS WARRANTED UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) O F THE ACT, THOUGH THE ALLEGED AMENDMENT IN THE STATUTE WAS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 8.1. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OB SERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CERTAIN EXPENSES WITHOUT DEDUC TING THE TDS AS DETAILED UNDER: I. HOUSEKEEPING EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,23,145/- UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. II. INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 2,61,55,578/- TO M/S ARVI ND LIFE STYLE BRAND LIMITED (IN SHORT ALBL) UNDER SECTION 194A OF THE A CT. III. INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 2,32,890/- TO KOTAK MAHIND RA PRIME LIMITED (FOR SHORT KMPL) UNDER SECTION 194A OF THE ACT . 8.2. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO DISALLOWED THE GROSS EXP ENSES OF RS. 2,71,11,613/- (7,23,145+2,61,55,578+2,32,890) ON ACCOUNT OF NON-D EDUCTION OF TDS UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 8 - AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LEARN ED CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) SUBMITTED AS UNDER: HOUSEKEEPING EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,23,145/- 8.3. THE PROVISION WAS MADE AT THE END OF FINANCI AL YEAR 31-3-2011 WITH RESPECT TO HOUSEKEEPING EXPENSES BUT THE PERSON TO WHOM SUCH AMOUNTS WAS TO BE PAID WERE NOT KNOWN AT THAT POINT OF TIME . HENCE, IT (THE ASSESSEE) WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT THE TAX ON SUCH PROVISIONS . 8.4. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROV ISIONS MADE AT END OF FINANCIAL YEAR WERE SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED IN THE IM MEDIATE NEXT YEAR AND OFFERED TO TAX. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO TAX EFFECT F OR THE PROVISIONS MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 8.5. THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE ALSO CLAIMED THAT IN CASE THE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION THEN IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION FOR THE AMOUNT OF HOUSEKEEPING EXPENSES OFFERED TO TAX IN THE IMMEDIATE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 2,61,55,578/- TO M/S ARVI ND LIFE STYLE BRAND LIMITED (IN SHORT ALBL). 8.6. THE PAYEE OF SUCH INTEREST AMOUNT FROM THE A SSESSEE HAS ALREADY RECORDED SUCH AMOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND O FFERED THE SAME TO TAX. THEREFORE, SUCH EXPENSES CANNOT BE DISALLOWED AS PE R THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 9 - INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 2,32,890/- TO KOTAK MAHIND RA PRIME LIMITED UNDER SECTION 194A OF THE ACT . 8.7. THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS 2,32,890/- REPRESENTS THE REIMBURSEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO ARVIND LIFEST YLE BRAND LIMITED (ALBL) ON ACTUAL BASIS. AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO ELEME NT OF INCOME IN THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST REIMBURSED TO THE ALBL. ACCORDIN GLY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT, THE PROVISION OF TDS IN CASE OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES CANNOT BE INVOKED. 8.8. THE ASSESSEE ALTERNATIVELY ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE PAYEE ( KMPL) OF SUCH INTEREST AMOUNT FROM THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY RECOR DED SUCH AMOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OFFERED THE SAME TO TAX. THER EFORE, SUCH EXPENSES CANNOT BE DISALLOWED AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 8.9. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBM ISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND FINDING OF THE AO HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 8.10. REGARDING THE PROVISION FOR THE HOUSEKEEPI NG EXPENSES, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS HELD THAT THESE ARE CONTINGENT LIABILIT IES AND THEREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT (A) DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW THE BE NEFIT OF DEDUCTION FOR THE AMOUNT OF PROVISION IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR IF IT WA S OFFERED TO TAX IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 10 - 8.11. REGARDING THE INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 2,61 ,55,578/- PAID TO ALBL, LEARNED CIT (A) DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY WHETHER T HE PAYEE IS OFFERED THE TAX IN ITS INCOME TAX RETURN ON THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE. IF YES, ALLOW THE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESS EE FOR THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES DESPITE THERE WAS NO DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 194A OF THE ACT. 8.12. REGARDING THE INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS. 2,32, 890/- TO ALBL, THE LEARNED CIT (A) FOUND THAT THE CONFIRMATION RECEIVED FROM K OTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LIMITED DOES NOT INCLUDE THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST EXP ENSES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO ALBL. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 8.13. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN CO BEFORE US. THE REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL FOR THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) TO VERIFY T HE FACT WHETHER THE RECIPIENT OF INTEREST INCOME HAS OFFERED SUCH INCOME TO TAX. THE REVENUE ALSO CHALLENGED THAT THE AMENDMENT MADE UNDER THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, FOR NOT DEDUCTING THE TDS IN A SITUATION WHERE THE RECIPIENT HAS OFFERED THE SAME TO TAX WAS NOT APPLI CABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS SUCH, THE SAME WAS BROUGHT BY THE FINANCE ACT 2012 WITH EFFECT FROM 01-04-2013. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE IS IN CO BEAR ING NO.17/AHD/2016 AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEKEEPING AND INTEREST PAID TO KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD. THE RELEVANT GROU NDS RAISED IN THE CO ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 11 - 2. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RE SPONDENTS CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWA NCE OF DEDUCTION FOR RS.2,32,890 MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER U /S.40(1)(IA). HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER ALIA, THAT SINCE THE IMPUGN ED AMOUNT HAD BEEN PAID BY THE RESPONDENT TO ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD. IN R EIMBURSEMENT OF INTEREST PAID BY IT TO KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMES LTD. IN RESPECT OF ASSETS USED BY THE RESPONDENT, IT DID NOT REPRESENT INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE PAY EE VIZ., ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD. AND, THEREFORE, THERE COULD BE NO QUEST ION FOR INVOKING SECTION 40(A)(IA) FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. 3. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RE SPONDENTS CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.7,23,145 ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR HOUSEKEEPING EXPENSES MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING SECTION 40(A)(IA) (ALBEIT, SUBJ ECT TO ACCEPTANCE OF THE RESPONDENTS ALTERNATIVE GROUND FOR NOT SUBJECTING THE REVERSAL OF THE PROVISION IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING YEAR TO TAX AS INCOME ). THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER ALIA, THAT THE RESPONDEN T WAS MANDATED TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED PROVISION IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON THE L AST DAY OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR PURSUANT TO THE PRINCIPLE OF MATCHING COSTS WI TH REVENUE AND THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRACTICE FOR SUCH PROVISIONS, THE SAME HAD BEEN REVERSED ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR AND THAT THEREFORE, THERE COULD BE NO QUESTION FOR INVOKING SECTION 40(A)(IA) IN RESPECT THEREOF. 10. THE LEARNED DR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE A MENDMENT IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP (P) LTD REPORTED IN [2015] 61 TAXAMNN.COM 45 HAS HELD THAT SUCH AMENDMENT IS RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. THUS THE SAME IS APPLICABL E FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THOUGH IT WAS BROUGHT TO STATUTE WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL 2013. 12. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR OTHER GR OUNDS RAISED BY IT IN ITS CO REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW. ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 12 - BOTH THE LEARNED DR AND THE AR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO THE EXTENT FAVOURABLE TO THEM. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH T HE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS OF THE DIS PUTE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ELABORATED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH. THEREFORE WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO REPEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY AND CONVENI ENCE. 13.1. REGARDING THE INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 2,61 ,55,578/- PAID TO ALBL, WE NOTE THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS NO POWER TO SET A SIDE THE ORDER TO THE AO FOR THE VERIFICATION. AS SUCH THE LEARNED CIT (A) H AS TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER CALLING THE REMAND REP ORT FROM THE AO. HOWEVER, THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE THE DIFFERENT. AS SUCH, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BU T SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO ONLY FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF THE VERIFICA TION. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) SO FAR AS THE DIRECTION PROVIDED TO THE AO. 13.2. SIMILARLY, WE ALSO NOTE THAT, THE AMENDMENT MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2 012 HAS BEEN APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY. IN THIS REGARD WE FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF ANS AL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP (P) LIMITED (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 9. IT IS SEEN THAT THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A) (IA) WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL 20 13. THE EFFECT OF THE SAID PROVISO IS TO INTRODUCE A LEGAL FICTION WHERE AN AS SESSEE FAILS TO DEDUCT TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XVII B. W HERE SUCH ASSESSEE IS DEEMED NOT TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IN TERMS OF THE FIRST PROVISO TO SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 201 OF THE ACT, THEN, IN SUC H EVENT, 'IT SHALL BE DEEMED ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 13 - THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED AND PAID THE TAX ON SUCH SUM ON THE DATE OF FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME BY THE RESIDENT PAYE E REFERRED TO IN THE SAID PROVISO'. 11. THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN INSERTED TO BENEFIT THE ASSESSEE. IT ALSO STATES THAT WHERE A P ERSON FAILS TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE SUM PAID TO A RESIDENT OR ON THE SUM CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF A RESIDENT SUCH PERSON SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IN RESPECT OF SUCH TAX IF SUCH RESIDENT HAS FURNISHED HIS RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. NO DOUBT, THERE IS A MANDAT ORY REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 201 TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER CERTAIN C ONTINGENCIES, BUT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT TO TREAT THE AS SESSEE AS A PERSON IN DEFAULT SUBJECT TO THE FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITIONS AS STI PULATED IN THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 201(1). THE INSERTION OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) ALSO REQUIRES TO BE VIEWED IN THE SAME MANNER. THIS AGAI N IS A PROVISO INTENDED TO BENEFIT THE ASSESSEE. THE EFFECT OF THE LEGAL FI CTION CREATED THEREBY IS TO TREAT THE ASSESSEE AS A PERSON NOT IN DEFAULT OF DE DUCTING TAX AT SOURCE UNDER CERTAIN CONTINGENCIES. 12. RELEVANT TO THE CASE IN HAND, WHAT IS COMMON TO BO TH THE PROVISOS TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) AND SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT IS THAT AS LONG AS THE PAYEE/RESIDENT (WHICH IN THIS CASE IS ALIP) HAS FIL ED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSING THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY AND IN WHICH THE INCOME EARNED BY IT IS EMBEDDED AND HAS ALSO PAID TAX ON SUCH INCOME, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE TREATED AS A PERSON IN DEFAULT. AS FAR AS THE PRESE NT CASE IS CONCERNED, IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE PAYEE HAS FILE D RETURNS AND OFFERED THE SUM RECEIVED TO TAX. 13. TURNING TO THE DECISION OF THE AGRA BENCH OF ITAT IN RAJIV KUMAR AGARWAL'S CASE (SUPRA ), THE COURT FINDS THAT IT HA S UNDERTAKEN A THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND ALSO SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN THE RATIONALE BEHIND ITS INSERTION. 14. THE COURT IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ABOVE REASONING OF THE AGRA BENCH OF ITAT AS REGARDS THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE INSERTION OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND ITS CONCLUSION THA T THE SAID PROVISO IS DECLARATORY AND CURATIVE AND HAS RETROSPECTIVE EFFE CT FROM 1ST APRIL 2005, MERITS ACCEPTANCE. 15. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE COURT IS UNABLE TO FIND ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ADOPTING THE R ATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE AGRA BENCH, ITAT IN RAJIV KUMAR AGARWAL'S CASE (SUP RA). 16. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 14 - 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT SUCH AMEND MENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT THOUGH B ROUGHT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 BUT IT HAS BEEN HELD APPLIC ABLE FROM RETROSPECTIVELY. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY RE ASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A). HENCE THE GROUND OF APPEA L OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 14.1. REGARDING THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PROVISIONS CREATED FOR HOUSEKEEPING EXPENSES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSE E ITSELF BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ADMITTED THE FACT THAT THE PART IES FOR CREATING THE HOUSE KEEPING PROVISIONS WERE NOT IDENTIFIABLE. ACCORDING LY WE HOLD THAT THESE ARE CONTINGENT LIABILITIES WHICH ARE NOT BASED/COMPUTED /CALCULATED IN SCIENTIFIC MANNER. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE O RDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). 14.2. REGARDING THE INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 2,32 ,890/- PAID TO ALBL WITH RESPECT TO CAR LOAN FROM KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LIMIT ED, WE NOTE THAT THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DO CUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT PAID TO ALBL RE PRESENTS THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSES. INDEED, THERE WAS TH E SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW CLAIMING THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF INTEREST REPRESENTS THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXP ENSES. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING ON THIS C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE , WE REJECT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 15 - 14.3. HOWEVER, WE FIND FORCE IN THE ALTERNATE CON TENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYEE OF SUCH INTEREST HAS OFFERED THE SAM E TO TAX. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE REQUISITE DETAILS S HOWING THE RECONCILIATION FOR THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO ALBL AND THE AL BL SUBSEQUENTLY MADE THE PAYMENT TO KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LIMITED WHICH H AS OFFERED THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. HENCE THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED WHEREAS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CO ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR THE STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. COMING TO THE CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (IN ITA NO.3669/AH D/2012) FOR AY 2011-12 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN IT S CO: 1. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RESPONDENT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING UPON G ROUND NO. 1 OF THE RESPONDENT'S APPEAL CHALLENGING THE VERY VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER IMPUGNED BEFORE HIM, ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS GENERAL IN NATURE. HE OUG HT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER ALIA, THAT THE GROUND ITSELF SHOWED THAT THE CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD BEEN MADE ON SPECIFIC GROUNDS AND THAT IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS A GENERAL GROUND NOT REQUIRING TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON. 2. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RESPONDENT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE D ISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR RS.2,32,890 MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER U /S. 40(A)(IA). HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER ALIA, THAT SINCE THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT HAD BEEN PAID BY THE RESPONDENT TO ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD. IN REIMB URSEMENT OF INTEREST PAID BY IT TO KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMES LTD. IN RESPECT OF ASSETS USE D BY THE RESPONDENT, IT DID NOT REPRESENT INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE PAYEE VIZ., AR VIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD. AND, THEREFORE, THERE COULD BE NO QUESTION FOR INVOKING SECTION 40(A)(IA) FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 16 - 3. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RESPONDENT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE D ISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,23,145 ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR HOUSEKEEPING EXPENSES MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING SECTION 40(A)(IA) (ALBEIT, SUBJ ECT TO ACCEPTANCE OF THE RESPONDENT'S ALTERNATIVE GROUND FOR NOT SUBJECTING THE REVERSAL OF THE PROVISION IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING YEAR TO TAX AS INCOME). THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER ALIA, THAT THE RESPONDENT W AS MANDATED TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED PROVISION IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON THE L AST DAY OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR PURSUANT TO THE PRINCIPLE OF MATCHING COSTS WITH RE VENUE AND THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRACTICE FOR SUCH PROVISIONS , THE SAME HAD BEEN REVERSED ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR AND THAT THEREF ORE, THERE COULD BE NO QUESTION FOR INVOKING SECTION 40(A)(IA) IN RESPECT THEREOF. 4. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RESPONDENT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE D ISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,61,368 MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY WRONGLY APPLYIN G THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(2) READ WITH SECTION 36(1)(VII). HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPR ECIATED, INTER ALIA, THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT REPRESENTED A BUSINESS LOSS (ON ACC OUNT OF IRRECOVERABILITY OF DEPOSITS PAID TO LANDLORDS OF RENTED PREMISES USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS) WHICH WAS CLEARLY DEDUCTIBLE U/S. 37 AND/OR U/S. 28. 5. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RESPONDENT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE D ISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS.5,58,461 ON ADDITIONS TO MOTOR CARS MADE THIS YEAR. HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER ALIA, THAT THE MOTOR CARS IN QUESTION HAD BEEN PURCHASED WITH THE RESPONDENT'S FUNDS AND WERE USED FOR THE P URPOSES OF ITS BUSINESS. 6. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RESPONDENT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING GROU ND NO. 14 OF THE RESPONDENT'S APPEAL BEFORE HIM ON THE GROUND THAT LEVY OF INTERE ST U/S. 234B WAS CONSEQUENTIAL. HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER ALIA, THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD CHALLENGED THE VERY LEVY OF INTEREST (AMOUNTING TO A HUGE RS.39,34,692) UNDE R THAT PROVISION AND, IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS CASE , EVEN IF ANY OF THE ADDITIONS TO ITS RETURNED INCOME CAME TO BE ULTIMATELY SUSTAINED, TH E RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN BHARAT MACHINERY AND HARDWARE MART'S CASE (136 ITR 875) AND OF THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN HAR YANA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION V. DCIT [252 ITR (AT.) 34] WAS ATTRACTED AND THE LEVY DESERVED TO BE CANCELLED. 7. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RESPONDENT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING GROU ND NO. 15'OF THE RESPONDENT'S APPEAL BEFORE HIM ON THE GROUND THAT LEVY OF INTERE ST U/S. 234C WAS CONSEQUENTIAL. HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER ALIA, THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD CHALLENGED THE VERY LEVY OF INTEREST (AMOUNTING TO RS.28,347) UNDER THAT PRO VISION AND, IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS CASE, EVEN IF ANY OF THE ADDITIONS TO ITS ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 17 - RETURNED INCOME CAME TO BE ULTIMATELY SUSTAINED, TH E RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN BHARAT MACHINERY AND HARDWARE MART'S CASE (136 ITR 875) AND OF THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN HAR YANA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION V. DCIT [252 ITR (AT.) 34] WAS ATTRACTED AND THE LEVY DESERVED TO BE CANCELLED. 8. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE RESPONDENT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING GROU ND NO. 16 OF THE RESPONDENT'S APPEAL BEFORE HIM CHALLENGING THE INITIATION OF PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C), ON THE GROUND THAT NO PENALTY HAD BEEN LEVIED YET. HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER ALIA, THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RESPONDENT'S CASE, THERE BEING ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANT/JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THEY DESERVED TO BE DROPPED, THEREBY S AVING BOTH THE APPELLANT AND THE DEPARTMENT FROM LONG DRAWN UNNECESSARY LITIGATI ON. 9. THE RESPONDENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND A ND/OR ALTER THE GROUND OR GROUNDS OF CROSS-OBJECTIONS EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 16. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND N O. 1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. THEREFORE NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED FOR THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS THE SAME. 17. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND N OS. 2 & 3 IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF HOUSEKEEPING EXPENSES AND INTEREST EXPENSES FOR RS. 7,23,145/- AND 2,32,890/- RESPECTIVELY BY THE AO WH ICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 18. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THE ISSUES RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF CO HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED A LONG WITH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BEARING ITA NO. 3369/AHD/2015 VIDE PARA GRAPH NUMBERS 13 TO 14 OF THIS ORDER. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, THE GROUNDS OF CO RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 18 - 19. THE ASSESSEE, VIDE GROUND 4 OBJECTED THE CONF IRMATION OF DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 3,61,368/- ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS. 20. THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO TWO LEASE AGRE EMENTS FOR SHOW ROOMS AT GHAZIABAD UP W.E.F. 01-12-2000 AND FOR SHOW ROOM AT PUNE W.E.F. 07-05- 2008. IT HAS MADE SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,00,000 FOR GHAZIABAD SHOWROOM AND FOR PUNE SHOWROOM RS. 2,72,880/-. HOWEVER ON TE RMINATION OF AGREEMENT IT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY AMOUNT FROM PUNE S HOWROOM WHEREAS IT HAS RECEIVED ONLY RS. 11,512/- FROM GHAZIABAD SHOWR OOM. THUS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SAME AS BAD DEBT AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,61, 368/- (272880+88488) DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 20.1. HOWEVER, THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAME BY HOLD ING THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN CURRENT YEAR. THUS THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,61,368/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDE R THE SECTION 36(2) R.W.S. 28 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE L EARNED CIT (A). 20.2 THE LEARNED CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER: ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF OBSERVATION OF ASSESS ING OFFICER AND CONTENTION OF APPELLANT, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY DETAILS REGARDING SECURITY DEPOSIT PAID TO LESSOR FOR SHOWR OOMS AT GHAZIABAD AND PUNE OR ANY CORRESPONDENCE WITH LESSOR FOR RECOVERY OF ADVANCES AND ACCORDINGLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS THE APPEL LANTS CLAIM OF BUSINESS EXPENSES U/S.28/37 OF THE ACT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. C ONSIDERING THESE FACTS, ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RS.3,61,368 IS UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 19 - BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 20.3. THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX IN THE EARLIER YEARS. BUT SUCH L OSS WAS INCURRED IN THE COURSE OF THE BUSINESS AND THEREFORE THE SAME SHOUL D BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37/28 OF THE ACT. 21. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 22. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE PRECEDI NG DISCUSSION, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION FOR W RITING OFF SUCH SECURITY DEPOSIT AS BAD DEBTS FOR THE REASON THAT THE CONDIT IONS AS SPECIFIED UNDER THE PROVISION SECTION 36(2) HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED. 22.1. HOWEVER, THE FACT HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY A NY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT SUCH EXPENSES WERE NOT INCURRED BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE BUSINESS. AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN TWO S HOWROOMS IN 2 DIFFERENT CITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY , THE SECURITY DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. THER EFORE, ANY LOSS INCURRED FOR ANY ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT IN THE COURSE OF THE BUSIN ESS IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION EITHER UNDER SECTION 37 OR SECTION 28 OF THE ACT. I N THIS REGARD WE FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE G UJARAT HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 20 - CASE OF PCIT VS. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICAL S LTD REPORTED IN 417 ITR 373 THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER IS REPROD UCED HERE AS UNDER: THE ONLY REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT I S THAT THE EXPENSES (NOT CAPITAL OR PERSONAL) SHOULD BE INCURRED FOR THE PUR POSES OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THERE IS NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A CERTAIN EXPENSE RELATES TO A PARTICULAR INCOME IN ORDER TO CLAIM SUCH EXPENSE. 22.2. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE LOS S INCURRED IN THE COURSE OF THE BUSINESS IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. 22.3. HOWEVER, THE CONTROVERSY ARISES WHETHER SUC H LOSS PERTAINS TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OR IN THE EARLIER YEARS. I N OTHER WORDS IT IS TO BE FOUND OUT THE RELEVANT YEAR IN WHICH SUCH LOSS WOUL D BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION. IN THIS REGARD WE NOTE THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY SET OF RULES TO DETERMINE THE FACT OF THE CRYSTALLIZATION OF THE LO SS. WE CAN UNDERSTAND THIS FACT WITH THE HELP OF AN EXAMPLE. 22.4. SUPPOSING THE ASSESSEE (MR. X) HAS ACQUIRED A PROPERTY ON LEASE FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS AFTER MAKING THE DEPOSIT OF THE S ECURITY AMOUNT SAY RS. 1 LAKH ONLY. AS PER THE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSES SEE AND THE LESSOR, THE ASSESSEE WAS TO GET THE SECURITY DEPOSIT ON TERMINA TION OF THE LEASE PERIOD. LET US ASSUME, THE ASSESSEE WAS TO GET THE REFUND O F THE SECURITY DEPOSIT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11. BUT THE LESSOR, FAILED TO DO SO. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE KEPT SHOWING SUCH SECURITY DEPOSIT IN ITS BALANCE SHEET FOR 2 YEARS AND ALSO CHASED LESSOR FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE SECU RITY DEPOSITS. BUT ALL THE FORCE OF THE ASSESSEE REMAINS UNFRUITFUL. FINALLY, THE ASSESSEE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 14-15 LOST THE HOPE OF THE RECOVERY OF THE IMP UGNED AMOUNT AND DECIDED TO WRITE IT OFF IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS . IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 21 - ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE WRITING IT OFF IN THE FINANC IAL STATEMENTS SUGGESTS THE YEAR OF CRYSTALLIZATION, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS EN TITLED TO RECEIVE THE AMOUNT OF SECURITY DEPOSIT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 11 -12. AS SUCH, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF THE AMOUNT OF SECURITY DEPOSIT IS THE RELEVANT YEAR IN WHICH T HE LIABILITY HAS CRYSTALLIZED. ACCORDINGLY, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CI T (A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND OF APPE AL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CO IS ALLOWED. 23. THE FIFTH ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CO V IDE GROUND NO-5 IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE S OF CAR DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,58,461/-. 24.1. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING DEPRECIATION OF RS. 5,58,4 61/- ON A CAR WHICH IS OWNED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. FURT HER THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES EXCEPT C OPY OF PURCHASE OF THE CAR WHICH WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF DIRECTOR AND DE LIVERED AT THE RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS OF THE DIRECTOR. THUS THE AO, IN ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HELD THAT THE CAR IS NOT OWNED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND NOT USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY THE AO DISALLO WED THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE T OTAL INCOME. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE L EARNED CIT (A). 25. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS MADE AN ASSUMPTION WITHOUT ANY BASIS THAT THE IMPUGNED CAR IS OWNED BY ITS DIRECTOR. ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 22 - 25.1. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT THE IMPUGN ED CAR HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY IT ON HIRE PURCHASE BASIS AND ALSO PAY ING HIRE PURCHASE INSTALLMENT ON THE SAME. BUT INADVERTENTLY THE IMPU GNED CAR WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRAND LIMITED (ALBL ). THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS FACT WAS ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 13.03.2014. 25.2. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 8.3. . ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF OBSERVATION OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONTENTION OF APPELLANT, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON THE GROUND THAT CONDITIO NS U/S32 OF THE ACT. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY DE TAILS REGARDING INSTALMENTS FOR CAR PAID BY IT AND IN THE ABSENCE O F SUCH DETAILS IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THE CAR IS OWNED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELL ANT HAS ALSO FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY DETAILS REGARDING USE OF CAR FOR THE PU RPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT AND HENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DETAILS CONDITIONS FOR CLAIMING DEPRECIATION U/S.32 OF THE ACT ARE NOT FULFILLED AN D HENCE DISALLOWANCE AS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 25.3. THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT IT H AS MADE THE PAYMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE CAR THOUGH IT WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRAND LIMITED. BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE A CTUAL OWNER OF THE CAR AND THEREFORE THE SAME WAS SHOWN IN ITS BALANCE-SHEET. ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 23 - 26. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS NOT PRODUCED THE EVIDENCES FOR THE PAYMENT TOWARDS THE CAR PURCHASE AND THE DE TAILS OF THE LOAN. ACCORDINGLY, HE REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE FILE TO THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 27. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR DID NOT RAI SE ANY OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. 28. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE PRECEDING DISCUSSION, WE NOTE T HAT THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION WAS DISALLOWED IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE LEARNED AR B EFORE US HAS UNDERTAKEN THE RESPONSIBILITY TO FILE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING THAT THE PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE CAR WAS PAID BY IT. IN THIS REGARD, WE NOTE THAT IF THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE T HEN THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE DESPITE THE FACT IT WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF 3 RD PERSON WHO IS CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN HOLDING SO WE FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF AURA SECURITIES PVT LTD BEARING ITA NO. 1330,1622/AHD/20 12 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 18. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. A PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT SHOW THAT THOUGH THE VEH ICLE IS IN THE NAME OF THE DIRECTOR BUT ALL THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN SHOWN AS AN ASSET OF THE C OMPANY IN ITS BALANCE SHEET. ON FINDING THAT THE FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF V EHICLE HAD BEEN INVESTED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DULY REFLECTED ON THE ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 24 - ASSETS SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT C OMPANY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON WHY THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, WE DRAW S UPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MYSORE MINERALS LTD. 106 TAXMANN.COM 166. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECT THE A.O. TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. 28.1. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE INCLINED TO SE T ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF TH E ABOVE STATED DISCUSSION AND THE ORDER REPRODUCED ABOVE. HENCE THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR THE STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 29. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND N OS. 6 AND 7 IS CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B/C OF THE AC T. 30. AT THE OUTSET WE NOTE THAT, THERE IS NO FIND ING OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN HIS ORDER ON THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS D ISCUSSED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, WE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY ARE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICAT ION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE CO ARE ALLOWED FOR THE STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 31. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO . 8 IS PREMATURE TO DECIDE AND ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS THE SAME. 32. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSE SSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.3669/AHD/2015 (BY REVENUE) CO NO.17/AHD/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) DCIT VS. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ASST.YEAR 2011- 12 - 25 - 33. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED, WHEREAS CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28/01/2020 SD/- SD/- ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( WASEEM AHMED ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 28/01/2020 # . . , . $ . . / T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !' #' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. %&' ( / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ( ) / THE CIT(A)-1, AHMEDABAD 5. )*+ $$&' , &' , % / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. +./ / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ) $ //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 23.1.2020 ( WORD PROCESSED BY HONBLE AM IN HIS COMPUTER BY DRA GON ) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 23.1.2020/28.1.2020 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.29.1.2020 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 29.1.2020 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER