Tubestar Oil & Services Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The DCIT,(OSD), Circle-8, Ahmedabad

CO 187/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3369 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P M MEHTA WITH G M THAKOR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Question of law; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH (BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. NO: 1590/AHD/2013 & C.O. NO. 187/AHD/13 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) DCIT (OSD), CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD M/S. TUBESTAR OIL & GAS SERVICES PVT. LIMITED PRITAMNAGAR 1 ST SLOPE, OPP. MUNICIPAL MARKET, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD V/S V/S M/S. TUBESTAR OIL & GAS SERVICES PVT. LIMITED PRITAMNAGAR 1 ST SLOPE, OPP. MUNICIPAL MARKET, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD DCIT (OSD), CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AABCT9567F APPELLANT BY: SHRI P.M. MEHTA WITH G.M.THAKOR, A. R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KAMLESH MAKWANA, SR. D. R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 06 -06-20 16 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-06-2016 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: ITA NO. 1590 & C.O. NO. 187/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 2 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION OF T HE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE VERY SAME ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD DATED 20.03.2013 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2009- 10. 2. THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION WERE HEARD TOGET HER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE. ITA NO. 1590/AHD/2013 REVENUES APPEAL 3. THE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE READ AS UN DER:- 1. (A) THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, A HMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE DEPRECIAT ION OF RS.50,64,819/- ON PLANT & MACHINERY @60% INSTEAD OF 15% ALLOWED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. (B) THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XI V, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT T HE SAID RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF PLANT & MACHINERY USED IN FIELD OPERATIONS BY 'MINERAL OIL CONCERNS AND ASSESSEE WAS NOT A 'MINER AL OIL CONCERNS.' 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSI NESS OF MAINTENANCE AND SERVICES OF OIL AND GAS. WHILE SCRUTINIZING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ON GOING THROUGH T HE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE A.O NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 60% ON PLANT & MACHINERY. TH E ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM OF 60% AND WAS ALSO ASKE D TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE DEPRECIATION SO CLAIMED SHOULD NOT BE RESTR ICTED TO 15%. ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED REPLY WHICH READ AS UNDER :- 4.2. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED IT S SUBMISSION VIDE LETTER DATED: 23/11/11, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NO. 1590 & C.O. NO. 187/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 3 'DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED INTO THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING SERVICES LIK E TESTING, ANALYSIS AND INSPECTION SERVICES RELATING TO OIL AND GAS TO VARI OUS COMPANIES LIKE ONGC, RELIANCE, BRITISH GAS, OIL INDIA, TRANSOCEAN, SCHLUMBERGER ETC. THE AFORESAID SERVICE INCLUDES SOME SERVICES LIKE D RILL PIPES INSPECTION, CASING/TUBING INSPECTION, THIRD PARTIES INSPECTION, LIFTING GEARS INSPECTION, DERRICK INSPECTION, LOAD TESTING OF CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENTS/ CONTAINERS, UT INSPECTION, THICKNESS GAUGING INSPECTION ETC. AN D OTHER RELATED SERVICES. FOR PROVIDING ABOVE SERVICES, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY PURCHASED SPECIALIZED PLANT & MACHINERY USED SPECIFICALLY FOR OIL & GAS INDUSTRY. THE COPY OF BILLS IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-1. O N THE ABOVE-ASSETS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPREDATION @ 60% DURING THE Y EAR UNDER REFERENCE. HOWEVER, THE LD. A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEPREDATION @ 60%, AS THE ASSESSEE WAS ENG AGED INTO PROVIDING SERVICES IN RELATION TO OIL & GAS AND NOT INVOLVED INTO DIRECT BUSINESS. IN THIS REGARDS, WE STATE THAT THE ASSESS EE ENTERS INTO CONTRACT WITH THE PARTIES WHO ARE INTO THE BUSINESS OF EXPLO RATION OF OIL & GAS IN FIELD. ON THE BASIS OF CERTIFICATION BY THE ASSESSE E, SUCH PARTIES USE THEIR ASSETS FOR OIL & GAS EXPLORATION, WITHOUT THESE, SU CH COMPANIES CANNOT USE THE MACHINES FOR EXPLORATION. FOR GIVING THE CERTIFICATION, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY USES CERTAIN MACHINERY, WHICH IS USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE ABOVE PURPOSE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SUBMIT THAT THE MACHINERIES USED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IN RELATION TO OIL& GAS EXPLORATION AND ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEPR ECIATION @ 60%. AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE DRAW YOUR GOOD SELVES ATTENTIO N TO THE RECENT JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE, OF CIT - IV, DELHI VS. M/S. HLS INDIA LTD, (COPY ENCLOSED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE - 2), WHER EIN THE COURT HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO. 1590 & C.O. NO. 187/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 4 '49. HAVING DECIDED THE ISSUE IN THE AFORESAID TERM S, WE MAY TAKE LIBERTY TO LOOK INTO THIS ISSUE FROM A DIFFERENT POINT OF V IEW. DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE IS A LAND OF TAX BENEFIT WHICH IS GIVEN T O THE BUSINESS CONCERNS FOR PROMOTION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES IN ANY PARTICU LAR FIELD OF BUSINESS. IN THE INSTANT CASE DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE TO MINER AL OIL CONCERNS @ 100% ON THE EQUIPMENTS USED BELOW THE EARTH SURFACE. IF THE SAME DEPRECIATION IS RIOT ALLOWED TO OTHER LOUSINESS CONCERNS ON THE GROUND THAT THE OWNER OF THESE EQUIPMENTS IS NOT A MINERAL OIL CONCERN BUT I T IS JUST PROVIDING AN ASSISTANCE OR LEASING THESE EQUIPMENTS TO A. MINERA L OIL CONCERN THEN DEFINITELY THIS 'OTHER CONCERN' WILL CHARGE MORE FO R THESE SERVICES AND CONSEQUENTLY THE MINERAL OIL CONCERNS WILL BE COMME RCIALLY FORCED NOT TO OUTSOURCE WIRELINE LOGGING ACTIVITIES TO OTHER COMP ANIES BUT TO DO IT THEMSELVES. HOWEVER, PRACTICALLY THIS IS NOT A VIAB LE OPTION BECAUSE OIL COMPANIES ARE FACING IMMENSE PRESSURE TO INCREASE T HE OUTPUT TO MEET THE ENERGY NEEDS OF OUR GROWING ECONOMY AND THIS HA S RESULTED IN EXTRA WORK LOAD. 50. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, BOTH THE LEGAL ISSUE S, AS FORMULATED BY US IN PARA (7) ABOVE ARE FOUND TO BE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSES. ACCORDINGLY, ALL SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW INVOLVED IN THE INS TANT BATCH OF APPEALS ARE DECIDED IN THE FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST T HE REVENUE. CONSEQUENTLY, ALL THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. FURTHER, WE SUBMIT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CLAIMS THE DEPREDATION FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR 15% AS DIRECTED BY THE AUDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE. COMPANY, HOWEVER FOR THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE, THE AUDITOR WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IN ALSO ENGAGED INTO THE BUSINESS OF PROVING SERVICES TO OIL & GAS RELATED COMPANY, THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO, ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE DEPRECIATION ACCLAIMED BY THO SE COMPANIES. IN ADDITION TO ABOVE, WE SUBMIT THAT THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING HIGHER DEPREDATION BY THE LEGISLATURE WAS FOR THE DEVELOPM ENT OF OIL SECTOR IN INDIA. THE COMPANIES, WHICH PROVIDE SERVICES TO THO SE COMPANIES, WHO EXPLORE OIL & GAS, ARE ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING H IGHER DEPREDATION. THE ITA NO. 1590 & C.O. NO. 187/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 5 PROVISIONS OF SEC. 32 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 D OES NOT PROHIBITS FOR CLAIMING HIGHER DEPRECIATION TO COMPANIES, WHICH AR E INVOLVED IN PROVIDING SERVICES TO SUCH HUGE OIL GIANTS LIKE ONGC, RELIANC E, BRITISH GAS, OIL INDIA, TRANSOCEAN, SCHLUMBERGER ETC. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SUBMIT THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION @ 60% AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD NOT BE MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE . 5. THE AFOREMENTIONED SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE DID N OT FIND ANY FAVOUR WITH THE A.O. WHO WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT THE A SSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION AND ACCORD INGLY RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION TO 15%. 6. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) A ND REITERATED ITS CLAIM. 7. DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ACTUAL WORK EXECUTED O N FIELD OF OIL EXPLORATION TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM THAT THE ACTUAL WO RK IS BEING EXECUTED AT FIELD/RIG LEVEL. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE PLANT & MACHINERIES IN THE OPERATION OF ONGC OPERATES WITH THE TESTING WORK CA RRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AT PARTICULAR OIL FIELD AND SUCH EXPLORATI ON WORK OF ONGC IS INCOMPLETE WITHOUT THE WORK OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF TH E OPINION THAT THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT G IVEN IN THE CASE OF HLS INDIA LIMITED 335 ITR 292 SQUARELY APPLY ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND FOLLOWING THE SAME. THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION @ 60% THEREBY DELETED THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS. 50,64,819/-. ITA NO. 1590 & C.O. NO. 187/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 6 8. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. THE LD . D.R. STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. BUT COULD NOT BRING ANY DECISION IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 9. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUES ARE SQUARELY COVERED IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF HLS INDIA LIMITED 335 ITR 292 WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEALS, (I) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE COULD BE SAID TO BE AN IN DUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTIO N OF AN ARTICLE OR A THING FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 32A AND SECTION 80 -IA /80-IB. (II) THAT OIL HAD INFORMED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH AT THE EQUIPMENT IN QUESTION, KNOWN AS LOGGING TOOLS, WAS PROVIDED, MAI NTAINED AND OPERATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS FIELD OPERATION BELOW THE GR OUND AND THE EQUIPMENT OPERATED INSIDE THE WELL IN HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT OF EXTREME PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE AND THAT THESE SERVICES WERE NEEDED DUR ING THE EXPLORATION STAGE AND ALSO THROUGHOUT THE PRODUCTIVE LIFE OF A RESERVOIR. THE TABLE OF RATES OF DEPRECIATION IN APPENDIX I TO THE RULES PR ESCRIBES A SINGLE RATE OF DEPRECIATION FOR ASSETS FALLING WITHIN A PARTICULAR BLOCK OF ASSETS. IT DOES NOT PRESCRIBE DIFFERENT RATES OF DEPRECIATION WITH REFERENCE TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSET. THE SPECIAL RATES OF DEPREC IATION FOR ITEM 'III MACHINERY AND PLANT' HAVE BEEN PRESCRIBED WITH REFE RENCE TO THE NATURE OF THE PARTICULAR ASSET AND THE CHARACTER OF ITS USER INCLUDING THE TYPES OF ITA NO. 1590 & C.O. NO. 187/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 7 BUSINESS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN WHICH IT IS USED. OIL HAD CERTIFIED IN THIS REGARD, THAT THE WIRELINE LOGGING AND PER-FORATION EQUIPMENT/TOOLS WHICH WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE WER E SIMILAR TO THE EQUIPMENT/TOOLS OWNED AND USED BY MINERAL OIL CONCE RNS. THE ASSESSEE'S WIRELINE LOGGING AND PERFORATION EQUIPMENT WAS ELIG IBLE FOR HIGHER DEPRECIATION AT 100 PER CENT, UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 32(1) OF THE ACT, READ WITH ITEM 111(3) (IX)(B) OF THE SCHEDULE OF TH E RATES OF DEPRECIATION IN APPENDIX I TO THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. 10. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT (SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR INFIRMIT Y IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCO RDINGLY DISMISSED. C.O. NO. 187/AHD/2013 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 11. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 1,30,911/- AND RS. 1,26,500/- BEING SITE ADVANCES AND RENT DEPOSITS WRITTEN OFF AND CLA IMED AS BUSINESS LOSS. 12. THE FACTS OF THESE DISALLOWANCES ARE THAT WHILE SCR UTINIZING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE A.O. FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,94,689/- . TH E A.O FOUND THAT OUT OF THIS, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,30,911/- PERTAINS T O SITE ADVANCES AND RS. 1,26,500/- PERTAINS TO RENT DEPOSITS. THE ASSES SEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THESE AMOUNTS SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOW ED. THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFIED ITS CLAIM BY MAKING THE FOLLOWIN G SUBMISSION. 'IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED POINT YOUR GOOD SELVES HAVE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY AS TO WHY SITE ADVANCE & RENT DEPOSIT SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO ITA NO. 1590 & C.O. NO. 187/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 8 INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE SUBM IT THAT AS REGARDS TO SITE ADVANCES, THE SAME PERTAINS TO TENDER AMOUNT G IVEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE BIDDING FOR GETTING THE CONTRACT . THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS TO MANDATORY MAKE THE DEPOSIT FOR PARTI CIPATION IN THE CONTRACT. WE SUBMIT THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, AS THE SAME IS AMOUNT PAID FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS & PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS EXPENSE AND SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME. AS REGARDS TO RENT DEPOSIT, WE SUBMIT THAT THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY TAKES VARIOUS PROPERTIES ACROSS ITS PROJECT SITES FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAY OF ITS EMPLOYEES AND OTHER CREW MEMBERS. FOR GETTING THE P REMISES ON RENTED BASIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO MAKE CERTAIN AMOUNT OF D EPOSIT WITH THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. FURTHER, WE SUBMIT THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, AS IT IS NOT THE RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE SAME HAS BEEN MADE IN RELA TION TO BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE.' 13. THE A.O. RUBBISHED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY REL YING UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(2) OF THE ACT AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,57,411/-. 14. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) A ND CLAIMED THAT THE SAID WRITE OFF OF SITE ADVANCES AND RENT D EPOSITS SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS A BUSINESS LOSS. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE DID NOT FIND ANY FAVOUR WITH THE LD. CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE DISALL OWANCES MADE BY THE A.O. 15. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT ITA NO. 1590 & C.O. NO. 187/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 9 THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ONCE AGAIN CARRIED AWAY BY THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(2) OF THE ACT WHEREAS THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS BUSINESS LOSS. 16. PER CONTRA, THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FIN DINGS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 17. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE WRITE OFF OF SITE EXPENSES AND RENT DEPOSITS AS A BUSINESS LOSS. WE FIND THAT INSTEAD OF GIVING A FINDING ON ASSESSEES CLAIM, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS SIMPLY CARRIED AWAY BY THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(2) OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS A BAD DEBT IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(2) OF THE ACT BUT NEVE RTHELESS THE CLAIM IS JUSTIFIED AS A BUSINESS LOSS. SINCE BOTH THESE AMOU NTS ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF BUSINESS LOSS CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE LIGHTLY. WE A CCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,57,411/-. CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07- 06 - 2016. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY RAJESH