M/s Juneja Project Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

CO 225/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7652 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 31-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DK MISHR A
• Keywords: Business expenditure
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 37(1); 37; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH D : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMEBR AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2401/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) DCIT, CIRCLE 4 (1), VS. M/S. JUNEJA PROJECT SERVI CES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI. 23, DSIDC, PHASE II, SCHEME II, NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI. (PAN : AABCJ3154G) CO NO.225/DEL/2011 (IN ITA NO.2401/DEL./2011) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) M/S. JUNEJA PROJECT SERVICES PVT. LTD., VS. DCIT, C IRCLE 4 (1), 23, DSIDC, PHASE II, SCHEME II, NEW DELHI. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI. (PAN : AABCJ3154G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANJAY KUMAR, CA & SHRI AKARSH GARG, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K. MISHRA, DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL WHEREAS ASSESSEE FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS)-VII, N EW DELHI DATED 18.03.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ITA NO.2401/DEL/2011 CO NO.225/DEL/2011 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINES S OF PROJECT CONSULTANCY ON INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES AND INTERIOR TURNKEY MANAGEMENT AND ALSO TO UNDERTAKE CONTRACT WORK. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 30.09.2008 DECLARING INCOME AT RS.2,42,67,732/-. T HE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 21.12.2010 WHERE CERTAIN AD DITIONS WERE MADE. AGAINST THESE ADDITIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APP EAL. THE CIT (A) HAD GRANTED THE RELIEF ON CERTAIN ISSUES, AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961. REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 01. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS ERRON EOUS & CONTRARY TO FACTS & LAW. 02. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.56,283/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CLUB EXPEN SES. 2.1 THE LD. CIT (A) IGNORED THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE AO AND THE FACT THAT THE EXPENSE IS NOT MEANT EXCLUSIV ELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. 03. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,32,89,832/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED REC EIPT. 3.1 THE LD. CIT (A) IGNORED THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE AO AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER COMPLE TE INCOME FOR TAXATION AS WAS APPEARING IN THE TDS CERTIFICATES. 04. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.L,52,828/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 40A (3) OF THE I. T. ACT. ITA NO.2401/DEL/2011 CO NO.225/DEL/2011 3 4.1. THE LD. CIT (A) IGNORED THE FINDING RECORDED B Y THE AO AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENTS IN EXC ESS OF RS.20,000/- FOR PURCHASE OF FURNITURE. 05. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.17,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID FOR ACCOMMODATION FOR STAFF. 5.1. THE LD. CIT (A) IGNOR ED THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE AO AND THE FACT THAT THE EX PENSE IS NOT MEANT EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. 06. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVELING EXPENSES. 6.1. THE LD. CIT (A) IGNORED THE FINDING RECORDED B Y THE AO AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE NECESSA RY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. 07. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER, OR TO AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL RAISED A TIME OF THE HEAR ING. 3. GROUNDS NO.1 & 7 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NO T REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 4. IN THE GROUND NO.2 & 2.1, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS AGAINST DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.56,283/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CLUB EXP ENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE CLUB EXPENSES WERE PERSONAL EXPENSES OF DIRECTORS AND NOT RELATED TO THE BUSINESS AND THE S AME WAS HELD TO BE NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 37(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. C IT (A) GRANTED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- ITA NO.2401/DEL/2011 CO NO.225/DEL/2011 4 5.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHA LF OF THE APPELLANT, THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND THE FACTS ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF RECORDS, IT IS R EVEALED THAT THE FINDINGS OF AO THAT CLUB EXPENSES ARE PERS ONAL EXPENSES OF DIRECTORS CANNOT BE UPHELD MERELY BECAU SE THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO CLUB. FURTHER, ON PERU SAL OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR AND DETAILS OF SUCH EXPENSES, IT IS SEEN THAT RS.45,946/- HAS BEEN INCU RRED ON FOOD AND BEVERAGES ETC. AND RS.11,694/- TOWARDS THE MONTHLY CLUB MEMBERSHIP FEES AND CONSIDERING THE TURNOVER OF 9.86 CRORE OF THE APPELLANT AND NATURE OF ITS BUSINESS AND ITS CLIENTELE, THE INCURRING OF SAID P AYMENT THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE EXCESSIVE. MOREOVER, ONCE THE COMPANY HAD UNDERTAKE N TO REIMBURSE THE EXPENDITURE MADE BY DIRECTORS, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE PERSONAL EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS HEREBY DELETED. AS A RESULT, GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 IS ALLOWED GRANTING RELIEF OF RS.56,283/- TO T HE APPELLANT. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE, WE FI ND THAT THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE PER SONAL EXPENSES OF THE DIRECTORS AND NOT RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE AS SESSEE. LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS AND TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE SUCH EXPENDITURE IS REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED FOR THE BUSI NESS PURPOSES, WE SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS GROUND AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL. 6. IN THE GROUND NO.3 & 3.1, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,32,89,832/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE B ETWEEN THE TURNOVER DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE AUDITED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE ITA NO.2401/DEL/2011 CO NO.225/DEL/2011 5 AGGREGATE OF RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE TDS CERTIFICATES . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CREDIT F OR FULL AMOUNT OF TDS OF RS.28,53,260/-, HOWEVER ALL THE CORRESPONDING RE CEIPTS HAVE NOT BEEN DECLARED AS TURNOVER WHICH COMES TO RS.12,19,88,953 /-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON ME RCANTILE SYSTEM, THEREFORE, INCOME HAS TO BE RECOGNIZED ON ACCRUAL B ASIS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO STATED THAT AS PER RULE 37BA READ WITH SECTION 199 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, THE TDS CREDIT COULD BE GIVEN ONLY IN THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH INCOME PERTAINING TO THE TDS IS ASSESSAB LE. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITIO N WHICH THE CIT (A) DELETED BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 6.7 ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND SUBMISSI ON OF THE AR ARE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID PROPO SITION, IT IS SEEN THAT APPELLANT FURNISHED DETAILED SUMMARY OF T URNOVER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 (AS HAS BEEN REFERR ED TO BY THE AO IN SUB-PARA (IV) OF PARA 5 OF ASSESSMENT ORD ER ALSO), IT IS SEEN THAT VALUE ADDED TAX/WORK CONTRACT TAX AND SERVICE TAX ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE FIGURE OF TURNOVER SHOW N IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE TAX AT SOURCE H AS BEEN DEDUCTED EVEN ON THESE SUMS. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT B E SAID THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF VAT/WCT/ SERVICE TAX ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE TURNOVER AS SHOWN IN TH E PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, ARE NOT PART OF THE INCOME ASSESSABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME DESER VES TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE FIGURE OF GROSS RECEIPTS AS RE VEALED BY THE TDS CERTIFICATES. BESIDES, ON PERUSAL OF SAID D ETAILS AND ALSO OF THE RECONCILIATION FORMING PART OF THE SUBM ISSION MADE BY THE AR IN PARA 11.5 OF HIS SUBMISSION, IT IS EVI DENT THAT TDS CERTIFICATE EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS.1,38,15,48 6/-,IN RESPECT OF DLF EMPORIO RESTAURANT LTD. ON WHICH TAX AT SOURCE OF RS.3,13,059/- HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AND CLAIM ED BY THE APPELLANT IS MERELY AN ADVANCE, ACCORDINGLY NO INCO ME ON THIS SCORE IS ASSESSABLE DURING THE YEAR NOR IN THE PAST. (REFER ITA NO.2401/DEL/2011 CO NO.225/DEL/2011 6 TO THE DETAILS FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED THE COPY OF WHICH A PPEARS AT PAGE 53 OF PAPER BOOK.) ACCORDINGLY, NO CREDIT FOR THE TAXES OF RS.3,13,059/- CAN BE ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT CO MPANY DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES FILED IN THE PA PER BOOK RELATING TO THIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SY STEM OF ACCOUNTING AND AS PER THIS METHOD OF ACCOUNTING, THE REVENUES ARE RECOGNIZED ON THE ACCRUAL BASIS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE CREDIT FOR TDS AMOUNTING TO RS.28,53,260/-. THE AGGREGATE OF RECEIPT CORRESPON DING TO THESE TDS CERTIFICATES COMES TO RS.12,19,88953/-. THE ASSESS EE HAS MADE A RECONCILIATION OF THE RECEIPT OF TDS AVAILABLE AT P AGE 51 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH HAS BEEN SUMMARIZED BY CIT (A) IN THE FO LLOWING MANNER (EVIDENT FROM PAGE 8 AND 9 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)) :- PARTICULARS AMOUNT GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER TDS CERTIFICATES 12,19,88,953 LESS: RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF BANK INTEREST AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE OF BANK OF INDIA, INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH HAS BEEN SEPARATELY IN THE P&L ACCOUNT 4,57,638 LESS: RECEIPTS ON WHICH TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED THOUGH NOT INCLUDIBLE IN THE TURNOVER AS SHOWN IN THE P&L, ON ACCOUNT OF (I) VAT (VALUE ADDED TAX) (II) SERVICE TAX 62,09,792 40,06,265 1,02,16,057 11,13,15,258 LESS: RECEIPT IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE OF DLF EMPORIO RESTAURANTS LTD. BEING ADVANCE AS NO BILL WAS RAISED ITA NO.2401/DEL/2011 CO NO.225/DEL/2011 7 DURING THE YEAR ENDING 31.3.2008 1,38,15,486 9,74,99,772 ADD: EXCESS TURNOVER ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE P&L A/C DUE TO VARIATION IN MANNER OF SHOWING INCOME IN P&L AND DEDUCTION OF TDS 11,99,3589 TURNOVER AS PER P&L ACCOUNT 9,86,89,130 THE TDS CERTIFICATE OF DLF EMPORIO RESTAURANTS LIMI TED PLACED AT PAGE 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOWS THAT THE NATURE OF THE P AYMENT ON WHICH TDS HAD BEEN DEDUCTED IS A PAYMENT TO CONTRACTORS. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS PER CERTIFICATE IS RS.1,38,15,486/-. ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THIS RECEIPT. AS PER ASSESSEES CLAIM, NO BILL WAS RAIS ED DURING THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2008. NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW H AVE EXAMINED THIS FACT. WHAT WAS THE BASIS ON WHICH THIS FIGURE WAS ARRIVED AT. WHAT WAS THE CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE. HOW THIS FIGURE OF RECEIPT IS IN ODD FIGURES. NOTHING HAD BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. IN V IEW OF THESE FACTS, THIS CLAIM OF ASSESSEE PRIMA FACIE APPEARS TO BE UNTENAB LE. THE TDS CERTIFICATE SHOWS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RECEIPT IS IN ODD FIGURES. THE TDS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE PAYMENT WAS AN A DVANCE. THE PAYMENT IN ODD FIGURES SHOWS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,38,15, 486/- IS BASED ON CERTAIN CALCULATIONS. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD IN THIS REGARD. FURTHER, THE CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE MADE ON THIS HAS ALSO NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED NOR IT HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED FULL AMOUNT OF THE TDS OF RS.3 ,13,059/- ON THE ITA NO.2401/DEL/2011 CO NO.225/DEL/2011 8 RECEIPT FROM DLF EMPORIO RESTAURANT LTD. DURING THE YEAR. THE CIT (A) HAS SIMPLY WRITTEN THAT IT WAS MERELY AN ADVANCE BU T NO FINDING OF FACT IS AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE VIEW. CONSI DERING THESE FACTS, WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING RELIEF. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ARRIVE AT SUCH FINDING. IN O UR CONSIDERED VIEW, THIS ISSUE NEEDS EXAMINATION TO ARRIVE AT CORRECT FACTS OF THE CASE. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF TH E CIT (A) FOR A FRESH ADJUDICATION. 8. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.4 & 4.1 IS AGAINST DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,52,828/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER U/S 40A(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OB SERVED THAT THE PURCHASING OF THE FURNITURE FROM M/S. HARI OM FURNI TURE WAS MADE AND PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH ON VARIOUS DATES. THE P AYMENTS WERE MADE IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE CI T (A) HAS GRANTED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 7.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT, THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND THE FACTS ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT FINDING OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT, CASH P AYMENTS IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/-TO ONE M/S HARI OM FURNITURE O N VARIOUS DATES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,52,828/- IS NOT ALL OWABLE U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT, IS NOT BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD S. IT IS OBSERVED THAT NONE OF THE CASH PAYMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT ARE IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- ON A SINGLE DAY. AS PER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT, AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEV ANT TIME, THE DISALLOWANCE IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE WHERE THE ASSES SEE INCURS ANY EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE IN A ITA NO.2401/DEL/2011 CO NO.225/DEL/2011 9 SUM EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCO UNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT. UP TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, TWENTY PER CENT, OF SUCH C ASH EXPENDITURE WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. HOWEVER , THIS LIMIT OF 20% HAS BEEN CONVERTED INTO 100% DISALLOWA NCE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2007 W.E.F. 01.04.2008. THUS, SECT ION 40A(3) REFERS TO EACH PAYMENT. IT IS ONLY AFTER THE AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 W.E.F. 1.4.2009, THE AGGRE GATE PAYMENT MADE TO A PERSON, IN A DAY IS TO BE CONSIDE RED. SECTION 40A(3), AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 WAS INTERPRETED BY THE HON'BLE OR ISSA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ALOO SUPPLY CO. [1980] 121 ITR 680. THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AS UNDER (HEADNOTE) : 'THEREFORE, IF AN ASSESSEE MAKES PAYMENTS AT DIFFER ENT TIMES DURING THE DAY AND HE HAS NO IDEA THAT HE HAS TO PAY TO THE SAME PERSON ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION, H E CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO THE STATUTORY PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT, UNLESS ANYO NE PAYMENT IS ABOVE RS.2,500. THE STATUTORY LIMIT OF RS.2,500 UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT APPLIES TO PAYMENT MADE TO A PARTY AT A TIME AND NOT TO THE AGGREGATE OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO A PARTY IN THE COURSE OF THE DAY AS RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK. THUS, THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE HON'BLE ORISSA HIGH CO URT HAVE HELD THAT THE STATUTORY LIMIT OF PAYMENT UNDER SECT ION 40A(3) OF THE ACT APPLIES TO EACH PAYMENT AND NOT TO THE A GGREGATE OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO A PARTY IN THE COURSE OF THE D AY. THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISION WOULD BE SQUARELY APPLI CABLE TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 7.3 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TRIVENIPRASAD PANNALAL (1997) 228 ITR 680 (MP), A SUM OF RS.48,850/- WAS DISALLOW ED BY THE AO FOR BEING HIT BY SECTION 40A(3). THE IMPUGNE D SUM WAS THE AGGREGATE OF A NUMBER OF PAYMENTS MADE WITH RESPECT TO THE VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS. WHEN THE CONTR OVERSY CAME UP BEFORE A DIVISION BENCH OF THE MADHYA PRADE SH HIGH COURT, THE COURT, CONCURRING WITH THE OPINION OF THE TRIBUNAL, HELD THAT THE CASE WAS NOT HIT BY THE PRO HIBITORY PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(3); FOR, REASONED THE COUR T, 'THE LAW ONLY SAYS THAT THE AMOUNT EXCEEDING RS.2,500 (AS IT THEN WAS) SHOULD NOT BE PAID EXCEPT BY WAY OF CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BANK OR BY A CROSSED BANK DRAFT AND IF IT EXCEEDS THIS A MOUNT, THEN SUCH EXPENDITURE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION ITA NO.2401/DEL/2011 CO NO.225/DEL/2011 10 IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE AGGREGATE OF THE AMOUNT SHOULD NOT EXCEED RS.2,500. THE WORDS USED ARE 'IN A SUM', I.E., SINGLE SUM HAS BEEN USED. THEREFORE, IRRESPECTIVE O F ANY NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS, WHERE THE AMOUNT DOES NOT E XCEED RS.2,500 IN EACH TRANSACTION, THE RIGORS OF SECTION 40A(3) WILL NOT APPLY'. WHILE HOLDING SO, THE COURT APPROVINGL Y REFERRED TO THE IDENTICAL VIEW OF THE ORISSA HIGH COURT TAKE N IN AN EARLIER CASE OF CIT VS. ALOO SUPPLY CO. (1980) 121 ITR 680 (ORI). THE AFORESAID RULING OF THE MADHYA PRADESH H IGH COURT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. KOTHARI SANITATION & TILES (P) LTD. (2006) 282 ITR 117 (MAD) WHEREIN THE COURT FOUND THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS, IF THE AMOUNT IN EACH TRANS ACTION DID NOT EXCEED THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED SECTION 40A(3), THE RIGOR OF SECTION 40A(3) WILL NOT APPLY. AS PER THE DETAILS F ILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE PAYMENT INDIVIDUALLY IS LESS THAN RS.20,000/- EACH DURING VARIOUS TIMES OF THE Y EAR, THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE FOR DIFFERENT BILLS AND NONE OF THE PAYMENT TO M/S HARI OM FURNITURE EXCEEDS RS.20,000/ - AT A TIME. 7.4 IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS IS NOT DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER BECAUSE THE DISALLOWANCE IS MADE BY INVOKING THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3), I.E., THE DISALLOWANCE IS MADE O NLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE PAYMENT IS MADE IN VIOLATION OF SEC TION 40A(3). WHEN THE GENUINENESS OF THE IMPUGNED PAYMEN TS AS A WHOLE IS NOT DOUBTED, IN MY OPINION, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO DISALLOW THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,52,828/- MADE UNDER SECTION 40 A(3) OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE SAME IS DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5 IS ALLOWED. 9. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT THE C IT (A) HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE FOR G IVING THE RELIEF BUT IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE HAS NO ROLE TO P LAY. ANY EXPENDITURE ITA NO.2401/DEL/2011 CO NO.225/DEL/2011 11 WHERE THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE IN CASH IN EXCESS OF RS .20,000/- COMES UNDER THE PURVIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) O F THE ACT. THE FACTS AVAILABLE IN THE RECORD SHOW THAT THERE IS NO PAYME NT IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- IN A DAY. THEREFORE, IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. ALOO SUPPLY CO. 121 ITR 680, THE HON'BLE ORISSA HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER :- 'THEREFORE, IF AN ASSESSEE MAKES PAYMENTS AT DIFFER ENT TIMES DURING THE DAY AND HE HAS NO IDEA THAT HE HAS TO PA Y TO THE SAME PERSON ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION, HE CANNOT BE SUBJ ECTED TO THE STATUTORY PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT, UNLESS ANYONE PAYMENT IS ABOVE RS.2,500. THE STATUTORY LIM IT OF RS.2,500 UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT APPLIES TO PAYMENT MADE TO A PARTY AT A TIME AND NOT TO THE AGGREGATE OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO A PARTY IN THE COURSE OF THE DAY AS RECORDED IN THE CASH BO OK. IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. TRIVENIPRASAD PANNALAL 22 8 ITR 680 (MP) AND CIT VS. KOTHARI SANITATION & TILES (P) LTD. 282 I TR 117 (MAD.), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF NUMBER OF TRANSACTIO NS IF THE AMOUNT OF EACH TRANSACTION MAY NOT EXCEED THE PRESCRIBED LIMI T OF RS.20,000/- U/S 40A(3), THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) SHALL NOT APPLY. IN ASSESSEES CASE, THERE IS NO PAYMENT IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- IN A DAY. THE TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS.1,51,100/- HAD BEEN MADE ON 29 TIMES DURING THE YEAR STARTING FROM 07.04.2007 TO 31.12.2007. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE SUSTAIN THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT (A) AND DISMI SS THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL. 10. IN THE GROUND NO.5 & 5.1, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.17,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID F OR FINDING THE ACCOMMODATION FOR THE STAFF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE EXPENSES ITA NO.2401/DEL/2011 CO NO.225/DEL/2011 12 AS PERSONAL IN NATURE AND NOT RELATED TO THE BUSINE SS. THE CIT (A) GRANTED THE RELIEF BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 8.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT, THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND THE FACTS ON RECORD. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS THE SPECIFIC FACTS GIVING COMPLETE DETAILS WERE PLACED ON RECORD BY TH E APPELLANT AND NO MATERIAL CONTRARY TO THE FACTS STATED BY THE APP ELLANT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AO, THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO TH AT SAID EXPENDITURE IS OF PERSONAL NATURE AND NOT RELATED T O BUSINESS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. AS A RESULT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.17,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMM ISSION. AS A RESULT, GROUND OF APPEAL NO.6 IS ALLOWED. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE. THI S AMOUNT WAS PAID AS A BROKERAGE TO ONE SHRI RICHARD REGO FOR FINDING OUT ACCOMMODATION FOR STAFF WHO WAS TEMPORARILY ASSIGNED TO LOOK AFTE R THE PROJECT AT BANGALORE FOR SITE WORK OF ITC LIMITED, BANGALORE. THIS EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED TO FIND ACCOMMODATION FOR STAFF AT BAN GALORE WHERE THE STAFF WAS DEPUTED TEMPORARILY. THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT W ITH SUCH STAFF ARE NOT ON RECORD. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD WHICH SH OWS THAT AS PER TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT, ASSESSEE WAS TO FIND OUT ACCOMMODATI ON FOR STAFF. IN ABSENCE OF THESE FACTS, THIS EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FOR ASSESSEES BUSINESS PURPOSES. IT IS A PERSONAL EXPENSE OF STA FF DEBITED TO ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS IN VIE W, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND ALLOW THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL. 12. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.6 & 6.1 IS AGAI NST THE DELETING OF ADDITION OF RS.2 LACS MADE OUT OF FOREIGN TRAVELING EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A LUMP-SUM DISALLOWANCE OF R S.2 LACS OUT OF ITA NO.2401/DEL/2011 CO NO.225/DEL/2011 13 TRAVELING EXPENSES IN THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING VOU CHERS AND TREATING EXPENDITURE BEING AS PERSONAL NATURE. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HELD THAT PERSONAL NATURE OF TRAVELING IS NOT RULED OUT COMPL ETELY. THE CIT (A) GRANTED THE RELIEF BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 9.1 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE WRITTEN AND ORAL SUBMISSION(S) OF THE APPELLANT AND THE FACTS O N RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, I FIND THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL AVA ILABLE WITH THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE COULD HAVE MADE THE D ISALLOWANCE OF SUCH EXPENSES. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE ACCOU NTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY NEW FACTS OR E VIDENCE IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FACT THAT THE TOTAL TOUR & TRAVEL EXPENSES OF RS.9,93,708/- WERE NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. IT IS WELL-SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT THE A.O. SHOULD MAKE AN INTELLIGENT AND WELL GROUNDED ESTIMATE IN THE APPROPRIATE CASES WHERE ESTIMATION IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED BUT HE DOES NOT POS SESS ABSOLUTE ARBITRARY AUTHORITY TO ASSESS ANY FIGURE HE LIKES. SUCH ESTIMATE MUST BE BASED ON ADEQUATE AND RELEVANT MATERIAL. IN THE INSTANT CASE, I DO NOT FIND ANY ADEQUATE OR RELEVANT MATERIAL ON THE B ASIS OF WHICH THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD BE DISALLOW ED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WA S NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AN AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,00,000/- OUT OF 'TOUR & TRAVEL EXPENSES' OF RS.9,93,708/- WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH COULD INDICATE THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES. AS A RESULT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000 /- OUT OF TOUR & TRAVEL EXPENSES. AS A RESULT, GROUND OF APPEAL NO .7 IS ALLOWED. 13. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PINPOINTED OUT HOW THIS EXPENDITURE WAS OF PERS ONAL IN NATURE. NO SPECIFIC FINDING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE A SSESSING OFFICER MADE LUMP-SUM DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT FINDING ANY DISCREPAN CIES IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO FAULT IN THE O RDER OF THE CIT (A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION AND WE SUSTAIN HIS ORDER. AC CORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.2401/DEL/2011 CO NO.225/DEL/2011 14 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUND IN THE CROSS OBJECTION:- BECAUSE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AT RS.5,60,64 9/- AS AGAINST A SUM OF RS.1,28,399/- COMPUTED BY THE AUDITORS IN THEIR REPORT/FORM 3CD AND DISALLOWED B Y THE APPELLANT SUO MOTO, AND THUS SUSTAINING FURTHER DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,32,250/- ON INCORRECT READING AND APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND LAW. 16. IN THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION, THE ISSUE RA ISED IS AGAINST SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,32,250/- MADE U/S 4 0(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. 17. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE. THE CIT (A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 4.1 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE WRITTEN AND ORAL SUBMISSION(S) OF THE APPELLANT AND THE FACTS O N RECORD. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,32,2 50/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, IT IS OBSERVED THAT IN ACCORD ANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, NOTWITH STANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN SECTION 30 TO 38, ANY I NTEREST, COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE, RENT, ROYALTY, FEES FOR PR OFESSIONAL SERVICES OR FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES PAYABLE TO A RESIDENT OR THE AMOUNTS PAYABLE TO A CONTRACTOR OR SUB-CONTRACTOR F OR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK(INCLUDING SUPPLY OF LABOUR FOR CARRYING OU T ANY WORK) ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE UNDER CHAPTER XVI I-B & SUCH TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED OR AFTER DEDUCTION DURING THE LAST MONTH OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR HAS NOT BEEN PAID, OR IN THE SUBS EQUENT YEAR, ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 13 9 (1) OF THE ACT, SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING BU SINESS INCOME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE UNDISP UTED:- ITA NO.2401/DEL/2011 CO NO.225/DEL/2011 15 I) DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSE E HAS MADE PAYMENTS TO THE EXTENT OFRS.5,60,649/- ON WHICH TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE; II) AS PER THE AUDITOR'S REPORT, TAX OF RS.28,113/- WAS DEDUCTIBLE ON THE ABOVE AMOUNT OFRS.5,60,649/-; III) THE TAX ACTUALLY DEDUCTED WAS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.14,653/- WHICH MEANS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.13,460/- WHICH WA S DEDUCTIBLE, WAS NOT ACTUALLY DEDUCTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IDENTIFIED THE AMOUNT OF PAYM ENT WHICH IS RELATABLE TO THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.13,460/- WHICH W AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TAX DEDUCTIBLE AND THE TAX A CTUALLY DEDUCTED. SECTION 4 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT FOR TH E INCOME OF THE YEAR CONCERNED, INCOME-TAX SHALL BE CHARGED IN ACCO RDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THE INCO ME IS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(24) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN SEVERAL PROVISIONS, THE INCOME WHICH IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME OR IS LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED THEREFROM HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN DETAIL. IT IS ONLY SUCH AMOUNT, DEDUCTION WHEREOF IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE ACT HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME FOR THE Y EAR, WHICH IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE ACT. AMOUNTS SPENT TOWA RDS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE ARE DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT IN GENERAL. HOWEVER, SECTION 40 PROVIDES FOR CERTAIN AMOUNTS, W HICH ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE IN COMPUTING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE ACT. A SUM OF RS.28,113/-WAS LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED FROM CO MPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PR OVISIONS OF THE ACT AND NOT OTHERWISE. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT ON THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT, WHICH IS IN DISPUTE IN THE P RESENT CASE, IT WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FAILING WHICH SE CTION 40(A)(IA) PROVIDES THAT SUCH PAYMENT SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME AND SHALL BE TREAT ED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ONCE A DEDUCTION OF A PARTI CULAR AMOUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE ACT, IT IS LIABLE TO BE TAX ED. I FIND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE CLEAR AND UNAMB IGUOUS. IF THE DEDUCTIBLE TAX IS NOT DEDUCTED, THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE APPLICABLE IN CLEAR AND DEFINITE TERMS. THE CON TENTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS, THUS, FOUND TO BE WITHOUT MERIT AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT DEDUCTED THE TAX WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENT OF RS.5,60,649/- THE AO WAS ABSOLUTELY JUST IFIED IN DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,32,250/- IS CONFIRMED. AS A RESULT, GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 IS DISMISSED. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOU R OF ASSESSEE BY DECISION OF ITAT, C BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF DCIT-11(2) VS. ITA NO.2401/DEL/2011 CO NO.225/DEL/2011 16 CHANDABHOY & JASSOBHOY IN ITA NO.20/MUM/2010 DATED 08.07.2011. COPY OF ORDER FILED BEFORE US. LD. DR RELIED ON OR DER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE FACTS OF THE CASE SHOW THAT IT WAS A CA SE OF LOW DEDUCTION RATHER THAN NO DEDUCTION. IN THE CASE OF DCIT 11 (2) VS. CHANDABHOY & JASSOBHOY, THE ISSUE WAS ALSO OF LOW DEDUCTION WHER E ITAT HELD AS UNDER:- 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS AND EXAMINED THE RECORD. ASSESSEE HAS EMPLOYED ABOUT 18 CONSULTA NTS WITH WHOM IT ENTERED INTO AGREEMENTS FOR A PERIOD O F TWO YEARS RENEWABLE FURTHER AT THE OPTION OF EITHER PAR TIES AND THEY WERE PAID FIXED AMOUNTS WITHOUT ANY SHARE IN T HE PROFIT. THESE CONSULTANTS ARE PROHIBITED FROM TAKIN G ANY PRIVATE ASSIGNMENTS AND WORKED FULL TIME WITH THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REFERENCE T O THE DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 192 AND ALSO THE FAC T THAT IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS THESE PAYMENTS WERE ACCEPTED AS SALARY PAYMENTS. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTE D THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT PAID FOR 18 CONSULTANTS IS ONLY A N AMOUNT OF RS.26,75,535/-, WHICH INDICATES THAT THEY ARE IN EMPLOYMENT AND NOT PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED ANY AMO UNT. ASSESSEE HAS INDEED DEDUCTED TAX UNDER SECTION 192 AND SO WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ALSO DO NOT APPLY AS THE SAID PROVISION C AN BE INVOKED ONLY IN THE EVENT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TAX B UT NOT FOR LESSER DEDUCTION OF TAX. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE AR E OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN REVENUE'S CONTENT ION THAT THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE DISALLOWED AS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J WOULD ATTR ACT. ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN REVE NUE'S APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. ITA NO.2401/DEL/2011 CO NO.225/DEL/2011 17 FACTS BEING SIMILAR, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAM E, WE ALLOW ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012. SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 9 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-VII, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT NEW DELHI