M/s Samtech Infonet Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

CO 54/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3691 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI
• Keywords: Share purchase agreement; Opportunity of being heard; Proportionate interest; Additional evidence; Bad and doubtful debts; Notional interest

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5142/DEL./2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 7(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) VS. M/S. SAMTECH INFONET LTD., PLOT NO. 4 & 14, DSICD COMPUTER COMPLEX SCHEME-I, OKHLA INDL.AREA, NEW DELHI PAN AAECS1934J (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 54/DEL./2011 (IN ITA NO. 5142/DEL./2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S. SAMTECH INFONET LTD., PLOT NO. 4 & 14, DSICD COMPUTER COMPLEX SCHEME-I, OKHLA INDL.AREA, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 7(1), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY SH. KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY SH. HIREN MEHTA, C.A. ORDER PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION OF T HE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-ASSESSEE, NEW DELHI DATED 12.08.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE REVENUE HAS RA ISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1) 'ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON MERITS IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN CONTRAVENTION TO RULE 46A AND FURTHER ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF R S.989217/- MADE BY AO ON DATE OF HEARING 20.03.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17 .04.2018 ITA NO. 5142/DEL./2010 & CO. 54/DEL./2011 2 ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST, BY RELYING ON THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON MERITS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS . 11757616/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS, AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE SAME AS DEBT EVEN BY WRONGLY RELYING UPON THE RATIOS LEAD DOWN I N CASE LAWS WHOSE FACTS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE. 3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON MERITS IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CES IN CONTRAVENTION TO RULE 46A AND FURTHER ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.630829/- MADE BY AO U/S 40(A)(IA), BY RELYING ON THE ADDITIONAL EVID ENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND BY MISINTERPRETING LEGAL PROVISIONS. 4) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON MERITS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS . 178632/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON LATE PAYMENT OF CREDIT CARD DUES BY THE DIRECTOR. 5) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON MERITS IN DELETING 50% OF THE ADDITIO N OF RS.206254/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF MISC. EXPENSES WHOSE VOUCHERS/ BILLS WERE NOT PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. 6) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON MERITS IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CES IN CONTRAVENTION TO RULE 46A AND FURTHER ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.14734/-- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX BY RELYING ON THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IT EMERGES OUT TH AT THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED FOLLOWING ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER : (I). ADDITION OF RS.9,89,217/- MADE ON A/C OF NOTI ONAL INTEREST. (II). ADDITION OF RS.1,17,57,616/- MADE ON A/C OF BAD DEBTS. (III). ADDITION OF RS.6,30,829/- MADE U/S. 40(A)(I A) OF THE IT ACT (IV). ADDITION OF RS.1,78,632/- ON A/C OF INTT. ON LATE PAYMENT OF CREDIT CARD DUES (V). ADDITION OF RS.1,03,127/- REPRESENTING 50% OF ADDITION OF RS.2,06,254/- MADE ON A/C OF MISC. EXPENSES. (VI). ADDITION OF RS.14,734/- MADE ON A/C OF PROPE RTY TAX. ITA NO. 5142/DEL./2010 & CO. 54/DEL./2011 3 3. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO ASSAILED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE ISSUE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONA L EVIDENCES U/R 46A OF THE IT RULES WHILE DELETING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. 4. THE FACTS ATTENDING ADDITION OF RS.9,89,217/- MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST ARE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE BORROWED MONEY AT THE MARKET RATE OF INTEREST ON THE ONE HAND AND ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY HAVE PROVIDED INTEREST FREE LOAN TO THEIR ASSOCIATED ENTITIES, NAMELY, SAMTECH EMPLOYEE TRUST OF RS.15,0 0,000/- AND SAMTECH INFONET PTE., SINGAPORE OF RS.67,43,475/-. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ADDED BACK THE NOTIONAL INTEREST @ 12% PER ANNUM AMOUNTIN G TO RS.9,89,217/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CI T(A) DELETED THIS ADDITION RELYING ON SOME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE AND ADMITTED BY LD. CIT(A) U/R. 46A. ON THE BASIS OF THESE ADDITION AL EVIDENCES, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN IN F.Y. 2000- 01; THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS FUNDS AGGREGATING TO RS.1214.95 LACS WAS MUCH MORE THAN THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS OF RS.82.43 LACS DEBITED TO THE ABOVE ENTIT IES; THAT THERE IS INCREASE IN THE SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVES FROM 31.03.2001 TO 3 1.03.2006; THAT THE INVESTMENT IN SINGAPORE SUBSIDIARY WAS A BUSINESS M OTIVATED DECISION FOR EXPANSION OF BUSINESS; THAT THERE WAS NO OUTGO OF F UNDS BUT WAS A MERE JOURNAL ENTRY IN THE CASE OF THE TRUST AND THAT NO SUCH DIS ALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN EARLIER YEARS. 5. THE LD. DR REBUTTING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A, AS NO CONDITION GIVEN IN THIS RULE STOOD SATISFIED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS VEHEMENT LY OBJECTED TO ADMISSION OF ITA NO. 5142/DEL./2010 & CO. 54/DEL./2011 4 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT RECO RDED ANY FINDING TO FALSIFY THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE ADMITTIN G THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS, THEREFORE, N OT JUSTIFIED TO RELY ON SUCH EVIDENCES WHICH COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. DR URGED FOR SUSTENANCE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS COUNT. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RE LIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN RELIANCE UTILITIES, 178 TAXMAN 135 (BOM). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAV E GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPU GNED ORDER REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A) TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM : (I). COPY OF SHARE CERTIFICATES AND TRUST DEED IN R ESPECT OF M/S. SAMTECH INFONET EMPLOYEES TRUST TO WHOM THE AMOUNT WAS ADVA NCED IN F.Y. 2000- 01 THROUGH BOOK ENTRY; (II). COPY OF BALANCE SHEET OF APPELLANT COMPANY AS ON 31.03.2001 AS AN EVIDENCE FOR INVESTMENT IN M/S. SAMTECH INFONET PTE ., SINGAPORE AND THE AMOUNT ADVANCED TO THE ABOVE TRUST. 8. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THESE EVIDENCES WE RE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ADMISSION OF WHICH AS ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN OBJECTED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROVID ED REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PRODUCE THESE EVIDENCES AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. FOR THIS FINDING THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ITA NO. 5142/DEL./2010 & CO. 54/DEL./2011 5 ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ASK FOR THESE EVIDENCES T O BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ENDORSE THIS VIE W OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 12.06.20 08 HAS CATEGORICALLY ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE NOTIONAL INTEREST SHOULD NOT BE CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON THE INTEREST FREE LOANS/INVESTMENTS GIVEN TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTITIES ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED FUND AT MAR KET RATE OF INTEREST. IN VIEW OF THIS QUERY, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSEE T O SUPPORT ITS EXPLANATION WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT LEGALLY OBLIGED TO CALL FOR SUCH EV IDENCES, AS OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THEREFORE, IT CAN HAR DLY BE SAID THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO ADDUCE THE EVIDENCES, WHICH HE PREFERRED TO PRODUCE AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). EVEN IF, IT IS TAKEN FOR GRANTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WER E WORTHY OF ADMISSION, THEN PROPER ENQUIRY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON THEIR AUTHE NTICITY AND GENUINENESS OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE AFORESAID TRUST AND WIT H RESPECT TO THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT MADE WITH ASSESSEES ASSOCIATED ENTITY O F SINGAPORE. HOWEVER, IT IS OBVIOUS FROM THE REMAND REPORT AS WELL AS FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT NO ENQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN MADE BY EITHER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO EXAMINE THE VERACITY OF ASSESSEES EXPLANATION AND THOSE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), AS THE NATURE OF T RANSACTIONS, BEING CLAIMED AS OLD ONE, CANNOT BE DECIDED ONLY ON THE FACE VALUE O F THOSE EVIDENCES. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT EXPEDIENT TH AT THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) TO EXAMINE THE VERAC ITY OF ASSESSEES CLAIM AFTER MAKING PROPER PROBE ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUB MITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE FINALLY DECIDING THE ISSUE. WE ORDER ACCORDI NGLY AND THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO MAKE PROPER PROBE INTO THE MATTER. NEED LESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 5142/DEL./2010 & CO. 54/DEL./2011 6 SHALL BE GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF REVENUES APPEAL DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN GROUND NOS. 3 & 6 CHAL LENGING THE DELETION OF ADDITIONS OF RS.6,30,829/- U/S. 40(A)(A) AND RS.14, 734/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX PAID BY ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SUBMITT ED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH HE FAILED TO SUBMIT BE FORE THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED THESE EVIDENCES ALSO WITHOUT MAKING PROPER ENQUIRIES/INVESTIGATIONS ON SUCH EVIDENCES. THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF THESE EVIDENCES U/R. 46-A AND DID NOT MAKE ANY COMM ENTS ON THEIR AUTHENTICITY OR GENUINENESS. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS GIVEN ON ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN THE PRECEDING PARA OF THIS ORDER, THESE ISSUES A RE ALSO REMANDED TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECISION AFRESH AFTER MAKING PROPER ENQU IRY ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM. ACCORDINGLY, THESE GROUNDS ALSO DESERVE TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. THE FACTS RELATING TO SECOND ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BAD DEBTS OF RS.1,88,71,206/-, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE GIVEN AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.71,13,590/- REPRESENTING TO THE OPENING BALANCE AT BEGINNING OF THE F.Y. AND DISALLOWED THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.1,17,57,616/- ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN OF PROO F THAT THE DEBT WAS OWNING TO THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS BEEN TAXED IN EARLIER YEARS AN D THAT THE DEBT AROSE IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS AND IT HAS BECOME BAD IN THE YEA R OF ACCOUNT. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE REA SONING THAT THE DEBTS WHICH HAVE BEEN WRITTEN OFF WERE OUT OF AMOUNT CREDITED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS ON WHICH TAX HAS BEEN PAID. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT AFTER THE ITA NO. 5142/DEL./2010 & CO. 54/DEL./2011 7 AMENDMENT IN THE ACT, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO ES TABLISH THAT THE DEBT HAS BECOME BAD. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION DCIT VS. OMAN INTL. BANK, 286 ITR (AT) 8. THUS, AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SU BMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REMAND REPORT OF AO, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE. 11. THE LD. DR RELYING ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUBM ITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE IMPUGNED DEBTS WE RE TAXED IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND THAT THE SAID DEBTS AROSE IN THE COURSE OF BUSI NESS. M/S. TECH PECIFIC LTD. WAS STANDING IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE BOTH AS CREDI TOR & DEBTOR. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO WRITE OFF THE DEBT AN D TO DEEP THE CREDITS INTACT WITHOUT ADJUSTING THE DEBTS FROM THE CREDIT AMOUNT. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROV E THAT A PARTICULAR DEBT HAS BECOME BAD. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION IN C IT VS. MORGAN SECURITIES, 292 ITR 345. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HA VE GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND WE FIND THAT BEFORE ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF BAD D EBT, ONE THING WHICH HAS TO BE EXAMINED IS WHETHER THE AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF AS BAD D EBT HAS EVER BEEN CREDITED AS INCOME IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE O R NOT. THE EXAMINATION OF SUCH A VITAL FACT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN DENIED IN ANY D ECISION RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE AND BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RECORDED A CATEGORICAL FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE DEBTS WHICH HAVE BEEN WRITT EN OFF WERE OUT OF AMOUNTS CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS ON WHICH TAX HAS BEEN PAID. HOWEVER, THE ITA NO. 5142/DEL./2010 & CO. 54/DEL./2011 8 LD. CIT(A) APPEARS TO HAVE RECORDED THIS FINDING WI THOUT VERIFICATION THEREOF, AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOWHERE MENTIONED AS TO WHEN SUC H BAD DEBTS WERE CREDITED IN THE BOOKS ASSESSEE AS INCOME AND IN WHAT MANNER. 13.1 AT PAGE 30 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED LEDGER ACCOUNT OF M/S. TECH PACIFIC LTD., WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBI TED SALES TAX PAID OF RS.56,81,340/- ON 31.03.2004. ON THIS DEBIT ENTRY O F SALES TAX, THE AO HAS CONCLUDED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT BASIC PRESUMPTI ON UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES MAY BE CONSTRUED AS TAX EVASION BY RESORTING TO WRI TE OFF THE PROFITS BY MAKING ENTRIES AS BAD DEBTS CITING FLIMSY REASONS. IT IS A LSO NOT CLEAR AS TO HOW THE AMOUNT OF SALES TAX PAID IS BEING TREATED AS DEBT B Y THE ASSESSEE. THE NATURE OF THIS ENTRY IS ALSO NOT CLEAR FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDE R. WE, THEREFORE, REMIT THE ISSUE OF BAD DEBT TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO DECI DE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER MAKING PROPER VERIFICATION AS TO THE EXACT NATURE OF BAD D EBTS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REFERENCE TO ENQUIRY/VERIFICATION AS TO WHEN T HE AMOUNTS OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN CREDITED AS I NCOME IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. NEEDLESS TO SAY, BO TH THE PARTIES SHALL BE GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE ALSO DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. AS FAR AS THE NEXT ISSUE REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,78,632/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON LATE PAYMENT OF CREDIT CARD DUES IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.1,78,632/- BEING THE INTEREST ON LATE PAYMENT OF CREDIT CARD DUES BY THE DIRECTORS ON THE PREMISE THAT THIS EXPENSE WAS NOT LAID WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.1,05,392/- AND SU STAINED BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.73,239/- VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE REASONING TH AT PAYMENTS FOR BUSINESS ITA NO. 5142/DEL./2010 & CO. 54/DEL./2011 9 AND NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH CREDIT CARDS AND THEREFORE, PROPORTIONATE INTEREST WITH RESPECT TO N ON-BUSINESS PAYMENTS SHOULD BE DISALLOWED. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INCONGRUITY ON TH IS DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE IS LI ABLE TO FAIL. 15. AS REGARDS THE LAST ISSUE REGARDING DELETION OF 50% OF ADDITION OF RS.2,06,254/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF MISC. EXPENSES, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD DISALLOWED THE TOTAL MISC. EXPENDITURE WITHOUT POI NTING OUT A PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE OF DISALLOWABLE NATURE. ON THE OTHER HA ND, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO NOT PRODUCED ANY BILL OR VOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF SUCH EXP ENDITURE. KEEPING BOTH THESE FACTS IN VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) APPEARS TO HAVE COMMI TTED NO ERROR WHILE DELETING 50% OF THE EXPENDITURE AND IN SUSTAINING REMAINING 50% THEREOF. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE DESERVES TO FAIL. ACCORDINGL Y, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE DESERVES TO BE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. 16. AS FAR AS THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE I S CONCERNED, FIRSTLY THE CROSS- OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REPORTED AS BARR ED BY LIMITATION BY 12 DAYS, FOR CONDONATION OF WHICH NO APPLICATION IS FILED NOR AN Y ARGUMENT HAS BEEN ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, MOST OF THE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH APRIL, 2018. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) ( L.P. SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 17 TH APRIL, 2018