M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune

CO 55/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7975 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Earning of tax free income; Additional evidence; Accommodation entries
• Section: 43B; 92B; 133A; 14A; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUN E . , , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AW ASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.2896/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. GE PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD, PUNE-411 006 PAN : AABCB5730G / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.26/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. 1 ST FLOOR, GE PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD, PUNE-411 006 PAN : AABCB5730G ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE / RESPONDENT . /CO.NO.55/PUN/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.2896/PUN/2016) /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. 1 ST FLOOR, GE PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD, YERAWADA, PUNE-411 006 PAN : AABCB5730G .. / CROSS OBJECTOR / V/S. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL MUTHA & SHRI RAJAT SONI REVENUE BY : SHRI SUDHENDU DAS 2 ITA NOS.2896/PUN/2016, ITA NO.26/PUN/2017 AND CO NO.55/PUN/2018 / DATE OF HEARING : 10.09.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.09.2018 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THERE ARE TOTAL 3 APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION INVOLVING C OMMON A.Y. 2011-12. ITA NO.2896/PUN/2016 FILED BY THE REVENUE A ND ITA NO.26/PUN/2017 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CROSS APPEALS. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED C.O.NO.55/PUN/2018 AGAINST THE APPEAL FILED BY THE R EVENUE RAISING COUPLE OF GROUNDS. WE PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FIRST. ITA NO.2896/PUN/2016 BY REVENUE A.Y. 2011-12 2. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INSURANCE COMPANY AND IS ENGAGED IN GENERAL INSURANCE BUSINESS. ASSESSEE IS A JOINT VENTURE ORGANIZATION BETWEEN BAJAJ F INSERY INDIA LIMITED, INDIA AND ALLIANZ SE, GERMANY. BAJAJ FINSERY INDIA L TD. HOLDS 74% OF THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY AND ALLIANZ SE HOLD S THE BALANCE 26%. ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.231,14,23,220/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92 CA(4) OF THE ACT, AO ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1 32,05,73,950/- MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES. 3. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES AMO UNTING TO RS.460,98,98,628/- U/S.92A AND 92B OF THE ACT. ON GOING THROUGH THE AUDITORS REPORT IN FORM 3CEB, AO REFERRED THE CASE TO THE TPO 3 ITA NOS.2896/PUN/2016, ITA NO.26/PUN/2017 AND CO NO.55/PUN/2018 U/S.92CA(1) OF THE ACT FOR DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH P RICE. THE TPO IN HIS REPORT DATED 24-01-2014 ACCEPTED THE BENCH MARKING DONE BY THE ASSESSEE MAKING NO ADJUSTMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF ARM S LENGTH PRICE. HOWEVER, AO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SECTION 14A OF TH E ACT READ WITH RULE 8D(2) OF THE I.T. RULE, 1962. CIT(A) DELETED THE SAM E. HENCE, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID DECISION OF CIT(A) . GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER : 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(APPEAL) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DIS ALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS.76,21,500/-. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT S ECTION 14A CONTEMPLATES AN EXCEPTION FOR DEDUCTIONS ALLOWABLE UNDER THE ACT AS CONTAINED U/S.28 TO 43B OF THE ACT AND THAT SECTION 44 CREATES SPECI AL APPLICATION OF THESE PROVISIONS IN THE CASES OF INSURANCE COMPANIES WHIC H PROHIBITS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TRAVEL BEYOND SECTION 44 AND F IRST SCHEDULE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT? 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERIN G THAT SECTION 44 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NOWHERE RESTRICTS THE APPLICAB ILITY OF SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961? 4. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ONLY ISSUE RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO DISALLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITUR E U/S.14A OF THE ACT IN A CASE WHERE THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE IS COM PUTED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44 OF THE ACT R.W. IST SCHEDULE OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT. 5. BACKGROUND FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION REPORTED EARNING O F INTEREST AMOUNT ON TAX FREE SECURITIES AT RS.10,65,19,104 AND DIVIDE ND INCOME AT RS.4,41,51,600/-. ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF THE ABOV E INCOMES U/S.10(15)(IV) AND 10(34)(35) RESPECTIVELY AND SUO MOTO COMPUT ED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE ACT AT RS.14,25,007/- FOLLOWING NET INCOME 4 ITA NOS.2896/PUN/2016, ITA NO.26/PUN/2017 AND CO NO.55/PUN/2018 METHOD. THE SAID COMPUTATION HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE A UDITORS. ON PERUSING THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, AO CALLED FOR THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM. THE ASSE SSEE MADE HIS SUBMISSIONS AND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE FOR THE A.YRS. 2002-03 TO 2006-07 WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO GENERAL INSURANCE COM PANIES AND THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE SAID SECTION IS NOT WARRANTED. THE AO REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE GIVING THE FOLLOWING REASONS (I) THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON NON-APPLICAB ILITY OF SECTION 14A TO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANIES IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN VIEW OF PROVISION OF SECTION 44 OF THE ACT. FOR PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE LEGAL POSITION OF THE IT WILL BE RELEVANT TO REPRODUCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44 OF THE ACT WHICH GOVERNS TAXABILITY OF GENERAL INSURANCE COMPA NIES : ON LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE AFORESAID PROVISIO N, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS SPECIFIED AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF PRO VISIONS/CHAPTERS OF ACT WHICH WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE FOR COMPUTING INCOME O F INSURANCE BUSINESS. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT SECTION 44 NOWH ERE RESTRICTS THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THEREFOR E, WITH DUE RESPECT TO THE HONBLE PUNE TRIBUNALS RULING IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE, I HOLD THAT SECTION 14A IS APPLICABLE WHILE COMPUTING TAXABLE I NCOME OF INSURANCE COMPANIES. (II) THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT EXPENSES R ELATING TO THE EXEMPT/NON-TAXABLE INCOMES IN TERMS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN CALCULATED FOLLOWING NET INCOME METHOD, WHICH IS A RATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC METHOD, IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. FROM A.Y. 20 08-09 ONWARDS, A UNIFORM METHOD HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 8D TO RESOLVE DISPUTES BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENT. THE HONBLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE VS. DCIT (BOMBAY HIGH COURT) HAS HELD THAT RULE 8D CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ARBITRARY OR OPPR ESSIVE. THERE IS A RATIONALE IN RULE 8D AND ITS METHOD IS FAIR AND RE ASONABLE. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS MADNESS IN THE METHOD OF RULE 8D SO AS TO RENDER IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THEREFORE WHEN 14A DISALLOWANCE IS WARRANTED IT SHOULD BE CALCULATED AS PER RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-T AX RULE 1962. (III) THE WORDS USED IN SECTION 14A ARE IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHIC H DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT. THESE WORDS ENCOMPAS S WITHIN THEIR AMBIT DIRECT AS WELL AS INDIRECT EXPENSES. IN FACT, PROV ISIONS OF LAW AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 14A(3) THROUGH INTRODUCED LATE R, CLARIFIES THAT INDIRECT EXPENSES CLEARLY COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 14A BECAUSE THE SITUATION DEALT WITH BY THIS SUB-SECTION CAN ARISE ONLY IN RESPECT OF INDIRECT EXPENSES. 5 ITA NOS.2896/PUN/2016, ITA NO.26/PUN/2017 AND CO NO.55/PUN/2018 (IV) THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED VARIOUS KINDS OF EXP ENSES IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACOCUNT. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH INVESTMENTS AND EARNING OF SUCH EXEMPT INCOME. EVENTUALLY, THE AO INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R .W.R. 8D OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962 DISALLOWED RS.76,21,500/- FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6. IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, CIT(A) CONSIDERED TH E SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND INCORPORATED THE SAME IN PARA NO.5. THE CIT(A) RELYING ON THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSES SEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 AS WELL AS A.Y. 2006-07 DELETED THE AD DITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER : I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS REPLY OF THE APPELLANT AND I FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF D ISALLOWANCE U/S.14A ON BOTH THE COUNTS, I.E. INCOME IN RESPECT OF SALE/RED EMPTION OF INVESTMENT AS WELL AS DIVIDEND INCOME IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT IN PUNE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE IN A.Y. 20 03-04 (INCOME IN RESPECT OF SALE/REDEMPTION OF INVESTMENTS) AND A.Y. 2006-07 IN RESPECT OF DIVIDEND INCOME. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY THE RELEV ANT PORTION OF PARA 18 OF TRIBUNALS ORDER FOR A.Y. 2003-04 (PAGE 81-82 OF PA PER BOOK IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 18. IT MAY NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION THAT THE RESPECTED CO ORDINATE BENCH HAS DULY TAKEN THE NOTE OF AN EARLIE R DECISION OF THAT VERY BENCH DECIDED IN THE CASE OF THAT VERY AS SESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 29TH SEPTEMBER 2004 BEARING ITA NOS. 7815/DEL/1989; 3607 TO 3609/DEL/1990; 5035/DEL/1998 & 3910/DEL/2000 NAMED AS DCIT VS. ORIENTAL GENERAL IN SURANCE CO. LTD. REPORTED IN 92 TTJ 300 (DEL). AS SEEN FROM THE PARAS REPRODUCED ABOVE ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE RELEVA NT PROVISIONS AS APPLICABLE TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE A CONCLUSION WA S DRAWN THAT SINCE THE COURTS HAVE HELD, SEC. 44 CREATES A SPECI AL PROVISION IN THE CASES OF ASSESSMENT OF INSURANCE COMPANIES THER EFORE IT WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE TO THE A.O TO TRAVEL BEYOND SEC. 44 OF FIRST SCHEDULE OF I. T. ACT. SINCE THE VIEW HAS ALREADY B EEN EXPRESSED BY RESPECTED CO ORDINATE BENCH THEREFORE WE HAVE NO REASON TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW EXCEPT TO FOLLOW THE SAME. WITH THE RESULT WE HEREBY ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT OF LD. AR TO THE EXTENT THAT IN THE PRESENT SITUATION THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A NEED N OT TO APPLY WHILE GRANTING EXEMPTION TO AN INCOME EARNED ON SALE OF I NVESTMENT PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE REASON OF THE WITHDRAWAL O R DELETION OF SUB RULE 5(B) TO SCHEDULE FIRST OF SEC. 44 OF I.T. ACT . ONCE WE HAVE TAKEN THIS VIEW THEREFORE THE ENHANCEMENT AS PROPOS ED BY LD. CIT(A) IS REVERSED AND THE DIRECTIONS IN THIS REGAR D ARE SET ASIDE. 6 ITA NOS.2896/PUN/2016, ITA NO.26/PUN/2017 AND CO NO.55/PUN/2018 RESULTANTLY GROUND NO. 1 IS ALLOWED CONSEQUENT THER EUPON GROUND NO. 2 AUTOMATICALLY GOES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.4 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE' S OWN CASE AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THE GROUND RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED.' IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT HON. PUNE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2006-07 IN ITA NO.119/PN/2011 DATED 6-5-2011 HAS ALLOWED RELIEF IN RESPECT OF ADDITION U/S.14A ON ACCOUNT OF DIVIDEND INCOME TOO, FOLLOWIN G ITS ORDER IN A.Y. 2003-04 REPRODUCED ABOVE. THIS BEING SO, THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF PUNE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE APPE LLANT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITIO N MADE U/S.14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS W RONGLY ALLOWED CREDIT OF RS.14,25,207/- WHILE WORKING OUT THE DISALLOWANC E U/S.14A ASSUMING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY DISALLOWED RS.14,25, 207/- ON ITS OWN WHICH IS NOT CORRECT AS RS.14,25,207/- IS MENTIONED IN THE AUDIT REPORT BUT NOT CONSIDERED IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCO ME. THEREFORE, TOTAL DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A SHOULD HAVE BEEN RS.90,46,507/ - AND NOT RS.76,21,500/-. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF FINDING THAT S ECTION 14A IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE HAS BECOME INFRU CTUOUS. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED AND TH E AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION U/S.14A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 7. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE AFORESAID GROUNDS. 8. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AO AND RELIED ON SECTION 44 OF THE ACT. LD. DR PRAYED FOR REVERSING THE O RDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. HOWEVER, HE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS ALREADY DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. BEFORE US, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS A COVERED ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS. 1071 & 1072/PUN/2015 AND CONNECTED APPEALS DATED 29-09-2017 FOR THE A.YRS. 2009-10 AND 2010-11. LD. AR READ THE CONTENTS O F PARA NOS. 17 TO 22 OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) TO DEMONSTRATE TH AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A CANNOT BE INVOKED IN A CASE COVERED BY T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44 OF THE ACT. LD. AR ALSO MENTIONED THAT THIS ISS UE WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 (ITA 7 ITA NOS.2896/PUN/2016, ITA NO.26/PUN/2017 AND CO NO.55/PUN/2018 NO.1447/PN/2007 & CO NO.52/PN/2007, DATED 31-08-2009 W HERE ONE OF US IS A PARTY-ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND THE ORDER WAS ORIGINALLY PA SSED IN THE YEAR 2009 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID ORD ER WAS RELIED UPON WHILE PASSING THE ORDER FOR A.YRS. 2009-10 AND 2010-11. 10. WE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS O F THE REVENUE. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 AS WELL AS ORDER FOR THE A.YRS. 2 009-10 AND 2010-11. WE FIND THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I TA NO.1071 & 1072/PUN/2015 DECIDED ON 29-09-2017 FOR THE A.YRS. 20 09-10 AND 2010-11 HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE PROCEED TO EXTRACT THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS FROM THE S AID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE SAME READ AS UNDER : 17. THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2.1 AND 2.2 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING DISALLOWAN CE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (IN SHORT THE RULES). 18. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS ON VERIFICATION OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND COMPUTA TION OF INCOME NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED CERTAIN INCOME AS NON -TAXABLE I.E. PROFIT ON SALE / REDEMPTION OF INVESTMENTS CLAIMED AS NON-TAX ABLE AMOUNTING TO RS.22.30 CRORES; INTEREST EARNED ON TAX FREE SECURI TIES CLAIMED AS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(15)(IV) OF THE ACT OF RS.78,82,192 /- AND DIVIDEND INCOME CLAIMED AS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(34) / (35) OF TH E ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.3,56,74,725/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISALLOWED A NY EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT RELATING TO PROFITS ON SALE / REDEMPTION OF INVESTMENTS CLAIMED AS NON-TAXABLE. HOWEVER, THE AS SESSEE HAD COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IN CONNECTION WITH EXEMPT INCOME I.E. RS.2,43,836/- UNDER SECTION 10(15) OF THE ACT AND RS.12,48,517/- UNDER SECTION 10(34)/(35) OF THE ACT, RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE ON CONSERVATIVE BASIS HAD DISALLOWED L ATER AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,43,836/- AGAINST THE INCOME CLAIMED AS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE RULES APPLICABLE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8-09 RE-WORKED THE DISALLOWANCE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE UNDER SECTIO N 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES AT RS.10,14,82,207/- AS PER ANNEXURES ENCLOSED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HA D ALREADY DISALLOWED SUM OF RS.2,43,836/- AND THE BALANCE WAS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 19. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME. 8 ITA NOS.2896/PUN/2016, ITA NO.26/PUN/2017 AND CO NO.55/PUN/2018 20. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE A SSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIB UNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WHEREIN NON APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT HAS BEEN UPHELD EVEN FOR INCOME CLAIMED AS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE ACT. 21. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, REFERRED TO THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 22. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. SIMILAR ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE ISSU E HELD THE SAME TO BE IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSES SMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING VIDE PARAS 2 3 AND 24 DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE DRP BUT CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AT RS.49,42,631/-. WE ARE MAKING REFERENCE TO PARAS 23 AND 24 OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL AT PAGES 16 TO 22 BUT THE SAME ARE NOT REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASO NING, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION WORKED OUT UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,43,836/-, WHIC H HAS BEEN SUO-MOTU DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF IN COME. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS, ALLOWED . CONSIDERING THE ABOVE AND FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTEN CY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE RE VENUE HAVE TO BE DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENU E ARE DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.26/PUN/2017 BY ASSESSEE A.Y. 2011-12 12. THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APP EAL RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RISK INSPECTION CHARGES FOR WANT OF PURCHASE ORDE RS. 13. RELEVANT FACTS ON THIS ISSUE INCLUDE THAT, DURING THE YE AR, ASSESSEE CLAIMED RISK INSPECTION CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS .87,65,448/-. THE AO, ON NOTICING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE A.YRS . 2008-09 AND 2009-10 WHERE THE RISK INSPECTION CHARGES WERE DISALLOWE D IN ABSENCE 9 ITA NOS.2896/PUN/2016, ITA NO.26/PUN/2017 AND CO NO.55/PUN/2018 OF PURCHASE ORDERS, CALLED FOR THE DETAILS REGARDING THE RIS K INSPECTION CHARGES AND PROPOSED TO DISALLOW THE SAME. LD. AR FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE SAME ARE INCORPORATED IN PARA NO. 5.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE COULD PRODUC E THE EVIDENCE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.12,64,308/- AND COULD NOT PRODU CE THE PURCHASE ORDERS AMOUNTING TO RS. 75,01,140/-. THE REASO NS FOR THE SAME ARE GIVEN IN THE SUBMISSIONS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE S AME, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.75,01,140/- AS PER THE DISCUSSION GIVEN IN PARA NO.5.2 OF HIS ORDER. 14. IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED A DDITIONAL EVIDENCES BY WAY OF FURTHER COPIES OF PURCHASE ORDERS A ND REQUESTED FOR ADMISSION OF THE SAME. THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REP ORT AND THE AO IN HIS REPORT DATED 19-09-2016 SUGGESTED FOR ADMISSIO N OF THE SAME BEING FOUND IN ORDER. WHILE DOING SO, THE AO CONSIDERED THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2008-09 RESTRICTIN G THE DISALLOWANCE TO 25% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE AFTER CONSIDER ING THE PURCHASE ORDERS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND EVENT UALLY RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 25% RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL (SUPRA). WE PROCEED TO EXTRACT THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) BELOW : 15. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE C ASE AS WELL AS REPLY OF THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY W AY OF COPY OF INVOICES/PURCHASE ORDERS ARE CRUCIAL TO DECIDE THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS ADMITTED. I T IS SEEN THAT HON. PUNE TRIBUNAL IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 25% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE AFTER REDUCINIG THE AMOUNT COVERED BY PURCHASE ORDERS IN ITS ORDER FOR A.Y. 2008-09 IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, DISALLOW ANCE IS WORKED OUT AS UNDER : TOTAL EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED RS.75,01,140 LESS ADDITIONAL PURCHASE ORDER FILED RS.52,18,426 ----------------- BALANCE CLAIM FOR WHICH NO PURCHASE 10 ITA NOS.2896/PUN/2016, ITA NO.26/PUN/2017 AND CO NO.55/PUN/2018 ORDERS ARE AVAILABLE RS.22,82,714/- DISALLOWANCE RESTRICTED TO 25% OF RS.22,82,714/-, I .E. RS.5,70,679/- ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWING TRIBUNALS ORDER IN A.Y. 200 8-09 IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWAN CE TO RS.5,70,679/- AND THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.69,30,461/-. (75,0 1,140 5,70,679). ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.5 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 15. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED TH E PRESENT APPEAL WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) : GROUND NO.1: DISALLOWANCE OF RISK INSPECTION CHARGE S 1.1 ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING RISK INSPECTION CHARGES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,70,67 9/-. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, VARY, OMI T, SUBSTITUTE, AMEND OR DELETE ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL O N OR BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, SO AS TO ENABLE THE HONOURABLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL ACCORD ING TO LAW. 16. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED RISK INSPECTION CHARGES ON THE EXPERTS IN CONN ECTION WITH THE VISITING THE RELEVANT SITES, ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS HAZARDS AND EVALUATION OF RISKS ETC. HE SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR CLAIMS ARE MADE IN T HE PAST ALSO AND THE SAME ARE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THIS PURPOSE, HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.YRS. 2009-10 AND 2010-11 (SUPRA). THEREFORE, LD. AR PRA YED FOR ALLOWING THE GROUND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 17. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AO/CIT(A) DUTIFULLY. 18. WE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF RISK INSPECTION CHARGES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVE NUE. WE FIND THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN PRINCIPLE. WE THEREFORE FIND IT R ELEVANT TO 11 ITA NOS.2896/PUN/2016, ITA NO.26/PUN/2017 AND CO NO.55/PUN/2018 EXTRACT THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNA L GIVEN IN A.YRS. 2009-10 AND 2010-11 AND THE SAME READ AS UNDER : 33. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED RISK INSPECTION CHARGES TO ASSESS THE RISK BEFORE D ECIDING TO INSURE SUCH RISK AND ALSO TO DETERMINE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS WHILE ISSUING INSURANCE POLICIES. ACCORDINGLY, IN CERTAIN CASES, THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED RISK INSPECTION REPORTS FROM THIRD PARTY R ISK INSPECTION SURVEYORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, RISK INSPECTION CHARGES WERE DISALLOWED IN THE ABSENCE O F PURCHASE ORDERS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED IN THIS R EGARD. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE AND ALSO PRODUC ED THE RISK INSPECTION REPORTS ALONG WITH COPIES OF INVOICES AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO INSURANCE AGREEMENT WITH CERTAIN PARTI ES WHO WERE INSPECTED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY ON INCURRING THE RISK INSPECTION EXPENSES. THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE WAS FULLY EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED DETAILS OF RISK INSPECTION CHARGES I.E. N AMES, ADDRESSES, PAN, ETC. AND PRODUCED EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF RISK INS PECTION REPORTS, INVOICES, WEBSITE SCREENSHOTS, RISK INSPECTION CHAR GES, ETC. TO JUSTIFY THE GENUINENESS OF RISK INSPECTION EXPENSES OF RS.7,54, 23,407/- BUT COULD PRODUCED PURCHASE ORDERS OF RS.2,51,25,372/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF DRP FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -09, WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED THAT PURCHASE ORDER CONSTITUTE THE BASIC D OCUMENT FOR INSURANCE POLICY FINALIZATION AND WAS ESSENTIAL TO SUBSTANTIA TE THE GENUINENESS OF SAID EXPENDITURE AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD PRODU CE THE PURCHASE ORDERS OF ONLY RS.2.51 CRORES, THE RISK INSPECTION CHARGES OF RS.5,02,98,035/- WERE DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE I NCOME OF ASSESSEE. 34. THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICE R. 35. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 36. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE A SSESSEE IN THIS REGARD POINTED OUT THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAD ARISEN BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL AND THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. HE AL SO POINTED OUT THAT WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 , THE TRIBUNAL HAD SUSTAINED AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE OF 25% OF EXPENSES AF TER GIVING CREDIT OF THE AMOUNT COVERED BY PURCHASE ORDERS. THE REASON F OR THE SAID DISALLOWANCE WAS THE STATEMENT OF THIRD PARTIES. HO WEVER, THE TRIBUNAL HAD RECORDED FINDING THAT PURCHASE ORDERS CANNOT FO RM BASIS FOR DISALLOWANCE. FOR THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 -10 AND 2010-11, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE POINTED OUT THAT SUBSTANTIAL PURCHASE ORDERS WERE FILED TO JUSTIFY T HE RECEIPT OF SERVICES AND GENUINENESS OF EXPENSES. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NEITHER FOUND ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE EV IDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR HAS RELIED ON ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL AND THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN SUSTAINED IN THE ABSENCE OF PURCHASE ORDER S. HENCE, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE DELETED. ON WITHOUT PREJUDI CE BASIS, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF PURCHASE ORDERS OF RS.66,19,569/- HAVE BEEN FILED ONLY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, WHEREI N DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, PURCHASE ORDERS WERE FILED TO THE EXTE NT OF RS.251,25,372/-. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, AGAINST THE GROSS EXPEN DITURE OF RS.3,60,40,926/-, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT PURCHASE ORDERS WERE FILED TO 12 ITA NOS.2896/PUN/2016, ITA NO.26/PUN/2017 AND CO NO.55/PUN/2018 THE EXTENT OF RS.2,23,46,348/- AND THE BALANCE OF R S.1,36,94,578/- WAS DISALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 37. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 38. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF RISK INSPECTION CHARGES AR OSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PA RA 49 AT PAGES 38 TO 41 HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE SA ID RISK INSPECTION CHARGES EVEN ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FA ILED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF PURCHASE ORDERS WITH RESPEC T TO CERTAIN PORTION OF RISK INSPECTION CHARGES. THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE THAT RISK INSPECTION ITSELF WOULD NOT RESULT ANY POLICY BEING ISSUED BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR INSURING THE COMPANYS BUSINESS WAS ACCEPTED AS IT TOOK BUSINESS DECISION TO ADOPT BUSINESS OF PROVIDING GENERAL INSURANCE. HOWEVER, B ECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF TWO COMPANIES IN THE NAME OF WHICH ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WERE BEING ISSUED TO BENEFICIARIES TO INFLATE THEIR EXPENSES INCLUDING T HE ASSESSEE S, 25% OF NET EXPENDITURE WAS DISALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE . THE RELEVANT FINDINGS VIDE PARA 49 ARE AS UNDER:- '49. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE RECORD. IN THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE, DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH ON ONE SHRI SANDEEP SITANI, CA CARRIED OUT ON 22.06.2008 A ND SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT CARRIED OUT ON HIS OF FICIAL PREMISES, VARIOUS DOCUMENTS INCLUDING BILLS, ETC. WERE FOUND FROM HIS PREMISES. WHEN HE WAS CONSIDERED THE SAID DOCUMENTS , HE EXPLAINED THE MODUS OPERANDI OF THE TRANSACTIONS, U NDER WHICH HE ADMITTED THAT HE WAS CONTROLLING THE TRANSACTIONS O F MORE THAN 25 COMPANIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ISSUING BOGUS BILLS ON COMMISSION. FROM THE DETAILS GIVEN IN THE STATEMENT AND THE ACC OUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND BANK ACCOUNT WITH CORPORATION BANK, BH AYANDER BRANCH, MUMBAI, OF THE SAID COMPANIES REFLECTED VAR IOUS PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM ASSESSEE, ON DIFFERENT DATES AS TABUL ATED AT PAGE 14 OF THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER, TOTALLING RS.1,08,31 ,179/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THE DO CUMENTS TO ESTABLISH ITS CLAIM OF RISK INSPECTION CHARGES OF R S.14,62,61,001/-. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHE D EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT OF RS.2,71,49,800/- ONLY. HOWEVER, NO EVIDE NCE WITH REGARD TO BALANCE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.11.91 CRORES WAS PRODUCED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF REVISED R ETURN HAD WITHDRAWN THE CLAIM TO THE EXTENT OF RS.32,67,497/- . BEFORE THE DRP, THE ASSESSEE FURTHER FURNISHED ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE OF PURCHASE ORDERS TOTALLING RS.68,07,042/- AND CLAIME D THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REFE RRED TO THE SAMPLE COPIES OF RISK INSPECTION INVOICES ALONG WIT H PURCHASE ORDERS FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES PLACED AT PAGES 225 TO 248 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LIST OF PARTIES FOR WHOM ADD ITIONAL PURCHASE ORDERS WERE FILED BEFORE THE DRP ALONG WITH SAMPLE COPIES OF PURCHASE ORDERS PLACED AT PAGES 382 TO 410 OF THE P APER BOOK. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS TWO-FOLD THAT TH E RISK INSPECTION CHARGES WERE INCURRED AS NON-ROUTINE EXPENSES AND H AD RECEIVED SERVICES FROM VARIOUS RISK INSPECTION CHARGES, WHO HAD CARRIED OUT THE AFORESAID RISK INSPECTION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY THAT PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS WHO HAD BEEN SUR VEYED OR FOR 13 ITA NOS.2896/PUN/2016, ITA NO.26/PUN/2017 AND CO NO.55/PUN/2018 WHOM RISK INSPECTION REPORTS WERE PREPARED WAS NECE SSARILY INSURED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID INSPECTION REPORT S WERE USED FOR PRIMARY ASSESSMENTS OF WHETHER TO CHANNEL ITS SALES EFFORTS VIS-A- VIS SUCH CLIENTS. FURTHER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT AS AGAINST INSURANCE RECEIPTS OF RS.1415 CRORE S, TOTAL CLAIM OF RISK INSPECTION CHARGES WAS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF R S.14 CRORES, OUT OF WHICH RS.2.71 CRORES HAVE ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED I N THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE CLAIM OF ABOUT RS.32 LAKHS W AS WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN RESPECT OF ABOUT RS.68 LAKHS , THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE HAVING BEEN INCURRE D DURING THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS OF INSURANCE, IS ALLOWABLE I N THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE RISK INSPECTION REPORTS ARE CLAIMED T O HAVE BEEN PROCURED FROM INDEPENDENT PARTIES, WHO ARE NOT RELA TABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND WERE NECESSARY PART OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECEIVED INFOR MATION IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS TOTALLING RS.1.08 CRORES. HOWEV ER, NO OTHER INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID INFORMATION OF RS.1.08 CRORES, BALANCE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE PURCHASE ORDERS. AFTE R CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT THA T EACH OF THE RISK INSPECTION REPORTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT HAVE RESULTED IN THE BUSINESS BEING ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE OR A FTER CONSIDERING THE PROFILE OF THE COMPANIES AGAINST WHOM THE ASSES SEE HAS RECEIVED RISK INSPECTION REPORTS, THE ASSESSEE ITSE LF TAKES A VIEW THAT IT WAS NOT WORTHWHILE TO OFFER INSURANCE SERVI CES TO SUCH COMPANIES WHOSE RISK INSPECTION REPORTS WERE RECEIV ED BY IT. ADMITTEDLY, THE ONUS WAS HIGHER UPON THE ASSESSEE T O ESTABLISH ITS CLAIM IN VIEW OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH CONDUCTED UPON SHRI SANDEEP SITANI, CA. HOWEVER, THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS LIMITED TO THE EXTENT OF PART OF THE RISK INSPECTION CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. NO FURTHER INFORMATION WAS COLLECTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO DISPROVE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND NO MERIT I N REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF PURCHASE ORD ERS WITH RESPECT TO THE RISK INSPECTION CHARGES TOTALLING RS.14.62 C RORES. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED AND IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITI ON THAT THE RISK INSPECTION ITSELF WOULD NOT RESULT IN POLICY BEING ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR INSURING THE COMPANIES BUSINESSES. HOW EVER, THE CARRYING ON OF SUCH RISK INSPECTION BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NECESSARY AS IT WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING GENERAL INSU RANCE TO ITS CLIENTS AND IT HAD TO BE SURE THAT THE COMPANIES TO WHOM IT WAS PROVIDING THE SERVICES WAS THE CORRECT DECISION OF ITS BUSINESS. AS WE ARE AWARE THAT AS AGAINST THE INSURANCE CHARGES PAID BY THE RESPECTIVE INSURER IN CASE OF THE DAMAGES BEING COM PENSATED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY, THE VOLUMES ARE VERY HIGH. I N SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASS ESSEE TO TAKE THE REQUISITE STEPS TO PROTECT ITSELF FROM FUTURE LOSSE S, IF ANY, IN THIS REGARD. THE RISK INSPECTION WAS THE NECESSARY TOOL IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE COLL ECTED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT CORRECT TO MAKE ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE E VIDENCE FILED 14 ITA NOS.2896/PUN/2016, ITA NO.26/PUN/2017 AND CO NO.55/PUN/2018 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE DETAILS AVAILABLE BEFORE US AND TO PREVENT LEAKAGE OF REVEN UE, WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO DISALLOW 25% OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE DISALLOWANCE WOULD BE WORKED OUT B Y TAKING NET EXPENDITURE OF RS.11.91 CRORES I.E. TOTAL EXPENDITU RE OF RS.14.62 CRORES MINUS RS.2.17 CRORES ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD WITHDRAWN THE CLA IM OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.32,67,497/- AND HAS FURTHER FURNI SHED EVIDENCE OF RS.68,07,042/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL VERI FY THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IF THE SAME IS F OUND TO BE IN ORDER, THE SAID EXPENDITURE WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEN OUT OF BALANCE REMAINING, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER SHALL DISALLOW 25% OF THE EXPENDITURE. THE GROUND O F APPEAL NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED.' 39. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. MERE ABSENCE OF PURCHASE ORDERS WOULD NOT DISENTITLES THE ASSESSEE FROM THE CLAIM OF RISK INSPECTION CHARGES. HOWEVER, WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERSE EVIDENC ES COLLECTED DURING THE YEAR, NO DISALLOWANCE IS TO BE MADE IN T HE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESS EE HAS FURTHER FILED PURCHASE ORDERS BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE US. HOWEVER, IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, ABSENCE OF PURCHASE ORD ERS WOULD NOT DISENTITLES THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THE SAID EXPENDIT URE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN ENTIRETY. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS, ALLOWED. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RISK INSPECTION CHARGES OF THE ASSESSEE NE EDS TO BE ALLOWED IN FULL. THEREFORE, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED. 19. IN THE APPEAL, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. CO NO.55/PUN/2018 BY ASSESSEE (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.2896/PUN/2016) A.Y. 2011-12 20. IN THIS CROSS OBJECTION, ASSESSEE RAISED COUPLE OF ISS UES. THESE ISSUES ARE THE SAME ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE IN THE APPEALS ADJUDICATED ABOVE. THEREFORE, WE FIND ADJUDICA TION OF THESE 15 ITA NOS.2896/PUN/2016, ITA NO.26/PUN/2017 AND CO NO.55/PUN/2018 OBJECTIONS WOULD BECOME AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE. ACCORDINGL Y, THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS ACADEMIC. 21. TO SUM UP, ITA NO.2896/PUN/2016 FILED BY THE REVENU E AND CO NO.55/PUN/2018 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AND IT A NO.26/PUN/2017 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( /VIKAS AWASTHY) ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 19 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. SATISH ' $ ' $ ' $ ' $ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS)-1, PUNE. 4. THE PR. CIT-1, PUNE. 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE