M/s. Prithvi Assocaites, Ahmedabad V. The Jt.CIT.,Range-10, Ahmedabad

ITA 10/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60425 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRANAV SHAH
• Keywords: Gift; Onus to prove
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

ITA NO.10 / AHD/2012 A.YR.. 2008 -09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENC H, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI D. K. TYAGI,JM & SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI A.M.) I.T.A. NO.10 /AHD/2012. (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) PRITHVI ASSOCIATES, 35, SHRIMALI SOCIETY, NEAR NAVRANGPURA POLICE CHOKY AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS. JOINT COMMISSISONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-10, NARAYAN CHAMBERS, NEAR PATANG HOTEL, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. (RESPONDENT) PAN: AABFP0834A APPELLANT BY : MR.PRANAV SHAH & ROHAN THAKKAR. RESPONDENT BY : MR. VINOD TANWANI, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 9-5-2012. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 -5-2012 PER: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD DATED 10-10-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACT S IN DISALLOWING SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES OF RS.7,61,700/- ITA NO.10 / AHD/2012 A.YR.. 2008 -09 2 2. LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES FOR COMMISSION OF RS.5,30,233 /- PAID TO RAVINDRA RAJA VIDE HIS BILL NO.1/05 DATED 10-5-2007 . 3. LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES FOR COMMISSION OF RS.1,26,000 /- OUT OF COMMISSION OF RS.1,59,750/- PAID TO S. HUSSAIN VIDE HIS BILL NO.PA- 01/0708 DATED 1-8-2007. 4. LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING ELECTRICITY CHARGES OF RS.25,846/- OUT OF RS.1,31,4 26/- ELECTRICITY CHARGES FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH,2007 ON THE GROUND T HAT THEY ARE RELATED TO THE MONTH OF MARCH,2007 BUT ACCOUNTED IN THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2007. 5. LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING GENERATOR HIRE CHARGES FOR BUS SHELTERS OF RS.1,60, 815/- ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE RELATED TO THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2007 BUT ACCOUNTED IN THE MONTH OF APRIL,2007. 6. LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING MAINTENANCE CHARGES OF RS.80,000/- FOR BUS SHELTERS PAID TO KAMLESH ARTS VIDE HIS NO.2309 DATED 5-4-2007 ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE RELATED TO THE MONTH OF MARCH,2007 BUT ACCOUNTED IN A.Y. 2008-09. 7. LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING SALARY TO HYDERABAD OFFICE FOR RS.52,000/- ON THE G ROUND THAT THEY ARE RELATED TO THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2007 BUT ACCOUNT ED IN THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2007. 8. LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING CONSULTANCY CHARGES OF RS. 12,50,000/- PAID TO ADVO CATES, MULLA AND ITA NO.10 / AHD/2012 A.YR.. 2008 -09 3 MULLA CARRIAGE VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 25-10-2008 T REATING THE SAME AS PRE-PAID EXPENSES. 9. LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING MUNICIPAL TAX OF RS.27,206/- OUT OF MUNICIPAL TAX O F RS.81,619/- PAYABLE TO PANVEL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION UPTO JULY, 2008, PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT FOR MONTHS FROM APRIL, 2008. 10. LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACT S IN DISALLOWING CASH PAYMENT OF RS.23,840/- TO SHAMIM CHOUDHARY FOR MAINTENANCE OF KIOSK METAL BOX. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F ADVERTISING AGENCY, IT FILED ITS E-RETURN OF INCOME ON 29-9-200 8 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,16,24,500/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTIN Y. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. MADE VARIOUS DISALL OWANCES AND THE INCOME WAS FINALLY DETERMINED AT RS.5,46,62,140/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). 4. THE CIT (A) DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 10-10-2011. AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF CIT (A), T HE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. GROUND NO.8 OF THE APPEAL WAS NOT PRESSED AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND HENCE NOT ADJUDICATED. 6. GROUND NO.1 IS REGARDING THE SALES PROMOTION EXP ENSES OF RS.7,61,700/-. ITA NO.10 / AHD/2012 A.YR.. 2008 -09 4 7. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED FOLLOWING EXPENS ES UNDER SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES:- DATE. PARTICULARS. AMOUNT. 26-10-2007 PANTALONRETAILS PVT. LTD., 2,00,000/- 30-01-2008 TRIBHUVAN BHIMJI ZAVERI GOLD COINS. 3,88,500/- 01-10-2007 -DO- 1,73,200/- TOTAL 7,61,700/- 8. THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO FURNISH A LIST OF P ERSONS TO WHOM THE GIFT ARTICLES SUCH AS GOLD COINS, DISCOUNT COUPONS WERE GIVEN AND THE CONFIRMATION FROM RECEIPENTS. ACCORDING TO THE A.O. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS TO PROVE THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AND COULD NOT DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO PROVE THAT IT WAS INCURRE D FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, THE EXPENSES WAS DISALLOWED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). 9. THE CIT (A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AN D THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE SAME. 10. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. BEFORE US, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE A.R. THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF ADVERTISING AND IT IS A NORMAL AND CUSTOMARY BUSINESS PRACTICE IN ITS LINE OF BUSINESS TO GIVE GIFTS TO I TS ASSOCIATES, AGENTS, CLIENTS ITA NO.10 / AHD/2012 A.YR.. 2008 -09 5 ETC ON THE OCCASION OF DIVALI AND FESTIVALS. THIS E XPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR GIVING GIFTS DURING DIWALI TO THE AGENTS AND BU SINESS ASSOCIATES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL EXPENSES WAS VERY LESS AND WAS 0.25% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND WAS LAID O UT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. ON A QUERY RAISED BY THE BENCH WITH RESPECT TO THE LIST OF RECIPIENT, IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE SAME WAS NOT READILY AVAILABLE BUT COULD BE PRODUCED. 11. THE D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E RECORDS. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF ADVERTISING AGENCY. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THE E XPENSES IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS 0.25% OF THE TURNOVER IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED. IT IS A FACT THAT IT IS CUSTOMARY TO INCU R EXPENSES OF GIFTS DURING FESTIVALS. IN VIEW OF THOSE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE V IEW THAT SINCE THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS THE EXPENSES SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. HOWEVER, AS THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT PRODUCE THE LIST OF RECIPIENTS, WE FEEL THAT IN FAIRNESS AND TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, THE ISSUE FOR VERIFICATION BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE A.O. TO VERIFY AND ALLOW THE EXPENSES IF THE LIST IS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND IS SATISFIED AFTER ITS VERIFICATION. THE A. O. SHOULD GIVE REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL TO THE FILE OF A.O. ITA NO.10 / AHD/2012 A.YR.. 2008 -09 6 13. GROUND NO.2 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES FOR COMMISSION OF RS.5,30,233/-. 14. THE FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID COMMISSION T O ONE SHRI RAVINDRA RAJA VIDE HIS DEBIT NOTE DATED 10-5-2007. A.O. DISA LLOWED THE EXPENDITURE FOR THE REASON THAT THE BILLS PERTAIN TO F.Y. 2006- 07. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT THE LIABILITY FOR COMMISSION CRYST ALLIZED DURING THE F.Y. 2007-08. AND THEREFORE IT BE ALLOWED. THE CIT (A) D ID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE DISALLOWA NCE MADE BY THE A.O. 15. BEFORE US THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO CL ERICAL ERROR AT THE TIME OF MAKING DATA ENTRY, THE PERIOD MENTIONED IN THE L EDGER WAS STATED AS F.Y. 2006-07 INSTEAD OF F.Y. 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE PLACE D ON PAGE 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE COPY OF DEBIT NOTE. HE FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION AND THE TDS WAS ALSO DEDUCTED BEFORE MAKING THE PAYMENT. HE PLA CED ON RECORD ON PAGE 17 AND 18 THE COPIES OF THE PAYMENT VOUCHERS A ND THE BANK STATEMENT EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT MADE IN CURRENT AS SESSMENT YEAR. HE THEREFORE, URGED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSIO N BE DELETED. 16. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE OR DER OF THE A.O. 17. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE DEBIT NOTE ISSUED BY MR . RAVINDRA RAJA IS DATED 10-5-2007, THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE CURRENT YEAR AND TDS THEREOF HAS ALSO BEEN DEDUCTED BEFORE MAKING THE PA YMENT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT T HE EXPENSES PERTAINS TO ITA NO.10 / AHD/2012 A.YR.. 2008 -09 7 THE CURRENT YEAR AND ARE THEREFORE, ALLOWABLE. WE A CCORDINGLY DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELETE ADDITION OF RS. 5,30,233/-. ACCORDIN GLY THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 18. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO DISALLOWING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES FOR COMMISSION OF RS.1,26,000/- OUT OF COMMISSION OF RS .1,59,750/- PAID TO SHRI S. HUSSAIN. 19. BEFORE US, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO CLERICA L ERROR AT THE TIME OF MAKING DATA ENTRY THE PERIOD MENTIONED IN THE LEDGE R WAS F.Y. 2006-07 INSTEAD OF F.Y. 2007-08. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE DURING THE CURRENT YEAR AND TDS WAS ALSO DEDUCTED B EFORE MAKING THE PAYMENT. THE ASSESSEE PLACED ON PAGE NO.20 TO 22 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNT AND THE RELEVANT LEDGER ACCO UNT. IT WAS THUS CONTENDED THAT THE EXPENSES PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE SAME SHOULD ACCORDINGLY BE AL LOWED. 20. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE OR DER OF THE A.O. 21. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT COMMISSION OF RS.1,26,000/- HAS BEEN PAID TO SHRI HUSSAIN IN THE CURRENT YEAR AND THE TDS HAS ALSO BE EN DEDUCTED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THA T THE COMMISSION EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,26,000/- ARE ALLOWABLE. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELETE ADDITION OF RS.1,26,000/-. ACCOR DINGLY THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.10 / AHD/2012 A.YR.. 2008 -09 8 22. GROUND NO.4 (DISALLOWANCE OF ELECTRICITY EXPENS ES), GROUND NO.5 (DISALLOWANCE OF GENERATOR HIRE CHARGES), GROUND NO .6 (MAINTENANCE CHARGES) AND GROUND NO.7 (SALARY PAID TO HYDERABAD STAFF) AS THE ADDITION ON ALL THE ABOVE 4 GROUNDS WERE MADE FOR IDENTICAL REASONS, THE SAME ARE DECIDED TOGETHER. 23. THE A.O. HAD DISALLOWED ALL THESE EXPENSES FOR THE SIMILAR REASON THAT THEY PERTAINED TO THE PERIOD MARCH, 2007 AND T HEREFORE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS EXPENDITURE IN F.Y. 2006-07. THE CI T (A) HAD UPHELD THE ORDER OF A.O. 24. BEFORE US IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S FOLLOWING THE CONSISTENT ACCOUNTING POLICY OF BOOKING THE EXPENSE S FOR THE PERIOD MARCH TO FEBRUARY EACH YEAR. THIS METHOD OF ACCOUNTING W AS REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION MAD E ON ACCOUNT OF ELECTRICITY CHARGES OF RS.25,846/-, GENERATOR HIRE CHARGES OF RS.1,60,815/-, MAINTENANCE CHARGES FOR BUS SHELTERS OF RS.80,000/- AND SALARY TO STAFF OF HYDERABAD OF RS.52,000/- BE DELETED. 25. THE LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 26. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED T HE RECORDS THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS UND ISPUTED AND ITS ACCEPTANCE BY THE DEPARTMENT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING THE ME THOD OF ACCOUNTING OF DEBITING THE EXPENSES FROM MARCH TO FEBRUARY. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ITA NO.10 / AHD/2012 A.YR.. 2008 -09 9 REVENUE THAT BY FOLLOWING THIS METHOD THE PROFITS A RE UNDERSTATED. ALL THESE EXPENSES ARE OF ROUTINE IN NATURE AND IS PAID MONTH AFTER MONTH. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWAN CE IS NOT CALLED FOR. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELETE THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NOS.4,5,6, & 7 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 27. GROUND NO.9 IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF MUNICIPAL TAXES OF RS.27,206/- OUT OF RS.81,619/-. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O. THAT THE SAID EXPENSE WAS FOR THE PERIOD UPTO JULY, 2008. HE THER EFORE, DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES FOR 4 MONTHS I.E. RS.27,206/-. THE CIT (A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 28. BEFORE US IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID TOWARDS MUNICIPAL TAXES AND WAS COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. AS PER SECTION43B AMOUNT IS ALLOWABLE ON PAYME NT BASIS IT WAS CONTENDED THAT SINCE AMOUNT IS PAID IN THE CURRENT YEAR THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED U/S.43B OF THE ACT. 29. THE D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 30. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E RECORDS. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE PAYMENT IS FOR MUNICIPAL T AX. MUNICIPAL TAX IS COVERED U/S.43B OF THE ACT AND IS TO BE ALLOWED ON PAYMENT BASIS. SINCE THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID DURING THE CURRENT F.Y. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAME BE ALLOWED. WE ACCORDINGLY DELETE THE ADD ITION MADE BY A.O. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.10 / AHD/2012 A.YR.. 2008 -09 10 31. GROUND NO.9 RELATES TO THE CASH PAYMENT OF RS.2 3,840/- MADE TO SHAMIM CHOUDHARY FOR MAINTENANCE. THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT IT HAD MADE PAYMENT FOR MAINTENANCE CHARGES THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- DATE. NAME OF THE PARTY PARTICULARS. AMOUNT (RS.) 18-8-2007 ROY ASSOCIATES. CASH MEMO DT. 18-8-07FOR WEILDING RODS. 2,220 18-8-2007 ROY ASSOCIATES. CASH MEMO DT. 18-8-07 FOR GURDER. 880 26-8-2007 ROY ASSOCIATES CASH MEMO DT. 26-8-2007. 2,220 28-8-2007 SHAMIM CHOUDHARY LABOUR CHARGES 18,520 TOTAL 23,840 32. A.O. DISALLOWED THE SAME FOR THE REASON THAT TH E AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID IN CASH IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISION OF S ECTION 40A (3). CIT (A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE. 33. BEFORE US IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID A MOUNT WAS PAID TO SHRI SHAMIM CHOUDHARY AND ROY ASSOCIATES FOR THE PURCHAS E OF MATERIAL AND THE LABOUR CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF THE VOUCHERS AND CASH MEMOS AT PAGE 26 TO 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK. SINCE TH E LABOUR CHARGES WERE LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT RS.20,000/- U/S. 40A (3) THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS ALLOWABLE. 34. THE LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF A.O. ITA NO.10 / AHD/2012 A.YR.. 2008 -09 11 35. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE AGGREGATE PAY MENT OF RS.23,840/- COMPRISES OF PURCHASE OF ITEMS OF RS.5,320/- FOR WH ICH CASH MEMOS ARE ATTACHED AND LABOUR CHARGES OF RS.18,520/-. AS PER SECTION 40A (3), EXPENSES ARE TO BE DISALLOWED, IF THE PAYMENT OVER RS.20,000/- IS MADE IN CASH. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PAYMENTS COMPRISES O F VARIOUS PURCHASES FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES AND ARE IN THE NATURE OF REI MBURSEMENT. THE ONLY PAYMENT OF RS.18,520/- IS TO MR. SHAMIM, CHOUDHARY AND ROY ASSOCIATES THAT TOO IS WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED U/S. 40A(3 ). IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE 7ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR . ACCORDINGLY WE DIRECT THAT DISALLOWANCE MADE BY A.O. BE DELETED. THIS G ROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 37. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 25- 5 - 2012 . SD/- SD/- (D. K.TYAGI) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. S.A.PATKI. ITA NO.10 / AHD/2012 A.YR.. 2008 -09 12 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS)-XVI, AHMEDABAD. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD. 1.DATE OF DICTATION 22 - 5 -2012 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 22 / 5 / 2012 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S24 - 5 -2012. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 25 - 5 -2012 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 25 - 5 -2012 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 2 8 - 5 -2012. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..