DCIT, CHENNAI V. Rathna Stores Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1434/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8001 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAYARAM RAIPURA
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Revised return
• Section: 43B; 40A(3); 143(3); 133A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1434/MDS/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-V(3), 4 TH FLOOR, MAIN BUILDING, CHENNAI-600 034. VS M/S. RATHNA STORES PVT. LTD., 79, USMAN ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 017. PAN: AACCR7287F ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. JAYARAM RAIPURA, CIT /RESPONDENT BY : MR. S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING : 9 TH DECEMBER, 2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)- V, CHENNAI DATED 25.03.2013 IN ITA NO. 454/2010-11 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 250 OF THE ACT. 2. THOUGH THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SEVERAL ELABORAT E GROUNDS CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS ARE AS UNDER:- 2 ITA NO.1434/MDS/2013 I) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION IN RELATION T O SUPPRESSION OF SALES TO THE EXTENT OF GROSS PROFIT MARGIN AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. II) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT AND IN ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT BY ` 15.00 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF PROBABLE CAPITAL EMPLOYED BY ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO DIFFERENCE IN SALES. III) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT . IV) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 4,28,475/- MADE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) TOWARDS BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. V) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 43B AFTER VERIFICATION . VI) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DEL ETE 3 ITA NO.1434/MDS/2013 THE ADDITION MADE FOR RS.2,11,17,023/- AFTER VERIF ICATION BEING THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE FOR EARLIER YEARS T DS HAVING BEEN REMITTED DURING THE CURRENT YEAR. VII) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE FOR RS.3,81,10,025/- FOR NOT DEDUCTING TDS AFTER VERIFICATION. VIII) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,70,38,54 0/- BEING THE INTEREST PAID TOWARDS LOAN OBTAINED FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSES SEE AFTER VERIFICATION. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS AS RETAILER OF CONSUMER DURABLES AND TRADING IN BULLION, FILED IT S RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 30.09.200 8 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 76,33,975/-. PURSUANT TO THE SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT CONDUCTED ON 10.03.2010 IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED RETURN ON 31.03.2010 ADMIT TING TOTAL INCOME AS ` 1,16,94,530/-. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS 4 ITA NO.1434/MDS/2013 COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE LE ARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON 31.12.2010 WHEREIN VARIOUS ADD ITIONS WERE MADE. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DIRECTED THE L EARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO MODIFY HIS ORDER BASED ON HIS DIRECTIONS, AGGRIEVED BY WHICH THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. GROUND NO.(I) : (SUPPRESSION OF SALES): 4.1 DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED ` 132,75,35,845/- AS ITS TURNOVER BEFORE THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER, IN THE P ROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHOR ITIES, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ITS TURNOVER AS ` 132,02,92,935/-. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO FIGURES AMOUNTING TO ` 72,41,910/- ( ` 132,75,35,845 ` 132,02,92,935) WAS TREATED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS SUPPRESSION OF SALES AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING UPON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COIMBATORE SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS VS. CIT REPO RTED IN 5 ITA NO.1434/MDS/2013 95 ITR 375 AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT I N THE CASE OF ANANDA METAL CORPORATION REPORTED IN 152 IT R. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) DIRECTED THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ADDI TION TO THE EXTENT OF GROSS PROFIT MARGIN ON THE SUPPRESSED SAL E OF ` 72,41,910/- INSTEAD OF MAKING ENTIRE ADDITION OF ` 72,41,910/-. 4.2 BEFORE US, LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN SALE DISCLOSED BEF ORE THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES AND INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES WA S DUE TO THE FACT THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL SALES RETURNS WHIC H WAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR DISCLOSURE BEFORE THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO AVOID LITIGATION, THEY AGREED TO THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHO HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE EX TENT OF GROSS PROFIT MARGIN ON THE DIFFERENCE OF SALES. HEN CE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE SAME MAY BE CONFIRMED. 4.3 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 6 ITA NO.1434/MDS/2013 4.4 AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDE RED VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS QUITE REASONABLE ON THIS IS SUE. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE DISCREPANCY IN SALE DISCLOSED BEFORE BOTH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BY MA KING ADDITION ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN SALE BECAUSE NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE EARNED SUCH GAIN OR MADE PURCHASES FOR THE ENTIRE SALE AT A TIME. THEREFORE, WE FIND THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) TO BE REASONABLE AND HENCE WE RESTRAIN FROM INTERFE RING WITH HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO.(II):- (ENHANCEMENT OF ADDITION BY ` 15.00 LAKHS): 5.1 ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED ISSUE DISCUSSED IN PARA 4, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ADDITION HAS TO BE ALSO MADE ON ACCOUNT O F SEED CAPITAL UTILIZED FOR THE PURCHASE OF STOCK IN RELAT ION TO THE UNACCOUNTED SALES. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED BEFOR E THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT T HE DIFFERENCE IN SALES DISCLOSED BEFORE BOTH THE REVEN UE AUTHORITIES WAS DUE TO RECONCILIATION DIFFERENCES A ND HENCE 7 ITA NO.1434/MDS/2013 THE QUESTION OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE DOES NOT ARISE. HOWEVER, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CAPITAL EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ` 2,74,18,246/- AGAINST THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF ` 132,02,93,935/- AND HENCE THE PERCENTAGE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME, IF ANY CAN AT BEST BE 1.12% OF THE UNDISCLOSED SALES. HOWEVER , THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ESTIMA TED THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AT 20% OF THE UNACCOUNTE D TRANSACTION OF SALE AND ROUNDED OFF THE SAME TO RS. 15.00 LAKHS AND DIRECTED THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ADDITION OF ` 15.00 LAKHS. 5.2 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED BEFORE US THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER FOR ` 72.41 LAKHS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED INSTEAD OF THE ENHANCEMENT OF ADDITION OF ` 15.00 LAKHS AND THE SUSTAINED ADDITION AS MENTIONED IN PARA 4.4 HEREINABOVE. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS). 8 ITA NO.1434/MDS/2013 5.3 AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDE RED VIEW THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) IS REASONABLE IN ESTIMATING ` 15.00 LAKHS BEING SEED CAPITAL TOWARDS INVESTMENT MADE ON UNDISCLOSED SALE. CERTAI NLY SOME INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED TOWARDS THE SALES WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. SUCH INVEST MENTS CAN ONLY BE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE FROM THE UNDISCLOSED SOURCE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH ADDITI ON HAS TO BE MADE. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS REASONABLY ESTIMATED 20% OF THE UNDIS CLOSED SALE FOR MAKING SUCH ADDITION WHICH WE ARE OF THE V IEW IS QUITE REASONABLE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECE SSARY TO INTERFERE WITH HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO.(III):- (ADDITION OF ` 5,33,33,045/- U/S.40(A)(IA)) : 6.1 IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT REMITTED THE TAX DEDUCTED AT S OURCE IN THE GOVT. EXCHEQUER WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD. T HEREFORE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT MADE ADDITION OF ` 5,33,33,045/- . ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 ITA NO.1434/MDS/2013 (APPEALS) RELYING IN THE DECISION OF CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.956/MDS/2012 IN SRX IMPORT & EX PORT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 DIRECTED THE LEARNED AS SESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE IN REGARD TO TH E REMITTANCE MADE BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN SUBJEC T TO VERIFICATION. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT ALL REMITTANCE OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE MADE IN THE GOVT. EXCHEQUER BEFO RE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE P URVIEW OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT BY FO LLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VERGIN CREATIONS. 6.2 AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE WE FIND THAT THE LEAR NED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ONLY FOLLO WED THE DECISION OF CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE D ECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT WHILE ARRIVING AT H IS DECISION ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSA RY TO INTERFERE WITH HIS ORDER ON THIS COUNT. 10 ITA NO.1434/MDS/2013 GROUND NO.(IV):- DISALLOWANCE OF ` 4,28,475/- MADE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) TOWARDS BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES : 7.1 IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENDITUR E TO THE TUNE OF 428475/- WHICH WAS PAID IN CASH FOR WHICH T HERE WAS NO PROPER VOUCHERS AND DID NOT PERTAIN TO DAY TO DA Y BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAME. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THOSE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY CHEQUE AND THE EXPENDITURES WERE GENUINE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ISSUE CIT(A) REMITTED THE MATTER T O THE FILE OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING WHETHER THE PAY MENTS WERE MADE BY CHEQUE AND NOT IN CONTRAVENTION TO SEC TION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY I N THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE WHICH IS JUDICIOUS. HE NCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS GROUND IS DEVOI D OF MERIT AND DISMISSED AS SUCH. GROUND NO.(V):- DISALLOWANCE OF ` 5,08,886 U/S.43B OF THE ACT : 11 ITA NO.1434/MDS/2013 8. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF ` 5,08,886/- AS ESI & PF PAYABLE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH PROOF OF PAYMENT OF THE ABOVE STATUTORY DUES TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PAYMENT IS MAD E WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF 5,08,886 WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUT HORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE PROOF OF PAYMENT OF THE ABO VE STATUTORY DUES SUCH AS CHALLAN FOR PAYMENT, COPY O F LEDGER ETC., WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK AS ANNEXURE-V. AFTER EXA MINING THE ISSUE, THE LD. CIT(A) REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFYING THE CHALLAN AND DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE FAILED TO UND ERSTAND AS TO WHAT GRIEVANCE THE REVENUE COULD HAVE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THE LD. CIT(A) HA S ONLY DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DE CIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS IS SUE AND ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE SAME. 12 ITA NO.1434/MDS/2013 GROUND NO.(VI):- DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE OF ` 2,11,17,023/- : 9. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED AN EXPENDITURE OF ` 2,11,17,023/- BEING THE CORRESPONDING AMOUNT OF TD S PAID DURING THE YEAR. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON VERI FICATION OBSERVED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE OF SUCH AMOUNT WAS MA DE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. SINCE THE ASSES SEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE OR DETAILS IN RESPECT OF T HE REMITTANCE OF THE TDS TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT BEF ORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, HE DISALLOWED THE SAME DURIN G THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT DURING THE EAR LIER YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE AS DED UCTION BECAUSE IT HAD INADVERTENTLY OMITTED TO DEDUCT TAX AND REMIT THE SAME IN THE GOVERNMENT TREASURY WITHIN THE PRES CRIBED TIME SPECIFIED UNDER THE ACT, HOWEVER IN THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE AMOUNT OF 2,11 ,17,023/- IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER EXA MINING THE ISSUE, HAS ONLY DIRECTED THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE 13 ITA NO.1434/MDS/2013 THE ADDITION AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE REMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GOVERNMENT TREASURY . WE FIND THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE JUDICIOUS ON THIS ISSUE AND HENCE NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. ACCORDINGL Y, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. GROUND NO.(VII):- DISALLOWANCE OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES OF ` 3,81,10,025/-: 10. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF ` 3,81,10,025/- TOWARDS ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HE COULD NOT FURNISH PROPER EXPLANATION AND ALSO DID NOT FURNISH PROOF OF DEDUCTING TDS. THEREFORE INVOK ING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 3,81,10,025/- . ON APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION AFTER VERIFYING THE REMITTANCE OF TDS IN T HE GOVERNMENT TREASURY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAI NED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE AC T HAD BEEN COMPILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFI RMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO BECA USE THE LD. 14 ITA NO.1434/MDS/2013 CIT(A) HAS ONLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO D ELETE THE ADDITION AFTER VERIFICATION. GROUND-(VIII) DISALLAOWANCE OF INTEREST PAYMENT OF ` 1,70,38,540/-: 11.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD INCURRED FINANCIAL EXPENSES OF ` 7,09,53,845/-. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD ADVANCED RS. 16,51,42,104/- TO ANOTHER ENTITY. BEF ORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE AMOUNT ADVANCED TO THIRD PARTY. HENCE, PROPORTIONAL INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO THIS ADVANCE WAS DISALLOWED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTING T O ` 1,70,38,540/-. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED T HAT THE AMOUNT ADVANCED WAS FOR THE PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM AND FOR THE BUSINE SS PURPOSES. ON EXAMINING THE ISSUE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTE D THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE AFTER VERIFICATION OF THESE FACTS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN TH E ORDER OF THE 15 ITA NO.1434/MDS/2013 LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. HENCE, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 12 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # / CHENNAI, ( / DATED 12 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF