The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Srinagar V. M/s. Fairdeal Motors and Workshop P.Ltd, Srinagar

ITA 158/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 15820914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MADAN VERMA
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Additional evidence; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 158(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 PAN: AAACF6573E DEPUTY CIT, CIRCLE-3, VS. M/S FAIRDEAL MOTORS AND SRINAGAR WORKSHOP PVT. LTD., PARIMORA, SRINAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR RESPONDENT BY: SH. MADAN VERMA, CA DATE OF HEARING: 06.08.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05.09.2014 ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, J.M. 1. THIS IS DEPARTMENTS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DAT ED 20.12.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, PASSED BY THE LEAR NED CIT(A), JAMMU. 2. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN: I. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,00,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TOUR EXPENSES WHEN THERE IS NO N EXUS OF FOREIGN EXPENSES WITH THE BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSES SE. MOREOVER, IF THE EXPENSES WAS FOR THE CONFERENCE ORGANIZED BY TA TA MOTORS AT BEIJING THEN THE TOUR EXPENSES MUST HAVE BEEN REIMB URSED BY TATA MOTORS. II. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ADMITTING THE ADDITION EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENTS SHOWING THE PREMISES AS RENTED ONE FOR WH ICH THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED TILES, ADHESIVE AND OTHER RA W MATERIALS. 2 I.T.A. NO. 158(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 III. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ADMITTING THE ADDITION EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENTS SHOWI NG THE PREMISES AS RENTED ONE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD P URCHASED TILES, ADHESIVE AND OTHER RAW MATERIALS. 3. APROPOS GROUND NO. 1, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSE RVED THAT THE SUM OF RS. 8,54,603/- HAD BEEN DEBITED ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLING CHARGES OF STAFF AND RS. 6,40,211/- ON A CCOUNT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF DIRECTOR. THE ASSESSEE WAS R EQUIRED TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE A SSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE PAYMENTS INCLUDED FOREIGN TOURS OF THE DIRECTOR, SALEEM BAKSHI AND INCLUDED TOURS TO T HAILAND; THAT THERE WAS NO COMPONENT OF FOREIGN EXPORT IN TH E BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE; AND THAT THERE APPEARED T O BE NO NEXUS OF THESE EXPENSES WITH THE BUSINESS CARRIED O N BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT MOST OF THESE EX PENSES WERE INCURRED IN CASH AND AS SUCH, WERE NOT OPEN TO FULL VERIFICATION; THAT THE ESSENTIAL CONDITION FOR ALL OWABILITY OF AN EXPENSE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT IS THAT THE EXPENSE SH OULD NOT BE OF A PERSONAL NATURE; AND THAT, HOWEVER, IN THE INS TANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED ITS PERSONAL FOREIGN TOUR BILLS IN THIS 3 I.T.A. NO. 158(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN AD-HOC ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE. 4. WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS (PARA 4.2, PAGE 22): THE SECOND ISSUE IS RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS. 2, 00,000/- OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS. 8,54,903/-. THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT DIRECTORS HAVE TAKEN FOREIGN TOUR F OR PLEASURE TRIPS. THE APPELLANT CONTENDED BEFORE ME THAT THAT THE DIRECTORS WENT TO BEIJING THROUGH THAILAND FOR A CO NFERENCE. THE EXPENDITURE WAS FOR THE CONFERENCE ORGANIZED BY ITS PRINCIPAL TATA MOTORS AND IT WAS NOT A PLEASURE TRI P AS ENVISAGED BY THE A.O. THEREFORE, IN MY VIEW, THE FI NDING OF THE A.O. THAT THERE WAS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE FOREIGN TR IP AND BUSINESS ACTIVITY IS INCORRECT. THE COPY OF BILL PL ACED BEFORE AO ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE ME BY THE APPELLANT CLEARL Y MENTION AS DELHI BKK-PEK BKK-DELHI. THE DESTINATION IS BEIJ ING IN CHINA THROUGH BANGKOK (THAILAND). THUS, THE AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,00,000/- IS UNJUSTIFIED AND D ELETED. 5. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS . 2,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TOUR EXPENSES, WHEN THERE IS NO NEXUS OF THE FOREIGN EXPENSES WITH THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESS EE, AND THAT, MOREOVER, IF THE EXPENSE WAS FOR THE CONFERENCE ORG ANIZED BY TATA MOTORS AT BEIJING, THE TOUR EXPENSES MUST HAVE BEEN REIMBURSED BY TATA MOTORS. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTH ER HAND, HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE IMPUGNED OR DER. 4 I.T.A. NO. 158(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 7. HERE, IT IS SEEN, THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS FOR T HE CONFERENCE ORGANIZED BY THE PRINCIPLE OF THE ASSESS EE, TATA MOTORS, AND IT WAS NOT A PLEASURE TRIP, AS ASSUMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. IT WAS DULY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE LEAR NED CIT(A), THAT WHILE ADJUDICATING THIS ISSUE, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS STATED IN PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R THAT THE TRAVELLING PAYMENTS INCURRED AND CLAIMED ALSO INCLU DED THE EXPENSES INCURRED TOWARDS THE FOREIGN TOUR OF THE D IRECTOR SALEEM BAKSHI, IN SUPPORT OF WHICH, THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY HAD ALSO FILED A COPY OF BILL DATED 06.06.2008; THAT FR OM THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID BILL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OPI NED THAT THERE WAS NO COMPONENT OF FOREIGN EXPORT IN THE BUS INESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE ALSO APPEARED TO BE NO NEXUS OF THE EXPENSES WITH THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES CARRIE D ON BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY; AND THAT THE A.O. HAD OBSERVED TH AT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD DEBITED THE FOREIGN TOUR BILLS IN THIS ACCOUNT. 9. IT WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY WAS AN AUTHORIZED DEALER OF COMMERCIAL AND 5 I.T.A. NO. 158(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 PASSENGER VEHICLES IN LEH & KASHMIR, OF TATA MOTORS LTD., AND TATA MOTORS LTD. HAD ORGANIZED AN ANNUAL DEALER S CONFERENCE, SCHEDULED FROM 13 TH JUNE, 2008 TO 16 TH JUNE, 2008 IN BEIJING, CHINA. THE DEALER WAS REQUIRED TO BEAR THE COST OF TRAVELLING TO AND FROM BEIJING, CHINA, AND THE OTHE R EXPENSES WERE BEING BORNE BY THE COMPANY FOR THEIR STAY AT B EIJING FROM 13 TH JUNE, 2008 TO 16 TH JUNE, 2008, IN RESPECT OF THEIR BOARDING, LODGING, AND LOCAL TRAVELLING, ETC. THE P URPOSE OF THE CONFERENCE WAS WITH REGARD TO THE ACCOMPLISHMEN TS AND CHALLENGES, MEDIUM AND HEAVY TRUCKS, LIGHT BUSES, T O MAKE THEIR CUSTOMERS AWARE ABOUT THEIR LATEST TECHNIQUES AND TECHNOLOGIES, LIKELY TO BE PRESENTED IN THE MARKET, AND TO PROVIDE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE SERVICE OF THEIR VEHICL ES, SPARE PARTS, ETC. THEREFORE, IT WAS OBLIGATORY ON THE DIR ECTOR TO GO AND ATTEND THE SAID CONFERENCE, AND AS SUCH, THE TO UR WAS HAVING NO PERSONAL ELEMENT. IN SUPPORT, THE COPY OF BILL DATED 06.06.2008 WAS ALSO FILED ALONG WITH THE COPY OF CA SH MEMO DATED 11.06.2008, TOWARDS THE PAYMENT OF TO AND FRO EXPENSES FROM DELHI TO CHINA AND FOR HAVING THE CURRENCY ALS O, FROM WHICH, IT WAS WRONGLY INFERRED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, THAT THE DIRECTOR HAD GONE TO THAILAND ON HIS PERSONAL T OUR, 6 I.T.A. NO. 158(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 WITHOUT APPRECIATING, THAT THE DIRECTOR HAD GONE TO CHINA BY THAI AIRWAYS, AS APPEARED IN THE TRAVELLING BILL. 10. IT WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE AND DID NOT CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING FACTS: I. THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE A.O. HAD NOT RAISED ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE BONA FIDE O F THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED. AS SUCH, NO OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DRAWING AN ADVERSE INFERENCE. II. THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ALREADY EXPLAINED TO THE A.O., WITH EVIDENCE, THAT SINCE M/S TATA MOTORS LTD . HAD INVITED THE DIRECTOR TO ATTEND THE ANNUAL DEALE RS CONFERENCE AT BEIJING, CHINA, THEREFORE, IT WAS OBLIGATORY FOR HIM TO GO AND ATTEND THE CONFERENCE, THE ASSESSEE BEING ONE OF THE MAJOR TATA AUTHORIZED DEALERS OF COMMERCIAL AND PASSENGER VEHICLES AT LEH & KASHMIR. THIS APART, HIS OTHER TOURS TO SINGAPORE A ND DUBAI WERE ALSO FOR ATTENDING THE AUTO EXHIBITION, HAVING NEXUS WITH THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS ACTIVITIE S. IN SUPPORT THEREOF, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ALSO FILE D 7 I.T.A. NO. 158(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 NECESSARY EVIDENCE WITH THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BUT THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN EXAMINED/CONSIDERED. III. THAT THE ALLEGATION OF THE A.O., THAT THE PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE IN CASH, WAS INCORRECT, BECAUSE ALL THE M AJOR PAYMENTS HAD BEEN RELEASED THROUGH A/C PAYEE CHEQUE S. IV. THAT IF ANY OF THE EXPENDITURE PROVED TO BE PERSONA L IN NATURE, IN THAT CASE ALSO, AS PER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, AS THE S AME COULD ONLY TO BE ADDED TO THE PERSONAL INCOME OF THE PERSON WH O HAD BENEFITED FROM THE SAID EXPENDITURE. V. THAT THE AD-HOC ADDITIONS COULD NOT BE MADE WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THAT EITHER THE SA ID EXPENDITURE, TO THE EXTENT OF ITS DISALLOWANCE, WAS NEVER INCURRED, OR THAT IT WAS HAVING NO RELATION WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF THE BUSIN ESS OF THE COMPANY. 11. FURTHER, SINCE ONLY A PART OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE A.O. HIMSELF D ID NOT DISPUTE THE NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE AS A BUSINESS EXPENDITURE . 12. FOR ALL THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, WE DO NOT FIND A NY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE 8 I.T.A. NO. 158(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS REJECTED. 13. SO FAR AS REGARDS GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3, THE ASSES SING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 14,36,874/- UNDER THE HEAD REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE, CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUN T, HOLDING IT TO BE CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE A DDITION BY HOLDING AS FOLLOWS: THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 14,86,874/- O N THE GROUND THAT EXPENDITURE IS CAPITAL IN NATURE BECAUSE IT WAS A R ENOVATION AND BEAUTIFICATION OF PRESENT PREMISES. THE APPELLANT O N THE OTHER HAND STATED THAT IT IS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE OF NORMAL R OUTINE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S, I FIND THAT THIS IS A RENTED PREMISES AND THE APPELLANT HAS CARRIED OUT R EPAIR AND MAINTENANCE AND PURCHASED TILES, ADHESIVE AND OTHER RAW-MATERIAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND BEAUTIFICATION. MERELY, BECAUSE T HE BILLS ARE RAISED FOR RENOVATION THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE EXPENDITURE C APITAL. THIS IS A RENTED PREMISES ON WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS CARRIED OUT CERTAIN REPAIRS AS PER THE NECESSITY OF BUSINESS. THIS EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 30(A)(I). ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINE D AND DELETED. 14. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DR HAS CONTENDED THAT TH E LEARNED CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INC OME TAX RULES, 1962, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENT SHOWIN G THE PREMISES AS A RENTED ONE, FOR WHICH, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED T ILES, ADHESIVE AND OTHER RAW MATERIAL. 9 I.T.A. NO. 158(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 15. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, PER CONTRA , HAS AGAIN PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 16. IT REMAINS UNDISPUTED THAT THE PREMISES WHEREAT THE REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE WERE CARRIED OUT, WAS A RENTED PREMISES . TILES, ADHESIVE AND OTHER RAW-MATERIAL WERE PURCHASED FOR IMPROVEMENT A ND BEAUTIFICATION OF THE PREMISES. 17. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DULY TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT TH AT THIS EXPENSE DID NOT AMOUNT TO CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, JUST BECAUSE THE BILLS WERE RAISED FOR RENOVATION. THE REPAIRS WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT AS A BUSINESS NECESSITY OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS EXPENDITUR E WAS FOUND ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 30(A)(II) OF THE ACT. WHILE HOLDING S O, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DULY TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE POSITION THAT WHEN EVER AN ASSESSEE INCURS EXPENDITURE FOR REPAIRING THE PREMISES TAKEN ON LEA SE, IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED U/S 30(A)(I) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE AMOUNT INCURR ED BY THE ASSESSEE, OTHERWISE THAN AS A TENANT IN RESPECT OF CURRENT R EPAIRS HAS TO BE ALLOWED U/S 30(A)(II) OF THE ACT. BY THE EXPLANATION, THE L EGISLATURE CLARIFIED THAT ANY EXPENDITURE WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL E XPENDITURE, CANNOT BE INCLUDED WHILE ALLOWING THE SAME U/SS 32(A)(I) AND 32(A)(II) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT WHENEVER THE ASSES SEE INCURS EXPENDITURE FOR REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF A BUILDING TAKEN ON L EASE FOR CARRYING ON ITS 10 I.T.A. NO. 158(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED U/S 30(A)(I ) OF THE ACT. THIS POSITION STANDS ALREADY CONSIDERED ARE UPHELD IN TH E FOLLOWING CASES: I. INSTALLMENT SUPPLY P. LTD. VS. CIT, (1984) 149 ITR 52 (DEL.) II. CIT VS. ARAISH EXHIBITION SERVICE, (1980) 3 TAXMAN 378 III. CIT VS. KALYANJI MAVJI & CO., (1980) 122 ITR 49 (SC ) IV. CIT VS. HI LINE PENS (P) LTD., 306 ITR 182 (DEL.) 18. FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FAILED TO AP PRECIATE THE PROVISIONS OF LAW CONTAINED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; THAT SINCE THE PREMISES IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS RUNNING THEIR SHOWRO OM/OFFICES WERE NOT BELONGING TO THE COMPANY, ON WHICH THE EXPENDIT URE HAD BEEN INCURRED FOR ITS PROPER MAINTENANCE/RENOVATION THER EOF, DURING THE YEAR, THE SAME WAS ALLOWABLE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT, AND IT WAS NOT TO BE CAPITALIZED, AS HAD BEEN HELD/OPINED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. THIS APART, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NEVER STATED THAT THE SAI D EXPENDITURE, TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 14,36,874/-, CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE/R ENOVATION, HAD EITHER NOT BEEN INCURRED, OR WAS NOT HAVING ANY NEXUS WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE WITH REGAR D TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE SHOWROOMS/OFFICES HAD ALREADY BEEN FILED AND PLACED ON RECORD. FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2009-10, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS CONSTANTLY INCURRING EXPENDITURE FOR THE MAINTE NANCE/REPAIRS/UPDATE 11 I.T.A. NO. 158(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 OF THEIR LEASED SHOWROOMS/PREMISES HIRED BY THEM, A S PER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE COMPANY, WHO HAD APPOINTED THEM AS ONE OF THEIR DEALERS FOR THE SALE/PURCHASE OF THEIR COMMERCIAL A ND OTHER VEHICLES AND HAD BEEN CLAIMING THE SAME AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE T HROUGH THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C AND THE SAME WAS ALSO CONSTANTLY BEING ACC EPTED YEAR AFTER YEAR UNDER THE HEAD REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHILE FINALIZI NG THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE LEARNED CIT(A ) CORRECTLY NOTED THAT IT WAS ONLY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THAT A SUM OF RS. 14,36,874/- HAD BEEN DISALLOWED OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE IN CURRED AND CLAIMED OF RS. 22,55,710/-, WRONGLY PRESUMING IT TO BE EXPENDI TURE CAPITAL IN NATURE, WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS, AND THAT THE PRE MISES OWNED WERE ALL LEASED OUT PREMISES AND NOT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY. 19. FROM THE ABOVE, EVIDENTLY, THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), WHILE CORRECTLY DELETING THE DISALL OWANCE MADE, I.E., DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 14,86,874/- UNDER THE HEAD REP AIRS AND MAINTENANCE. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO S HOW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD WRONGLY ADMITTED ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS CONSIDERED, ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE STOOD ALREADY FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 20. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 RAISED BY THE D EPARTMENT ARE ALSO FOUND TO BE SHORN OF MERIT AND ARE REJECTED AS SUCH. 12 I.T.A. NO. 158(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 5 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: M/S FAIRDEAL MOTORS AND WORKSHOP PVT. LTD., PARIMORA, SRINAGAR 2. DEPUTY CIT, CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDERS (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.