M/s. Saj Flight Services Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. ITO (OSD), CHENNAI

ITA 1719/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95950 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: J RADHAKRISHNAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 244A; 14A; 246

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! # , $ & BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.1701 & 1719/MDS/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 & 2004-05) M/S. SAJ FLIGHT SERVICES PVT. LTD. 46/40, FLAT NO.A, LE ROYAL KSHETRA, MGR ROAD, KALAKSHETRA COLONY, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 090. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX / INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD) COMPANY CIRCLE-VI(1), CHENNAI-600 034. PAN:AAACS9646P ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. J.RADHAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 9 TH JULY, 2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 TH AUGUST, 2015 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- VI, CHENNAI DATED 18.06.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 003-04 AND 2004-05. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN BO TH THESE APPEALS, THEY ARE CLUBBED & HEARD TOGETHER AN D DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 ITA NO.1701 & 1719/MDS/2012 2. THE COMMON ISSUE IN BOTH THESE APPEALS IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT ASSESSEE IS RUNNING FARM TOURISM AND ERRED IN SUMMARILY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES I N AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FLIGHT CATERING AND ALLIED PROFESS IONAL SERVICES FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.11.2003 A ND 01.11.2004 DECLARING INCOME OF ` 18,63,160/- AND ` 26,20,650/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2 004-05 RESPECTIVELY. ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED UNDER SECT ION 143(3) OF THE ACT. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENTS , ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 4,98,385/- AND ` 5,66,276/- HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE CREDITED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO ITS PR OFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND ALSO DEBITED AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES AND NET RESULT BEING LOSS IN AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AS THE LOSS I S NOT ALLOWABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED T HAT ASSESSEE WAS CULTIVATING VEGETABLES AND SUCH VEGE TABLES ARE UTILIZED IN THE RESTAURANTS MAINTAINED BY THE A SSESSEE 3 ITA NO.1701 & 1719/MDS/2012 AND THEREFORE ASSESSEE CANNOT MAKE INCOME OUT OF I TSELF. ALTERNATIVELY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT LOSS FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIO N IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSES SING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT LOSS FROM AGRICULTURE BEING E XPENDITURE OVER INCOME IS NOTHING BUT AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHICH IS EARNING AN INCOME THAT IS EXEMPTED FROM TAX. THE A SSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFT ER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES. 4. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE H AS WRONGLY SHOWN THE INCOME FROM FARM TOURISM AS INCOM E FROM AGRICULTURE IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THEREF ORE, HE SUBMITS THAT IT IS NOT AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND AGRI CULTURAL EXPENSES SO AS TO DISALLOW THE SAME UNDER SECTION 1 4A OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT AGRICULTURAL INCO ME WAS CONSIDERED FOR TAX PURPOSES AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE HELD 4 ITA NO.1701 & 1719/MDS/2012 THAT SUCH INCOME IS EXEMPT SO AS TO ATTRACT PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUBMITS T HAT WHAT WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGRICULTURAL INCO ME ONLY AND THEREFORE AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES DEBITED TO PROF IT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THE INCOME CANNOT BE ALLOWE D AS DEDUCTION. 6. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN ELABORATELY CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WITH REFERENC E TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5. THE THIRD & FIFTH GROUNDS RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.8,67,880/- AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND ALTERNATIV ELY DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF ` 4 ,98,385/-. THE AO AFFORDED OPPORTUNITY .TO THE APPELLANT AS PER THE DIRECTION OF HON'BLE ITAT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF RS.8,67,880/- AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE CORRESPONDING DEBIT OF EXPENDITURE RELATING TO AGRICULTURE OF RS.13,66,265/-. AFTER EVALUATING THE DETAILS FILED THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THE FOLLOWING DISCREPANCIES WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIMS: I) AS AGAINST THE CLAIM THAT VEGETABLES ARE CULTIVA TED IN 1 ACRE OUT OF 11 ACRE OF LAND IN VAGAMAN HIDEOUT 5 ITA NO.1701 & 1719/MDS/2012 DURING THE HEARING, THE APPELLANT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 21.12.2009 SUBMITTED THAT THE EXTENT OF LAND CLAIMED TO BE CULTIVATED WAS GIVEN A S 2 ACRES. THE AO DRAWN THE INFERENCE THAT VARIED STATEMENT IS ONLY TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF EXCE SS AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE SHOWN IN RETURN OF INCOME. II. THE TEA PLANTATION OF 9 ACRES OF LAND WAS SUBSTANTIATED BY AN ATTRACTIVE BROACHER SUBMITTED B Y THE APPELLANT ON 21.12.2009, BUT AS PER THE VIEW OF THE AO THE TEA PLANTATION IS GROWN ON SLOPES OF LAND AN D TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON RAIN WATER, NO MAJOR MAINTENAN CE IS REQUIRED AND TEA PLANTATION YIELDS FOR A PERIOD OF 10 TO 15 YEARS. III. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MAINTAINED OR PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE INCOME/EXPENDITURE. THOUGH HUGE SUMS OUGHT TO HAVE GONE T HROUGH BANK TRANSACTIONS, THE APPELLANT FAILED TO SHOW BY WAY O F BANK TRANSACTIONS. IV. THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE FOR CULTIV ATION OF VEGETABLES IN 2 ACRES RS.13,66,265/- IS TOO FAR HIG H AND EVEN IF EXPENDITURE ON TEA PLANTATION IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE SAID EXPENDITURE IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE. V. ON POSING ALL THE ABOVE ISSUES, THE APPELLANT WA S SILENT OVER THESE ISSUES. ALTERNATIVELY EVEN IF THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION IS TO BE CONSIDERED THE LOSS FROM AGRICULTURE INVITE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A AS THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION AS IT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARNING EXEMPT INCOME. 5.1 DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT FIL ED LETTER DATED 17.08.2011 ENCLOSING PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET OF VAGAMON HIDE OUT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CONSOLIDATED FORM OF VEGETABLE, HONEY, DAIRY, FARM AND POULTRY IS GIVEN AND ALL INC OME ARE FROM THE GUESTS WHO CAME TO THE RESORT. HE ARGU ED THAT THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT SO SUBMITTED ARE ATTE STED BY THE AUDITOR. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION I FIND THA T THE APPELLANT HAS NOT COUNTERED THE POINTS MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR DRAWING ADVERSE INFEREN CE. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE APPELLA NT TO FURNISH VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT INCOME EA RNED IS FROM AGRICULTURE [CIT VS R. VENKATASWAMY NAIDU 2 9 ITR 529 (SC)]. ON THE SAME LOGIC THE ONUS IS ON THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THAT THE NET RESULT OF AGRICULTU RE ACTIVITY IS LOSS OF ` 4,98,385/-. THEREFORE I CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF RSA,98,385/- MADE BY THE A O FOR THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBSTANTIAT ED THE CLAIM WITH EVIDENCES. SIMILARLY THE APPELLANT ALSO HAS 6 ITA NO.1701 & 1719/MDS/2012 NOT PROVED THAT THE INCOME EARNED OF RS.8,67,880/- IS OUT OF AGRICULTURE WITH EVIDENCE AND HENCE I CONFIRM THE ADDITION ON THIS GROUND. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.8,67,880/- MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTED TO DUPLICATIO N OF INCOME AS THE TOTAL INCOME AS PER RETURN ` 18,63,160/- INCLUDES ` 8,67,880/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND IF FOUND TO BE TRUE REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF ` 8,67,880/- WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 7. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASO N TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF AGRICU LTURAL EXPENSES . THUS, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND REJECT THE G ROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON TEMPORA RY STRUCTURES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT RESTRICTED DEPRECIATION ON TEMPORARY STR UCTURES TO 5% CONSIDERING THE STRUCTURE AS PERMANENT ONE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HA S NOT 7 ITA NO.1701 & 1719/MDS/2012 ESTABLISHED WHETHER TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN TAKEN PLACE AND IF TAKEN PLACE UNDER IN WHICH MONTH AND W HEN IT WAS DEMOLISHED AS IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT TEMPORARY STRUCTURE WAS DEMOLISHED LATER IN VI EW OF THE NOTICE GIVEN BY TRIVENDRUM CORPORATION. ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UPHELD THE ACT ION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION AT 5 %. 9. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE ERECTED TEMPORARY STRUCTURE AND IT WAS DEM OLISHED IN VIEW OF THE NOTICE GIVEN BY THE CORPORATION. HE SUBMITS THAT STRUCTURES WERE ONLY TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND THER EFORE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AT 100% IS JUSTIFIED. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE AS TO WHETHER THE S TRUCTURES ARE TEMPORARY AND WHAT KIND OF CONSTRUCTION WAS ERE CTED AND WHEN IT WAS DEMOLISHED, THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH DETAILS THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPEARS TO BE JU STIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION TO 5%.THUS, T HE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ARE DISMISSED. 8 ITA NO.1701 & 1719/MDS/2012 10. THE LAST ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IS THAT COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT MATTER R ELATING TO INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244A IS NOT APPEALABLE. IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE RAISED ADDITI ONAL GROUND CONTENDING THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUS TIFIED IN WITHDRAWING EXCESS INTEREST GRANTED UNDER SECTION 2 44A OF THE ACT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DISMISSED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HOL DING THAT DISPUTE RELATING TO GRANT OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244A IS TO BE DECIDED BY JURISDICTIONAL COMMISSIONER OR THE CH IEF COMMISSIONER. 11. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT MUMBA I BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.8592/MUM/2010 DATED 24.07.2013 CONSIDERING A SIMILAR ISSUE HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAD PREFERRED A VALID APPEAL WARRANTING ADJUDICATION. WHILE HOLDI NG SO, THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED AS UNDER:- WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING FOR DETERMINATION IN THE INSTANT CASE IS A PURE LEGAL ISSUE, I.E., WHETHER THE ASSES SEE 9 ITA NO.1701 & 1719/MDS/2012 COULD, DE HORSITS LIABILITY TO TAX, CONTEST AN ORDE R OF ASSESSMENT IN APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF NON-GRANT OF OR OTHERWISE THE QUANTUM OF THE INTEREST GRANTED U/S.2 44A OF THE ACT. THE DECISION BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CALTEX OIL REFINING (INDIA) LT D.(SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PERUSED BY US. IN OUR VIEW, THE SAME SQUARELY COVERS THE ISSUE AT HAN D. THE DECISION BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CENTR AL ITA NO.8592/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2001-02) TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED VS. ASST. CIT PROVINCES MANGANESE ORE CO. LTD. VS. CIT[1986] 160 ITR 961 (SC), WHEREIN THE ISSUE INVOLVED WAS THE DENIAL TO LIABILITY AND/OR CHARGE OF INTEREST U/S.215 AT A LESSER AMOUN T, STANDS DULY CONSIDERED AND DISTINGUISHED BY THE HON BLE HIGH COURT. IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT ITS STANDS E XPLAINED THAT CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 246 IS IN TWO PARTS, SO THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WOULD FALL IN THE SECOND PART, I. E., DISPUTING THE TAX AS DETERMINED VIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING AFORESAID, I.E., OF T HE ISSUE UNDER REFERENCE AS BEING SQUARELY COVERED BY THE SA ID DECISION, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO DWELL ON THE OTHER DECISIONS IN THE MATTER SOUGHT TO BE RELIED U PON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD, THUS, PREFERRED A V ALID APPEAL, WARRANTING ADJUDICATION. THE LD. CIT(A) HAV ING NOT ADJUDICATED THE MATTER, HOLDING THE SAME AS NOT APPEALABLE, THE MATTER WOULD WARRANT BEING RESTORED BACK TO HIS FILE FOR THE PURPOSE. SO, HOWEVER, AS N OTED EARLIER, IT IS THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WHO HAS TO G RANT THE SAID INTEREST, AND WHOSE ORDER CONTAINS NO REFERENC E TO ANY REASON FOR THE NON-GRANT OF THE MANDATORY INTER EST U/S.244A; THE LAW CLEARLY PRESCRIBING THE SAME FOR BEING GRANTED ALONG WITH THE REFUND. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ONLY CONSIDER IT FIT AND PROPER TO, SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER, RE STORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO ALLOW TH E ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PLEAD ITS CASE WITH REFE RENCE TO GRANT OF INTEREST U/S.244A; WE HAVING NOT EXAMIN ED THE ISSUE ON MERITS AT ALL, AND WHO SHALL DECIDE THE SA ME PER A SPEAKING ORDER; THE MATTER BEING APPEALABLE. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 12. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BE NCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL CITED ABOVE, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RA ISED BY THE 10 ITA NO.1701 & 1719/MDS/2012 ASSESSEE IS A VALID ONE WARRANTING ADJUDICATION BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). SINCE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT GONE I NTO MERITS AND HELD THAT MATTER IS NOT APPEALABLE, WE R ESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE I SSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 13. THE SECOND ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADVERTISEMENT & PUBLICITY EXPENSES AND OFFICE EXPEN SES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT DISALLOWED ` 2,14,700/- UNDER THE HEAD ADVERTISEMENT & PUBLICITY AND ALSO OFFICE EXPENSES OF ` 55,000/- STATING THAT SOME OF THESE EXPENSES ARE DONATION TO CHURCH DAY F UNCTION AND NOT FOR ADVERTISEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE BU SINESS. ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RES TRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF ADVERTISEMENT & PUBL ICITY EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 59,000/- AND GAVE RELIEF OF ` 1,55,000/- AND IN RESPECT OF OFFICE EXPENSES, HE C ONFIRMED 11 ITA NO.1701 & 1719/MDS/2012 THE SAME IN VIEW OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. 14. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE ADVERTI SEMENT & PUBLICITY EXPENSES. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED ENTIRE EXPENSES. 15. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLACES RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 16. HEARD BOTH SIDES. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS O F THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT EXPENSES WERE DISA LLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATING THAT ASSESSEE INCURRE D THESE EXPENSES AS DONATION TO CHURCH. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HOWEVER PARTLY ALLOWED SUCH EX PENSES HOLDING THAT CERTAIN PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR PUBLICI TY AND SUCH EXPENSES ARE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,55,000/- AND CONFIRMED EXPENSES OF ` 55,000/-. WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) IN PARTLY ALLOWING THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR 12 ITA NO.1701 & 1719/MDS/2012 PUBLICITY. THUS, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND REJECT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1701/MDS/2012 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THAT OF ITA NO.1719/MDS/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH AUGUST, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( # ) ( & (# ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ( CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ) * / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( * / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( /CHENNAI, , /DATED 26 TH AUGUST, 2015 SOMU ./ 0/ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. 1 () /CIT(A) 4. 1 /CIT 5. / 5 /DR 6. /GF .