Panasonic Industrial Asia Pte Ltd.- India Branch Office, Noida V. ADIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

ITA 1771/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7441 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDER PAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1771/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 PANASONIC INDUSTRIAL ASIA PTE LTD., C/O SRBC & ASSOCIATES, 5 TH FLOOR, TOWER-2, INDIA GLYCOLS BUILDING, PLOT NO.2B, SECTOR 126, NOIDA. V. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI. TAN/PAN: AACCP 7345J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SURENDER PAL, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 17 10 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14 01 2020 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.01.2017, PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XLIII, NEW DEL HI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S.144C/143(3) R. W.S. 254 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE ITAT IT TOTO. I.T.A. NO.1771/DEL/2017 2 2. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSISTANT DIREC TOR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NE W DELHI WHILE ALLOCATING INDIRECT EXPENSES AGAINST COMMISS ION INCOME FROM OTHER GROUP COMPANIES BASED UPON SALES MADE B Y OTHER GROUP COMPANIES IN INDIA. 2. IN THE PRESENT CASE, VARIOUS NOTICES WERE SENT T O THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM 36 THROUG H REGISTERED POST AND DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE OF TH E APPELLANT IS DECIDED EX-PARTE AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. DR. 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, PANASO NIC INDUSTRIAL ASIA PTE. LTD. IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN SINGAPORE AND HAS PRIMARILY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING FOR INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS SUCH AS COMPRESSORS , MACHINERY AND BATTERIES. IT HAS ESTABLISHED A BRANC H OFFICE IN INDIA WHOSE ACTIVITIES IS RESTRICTED TO MARKETING A ND TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.10.2004 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.48,37,180/-. IN T HE FIRST ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) HAS RECOMPUTED INCOME BY A PPLYING THE GROSS PROFIT RATES FROM CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNTS O F THE MUTSUHITO GROUP TO THE SALES MADE BY HEAD OFFICE IN INDIA DURING THE YEAR AND 50% OF SUCH PROFIT WAS CONSIDER ED TO BE TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT-ASSESSEE. FUR THER, IN I.T.A. NO.1771/DEL/2017 3 RESPECT OF SALES MADE IN INDIA BY OTHER GROUP COMPA NIES, AN AD-HOC RATE OF COMMISSION OF 6% WAS APPLIED INSTEAD OF 2% REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE S INCOME WAS COMPUTED AT RS.12,67,74,060/-. IN THE FIRST APP EAL, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DIRECTED AS UNDER:- ATTRIBUTION OF 50% PROFITS OF THE APPELLANT TO INDIAN OPER ATION WAS UPHELD. FOR PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN RELATION TO SA LES MADE BY HEAD OFFICE IN INDIA, AO WAS DIRECTED TO USE NET PROFIT RATIO OF HEAD OFFICE. FURTHER, AO WAS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE CORRECT COMMISSION INCOME USING THE CORRECT TURNOVER (AS ACCEPTED IN THE REMAND REPORT FOR THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR) AND APPLYING THE CORRECT COMMISSION RATE (AS PER RELEVANT AGREEMENT OR U SING APPROPRIATE COMPARABLES). 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFER RED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE CON TENDED THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED EXPENSES AGAINST COMMISSION INCOME EARNED FROM GROUP COMPANIES AND OTHER INCOME EARNED BY IT BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAXED ON GROSS BASIS. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 27 TH DECEMBER, 2010 IN ITA NO.1725 TO 1727/DEL/2009 HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION TO THE APPELLANT-ASSESSEE ON ACCOUN T OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY IT IN CONNECTION WITH COMMISSI ON INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE GROUP COMPANIES AND OTHER INCOME EARNED BY IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHART PREPARED AND SUBMITTED I.T.A. NO.1771/DEL/2017 4 BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS CATEGORICALLY HEL D THAT GROSS INCOME CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX AND ONLY NET INCOME AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES, IF ANY. THE R ELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS REGARD INCORPOR ATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER READS AS UNDER: SINCE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR US TO VERIFY THE CORR ECTNESS OF THIS WORKING, WE RESTORE THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THIS PURPOSE. WE SET ASIDE TH E ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 & 2 004-05 AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY IT IN C ONNECTION WITH EARNING OF COMMISSION INCOME FROM GROUP COMPAN IES AND OTHER INCOMES WHICH ARE BROUGHT TO TAX ON GROSS BAS IS. THE WORKING OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE VERIFIED AND EXPE NSES SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT IT IS FOUND THAT THE EXPENSES ARE ALLOCABLE TOWARDS EARNING OF THESE TWO INCOMES. IF THE NET INCOME AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES IS LOWER THAN RETURNED INCOME IN ANY YEAR, THEN THE FINAL ASSESSED INCOME SHOULD BE THE RETURNED INCOME WHICH MEANS THAT DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THAT EXTENT WHICH RESULTS INTO NET IN COME TO THE EXTENT OF RETURNED INCOME. THE AO SHOULD PASS NECES SARY ORDER AS PER LAW AS PER ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROV IDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN A. Y. 2003-04 AND 2004-05.' 5. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CL AIMED EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,01,70,190/- AGAINST IN COME FROM COMMISSION FROM GROUP COMPANIES AND OTHER INCOME WHICH I.T.A. NO.1771/DEL/2017 5 CUMULATIVELY AMOUNTED TO RS.1,72,18,506/-. THE TOTA L EXPENSES AS PER THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WAS RS.3,21,54,525/-. THE BASIS FOR ALLOCATION OF EXPEN SES TO THE INCOME FROM GROUP COMPANIES AND OTHER INCOME GI VEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AS UNDER: DIRECT EXPENSES: INCOME CONSIDERED ON ACCOUNT OF SUB SIDY OF RS. 3,253,654 IS ACTUALLY REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSE S INCURRED BY PIAPL - BRANCH OFFICE, AS CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEE. IF SAME IS CONSIDERED AS INCOME, DIRECT EXPENSES OF SAME AMOUNT I.E. RS. 3,253,654 HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS EXPENS ES AGAINST SUBSIDY INCOME. IN ADDITION, DIRECT EXPENSES O N ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SPARE PARTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 16,2 4,519 HAS BEEN CONSIDERED FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION AGAINST I NCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SPARE PARTS OF RS. 24,93,372. THUS , DIRECT EXPENSES ALLOWABLE AGAINST SUBSIDY AND SALE OF SPARE PARTS ARE AS UNDER: DIRECT EXPENSES AMOUNT (IN RS.) EXPENSES AGAINST SUBSIDY 3,253,654 3,25,,654 EXPENSES AGAINST SUBSIDY 3,253,654 16,24,519 TOTAL DIRECT EXPENSES 4,878,173 4,8 78,173 INDIRECT EXPENSES: IN ADDITION TO THESE, EXPENSES OF RS.15,292,017 HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS INDIRECT EXPENSES COMPUTED ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS AGAINST FOLLOWING INCOM E: COMMISSION INCOME FROM GROUP COMPANIES RS. 15, 588,357 SERVICE INCOME - RS 1,151,750 PROFIT ON DISPOSAL OF FIXED ASSETS - 162,816 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME - RS 315,583 I.T.A. NO.1771/DEL/2017 6 INDIRECT EXPENSES HAVE BEEN CALCULATED BASED ON TOTAL EXPENSES AS PER FINANCIAL STATEMENTS LESS DIRECT EXPEN SES. TOTAL EXPENSES AS PER FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE RS. 32,154,525. DIRECT EXPENSES I.E. EXPENSES AGAINST SA LES SUBSIDY AND SALE OF SPARE PARTS IS RS. 4,878,173. TH US, INDIRECT EXPENSES HAVE BEEN CALCULATED AT RS. 27,276, 352. TOTAL INCOME AS PER FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IS RS. 36,459,655. THIS INCLUDES COMMISSION INCOME FROM HEAD OFFICE OF RS. 13,494,123. IN ORDER TO ALLOCATE THE INDIRECT EXPENSES, INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SALES SUBSIDY I.E. RS. 14,17,132 AND I NCOME FROM SALE OF SPARE PARTS OF RS. 24,93,372 HAS BEEN E XCLUDED FROM TOTAL INCOME. THUS, AFTER EXCLUDING SALES SUBSIDY INCOME AND SALE OF SPARE PARTS, INCOME TO WHICH INDIRECT EXPE NSES CAN BE ATTRIBUTED IS CALCULATED AT RS. 30,712,629. THUS, BASED ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 30,712,629/- AND TOTAL INDIRECT EXPENSES OF RS. 27,276,352, INDIRECT EXPENSES HAVE B EEN ALLOCATED AS UNDER: INCOME AMOUNT (A) RATIO TO TOTAL INCOME (B) [(A)/30,712,629* 100] INDIRECT EXPENSES AGAINST INCOME [(B)*RS.27,276,3 52 (IN RS.)] COMMISSIO N INCOME FROM GROUP COMPANIES RS.15,558,357 51% 13,844,256 SERVICE INCOME RS.1,151,750 3.75% 1,022,887 PROFIT ON SALE OF FIXED ASSETS RS.162,816 0.5% 144,599 MISC. INCOME RS.315,583 1% 280,274 TOTAL 15,292,017 THUS, TOTAL EXPENSE OF RS.20,170,190/- HAS BEEN CALCU LATED AS UNDER: I.T.A. NO.1771/DEL/2017 7 PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN RS.) DIRECT EXPENSE 4,878,173 INDIRECT EXPENSE 15,292,017 TOTAL 20,170,190 6. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER SEEKING DIRECTIO N FROM THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PARTLY ALLOWE D THE EXPENSES, LIKE DIRECT EXPENSES BUT HAS REJECTED THE BASIS OF ALLOCATION ON INDIRECT EXPENSES AGAINST COMMISSION INCOME FROM OTHER GROUP COMPANIES AND OTHER INCOME AND HEL D THAT INDIRECT EXPENSES CAN BE ALLOCATED, TAKING THE SALE S MADE BY THE HEAD OFFICE AND OTHER GROUP COMPANIES IN INDIA AND REJECTED THE ASSESSEES ALLOCATION OF INDIRECT EXPE NSES TAKING INCOME EARNED AS THE BASIS. 7. LD. CIT (A) FOLLOWING PREDECESSORS ORDER DATED 28.01.2013 AND DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AFTE R HOLDING AND OBSERVING AS UNDER: THE AFORESAID ISSUE WAS BEFORE MY LEARNED PREDECES SOR WHO IN APPEAL NO. 128/1 1-12 DATED 28.01.2013, HAD ADJU DICATED THE ISSUE. AT PARA 7.4 OF HIS ORDER, REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT, HE I DO NO FIND MERITS IN ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT THAT INDIRECT EXPENSES SHOULD BE CHARGED, IN RATIO OF RESPECTIVE INCOMES. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT IS HAVING TWO STREAM S OF INCOME. THE NATURES OF ACTIVITIES I SERVICES RENDER ED BY BRANCH OFFICE (PE) OF THE APPELLANT TO ITS HEAD, OFFICE AN D OTHER GROUP COMPANIES UNDISPUTEDLY REMAIN THE SAME. FURTHER, RA TE OF COMMISSION CHARGED FROM DIFFERENT GROUP COMPANIES V ARIES. I.T.A. NO.1771/DEL/2017 8 THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT APPEAR SOUND TO APPORTION TH E INDIRECT EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO 'COMMISSION INCOME FROM GR OUP COMPANIES' AND 'OTHER INCOME' ON BASIS OF INCOME WH EN INCOME FROM HEAD OFFICE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX ON NET RAT E BASIS. THUS, IT APPEARS MORE PRUDENT TO APPORTION INDIRECT EXPENSES ON BASIS OF SALES RATIO WHICH MAINTAINS CONSISTENCY AND NEUTRALITY BETWEEN COMPUTATIONS OF INCOME FROM TWO STREAMS. THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT HON'BLE ITAT HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED IN ITS ORDER THE BASIS OF COMPUTATION AS F URNISHED BY IT, IS NOT CORRECT AS IS EVIDENT FROM RELEVANT PARA OF THE SAID ORDER AS REPRODUCED SUPRA IN 3.5. RATHER, MATTER HA D BEEN SET ASIDE TO FILE OF THE AO TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS O F CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. SIMILARLY, ON THE BASIS AS AFORESAID, I HAD ADJUDIC ATED APPEAL FOR AY 2005- 06 BEING APPEAL NO. 353/2014-15 DATED 22.09.2015, AGAINST THE APPELLANT. I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE ADJUDICATION BY MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR. IN VIEW OF DISCUSSION AS ABOVE, 1 HOLD THAT THE AO HAS CORRECTLY WORKED OUT DEDUCTION AVAILABLE IN RES PECT OF INDIRECT EXPENSES ON PROPORTIONAL BASIS WITH REFERE NCE TO SALES. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8. THE LD. DR HAS STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD. CIT (A). 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, WE FIND THAT THE ONLY ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION IS ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION FOR INDI RECT EXPENSES AGAINST COMMISSION INCOME FROM GROUP COMPA NIES I.T.A. NO.1771/DEL/2017 9 AND OTHER INCOME OF THE APPELLANT-ASSESSEE. THERE I S NO DISPUTE REGARDING DEDUCTION OF DIRECT EXPENSES WHIC H HAD ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PU RSUANCE OF ITAT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS A 100% SUBSIDIA RY OF MUTSUHITO ELECTRIC ASIA PTE, SINGAPORE WHICH IS OWN ED BY MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD., JAPAN. MOS T OF THESE COMPANIES ARE SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS IN INDIA AND A SSESSEE- COMPANY IS SELLING ITS PRODUCT THROUGH BRANCH OFFIC E IN INDIA. BESIDES THIS, OTHER GROUP COMPANIES ARE ALSO SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS IN INDIA THROUGH BRANCH OFFICE OF TH E ASSESSEE ON WHICH COMMISSION INCOME IS TAXABLE IN INDIA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF TOTAL INCOME INDIRECT EXPE NSES OF RS.1,23,78,008/- ON PROPORTIONAL BASIS WITH REFEREN CE TO SALES WHEREAS ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INDIRECT EXPENSES TO T HE TUNE OF RS.1,52,92,017/- ON PROPORTIONAL BASIS WITH REFEREN CE TO THE INCOME. REASONING GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AR E THAT ASSESSEE IS HAVING TWO STREAMS OF INCOME, I.E., BUS INESS INCOME WHERE ASSESSEE IS SELLING ITS PRODUCT THROUG H ITS BRANCH OFFICE AND SELLING PRODUCTS OF OTHER GROUP C OMPANIES IN INDIA THROUGH BRANCH OFFICE FROM WHICH IT HAS EA RNED COMMISSION. THE RATE OF COMMISSION CHARGED FROM DIF FERENT GROUP COMPANIES VARIES, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT PROPER METHOD OF ALLOCATION OF INDIRECT EXPENSES THROUGH COMMISSION INCOME, AND THEREFORE, APPORTION OF INDIRECT EXPENSE SHOULD BE IN THE SALES RATIO. FIRST OF ALL, FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT DIRECTION AS INCORPORATED IN THE ITAT ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTI ON TO THE I.T.A. NO.1771/DEL/2017 10 ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY IT IN C ONNECTION WITH EARNING OF COMMISSION INCOME FROM GROUP COMPAN IES AND OTHER INCOME AND THE WORKING GIVEN BY THE ASSES SEE SHOULD BE VERIFIED AND THE EXPENSES SHOULD BE ALLOW ED AS DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT IT IS FOUND THAT EXPENSES A RE ALLOCABLE TOWARDS EARNING OF THESE TWO INCOME. THUS, THERE WA S A CLEAR CUT DIRECTION THAT EXPENSES ARE TO BE ALLOCATED WHI CH ARE ALLOCABLE TOWARDS EARNING OF THE INCOME. IT IS UNDI SPUTED FACT THAT BRANCH OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INCOM E IN INDIA FROM PROVISION OF SERVICES ONLY, AND THEREFORE, ALL OCATION OF INDIRECT EXPENSES HAVE TO BE BASED UPON SERVICES RE NDERED WHICH IN TURN HAS LED TO EARNING OF COMMISSION INCO ME. THUS, INDIRECT EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE BRANCH OFFICE HAS TO BE SEEN QUA THE EARNING OF SERVICES/COMMISSION INCOME, AND THEREFORE, SHOULD BE ALLOCATED BASED UPON SUCH COMM ISSION INCOME. IT IS THE PROVISION OF SERVICES WHICH RESUL TS IN INCURRING OF VARIOUS INDIRECT EXPENSES, AND THEREFO RE, THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, IN OUR OPINION, APPEARS TO BE CORRECT. THE PROVISIO N OF SERVICE BY THE BRANCH OFFICE FOR ITS HEAD OFFICE AND OTHER GROUP COMPANIES ARE LIKE TWO DIFFERENT CENTRES AND THE BE NEFITS RECEIVED BY THESE COST CENTRES HAS TO BE SEEN IN TE RMS OF SERVICE FEE OR COMMISSION, AND THEREFORE, INDIRECT EXPENSES OF THESE TWO COST CENTRES OF THE BRANCH OFFICE SHOULD BE ALLOCATED IN PROPORTION TO THE BENEFITS RECEIVED, I .E., SERVICE/COMMISSION INCOME. THE INDIRECT EXPENSES IN CURRED BY THE BRANCH OFFICE ARE WHOLLY INDEPENDENT OF SALE S MADE BY I.T.A. NO.1771/DEL/2017 11 THE HEAD OFFICE AND OTHER GROUP COMPANIES, AND THER EFORE, THE BASIS FOR SALES TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE THE CORRECT METHOD FOR ALLOCATION. THIS WAS ALSO TH E MANDATE OF THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL ALSO. THUS, IN ABS ENCE OF ANY FINDING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE BASIS FO R ALLOCATING THE INDIRECT EXPENSES ON PROPORTION BASIS WITH REFE RENCE TO THE COMMISSION INCOME AND OTHER INCOME AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE FAULTED WITH AND IS TO BE TAKEN AS CORRECT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALL OW INDIRECT EXPENSES AT RS.1,52,92,017/- INSTEAD OF RS.1,23,78, 008/- ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH JANUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- [G.S. PANNU] [AMIT SHUKLA] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14 TH JANUARY, 2020 PKK: