Asstt. Commissione of Income Tax 1, Kanpur V. M/s. Bodege Alcobev,, Kanpur

ITA 192/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 19223714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.192/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10 A.C.I.T. - 1, KANPUR. VS. M/S BODEGA ALCOBEV, 24/04, THE MALL, KANPUR. PAN:AAAAB3646E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.44/LKW/2012 (IN ITA NO.192/LKW/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10 M/S BODEGA ALCOBEV, 24/04, THE MALL, KANPUR. PAN:AAAAB3646E VS. A.C.I.T. - 1, KANPUR. (OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. ASSESSEE BY SHRI SHYAM SUNDAR GUPTA, ADVOCATE SHRI ASHISH JAISWAL, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 23/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 3 /06/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - II, KANPUR DATED 24/01/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. GROUND NO. 1,2 & 3 ARE INTER - CONNECTED, WHICH READ AS UND ER: 2 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II , KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST OF RS . 57,75,444 / - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II , KANPUR H A S ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST OF RS.57,75,444 / - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME I N THE STATUS OF AOP AND THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS ALSO COMPLETED IN THE STATES OF AOP. 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II , KANPUR H AS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE CHARGING OF INTEREST IN THIS C ASE WOULD BE DETERM INED BY THE EXPRESS CLAUSES OF THE 'PARTNERSHIP DEED' OR THAT ITS ALLOWABILITY WOULD BE GOVERNED BY PROVISIONS OF SEC TI ON 40(B) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S NOT A 'FIRM ASSESSABLE AS SUCH' BUT AN AOP WHI CH WAS CONSTITUTED UNDER A MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A 'PARTNERSHIP DEED'. 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT IT WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THERE WERE NEGATIVE BALANCES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE AOP WHICH WERE ALMOST SAME AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND ALSO AT THE END OF THE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE IS NO CLAUSE IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION THAT THE INTEREST WOULD BE CHARGED OR PAID ON THE NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE BALANCES OF THE MEMBERS BUT THERE IS NO CLAUSE IN THE MEMORANDUM THAT NO INTEREST WOULD BE CHARGED FROM ANY MEMBER OF THE AOP I F THE MEMBER WITHDRAW AMOUNT MORE THAN HIS CAPITAL BALANCE. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FROM ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION THAT A MEMBER OF AOP MAY WITHDRAW ANY AMOUNT WITHOUT PAYING ANY INTEREST ON SUCH AMOUNTS WHILE AS PER MEMORANDUM OF ASSO CIATION , HE IS EXPECTED TO CONTRIBUTE CAPITAL FOR RUNNING OF THE LIQUOR BUSINESS. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT IT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN WRITTEN ANYWHERE IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION THAT 3 THE AOP WOULD BEAR THE COST OF INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN BY THE MEMB ER OF THE AOP WITHOUT PAYING ANY INTEREST. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED INTEREST ON EXCESS WITHDRAWAL MADE AT RS.57,75,444/ - AND DISALLOWED THE SAME OUT OF INTEREST DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN A PPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAS DELETED THIS DISALLOWANCE AND NOW , THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY HIM ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF S. A. BU ILDERS LTD. VS. CIT AS REPORTED IN 288 ITR 1 . 5. AS AGAINST THIS, LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AOP IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 37 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND FROM THE SAME , IT CAN BE SEEN THAT AS ON 31/03/2008, THERE IS NET CREDIT BALANCE IN MEMBERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND DETAILS AS PER SCHEDULE - A ARE ON PAGE NO. 39 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY , SOME OF THE MEMBERS WERE HAVING MINUS BALANCE ON THIS DATE AND ALSO IN THE OPENING BALANCE BUT THERE IS OVERALL CREDIT BALANCE IN MEMBERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT AT THE TIME OF BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND ALSO AT THE END OF THE YEAR. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THESE FACTS SHOW THAT EVEN IF THERE IS EXCESS WITHDRAWAL BY SOM E MEMBERS, THE SAME IS OUT OF CREDIT BALANCE OF OTHER MEMBERS AND NOT OUT OF INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IF DAY TO DAY BALANCE IS CONSIDERED THEN THERE WAS CREDIT BALANCE ON MAXIMUM DAYS EVEN IN THOSE CASES WHERE THERE IS OPENI NG AND CLOSING MINUS BALANCE AND THEREFORE, EVEN IF SOME DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST SHOULD BE MADE, THE SAME SHOULD BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF DATE WISE MINUS BALANCE AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF CLOSING MINUS BALANCE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF 4 CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILIT IES & POWER LTD. 313 ITR 340, IF THERE ARE MIXED FUND THEN PRESUMPTION SHOULD BE THERE THAT ANY INVESTMENT OR WITHDRAWAL IS OUT OF I NTEREST FREE OWN FUNDS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT ON 01/04/2007 THERE WAS NET CREDIT BALANCE OF MEMBERS OF AOP TO THE EXTENT OF RS.313.98 LAC S AND AS ON 31/03/2008 ALSO, THERE IS NET CREDIT BALANCE OF ALL THE MEMBERS TAKEN TOGETHER TO THE EXTEN T OF 366.27 LAC. EVEN THE NET TRANSACTION DURING THE YEAR IS ALSO IN POSITIVE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.292.66 LAC S . AS PER THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PRESUMPTION HAS TO BE THERE THAT EVEN EXCESS WITHDRAWAL BY SOME MEMBERS WAS OUT O F CREDIT BALANCE OF OTHER MEMBERS IN THEIR CAPITAL . UNDER THESE FACTS, NO DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS JUSTIFIED AS PER THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACC ORDINGLY, THESE THREE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED. 7. GROUND NO. 4 & 5 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 4. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT INWARD & OUTWARD AT RS.50,000/ - INSTEAD OF RS.1,00,000/ - , THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SHOP EXPENSES AT RS.1,00,000/ - INSTEAD OF RS.1,50,000/ - , THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF OFFICE EXPENSES AT RS.50,000/ - INSTEAD OF RS.75,000/ - AND THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SHOP REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES AT RS.4,00,000/ - INSTEAD OF RS.6,34,245/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWED EXPENDITURE UNDER THE ABO VE FOUR HEADS EVEN THOUGH HE ACCEPTED THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS NOT FULLY SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 5 8. LEARNED D.R. OF THE R EVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS AD HOC DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RS.1,00,000/ - OUT OF FREIGHT INWARD AND OUTWARD AND RS.6,34,24 5/ - OUT OF SHOP REPAIR & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES, WHICH HAS BEEN REDUCED BY CIT(A) TO RS.50,000/ - AND RS.4,00,000/ - RESPECTIVELY. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING THIS PART DISALLOWANCE UPHELD BY CIT(A) IS ALSO RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER GROU ND NO. 2 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION. HE SUBMITTED THAT SUCH AD HOC DISALLOWANCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,00,000/ - OUT OF FREIGHT INWARD AND OUTWARD WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS THAT EXPENSES ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND VOUCHERS. AGAINST THIS DISALLOWANCE, THE CIT(A) REDUCED THE SAME TO RS.50,000/ - FOR WHICH BOTH THE SIDES ARE IN APPEAL. FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,17,567/ - UNDER THE HEAD FREIGHT INWARD AS AGAINST EXPENDITURE OF RS.2,45,851/ - IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. BUT UNDER T HE HEAD FREIGHT OUTWARD CHARGES, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN RS.9,43,935/ - IN THE PRESENT YEAR AS AGAINST RS.13,66,818/ - IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND THEREAFTER , HE HAS GIVEN A FI NDING THAT WHEN HE PROCEEDED TO EXAMINE THE SAME ON TEST CHECK BASIS, HE FOUND THAT SOME OF THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE NOT AVAILABLE AND SOME BILLS AND SOME EXPENSES WERE DEBITED ON SELF - MADE VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THERE IS DECRE ASE IN THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT THERE IS INCREASE IN THE FREIGHT INWARD FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY EXPLANATION. AS PER THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PRESENT 6 YEAR AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 38 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS SALE OF 10314.87 LAC S IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND PURCHASE OF RS.8884.86 LAC S IN THE PRESENT YEAR. AS PER THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR PRECEDING YEAR AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 81, WE FIND THAT THE SALE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR WAS 13531.03 LAC S WHEREAS PURCHASE WAS TO THE EXTENT OF 12776.81 LAC S . FROM THE ABOVE COMPARATIVE FIGURES OF SALES AND PURCHASE OF THE PRESENT YEAR AND PRECEDING YEAR, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS DECLINE IN BOTH SALES AND PURCHASE S . IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THERE IS DECLINE IN THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT OUTWARD BUT THERE IS INCREASE IN THE EXPENSES FOR FREIGHT INWARD TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4.17 LAC AS AGAINST RS.2.45 LAC IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N OTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE INCREASE. THESE EXPENSES ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY PROPER BILLS AND VOUCHERS ALSO. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.1,00,000/ - OUT OF FRE IGHT INWARD EXPENSES IS REASONABLE AND, THEREFORE, CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REDUCING THE SAME TO RS.50,000/ - . ON THIS ASPECT, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. REGARDING THE SECOND DISALLOWANCE OUT OF SHOP R EPAIR & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES, WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.63,42,450/ - UNDER THE HEAD SHOP REPAIR & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES AS AGAINST EXPENDITURE OF ONLY RS.5,40,220/ - IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDIN G YEAR. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THIS INCREASE IN EXPENDITURE IS BECAUSE OF RENOVATION OF THE SHOP FOR NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER IN ANTICIPATION THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL SECURE ALL THE EXISTING BUSINESS AS IN PAST B UT THE ASSESSEE LOST WHOLESALE BUSINESS AT KANPUR AND BANDA. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE FULLY VERIFIABLE AS THE DETAILS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED HIS OBJECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT JUSTIFY THE INCREASE OF ALMOST 20 TIMES UNDER THIS 7 HEAD. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ANY EXPENDITURE IS OF CAPITAL NATURE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MERELY MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF 10% ON AD HOC BASIS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTING OUT SOME EXPENSES OF CAPITAL NATURE OR NON BUSINESS NATURE, SUCH AD HOC DISALLOWANCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO UPHELD THE DISALL OWANCE OF RS.4,00,000/ - MERELY ON THE BASIS THAT 20 TIMES INCREASE IN REPAIR & MAINTENANCE IS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT WE ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THIS LOGIC OF CIT(A) BECAUSE THE INCREASE OR DECREASE IN REPAIR EXPENSES IS NOT DEPENDENT ON TURNOVER. FOR WEAR AND TEAR IN SO MANY YEARS, MANY A TIMES , REPAIRING TAKES PLACE IN ONE YEAR AND THE EXPENSES MAY BE LIKE THIS I.E. 20 TIMES OF THE PRECEDING YEAR. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC FINDING TO SHOW THAT ANY EXPE NDITURE WAS OF CAPITAL NATURE OR OF NON BUSINESS NATURE, SUCH AD HOC DISALLOWANCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF SHOP REPAIR & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES. GROUND NO. 4 & 5 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEA L OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. NOW WE TAKE UP THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, KANPUR WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT A SUM OF RS.5775444.0 0 BEING DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST WAS NOT DISALLOWANCE FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE APPEAL ORDER BASED ON SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS FACTS ON RECORD, WHICH DECISION WAS MADE AFTER CONSIDERING THAT STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE; AVAILABILITY OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS TO THE ASSESSEE, NO NEXUS BETWEEN INTEREST BEARING FUND AND ADVANCES AS WELL AS OTHER RELEVANT FACTOR. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 8 RS.50000.00 OUT OF FREIGHT INWARD & OUTWARD; RS.100000.00 OUT OF SHOP EXPENSES; RS.50000.00 OUT OF OFFICE EXPENSES; RS.400000.00 OUT OF SHOP REPAIR & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES WITHOUT ANY BASIS FOR CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, KANPUR WAS CORRECT IN ALLOWING RELIEFS TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH DECISIONS WAS CONSIDERED AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, KANPUR WAS LEGAL AND CORRECT BEIN G BASED ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND PROVISIONS OF LAW IN AS MUCH AS ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND DESERVES TO BE CONFIRMED. 5. THAT THE CROSS OBJECTOR CRAVES LEAVE TO MODIFY ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL GIVEN ABOVE AND ADD ANY NE W GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF AND WHEN NEED FOR DOING SO ARISES. 13. REGARDING GROUND NO. 1 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION, WE FIND THAT THIS GROUND IS MERELY IN SUPPORT OF THE ISSUE DECIDED BY CIT(A) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND ON THIS ASPECT , WE HAVE ALREADY TAKEN A DECISION WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND REJECTED ACCORDINGLY . 14. REGARDING GROUND NO. 2 ALSO, WE FIND THAT GROUND NO. 4 & 5 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL WERE INTER CONNECTED WITH GRO UND NO. 2 IN THE CROSS OBJECTION. WHILE DECIDING GROUND NO. 4 & 5 OF THAT APPEAL , WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE OUT OF FREIGHT INWARD CHARGES OF RS.1,00,000/ - IS JUSTIFIED BUT DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF SHOP REPAIR & MAINTE NANCE EXPENSES IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HENCE, OUT OF GROUND NO 2 IN THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION, WE DELETE THE PART DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,00,000/ - UPHELD BY CIT(A) OUT OF SHOP REPAIR & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES BUT THE 9 DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OU T OF FREIGHT INWARD CHARGES IS UPHELD IN FULL. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTION IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 16. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 3 /06/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR