DCIT, BHILWARA V. M/s. A. Infrastructure Ltd., BHILWARA

ITA 194/JODH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 82916 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N A JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: U C JAIN
• Keywords: Gift; Business expenditure; Corroborative evidences; Notional interest; Commercial expediency
• Section: 14A; 37(1); 37; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JODHPUR BENCH : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO S . 194 & 195 /JODH/2014 (A.Y S . 200 9 - 1 0 & 2010 - 11 ) DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA. VS. M/S. A. INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. , HAMIRGARH, BHILWARA. (APPELLANT) PAN NO. AABCA 7493 D (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI U.C. JAIN & SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.A. JOSHI - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 04 / 0 8 /201 4 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 /0 8 /201 4 . O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, A.M TH E S E TWO APPEAL S BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 2 8 /0 1/2014 OF L D . CIT(A), AJMER . 2 FIRST WE WILL DEAL WITH I.T.A.NO. NO. 194/JODH/2014 . THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: THE LD. CIT(A) , AJMER IN THE PRESENT FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HAS ERRED IN: - 2 1. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,95,400/ - MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASES. 2. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/ - MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF REBATE & DISCOU N T ACCOUNT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE S . 3. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,20,000 / - MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF SALE PROMOTION EXPENSES, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE S . 4. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT & FORWARDING EXPENSES, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASES . 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, DELETE OR MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. GROUND NO. 5 IS GENERAL IN NATURE, SO DO NOT REQUIRE ANY CO MMENTS ON OUR PART. VIDE GROUND NO. 1, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 9,95,400/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST. 4. FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTUR IN G OF ASBESTOS CEMENT SHEETS AND CEMENT PRESSURE PIPES. THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO A PARTNERSHIP WITH M/S. SARAF PROJECTS PVT. LTD. TO RUN A RESTAURANT IN THE NAME OF M/S. LIZARD LOUNGE AND INTRODUCED A CAPITAL OF RS. 82,95,000/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLE OF ASSOCIATION OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE ASSESSEE TO BECOME A PARTNER IN A 3 FIRM , SO THIS CAPITAL COULD HAVE BEEN USED BY THE ASSESSEE IN A ROUTINE BUSINESS AND I F THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN INTRODUCED THE SAID CAPITAL OF RS. 82,95,000/ - INTO THE PARTNERSHIP FOR RUNNING M/S. LIZARD LOUNGE THEN THE INTEREST LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN LOWER BY RS. 9,95,400/ - I.E. @ 12% ON RS. 82,95,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST OF RS. 8,25,98,000/ - DURING THE YEAR. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED MORE INTEREST OF RS. 9,95,400/ - DUE TO CAPITAL INTRODUCED INTO THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 9,9 5,400/ - WAS MADE. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SUBMISSIONS AS INCORPORATED IN PARA 3.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WERE AS UNDER: - 'FIRST OF ALL THE AMOUNT OF RS. 82,95,000/ - WAS NOT INVESTED IN THE PARTNERSHIP CONCERN DURING THIS YEAR. THERE WAS OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 1,10,3 7,015/ - AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND OUT OF THIS SUM A SUM OF RS. 27,41,849/ - WAS CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE LIVING BALANCE OF RS. 82,95,166/ - . THE COPY OF LEDGER A/C WAS SUBMITTED TO THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT VIDE OUR LETTER DATED 31/10/2011. THEREFORE AS NO INVESTMENT DURING THIS YEAR WAS MADE, HENCE THE QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST DOES NOT ARISE. FURTHERMORE DURING THIS YEAR THE INTEREST BURDEN HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM RS. 262.63 LACS TO RS.234.45 LACS AND RECEIPTS FROM INTEREST HAS BEEN INCREASED FROM RS. 100.23 LACS TO RS. 169.89 LACS, AS THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST BEING UNSECURED LOANS HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM RS. 646.81 LACS TO RS. 577.89 LACS AND TERM LOAN INTEREST REDUCE D FROM RS. 203.93 LACS TO RS. 174.96 LACS. THESE WERE DULY VERIFIED BY THE AO. AS PER DETAIL SUBMITTED VIDE OUR LETTER DA TED 09/12/2011. 4 NOT ONLY THIS YOUR HONOUR WILL APPRECIATES THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS HAVING ITS OWN FUND OF RS. 4,093.04 LACS INCLUD ING PROFIT AFTER TAX OF RS. 164.54 LACS WITH CASH SURPLUS GENERATED BY THE COMPANY DURING THIS YEAR RS. 463.95 LACS. AS REGARDS MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES AUTHORIZING FOR THE PARTNERSHIP IS CONCERN , IN THIS RESPECT WE SUBMIT SIR, THAT ANY PERSON CAN DO ANY LEGAL BUSINESS. MOREOVER THE COMPANY IS GOVERNED AS PER COMPANIES ACT, AND THERE IS EXPRESS POWER OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO ENTER INTO ALL CONTRACTS AND DO ALL SUCH LEGAL ACTS, DEEDS AND THINGS AS THEY MAY CONSIDER EXPEDIENT. TO GO INTO HOTEL RESTAURANT BU SINESS IS NOT AN OFFENCE OR PROHIBITED BY LAW. AS THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(13) OF THE IT ACT, AND ANY PERSON CAN DO TRADE, COMMERCE OR MANUFACTURER OR ANY ADVENTURE OR CONCERN IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. HOWEVER SECTION 14A SAY THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT. AND YOUR HONOUR WILL FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY INTEREST PAYMENT ON THE AMOUNT I NVESTED IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM RATHER LOSS/INCOME OF THIS PARTNERSHIP WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION UNDER SECTION 10 (2A) OF IT ACT. NON CHARGING OF INTEREST ON LOAN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT ITSELF BE A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID BY AN ASSESSEE ON LOAN TAKEN BY IT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY NEXUS BETWEEN BORROWED CAPITAL AND INTEREST FREE ADVANCES OR IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING THAT BORROWED FUNDS OR PART THEREOF WAS DIVERTED TOWARDS INTEREST FREE ADVANCES. MEENAKSHI SYNTHETICS P LTD. V/S CIT - 84ITD 563 ITO V/S NARESH FABRICS - 75 TTJ (JOD) 386 CIT V/S BHARTI TELE VENTURE LTD., - 51 DTR 98 THE ASSESSEE HAS INTEREST FREE FUNDS AS WELL AS INTEREST BEARING FUND ON ITS DISPOSAL, THEN PRESUMPTION WOULD BE THAT INVESTMENT WERE MADE FRO M INTEREST FREE FUNDS AT DISPOSAL OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE EVEN INVESTMENT FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSE IS OUT OF INT EREST FREE FUNDS THEN THERE CAN NOT BE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. VISTEN INDUSTRIES LTD V/S ACIT - 136 ITD 309 S P JAISWAL ESTATE P LTD V/S CIT - 74 DTR 294 HON BLE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S VTC LEASING & FINANCE CO (39 TAX WORLD 211 RAJ.) HAS HELD THAT ONLY REAL INCOME IS TO BE TAXED. IN VIEW OF ABOVE WE REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,95,400/ - . THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 5 'THE A.O. DISALLOWED INTEREST AMOUNT OF RS.9,95,400/ - / - BY SAYING THAT IF A SUM OF RS.82.95 LACS WAS NOT INVESTED THAN THERE WAS SAVING OF THIS MUCH OF THE INTEREST. SIR, TO JOIN PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS IS NOT BANNED BY ANY AUTHORITY IF THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS IS NOT AN OFFENCE OR WHICH IS NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW. AND ONLY IN THAT CASE AS PER EXPLANATION 37(1) NO DEDUCTION OR ALLOWANCE SHALL BE MADE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. YOUR HONOUR WILL APPRECIATE THAT FIRST OF ALL NO EX PENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE INVESTMENT MADE IN LEGITIMATE PARTNERSHIP OF RESTAURANT BUSINESS AND SECONDLY THE BUSINESS WAS LEGAL AND NOT PROHIBITED. MOREOVER AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT AS REPORTED IN 91ITR 544 THAT IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE DEPARTMENT TO PRESCRIBE WHAT EXPENDITURE AN ASSESSEE SHOULD INCUR AND IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES HE SHOULD INCUR THAT EXPENDITURE. EVERY BUSINESSMAN KNOWS HIS INTEREST BEST. THE EXPEDIENCY OF THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT FOR THE REVENUE TO CONSIDER THAT IS THE MATTER ENTIRELY LEFT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE NO EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST WAS CLAIMED AS THE INVESTMENT MADE AS LONG AS LAST FOUR YEARS BEFORE. RATHER THE ASSESSEE OFFERED FOR TAXATION A SUM OF RS.17,16,849/ - THE LOSS FROM PARTNERSHIP CONCERN NAMELY M/S LIZAURD LAUNGE AS PER SECTION 10(2A) OF IT ACT. AS ALREADY SUBMITTED THAT DURING THIS YEAR NO INVESTMENT IN PARTNERSHIP CONCERN WAS MADE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ITS OWN FUND FROM WHERE THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE, HENCE QUESTION OF ARBITRARY DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST DOES NOT ARISE. THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF M/S LIZARD LAUNGE AND COPY OF BALANCE SHEET FOR SUFFICIENT OWN FUND OF RS. 4093.04 LACS AS MENTIONED IN OUR PREVIOUS SUBMISSION ARE ENCLOSED FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE PLEASE. IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S SUZLON ENERGY LTD. HON BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT AS REPORTED IN 215 TAXMAN 272 IT IS HELD WHERE ASSESSEE HAD OWN INTEREST FREE FUNDS MANY TIMES OVER THE INVESTMENT MADE IN INDIAN SUBSIDIARIES AND FURTHER, THERE WAS NO DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUND AND SUCH INVESTMENT, NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE COULD BE MADE U/S 14A. IN VIEW O F ABOVE ALL WE REQUEST YOUR HONOUR TO KINDLY DELETE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISAL LOWANCE OF INTEREST TO THE TUNE OF RS.9,95,400/ - . FURTHER ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 1. 'THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERED IN PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS AS PER PARTNERSHIP 6 DEED DATED 22 ND DAY OF FEB, 2007. THE COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED IS ENCLOSED. 2. THAT THE ASSESSEE INVESTED A SUM OF RS. 129.53 LACS IN THIS PARTNERSHIP AS MENTIONED ON PAGE 18 IN SCHEDULE - 6 OF THE ENCLOSED BALANCE SHEET OF 31 ST MARCH. 2007. 3. THAT DURING THE YEAR I.E. YEAR OF INVESTMENT IN PARTNERSHIP AS PER COPY OF BA LA NCE SHEET ATTACHED, THE OWN FUND OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS FOR A SUM OF RS. 4341.65 LACS PLEASE REFER PAGE 14 SHAREHOLDERS FUND. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MUCH LESSER THAN THE OWN FUND I.E. INVESTMENT WAS MADE FROM ITS OWN FUND ON WHICH NO IN TEREST WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 6 . THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT INVESTED IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM TO RUN M/S. LIZARD LOUNGE WAS RS. 1,10,37,015/ - AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR WHILE AT THE END OF THE YEAR BALANCE AMOUNT WAS OF RS. 82,95,166/ - AS SUCH NO INVESTMENT WAS MADE DURING THE CURRENT YEAR. THE LD. CIT(A) POINTED OUT THAT THIS PARTNERSHIP WAS ENTERED INTO ON 22/02/ 2007 AND THE ASSESSEE INVESTED A SUM OF RS. 129.53 LAC. IN THE PARTNERSHIP AS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF 31/03/2007 AND THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF RS. 3,910 LAC AS SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVED AND SURPLUS AS ON 31/03/2006 WHICH INCREASED TO RS. 4,341 LAC AS ON 31/03/2007 , AS SUCH IT WAS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CAPITAL AND RESERVE S TO MAKE INVESTMENT IN THE SAID FIRM TO RUN THE RESTAURANT BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE NOTIONAL INTEREST WAS NOT LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED OUT OF INTEREST EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE. 7 7 . AS REGARDS TO THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE S MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION DID NOT AUTHORIZE, THE ASSESSEE TO ENTER INTO A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AUTHORIZED TO DO ANY LEGAL BUSINESS AND THERE WAS EXPRESS POWER OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO ENTER INTO ALL CONTRACTS AND DO ALL SUCH LEGAL ACT, DEEDS AND THINGS AS THEY MAY CONSIDER EX PEDIENT AND IT HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT THERE WAS ANY EXPRESSED PROHIBITION FOR THE ASSESS EE TO ENTER INTO ANY PARTNERSHIP FIRM TO CARRY OUT A LEGAL BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DEL E TED. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 8 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT NO NEW INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS TO RUN RESTAURANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THE PARTNER S HIP WAS ENTERED INTO ON 22/0 2/2007 I.E THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 AND THE INVESTMENT WAS AT RS. 1,29.53 LAC AS ON 31/03/2007 WHICH CAME DOWN TO RS. 82.95 LAC DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , S O, THERE WAS A REDUCTION IN THE CAP ITAL DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE WAS 8 HAVING SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WHICH W ERE AT RS. 4,341 LAC AS ON 31/03/2007 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT ESTABLISHED THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUNDS AND THE AMOUNT USED FOR NON - BUSINESS PURPOSE. FURTHERMORE, THERE WAS NO PROHIBITION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ENTER INTO ANY PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS, THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST WAS ARBITRARY AND THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY D ELETED THE SAME. 9 . NEXT ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/ - M A DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF REBATE AND DISCOUNT. 10 . FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED REBATE AND DISCOUNT OF RS. 154.04 LAC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALLOWED TRADE DISCOUNT OF RS. 10,200 / - ON 19/03/2009 TO M/S. MAHADEV SUPPLIERS WHILE THERE WAS NO NARRATION OF DISCOUNT ON THE BILL DATED 03/01/2009 FOR SALES OF RS. 1,34,400/ - . HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE DISCOUNT WAS ALLOWED ON THE SAME PATTERN TO M A NY TRADERS . THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT SUCH TRADE DISCOUNT WAS ALLOWED TO INCREASE THE SALES IN COMPETITIVE MARKET. THE 9 ASS ESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE R EPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE A LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/ - . 11 . BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AS INCORPORATED IN PARA 4.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WERE AS UNDER: - 'THE AO STATED THAT ON THE EXAMINATION OF VOUCHERS A SUM OF RS. 10,200/ - ALLOWED TRADE DISCOUNT TO M/S MAHADEV SUPPLIERS ON 19/03/2009 BUT THERE IS NO NARRATION OF DISCOUNT ON THE BILL DATED 03/01/2009 AND ON SALES OF RS. 1,34.400/ - ON THE SAME PATTERN DISCOUNT IS ALLOWED TO THE MANY TRADERS. THERE IS NO NORMS REGARDING REBATE AND DISCOUNT, HENCE ALLOWED OF THE SWEET WILL OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE THE LEARNED AO DISALLOWED IN LUMP - SUM RS. 1.50,000/ - . IN THIS RESPECT SIR, WE HAVE TO SUBMIT THAT TO GIVE TRADE DISCOUNT IS THE GENERAL TRADE PRACTICE PREVAILING IN THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS TO CAPTURE THE SALES FROM THE COMPETITIVE MARKET. YOUR HONOUR WILL APPRECIATE THAT IN THE YEAR ENDING 31 ST MARCH,2007 A SUM OF RS. 50.57 LACS AND IN THE YEAR ENDING 31 ST MARCH,2008 A SUM OF RS. 150.97 LACS HAS BEEN ALLOWED AS REBATE AND DISCOUNT AGAINST THE SALE OF RS. 16,820.95 LACS AND RS. 17,918.94 LACS OF RESPECTIVE YEARS. DURING THIS YEAR THE SALE IS FOR RS. 17,936/ - LACS AND REBATE AND DISCOUNT TO TH E PURCHASERS IS RS. 154 LACS. THUS THIS IS BUSINESS PRACTICE TO ALLOW TRADE DISCOUNT. MOREOVER THE TRADE DISCOUNT AND REBATE WAS GIVEN TO THE CUSTOMERS AND THEY ARE IN NO WAY RELATIVE OR ASSOCIATES WITH THE DIRECTORS AND IS FOR BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY ONLY. A S THE AO HIMSELF HAS STATED THAT DISCOUNT AND REBATE HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO MANY TRADERS. THIS ITSELF IS EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS THE GENERAL PRACTICE TO ALLOW THE DISCOUNT AND REBATE TO THE CUSTOMERS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REBATE AND DISCOUNT WAS FOR BUSINESS E XPEDIENCY, HENCE REQUEST TO ALLOW THE SAME. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 'THE SALES OF RS. 1,34,400/ - AND 1,37,200/ - WAS MADE TO M/S MAHADEV SUPPLIERS, DHORIMANNA ON 03/01/2009 VIDE BILL NO.4250 AND 4290 DATED 04/01/2009 DULY DEBITED IN. THEI R ACCOUNT AS PER COPY OF LEDGER AND BILL ENCLOSED. ON THIS AMOUNT DISCOUNT OF RS.9, 700/ - WAS GIVEN AS PER COPY 10 OF CREDIT NOTE ENCLOSED. THEREFORE RS.1,34,400/ - IS NOT THE EXPENSES AS REBATE AND DISCOUNT RATHER THIS IS THE SALES OF THE COMPANY. IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY,2009 VIDE BILL NO.4947 AND 4948 DATED 22/02/2009 SALES OF RS.1,41,075/ - AND 1,39,425/ - RESPECTIVELY WAS MADE TO M/S MAHADEV SUPPLIERS ON THESE SALES A SUM OF RS.10,200/ - WAS GIVEN AS TRADE DISCOUNT AS PER COPY OF CREDIT NOTE ENCLOSED. THE TOTAL SALE WAS CREDITED BY RS.1,34,400/ - , 1,37,200/ - , 1,41,075/ - AND RS.1,39,425/ - ON WHICH DISCOUNT WAS GIVEN AND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10,200/ - AND 9, 700/ - AS STATED ABOVE WAS DEBITED IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IN THE HEAD OF REBATE AND DISCOUNT. THE COPIES OF CREDIT NOTE ALONGWITH ENCLOSURES ARE ATTACHED HEREWITH FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE PLEASE. PLEASE REFER PAGE NO. 1 TO 8 ENCLOSED. FURTHER ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE COMMON SUBMISSION REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES MADE IN GROUND NO. 2, 3 AND 4 AS UNDER: ADHOC DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE HEAD OF REBATE AND DISCOUNT RS. 1,50,000/ - SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES RS. 1,20,000/ - AND FREIGHT AND FORWARDING EXPENSES RS. 5,00,000/ - . IN THE ABOVE REFERENCE WE SUBMIT THAT DURING THIS YEAR THE EXPENSES UNDER ABOVE HEAD WERE E ITHER ALMOST SAME OR LESS IN COMPARISON OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AS DETAIL GIVEN BELOW: SALES INCLUDES EXCISE ASSTT. YR SALES REBATE/DISCOUNT AMOUNT % ON SALE SALES PROMOTION AMOUNT % ON SALES TRANSPORTATION AMOUNT % ON SALES 2008 - 09 17918.94 150.97 0.84% 19.18 0.11% 1356.18 7.57% 2009 - 10 17936.15 154.00 0.86% 16.687 0.09% 1424.28 7.94% 2010 - 11 21853.31 252.28 1.15% 13.99 0.06% 1719.57 7.87% DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER ANY ABOVE HEAD OF EXPENDITURE WAS MADE. THOUGH EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IS SEPARATE BUT THE GUIDANCE MAY BE TAKEN FROM PREVIOUS HISTORY AND AS OBSERVED BY THE HON 'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT, UDAIPUR V/S DR. SURESH PHARMA 216 TAXMAN 181 WHERE IN PRECEDING YEAR ON SAME FACT IF ADDITIONS 11 DELETED THE SAME EQUALLY APPLIED TO PRESENT CASE ALSO. CIT V/S SHRI RAMA MULTI TECH LTD..(GUJRAT) 219 TAXMAN 162 (MAG.) IN VIEW OF ABOVE ALL WE REQUEST YOUR HONOUR TO KINDLY DELETE THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE UNDER ABOVE HEAD OF EXPENDITURE AND OBLIGE . FURTHER ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE COMMON SUBMISSION REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES MADE IN GROUND NO. 2, 3 AND 4 AS UNDER: U ALL THE EXPENSES ARE FULLY VOUCHERED AND VERIFIABLE. COMPLETE DETAIL HAVE BEEN FILED. THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIED DEFECTS AND SPECIFIED AMOUNT, WHICH WAS FOUND WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, NOT OBSERVED UNREASONABLENESS OF EXPENSES LOOKING TO THE TURNOVER AND PROFIT OR NOT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND NOT VERIFIABLE. THUS FOR MA KING DISALLOWANCE SPECIFIC MISTAKE AND NOT VERIFIABLE, NON BUSINESS EXPENSES SHOULD BE POINTED OUT IN DETAIL NOT IN ROUTINE MANNER. THERE MUST BE SOME THING MORE THAN BARE SUSPICIOUS TO SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143 (3). DHAKESHWAR COTTON MILLS LTD V/S CIT - 26ITR 775 (SC) IN THE CASE OF LAXMI ENGG. INDUSTRIES 298 ITR 203 THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD - L MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION AN EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. IN APPLYING COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE WAS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY LAID OUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS REASONABLENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE JUDGED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE BUSINESS MAN AND NOT OF THE DEPARTMENT. ENTIRE EXPENSES HAS BEEN INCUR RED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS AND THUS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 37 (1) OF IT ACT, 1961. - 91 ITR 554 (SC) - 278 ITR 345 (MP) IN THE CASE OF WINDEX INDIA P LTD V/S DCIT 66 DTR 5 7 THE HON BLE DELHI TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT SINCE THE AO NEITHER REJECTED THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR POINTED OUT THAT EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT GENUINE, ADHOC DISALLOWANCE COULD NOT BE MADE ON GENERAL SUSPICION. THE ABOVE COMMON SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR DECIDING GROUND NO. 2,3 AND 4. 12 12. THE L EARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT COMMISSION OF RS. 10,200/ - WAS IN RESPECT OF SALES MADE VIDE BILL DATED 22/02/2009 TO M/S. MAHADEV SUPPLIERS OF RS. 1,47,075/ - AND RS. 1,39,425/ - . AS REGARDS TO THE SALES OF RS. 1,34,400/ - AND RS. 1,37,200/ - MADE TO M/S. MAHADEV SUPPLIERS ON 03/01/2009 , THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALLOWED DISCOUNT OF RS. 9,700/ - AS PER THE CREDIT NOTE . THE LD. CIT(A) POINTED OUT THAT THE TRADING DISCOUNT /REBATE WAS BEING ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS TO VARIOUS PURCHASERS AND THIS CONSISTENT PRACTICE BEING FOLLOWED . THE LD. CIT(A) CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT THE SAID DISCOUNT WAS NON - GENUI NE, EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE . HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID DISCOUNT WAS TO THE CUSTOMERS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY TO INCREASE THE SALES. HE THEREFORE, DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ESTIMATE BASIS . NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 13 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE SIMILAR TYPE OF TRADING DISCOUNT WAS ALLOWED IN THE EA RLIER YEARS AND THERE IS NO DEVIATION IN THE FACTS OF THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION VIS - - VIS FACTS INVOLVED IN THE EARLIER YEARS. IT 13 IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE COMMISSION AND TRADE DISCOUNT WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE CUSTOMERS FOR THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY TO INCREASE THE SALES AND NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE SAID PAYMENT WAS NON - GENUINE, EXCESSIVE OR UNRE ASONABLE . WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 14 THE NEXT ISSUE VI DE GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,20,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES. 15 FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES OF RS. 16.68 LAC . THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS. 50,241/ - FOR GOLD ORNAMENTS AS PER BILL DATED 15/01/2009 , HOWEVER, NAME OF THE GIFT RECIPIENT HAD NOT BEEN MENTIONED . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO PO INTED OUT THAT THERE WERE MANY BILLS RELATING TO SALES PROMOTION, WHICH WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. HE THEREFORE, MADE A LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS. 1,20,000/ - . 16 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AS INCORPORATED IN PARA 5.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WERE AS UNDER: - 14 'THE GOLD AND SILVER ITEMS WERE PURCHASED FOR GIVING NEW YEAR GIFT AS CUSTOMARY GIFT. ALL THE BILLS WERE DULY AUTHORIZED AND PASSED BY THE COMPANYS OFFICIALS IN THEIR POWER. COMPLETE DETAIL WAS SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. IN THE LAST YEAR ALSO THERE WAS SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 19.18 LACS AND THE SAME WAS ALLOWED. ITO V/S GULAB CHAND CHOPRA XXXVI TW 94 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 A SUM OF RS. 4,77,34 0/ - WAS DISALLOWED FROM SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES. THE HONBLE ITAT J ODHPUR VIDE ITA NO. 226/J U /2009 DATED 06/04/2010 ON THE ASSESSE E S OWN CASE ALLOWED THE EXPENSES IN FULL, (COPY OF ORDER ENCLOSED FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE PLEASE). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE LUMP - SUM DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,20,000/ - DESERVE TO BE ALLOWED. 17 THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT THE SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES HAD DECREASED TO RS. 1 6.68 LAC AS COMPARED TO THE EARLIER YEAR S EXPENSES OF RS. 19.18 LAC , IN SPITE OF INCREASE IN TURNOVER AND THAT THE SIMILAR EXPENSES HAD BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ITAT FOR THE A.Y. 2005 - 06. HE THEREFORE, BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE A.Y. 2005 - 06, DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 18 LEARNED D.R. ALTHOUGH SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) . 19 IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 15 20 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE INCREASED IN COMPARISON TO THE EARLIER YEAR, BUT THERE WAS DECREASE IN THE SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES . IT IS NOTICED THAT A SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS DELETED BY THE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 06/04/2010 IN I.T.A.NO. 226/JU/2009 IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2005 - 06 AND THE SAID ORDER WAS FOLLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) . WE , THEREFORE, DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 21 LAST ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 5 LAC MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT AND FORWARDING EXPENSES. 22 FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED FREIGHT AND FORWARDING EXPENSES OF RS. 1,454 LAC . HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT MANY BILLS DID NOT MENTION WHAT GOODS WERE BEING SENT FOR I.E. THE FREIGHT EXPENSES OF RS. 94,045/ - HAD BEEN PAID ON 11/08 /2008 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT WITH THE CUSTOMERS AS TO WHO WILL PAY THE CARTAGE / FREIGHT 16 UPTO THE DESTINATION OF THE CUSTOMERS . HE, ACCORDINGLY , MADE A LUMP SUM DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5 LAC. 23 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AS INCORPORATED IN PARA 6.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WERE AS UNDER: - WE SUBMIT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE PURCHASE ORDER/AGREEMENT WERE SUBMITTED AS THE SALES PRICE IS F O R DESTINATION FROM THE INCEPTION OF THE UNIT. FROM PERUSAL OF FOLLOWING FACT YOUR HONOUR WILL APPRECIATE THAT THE PAYMENT OF FREIGHT HAS ALWAYS BEEN MADE AND ALLOWED . PARTICULARS 31/03/2007 (RS. IN LACS) 31/03/2008 (RS. IN LACS) 31/03/2009 (RS. IN LACS) SALES 16,820.95 17,918.94 17,936.15 FREIGHT & FORWARDING EXP. 1,551.86 1,356.18 1,424.28 THERE IS NO PAYMENT TO M/S SIDHA TRANSPORT AS STATED BY THE AO. THE AGREEMENT FOR TRANSPORTS OF GOODS WAS WITH M/S GILL ROADWAYS AND OTHERS AND THE BILL OF RS. 94,045/ - WAS OF M/S GILL ROADWAYS. IN THE TRANSPO RT BILL COMPLETE DETAIL IN RESPECT OF GOODS, QUANTITY AND DESTINATION ETC. HAS BEEN GIVEN AND DUE TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED. IN VIEW OF ABOVE LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - DESERVE TO BE DELETED. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED AS UNDER: WE ARE ENCLOSING HEREWITH THE BILL RAISED BY M/S GILL ROADWAYS FOR RS.94,045/ - DATED 01/10/2008 (THERE IS NO EXPENSES DEBITED ON 11/08/2008) FOR WHICH PAYMENT WAS MADE/CREDITED IN HIS ACCOUNT ON 01/11/2008. IN THE BILLS AND ENCLOSURES OF GR COMPLETE DETAIL IN RES PECT OF WEIGHT, DESTINATION, FREIGHT AMOUNT AND DESCRIPTION OF CONTAINS ARE GIVEN. 17 PLEASE REFER PAGE NO. 9 TO 17 ENCLOSED. 24 THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE PURCHASE ORDER , THE SALE PRICE I S F.O. R . I.E. AT DESTINATION FROM THE INCEPTION OF THE UNIT AND THE SIMILAR FREIGHT AND FORWARDING HAD BEEN CLAIMED IN THE EARLIER YEARS . HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT TRANSPORTATION CHARGES WERE PAID TO M/S. GILL ROADWAYS AND OTHERS AND NOT TO M/S. SIDHA TRANSPORTATION AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LD. CIT(A) MENTIONED THAT IN THE TRANSPORT BILLS COMPLETE DETAILS OF GOODS, QUANTITY AND DESTINATION WERE MENTIONED. AS REGARDS TO THE FREIGHT PAYMENT OF RS. 94,045/ - , THE LD. CIT(A) POINTED O UT THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS PAID ON 0 1 /10/2008 AS PER THE BILL OF M/S. GILL ROADWAYS AND THE DETAILS OF THE GOOD S TRANSPORTED WERE DULY MENTIONED IN BILLS & G.R. MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE PART OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE FREIGHT AND FORWARDING EXPENSES HAD BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE GOODS SOLD ON F.O.R. BASIS. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID EXPENSES HAD NOT BEEN PROVED TO BE NON - GENUINE OR BOGUS OR UNREASONABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DELE T ED. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 18 25 WE HAVE GIVEN CARE FUL AND THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE , IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ADHOC ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. HE DID NOT POINT OUT ANY SPE CIFIC INSTANCE WHERE THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION AND FORWARDING W ERE NOT RE L A TED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE CONTRARY, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COMPLETE DETAILS RELATING TO THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT AND FORWARD ING BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A) CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE FREIGHT AND FORWARDING EXPENSES HAD BEEN INCURRED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE GOODS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ON F.O.R. BASIS AND THOSE EXPENSES HAD NOT BEEN PROVED TO BE NON - GENUINE , BOGUS OR UNREASONABLE. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY DEL E TED THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 26 IN I.T.A.NO. 195/JODH/2014, THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED : - THE LD. CIT(A), AJMER IN THE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HAS ERRED IN: - 1. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8 , 34 , 0 00/ - MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASES. 19 2. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/ - MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF REBATE & DISCOUNT ACCOUNT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASES. 3. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,20,000/ - MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF SALE S PROMOTION EXPENSES, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASES. 4. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT &FORWARDING EXPENSES, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASES. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, DELETE OR MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 27 ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR THIS YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2010 - 11 ARE SIMILAR TO THE GROUNDS INVOLVED FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 , THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS IN THE FIGURES OF THE VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS GIVEN IN RESPECT OF I.T.A.NO. 194/JODH/2014 FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS - MUTANDIS FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11 ALSO. WE THEREFORE, DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. 28 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL S OF THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED . ( ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 28 TH AUGUST , 201 4) . S D/ - SD/ - ( HARI OM MARATHA ) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 28 TH AUGUST , 201 4 . 20 VR/ - COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD. CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , ITAT, JODHPUR .