Sh. Jagdish Prasad Sharma, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 209/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97545 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R K MEHRA
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 209 /DEL /201 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 06 - 0 7 JAGDISH PRASHAD SHARMA VS. THE A.C.I.T X - 36, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA CIRCLE 22(1) PHASE II, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI PAN : ABBPS 4640 Q [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] DATE OF HEARING : 18 . 0 8 . 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 . 09 .2015 APPELLANT BY : SH RI R.K. MEHRA, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A TIQ AHMED , SR. DR ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - XXIII , NEW DELHI DATED 24 . 10 .201 1 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT 1961 [FOR SHORT, THE ACT ] IN APPEAL NO. 436/08 - 09 FOR AY 200 6 - 0 7 . ITA NO. 209 /DEL /2012 2 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THE BEGINNING OF THE ARGUMENTS, THE LD. A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PRESS GROUND NO. 1(A) AND (B). ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 1(A) AND (B) STAND DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PRINTING IN PROPRIETARY CONCERN UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S INDIA OFFSET PRINTERS. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y 2006 - 07 ON 31.10.2006 DISCLOSED AN INCOME OF RS. 27,62,526/ - AND THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRU TINY. THE AO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON 26.12.2008 BY MAKING SOME DISALLOWANCES AND FINALIZED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO GAVE PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE O N THE ISSUE OF INCOME - TAX AND INTEREST ADDED BACK, CHALLAN AND PENALTY DISALLOWED, DISALLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(VA) FOR LATE DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO ESI A ND EPF AND DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(IA) OF THE ACT FOR FAILURE TO DEDUCT TAX ON PAYMENTS MADE TO CO NTRACTORS FOR JOB WORK, BINDING, MACHINERY REPAIR, ETC., WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(IA) OF THE ACT ON THE AMOUNT OF RS. 56,75,983/ - AND ANOTHER DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,08,311/ - MADE ON ADHOC BASIS OUT OF BUSINESS PROM OTION, DIWALI EXPENSES, PETROL AND DIESEL EXPENSE, ETC. AGGRIEVED FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AGITATING THE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: ITA NO. 209 /DEL /2012 3 GROUND NO. 2(A) AND (B) 2.(A) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 56,75,983/ - U/S 40A(IA) R.W.S 194C OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE INFORMATION AND FACTS PLACED ON RECORD. (B) T HE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW IN NOT DEALING WIT H THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE PETITIONER ABOUT THE TWO DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS ARISING ON APPLYING THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 40A(IA) OF THE ACT AS DEALT WITH BY THE HON BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TEJA CONSTRUCTIONS VS. ACIT REPORTED IN [2010 ] 39 SOT 13 [HYD.] [URO] WHICH WAS THEN FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD VS. DCIT [2009] 123 TTJ [JP] 888. 4 . APROPOS THESE GROUND S , T HE LD. A.R HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. VICTOR SHIPPING SERVICES [P] LTD REPORTED AT 262 CTR 545 [ALL] AND SUBMITTED THAT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [SLP] OF THE REVENUE CC NO. [S] 8068/2014 HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT ON 02.03.2014. THE LD. A.R HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT MUMBAI J BENC H DATED 4.3.2015 IN ITA NO. 2293 & 2294/MUM/2013 IN THE CASE OF SHRI JITENDRA MANSUKHLAL SAHA VS. DCIT AND SUBMITTED THAT FOR DISALLOWING EXPENSES FROM THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION ON THE GROUND THAT TDS HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED, THE ITA NO. 209 /DEL /2012 4 AMOUNT SHOULD BE PAYABLE AND NOT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PAID BY THE END OF THE YEAR. 5. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AT THE VERY OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI JITENDRA MANSUKHLAL SAHA VS DCIT [SUPRA] AFTER FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMEN T OF HON BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICES [P] LTD [SUPRA] HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTENTIONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. RE CENTLY, MUMBAI TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED SUCH ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY CONSIDERING THE EARLIER DECISIONS. JUDICIAL MEMBER IS ONE OF THE PARTY TO THE SAID DECISION THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE AS UNDER: '5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTI ES AND THEIR CONTENTIONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. VIVIL EXPORTS P. LTD. VS. ITO (SUPRA), WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL FROM THE SAID DECISION ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 4. THOUGH NUMBER OF GROUNDS WERE URGED BEFORE US IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ANNEXED TO FORM NO. 36, AT THE TIME OF HEARIN G THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING MADE THE PAYMENT, SECTION 40(A)(IA) CANNOT BE ATTRACTED BECAUSE IT SPEAKS OF THE AMOUNT 'PAYABLE' AND IT DOES NOT COVER THE AMOUNT ALREADY PAID. IN THIS REGARD HE RELIED UPON ITA NO. 209 /DEL /2012 5 THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE ITAT CHENNAI BENCHES WHEREIN THE BENCH HAD TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE DECISION OF THE ITAT SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORT, THE ORDER OF WHICH WAS SUSPEN DED BY THE HIGH COURT BUT AT THE SAME TIME THERE WAS A SUBSEQUENT JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICES 5 ITA NO.2293/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2005 - 06) ITA NO.2294/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2006 - 07) (P) LTD. WHEREIN IT WAS HEL D THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) APPLIES ONLY TO THOSE AMOUNT WHICH REMAINS PAYABLE BY THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. IN OTHER WORDS, IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS ALREADY MADE SECTION 40(A) (IA) IS NOT ATTRACTED: - I. ACIT VS. M/S. ESKAY DESIGNS - ITA NO. 1951/MDS/2012 DATED 09.12.2013. II. ITO VS. THEEKATHIR PRESS - ITA NO . 2076/MDS/2012 & CO NO. 155/MDS/2013 DATED 18.09.2013. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THERE ARE CONTRARY DECISIONS OF THE OTHER HON'BLE HIGH COURTS, I.E. HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ALLABAHA D HIGH COURT IT CAN BE SAID THE THERE CAN BE TWO VIEWS POSSIBLE IN THIS MATTER IN WHICH EVENT THE ONE WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. 88 ITR 192. ACCORDINGLY THE CHENNAI BENCH HELD THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS NOT ATTRACTED IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT ALREADY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LEARNED D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, COULD NOT PLACE BEFORE US A NY CONTRARY JUDGEMENT ON THIS ISSUE. THOUGH THE LEARNED D.R. PROMISED TO FILE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WITHIN ONE DAY, IT WAS NOT FILED. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS NO ITA NO. 209 /DEL /2012 6 CONTRARY DECISION ON THIS ISSUE. 6. HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WITHOUT GOIN G INTO THE OTHER ASPECTS, WHICH WERE IN FACT NOT ARGUED EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE OR BY THE REVENUE, WE HOLD THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS NOT ATTRACTED IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT ALREADY MADE BY THE END OF THE PREVIO US YEAR. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND IF IT IS IN LINE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN HEREIN THE SAME MAY BE CONSIDERED ACCORDINGLY. AS REGARDS LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT, THE SAME IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND NEED NOT TO BE CONSIDERED INDEPENDENTLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES 5.1 MOREOVER, HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD .(SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT FOR DISALLOWING EXPENSES FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION ON THE GROUND THAT TDS HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCT ED, AMOUNT SHOULD BE PAYABLE AND NOT WHICH HAS BEEN PAID BY END OF THE YEAR. THE SAID DECISION OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT WAS MADE SUBJECT TO SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BEFORE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND THEIR LORDSHIPS VIDE THEIR ORDER 6 ITA NO.2293/ MUM/2013(A.Y. 2005 - 06) ITA NO.2294/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2006 - 07) DATED 02/07/2014 IN CC NO.8068/2014 HAVE DISMISSED THE SLP AND COPY OF THIS ORDER IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AT PAGE 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE SAID ORDER READ AS UNDER: 'SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECO RD OF PROCEEDINGS PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C)..... CC NO.(S) 8068/2014 (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDTMENT AND ORDER DATED 09/07/2013 IN ITA 122/2013 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME ITA NO. 209 /DEL /2012 7 TAX - MUZAFF AR NGR.PETITIONER(S) VERSUS M/S. VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD. RESPONDENTS(S) WITH APPLN.(S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT) DATE:02/07/2014 THIS PETITION WAS CALLED ON FOR HEARING TODAY. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTIC E MADAN B LOKUR HON'BLE MR. KURIAN JOSEPH FOR PETITIONER(S) MR. MUKUL ROHATGI, ATTORNEY GENERAL MR. RUPESH KUMAR, ADV. MR. SAHIL TAGOTRA, ADV. MRS. ANIL KATIYA, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT(S) UPON HEARING THE COUNSEL THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER HEARD MR.MUKUL ROHATGI, LEARNED ATTORNEY GENERAL, OR THE PETITION. DELAY IN FILING AND REFILLING SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS CONDONED. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS DISMISSED. DIGITALLY SIGNED BY RAJESH DHAM DATE: 2014.07.02' 5.2 IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE DECIS ION RELIED UPON BY LD. DR WOULD HAVE NO APPLICATION AND WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF LABOUR PAYMENTS ARE MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND TO THAT EXTENT NO DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE. FURTHER THE FIGURE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE 7 ITA NO.2293/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2005 - 06) ITA NO.2294/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2006 - 07) AFOREMENTIONED CHART MAY BE VERIFIED BY THE AO AND TO THE EXTENT PAYMENTS ARE MADE DURING THE RESPECTIVE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION NO DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE A ND ONLY REST OF THE AMOUNT SHOULD BE DISALLOWED. WITH ITA NO. 209 /DEL /2012 8 THESE DIRECTIONS WE PARTLY ALLOW THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS SETTLED PREPOSITION THAT FOR DISALLOWING EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT TDS HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED, THE AMOUNT SHOULD BE PAYABLE AT THE END OF THE YEAR AND NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE ON T H IS ALLEGATION ON THE AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN PAID AT THE END OF THE YEAR. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE LD. D.R FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NO SERIOUS OBJECTION IF THE FACT SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT ALL THE IMPUGNED GROUNDS HAVE BEEN MADE ON OR BEFORE 31.3.2006 IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR PROPER EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION FOR THIS LIMITED PURPOSE. UNDER THE ABOVE NOTED FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DICTUM OF THE HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VECTOR SH IPPING P. LTD [SUPRA], THE AO IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE AND VERIFY THAT WHICH AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON OR BEFORE 31.3.2006 AND WHICH AMOUNTS HAVE NOT BEEN PAID BY THE END OF THE FINANCIAL PERIOD AS ON 31.3.2006. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE RATIO DECIDENDI LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICES P. LTD [SUPRA] AND TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT BEING PREJUDICED FROM THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IMPUGNED ORDER. ITA NO. 209 /DEL /2012 9 6. THE LD. D.R, ON THE OTHER HAND, COULD NOT PLACE BEFORE US ANY CONTRARY JUDGMENT ON THIS ISSUE AND THUS WE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO CONTRARY DECISION ON THIS ISSUE. 7. T HE LD. A.R RELYING ON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUN T WAS PAID BEFORE 31.3.2006 TO THE EXCHEQUER, HENCE THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. 8 . PER CONTRA, THE LD. D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NO SERIOUS OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR VERIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO OF THE DECISION AS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF TEJA CONSTRUCTION [SUPRA] WHICH WAS FOLLOWING IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD [SUPRA]. 9 . ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE TWO RECENT JUDGMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE [SUPRA], THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM DESERVE TO BE CONSIDERED AFRESH AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO AND ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LD. D.R. HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NO SERIOUS OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR A FRESH ADJUDICATION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD MEET IF THE ISSUE OF I MPUGNED DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO U/S 40A(IA) R.W.S 194C OF THE ACT IS ITA NO. 209 /DEL /2012 10 RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DE NOVO ADJUDICATION AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE AO SHALL ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AS PER THE RELE VANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT AND CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND WITHOUT BEING PREJUDICED FROM THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 2(A) AND 2(B) OF THE ACT ARE R ESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR A FRESH ADJUDICATION AND HENCE THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DEEMED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. GROUND NO. 3 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN U PHOLDING THE AGGREGATE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 108311/ - MADE ON ADHOC BASIS OUT OF BUSINESS PROMOTION, DIWALI EXPENSES, DIESEL A ND PETROL EXPENSES, ALLEGEDLY ON THE GROUND OF FINDING SUCH CLAIMS AS UNREASONABLE AND UNJUSTIFIED. 10 . THE LD. A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE AGGREGATE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1 , 08 , 311/ - MADE ON ADHOC BASIS OUT OF BUSINESS PROMOTION, DIWALI EXPENSES, DIESEL AND PETROL EXPENSES, ALLEGEDLY ON THE GROUND OF FINDING SUCH CLAIMS AS UNREASONABLE AND UNJUSTIFIED TO THAT EXTEN T. THE LD. A.R ALTERNATIVELY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PRESS THIS GROUND PROVIDED THE REVENUE WOULD NOT CONSIDER THE SAME FOR MAKING SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES IN THE SUBSEQUENT A.YS. ITA NO. 209 /DEL /2012 11 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R CONTENDED THAT THE A SSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY DETAILS REGARDING GENUINENESS OF THESE EXPENSES, THEREFORE THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE AO, WHICH WAS RIGHTLY UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A). 12 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE HOLD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING WITH THIS GROUND ANY FURTHER PROVIDED THE REVENUE WOULD NOT CONSIDER THE SAME FOR MAKING SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE IN THE SUBSEQUENT A.YS., WE DISMISS THIS GR OUND AS NOT PRESSED. HOWEVER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE REVENUE WOULD NOT TAKE IT AS PRECEDENCE FOR MAKING SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE IN THE SUBSEQUENT A.Y ON ADHOC BASIS WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFIED REASONS. 13 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE MANNER AS INDICATED ABOVE. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 .09.2015 . SD/ - SD/ - ( N.K. SAINI ) (C.M. GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 VL/ COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT ITA NO. 209 /DEL /2012 12 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI