Vasantha Subramanian Hospitals P Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2345/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9471 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Gift; Depreciation; Cost of acquisition; Revised return
• Section: 43B; 40A(3); 143(3); 37

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2345/MDS/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) M/S. VASANTHA SUBRAMANIAN HOSPITALS P.LTD., NEW NO.13, OLD NO.7, EAST SPUR TANK ROAD, CHETPET, CHENNAI-600 031. VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI-34. PAN: AACCV2462L ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR.P.RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 16 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 ND APRIL, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)- 11, CHENNAI DATED 30.11.2015 IN ITA NO.415/2014-15 CIT(A)-11 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH S ECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS APPE AL, HOWEVER, THE CRUXES OF THE ISSUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:- I) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECI ATION 2 ITA NO.2345/MDS/2015 MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY RESTRICTIN G THE DEPRECIATION ON LIFE SAVING EQUIPMENTS TO 15% A S AGAINST 40% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. II) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 57,512/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BEIN G BELATED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO ESI. III) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 71,62,741/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT BEING MARKETING EXPENSE S. IV) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 3,25,000/- BEING EXPENSES INCURRED ON CONSUMABLES AND ON REPAIRS UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING MULTI- SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 0 5.10.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND SUBSEQUENTLY FILED ITS REVISED RETURN ON 25.09.2013 ADMITTING INCOME OF ` 3,35,22,730/-. AFTER SCRUTINY, THE LEARNED ASSESSI NG OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E ACT ON 26.02.2015 WHEREBY VARIOUS ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESS ING 3 ITA NO.2345/MDS/2015 OFFICER AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. GROUND NO.1: RESTRICTING THE DEPRECIATION TO 15% AS AGAINST 40% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON LIFE SAVING EQUIPMEN TS: 4. DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENTS @ 40% STATING IT TO FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF LIFE SAVIN G EQUIPMENTS AS PROVIDED IN THE INCOME TAX RULES, VIZ., ARIA PVI UPGRADE, ARIA PVI UPGRADE (COMPUTER), ASPIRE WORK STATION, A W 4.2 WORK STATION, BRAINLAB SRS/SRT (COMPUTER), ENDOSCOP Y SOFTWARE, HCL SERVER, LINAC WITH MCL (COMPUTER), RA PID ARC & IGRT SOFTWARE, & SOFTWARE. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT THESE ITEMS WERE NOT LIFE SAVING EQUIPMENTS AS PROVIDED UNDER THE INCOME TAX RULES A ND THEREFORE RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AT 1 5% ON THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS ACQUIRED. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNE D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AGREEING WITH HIS VIEW. 4 ITA NO.2345/MDS/2015 5. BEFORE US, LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 1 TO 224 PAGES EX PLAINING THE NATURE OF EQUIPMENTS, BROACHER OF EQUIPMENTS, V ARIOUS WRITE-UP OF THE EQUIPMENTS, BILLS VOUCHERS ETC., TO ESTABLISH THAT THE EQUIPMENTS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE LI FE SAVING EQUIPMENTS. THE GIST OF THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HER EIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE:- 1. LINAC WITH MLC (COMPUTER): A LINEAR ACCELERATOR IS ADVANCED RADIOTHERAPY EQUIP MENT WHICH IS A HIGHER VARIANT OF THE COBALT THERAPY UNIT USED UN IVERSALLY FOR DELIVERING RADIOTHERAPY TREATMENT TO CANCER PATIENT S. THE LINAC IN QUESTION IS CALLED CLINAC 2100 (BROCHURE ENCLOSE D). 2. RAPIDARC & IGRT SOFTWARE: RAPIDARC IS AN ADVANCED RADIOTHERAPY TECHNIQUE FOR DELIVERING INTENSIFIES MODULATED RADIOTHERAPY AT LE AST 2-8 TIMES FASTER THAN CONVENTIONAL METHODS. IMRT IS AN ADVANC ED RADIATION TECHNIQUE THAT DELIVERS TARGETED RADIATION CONFORMI NG TO TUMOURS, MAXIMIZING THE DOSE TO THE AFFECTED CANCEROUS CELLS WHILE SPARING THE EFFECT ON THE ADJOINING GOOD CELLS. IMA GE GUIDED RADIOTHERAPY IS A FURTHER ADVANCEMENT WHEREIN IMAGE S ARE TAKEN DURING THE TREATMENT DELIVERY TO ENSURE THAT THE TR EATMENT DELIVERED IS FURTHER PRECISE AND EFFECTIVE. 3. ARIA PVI UPGRADE: ARIA IS AN ONCOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEM THAT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE RADIATION THERAPY EQUIPMENT WHICH ENSUR ES EFFICIENT AND PRECISE MANAGEMENT OF THE RADIOTHERAPY TREATMEN T RIGHT FROM PLANNING TO TREATMENT DELIVERY. PORTAL VISION IS AN ADVANCED ELECTRONIC PORTAL IMAGING DEVICE WHICH HELPS VERIFY THE QUALITY OF RADIOTHERAPY TREATMENT DELIVERY BEFORE AND AFTER TR EATMENT. 4. AESPIRE WORKSTATION: 5 ITA NO.2345/MDS/2015 A COMPACT ANESTHESIA DELIVERY SYSTEM WITH A LARGE COLOR VENTILATOR DISPLAY AND A FULL SUITE OF VENTILATION MODES, IDEAL FOR HOSPITAL ORS AND STAND ALONE SURGERY CENTERS. AS PE R I.T.ACT IT IS CLASSIFIED AS A LIFE SAVING EQUIPMENT. 5. AW 4.2 WORKSTATION AW 4.2 WORKSTATION IS AN ADVANCED COMPUTER SYSTEM WITH POWERFUL SOFTWARE THAT PROVIDES A PLATFORM FOR MULT I MODALITY RADIOLOGY IMAGE (MRI ETC) MANAGEMENT, REVIEW, COMPA RISON AND PROCESSING. 6. BRAINLAB (SRS/SRT) COMPUTER: BRAIN LAB IS AN ADVANCED SOLUTION FOR RENDERING STEREOTACTIC RADIO SURGERY AND STEREOTACTIC RADIO T HERAPY USING A LINEAR ACCELERATOR. STEREOTACTIC RADIO SURGERY IS A N NON-SURGICAL RADIATION THERAPY USED TO TREAT FUNCTIONAL ABNORMAL ITIES AND SMALL TUMORS OF THE BRAIN. IT CAN DELIVER PRECISELY TARGE TED RADIATION IN FEWER (1-5) HIGH DOSE TREATMENTS THAN TRADITIONAL T HERAPY, WHICH CAN HELP PRESERVE HEALTHY TISSUE. 7. COMPUTER: COMPUTERS USED IN THE HOSPITAL FOR PROCESSING OF M EDICAL INFORMATION. 8. ENDOSCOPY SOFTWARE: SOFTWARE USED FOR CAPTURING DIAGNOSTIC AND THERAPE UTIC ENDOSCOPIC IMAGES WHEREIN ENDOSCOPY IS A LIFE SAVIN G MEDICAL EQUIPMENT ELIGIBLE FOR 40% DEPRECIATION AS PER IT ACT. 9. HCL SERVER: HCL SERVER IS AN ADVANCED COMPUTER USED FOR STORAG E OF MEDICAL INFORMATION. 10. SOFTWARE: IT IS THE SOFTWARE USED IN THE HOSPITAL TO MONITOR PATIENT DATA. 6. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ARGUED BY STATING THAT ALL THESE EQUIPMENTS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE LIFE SAVING EQUIPMENTS EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY SLI GHTLY DIFFER FROM THE ITEMS SPECIFIED IN THE INCOME TAX R ULES 6 ITA NO.2345/MDS/2015 PRESCRIBING THE RATES OF DEPRECIATION. HE THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF HIGHER DEPRECIATI ON MAY BE ALLOWED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE EQUIPMEN TS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SIMILAR TO COBALT THE RAPY UNIT AND FIBER OPTIC ENDOSCOPES ETC., AS PROVIDED UNDER INCOME TAX RULES APPENDIX-1 PART-A-III(XIA)(D),(N) AND THE LIFE SPAN OF THE EQUIPMENTS ARE SHORT. 7. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PER USED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AFTER EXAMINING THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE MACHINES ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE THOUGH MAY NOT BE IDENTICAL TO THE MACHINERY MENTIONED IN THE INCOME TAX RULES SPECIFYING THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION IN PART-I II (XIA) (D), (N), THEY APPEAR TO BE SIMILAR IN NATURE. SINCE D EPRECIATION IS 7 ITA NO.2345/MDS/2015 A BENEFICIAL PROVISION TO THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS TO B E BROADLY VIEWED AND APPLIED BENEFICIALLY TO THE ASSESSEE. MO REOVER THESE EQUIPMENTS EITHER BECOME OBSOLETE IN A SHORT WHILE OR HAVE SHORT LIFE SPAN. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY DIRECT T HE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATIO N @ 40% ON THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED E QUIPMENTS CONSIDERING IT AS LIFE SAVING EQUIPMENTS AS PROVIDE D UNDER THE RULES AND ACCORDINGLY DELETE THE ADDITION MADE FOR RS. 73,38,371/-. GROUND NO.2: D ISALLOWANCE OF ` 57,512/- BEING BELATED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO ESI: 9. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD REMITTED THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTIO N FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH IN THE GOVERNMENT TREASURY BEYOND TH E DUE DATE MENTIONED IN THE ESI ACT FOR RS.57,512/-. THER EFORE, HE DISALLOWED THE SAME BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 43B OF THE ACT AND MADE THE ADDITION. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS FO LLOWS:- 8.4 AFTER STUDYING THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE GUJAR AT HIGH COURT IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND ITAT., CHENNAI I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, I HAVE NOTICED THAT THE HON BLE 8 ITA NO.2345/MDS/2015 ITAT, CHENNAI HAS NOT REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. BESIDES THE HONBLE GUJ ARAT HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED AFTER GOING THROUGH THE APEX COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD . (319 ITR 306) WHICH WAS RELIED ON BY THE ITAT., CHENNAI. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJAR AT HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE AFTER TAK ING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE RELEVANT CASE LAWS ON THIS IS SUE. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF H ONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE BELATED EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO ESI BEYOND THE D UE DATE PRESCRIBED U/S.36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT IS NOT EL IGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.43B ALTHOUGH IT WAS PAID BEFORE THE D UE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT. AC CORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS U PHELD AND THE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 10. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIV E SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REMITTED THE EMPLOY EES CONTRIBUTION OF ESI BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING O F THE RETURN. HENCE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE REVENUE MAY BE DELETED. 11. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE . 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. NOW IT I S AN ADMITTED FACT THAT BY THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HIGH ER JUDICIARY THE REMITTANCE OF EMPLOYEES / EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTIO N OF PF/ESI ETC., IF REMITTED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FIL ING THE RETURN 9 ITA NO.2345/MDS/2015 DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY WHETHER THESE P AYMENTS ARE MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN, A ND IF FOUND SO, DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY INVOKING THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGL Y. GROUND NO.3: DISALLOWANCE OF ` 71,62,741/- UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT BEING MARKETING EXPENSES: 13. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED RS.71,62,741/- TO THE PROFIT A ND LOSS ACCOUNT AS MARKETING EXPENSES. ON VERIFICATION, IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED GOLD COINS AND GIFTED TO DOCTORS. THERE WERE ALSO ADVERTISEMENT EX PENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.4,32,025/-. FURTHER, SOME OF THE EX PENDITURE MADE IN CASH COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER OBSERVING THE ABOVE DISCREPANCIES AND ALSO TAKING CUE FROM THE CIRCULA R NO.5/2012 IN F.NO.225/142/2012-ITA-II) DATED 1.8.2 012 WHICH PROHIBITING FREEBIES PROVIDED BY PHARMACEUTIC AL COMPANIES, DIAGNOSTIC CENTERS TO DOCTORS DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 71,62,74 1/-. 10 ITA NO.2345/MDS/2015 WHILE DOING SO, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO RELIED ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL (COD E ETHICS AND ETIQUETTES) PROHIBITING SUCH DISTRIBUTION OF FR EEBIES TO THE DOCTORS. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AS SESSING OFFICER ACCEPTING THE VIEW OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIV E SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING HOSPITAL MAKES PA YMENTS TO THE DOCTORS IN APPRECIATION OF THEIR SERVICE REN DERED TO PATIENTS AND SUCH PAYMENTS OR GIFTS ARE NOT PROHIBI TED BY ANY REGULATIONS. HE ALSO ARGUED STATING THAT HOSPITALS ARE NOT PROHIBITED TO ADVERTISE THE SERVICES THEY ARE CAPAB LE OF RENDERING TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE REVENUE MAY BE DELETED. 15. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND VEHEMENTLY ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE. 16. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. THERE IS NO 11 ITA NO.2345/MDS/2015 PROHIBITION IN THE ACT TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO DOCTORS FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE, GIFTS WERE GIVEN TO DOCTORS BY WAY OF GOLD COINS IN APPRE CIATION TO THEIR SERVICES. IT CAN BE CONSTRUED AS THE FEES PAI D IN KIND FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE DOCTORS IN THE HOSPITA L. THE PRESUMPTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT T HESE PAYMENTS ARE MADE TO DOCTORS FOR CANVASSING PATIENT S CANNOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT ANY COGENT EVIDENCE. FU RTHER THE REVENUE HAS NOT QUANTIFIED THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH INVOICES, BILLS ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE EXPENDITU RE INCURRED AND THE NATURE OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES. HENCE, IT APPEARS TO BE A PASSING REMARK. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO D ELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.71,6 2,741/-. GROUND NO.4: DISALLOWANCE OF ` 3,25,000/- BEING EXPENSES INCURRED ON CONSUMABLES AND ON REPAIRS UNDER SECTI ON 40A(3) OF THE ACT. 17. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED CASH EXPENDITURE ABOVE RS.20, 000/- IN A SINGLE DAY TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,25,000/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION TOWARDS THE SAME, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE PRO VISIONS 12 ITA NO.2345/MDS/2015 OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,25,000/-. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEA RNED ASSESSING OFFICER AGREEING TO HIS VIEW. 18. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE CRYPTIC ON THIS ISSUE. HE H AS SIMPLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.3,25,00 0/- ON A SINGLE DAY. IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING O FFICER HE HAS CITED THE REASON FOR THE ADDITION STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GIVE ANY SATISFACTORY REPLY. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALSO CONFI RMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT FURTHER DELIBERATION. 19. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PE RUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAD ARGUED BEFORE US STATING THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THESE EXPENDITURE TOWARDS CONSUMABLES, REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE FOR WHICH BILLS & VOUCHERS ARE AVAILABLE. FURTHER CONSIDERING THE TOT AL TURNOVER 13 ITA NO.2345/MDS/2015 OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 12-13 OF RS.39.00 CRORES APPROXIMATELY, WE FIND THIS CLAIM O F EXPENDITURE TO BE VERY NEGLIGIBLE. THEREFORE, IN T HE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFF ICER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,25,000/- MADE BY T HE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKING THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 22 ND APRIL, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 22 ND APRIL, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF .