IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH G, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2453/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) GROVER VINEYARDS LTD., ANAND BHAVAN, 348 DR. D.N. ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI -400 001 PAN: AAACG 3592 Q VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE - 1(1)(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAHARSHI KARVE MARG, MUMBAI -400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. HEENA DOSHI RESPONDENT BY : MR. AMAR DEEP DATE OF HEARING: 27-09-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10-10-2012 O R D E R PER VIVEK VARMA, JM: THE APPEAL EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) 1, MUMBAI, D ATED 27.10.2010, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 5,36,585/- AND R S. 1,722. HE OUGHT TO HAVE DONE SO. 2. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO AMEND, TO MODIFY ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS AND TAKE ADDITIONAL GROUND IF NEE D BE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL, AFTER THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 2064/MUM/2007, WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH HAD DIRECTE D THE CIT(A) TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE CIT(A), WHILE ADJUDICATING THE IMPUGNED ISSUE, OBSERVED, I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE ITATS ORDER. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HA S FILED A XEROX COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER IN RESPECT OF SUM OF RS 5,38,58 5/- FROM M/S. MUNJRAL BROTHERS, WHICH DO NOT HAVE ANY INFORMATION IN RESP ECT OF PAN AS WELL AS ANY VALID AUTHENTICITY OF THE SAME CONFIRMATION. O N PERUSAL OF THE SAME, GROVER VINEYARDS LTD. ITA NO. 2453/MUM/2011 2 IT APPEARS THAT IT IS MERELY A SELF MADE DOCUMENT, WHICH WILL NOT SUPPORT THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION. HENCE, TAKING NOTE OF ALL THESE FACTS, I CONSIDER IT PROPER AND APPROPRIATE TO HOLD THAT THE A.O. WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE REFERRED AS ABOVE. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS ONCE AGAIN BEFORE THE ITAT. 5. BEFORE US, THE AR POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) TOOK INT O ACCOUNT THE CONFIRMATION BUT OBSERVED THAT THEY WERE ONLY SELF SERVIN G DOCUMENTS WITHOUT PAN AND OTHER AUTHENTICATION MATERIAL. THE AR SUB MITTED THAT THE CONFIRMATION ALONG WITH PAN WAS DULY SUBMITTED AND PR ODUCED THE SAME IN THE APB. THE AR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE T HE BASIC OBJECTION AGAINST THE ALLOWANCE HAD BEEN THE UNAVAILABILITY OF PAN, WHICH WAS SOMEHOW IGNORED BY THE CIT(A) AND COMPLETE DET AILS WERE WITH THE CIT(A), THE EXPENDITURE MERITS TO BE ALLOWED. 6. THE DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE B ENCH AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE DETAILS, AS CLAIMED AND CERTIFIED BY THE ADVOCATE, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED THAT THE CERTIFICATE /CONFIRMATION WAS BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT T HESE FACTS, WE THINK IT APPROPRIATE THAT THE EXPENSE NEEDS TO BE ALLOWED. 8. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT (A) & DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE EXPENSES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 5,36,585 ONLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 10/10/2012. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUTANT MEMBER SD/- (VIVEK VARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 10/10/2012 GROVER VINEYARDS LTD. ITA NO. 2453/MUM/2011 3 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)-1, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT -1, MUMBAI, 5) THE D.R. G BENCH, MUMBAI. 6) COPY TO GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *CHAVAN