HATHWAY MEDIA VISION P. LTD ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS UNITED CABLE NETWROK P. LTD), MUMBAI V. ITO RG 9(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2454/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 245419914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2012
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M RAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: NITEN JOSHI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional evidence; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH H , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2454/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 HATHWAY MEDIA VISION PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS UNITED CABLE NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED) RAHEJAS, 4 TH FLOOR, CORNER OF MAIN AVENUE & V.P. ROAD, SANTACRUZ(W) MUMBAI-400 054. PAN NO. AAACU 0996 N INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE-9(3)(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NITEN JOSHI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. RAJAN DATE OF HEARING : 14.6.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.6.2012 O R D E R PER RAJENDRA SINGH, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.1.2011 OF CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS RAISED DISPUTES ON FOUR DIFFERE NT GROUNDS. 2. THE FIRST DISPUTE IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF A SU M OF RS.45,80,950/- BEING EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF ROYALTY PAY ABLE TO T.V. ITA NO.2454/M/11 A.Y.99-00 2 CHANNELS. THE AO NOTED THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TOTAL ROYALTY PAYMENT OF RS.1,00,50,989/- TO VARIOUS T.V. CHANNELS COMPARED TO PAYMENT OF RS.1,31,35,562/- IN THE IMMEDI ATE PRECEDING YEAR. THE ROYALTY CLAIM HAD BEEN MADE AGAINST 8 PART IES. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE CONFIRMATIONS FRO M THE FOLLOWING PARTIES INVOLVING TOTAL ROYALTY OF RS.45,80,950/-. 1. ULTRA MOVIES CHANNEL RS.13,27,000/- 2. SET INDIA LTD. RS.1,36,800/- 3. NEW TELEVISION INDIA LTD. RS .24,62,400/- 4. TURNER INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. RS.21,750/- 5. EL-ZEE TELEVISION LTD. RS.6,33,000 RS.45,80,950/- 2.1 IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFIRMATIONS THE AO DISALLOWED T HE CLAIM AMOUNTING TO RS.45,80,950/-. 2.2 THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE DECISION OF AO AND SUBMITTED BEFORE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE FULL ATTEMPTS ON ITS PA RTS TO OBTAIN CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE PARTIES. THE COPIES OF THE LETTE RS WRITTEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PARTIES HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE AO WHICH HAVE ALSO BEEN ENCLOSED ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED B EFORE CIT(A). IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT COMPLETE DETAILS GIVING DETAILS O F CHEQUE NUMBERS, NAME OF BANK, DATES OF PAYMENT ETC. HAD BEEN GIVEN BEFORE AO. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PARTIES WERE SOLE SELLING AGENTS AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OPTION BUT TO APPROACH ITA NO.2454/M/11 A.Y.99-00 3 THEM FOR RECEIVING SIGNALS. THE EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS IN CURRED DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS HAS TO BE ALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE POINTE D OUT THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS WERE RECEIVED ONLY AFTER PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THEREFORE, THESE MAY BE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE AO HOWEVER OPPOSED THE ADMISSION OF ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN GIVEN SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. CIT(A) A GREED WITH THE AO THAT THERE WAS NO CASE FOR ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM, AGGRIEVED BY WHICH, T HE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 2.3 BEFORE US, THE LD. AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS M ADE BEFORE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE EFFORTS TO OBTAIN CONFIRM ATIONS WHICH WERE RECEIVED ONLY AFTER PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ADMITTI NG ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE COPY OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED AT PAGE 8-16 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDE D COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN MADE BY CHEQUE. THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN RECEIVING SIGNAL FROM SOME T.V. CHANNELS I N THE EARLIER YEAR AND SUBSEQUENT YEAR IN WHICH NO DISALLOWAN CE WAS MADE. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY URGED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE SHOU LD BE DELETED. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITI ES BELOW AND PLACED RELIANCE IN THE FINDING GIVEN IN THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS. ITA NO.2454/M/11 A.Y.99-00 4 2.4 WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING DISALLO WANCE OF ROYALTY PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE T.V. CHANNELS. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RECEIVING, DISTRIBUTING AND TRANSFERR ING LOCAL AND SATELLITE CHANNEL PROGRAMMES THROUGH VARIOUS CABLE OPERA TORS. ASSESSEE WAS RECEIVING SIGNAL FROM T.V. CHANNELS TO WHOM I T WAS PAYING ROYALTY AND ASSESSEE WAS RECEIVING SUBSCRIPTION CHAR GES FROM CABLE OPERATORS. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS HAD NOT FILED CONFIRMATION REGARDING ROYALTY PAYABLE TO 5 T.V. CHANNELS AGGREGATING TO RS.45,80,950/-, DETAILS OF WHICH HAVE B EEN GIVEN EARLIER. THE AO THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE CONFIRMATIONS BEFORE CIT(A) AS AN ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF LETTERS WRITTEN BY IT TO T.V. CHANNELS REGARDING CONFIRMATIONS, TO SHOW THAT IT HAD MADE EFFORTS TO OBTAIN CONFIRMATIONS. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE HAD NOT BEEN ADMITTED BY CIT(A) WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD BEEN GIVEN SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS. IN OUR VIEW THE STAND TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) TO NOT ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE P RODUCED EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT IT HAD MADE EFFORTS TO OBTAIN CON FIRMATIONS WHICH WERE RECEIVED ONLY AFTER ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED. THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN PAYING ROYALTY TO THESE CHANNELS IN THE EARLIER YEAR ITA NO.2454/M/11 A.Y.99-00 5 AS WELL AS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND NO DISALLOWANCE HA D BEEN MADE. THE PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE BY CHEQUE DETAILS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN GIVEN. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THEREFORE IN OUR VIEW ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADMITTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AS THESE WILL BE USEFUL IN DECIDING THE DISPUTE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFO RE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FI LE OF AO FOR PASSING FRESH ORDER AFTER NECESSARY EXAMINATION OF ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE FILED BEFORE CIT(A) AND AFTER ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE SECOND DISPUTE IS REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.3,63,6 55/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY IN THE ACCOUNT OF CABLE VIDEO INDI A AND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO NOTED THAT AS PER BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CREDIT BALANCE OUTSTANDING IN THE NAM E OF CABLE VIDEO INDIA WAS RS.9,89,640/- BUT THE PARTY HAD CONFIR MED CREDIT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,25,980/-. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED T HAT THE DISCREPANCY WAS COMING FROM THE EARLIER YEARS AND THERE WAS NO DISCREPANCY IN THE TRANSACTION OF THE CURRENT YEAR. THE A O HOWEVER OBSERVED THAT NO AMOUNT WAS PAYABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS PE R BALANCE SHEET OF THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR. HE, THEREFORE A DDED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.3,63,655/- AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN APPEAL, ASSESSEE REITERATED TH E EARLIER SUBMISSION THAT DIFFERENCE WAS BECAUSE OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIE S IN THE ITA NO.2454/M/11 A.Y.99-00 6 EARLIER YEAR. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTY WERE RECONCILED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND AMOUNT WAS WRIT TEN BACK AS INCOME FOR THAT YEAR, DETAILS OF WHICH HAD BEEN GIVE N BEFORE CIT(A). IT WAS ACCORDINGLY URGED THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD BE DE LETED. CIT(A) HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS RAISED AND OBSERV ED THAT CREDIT OF RS.3,63,655/- REMAINED UN-EXPLAINED AND WAS THEREF ORE NON- GENUINE. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MAD E BY AO AGGRIEVED BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL. 3.1 BEFORE US, THE LD. AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ARGUED THAT CREDIT WAS IN RESPECT OF ROYALTY PAYABLE IN THE EARLIER YEARS WHICH COULD NOT BE ADDED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THERE WAS NO DISCREPANCY IN THE CURRENT YEAR . IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, DISCREPANCIES HAD BEEN RECONCILED AND AMOU NT WRITTEN BACK AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY ADDITION. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3.2 WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTE R CAREFULLY. THE ADDITION OF RS.3,63,655/- HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY IN THE ACCOUNT OF CREDITOR CABLE VIDEO INDIA . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THERE WAS NO DISCREPANCY IN THE TRANSACTI ONS UNDERTAKEN DURING THE YEAR AND DISCREPANCY WAS ONLY IN THE OPENING ITA NO.2454/M/11 A.Y.99-00 7 BALANCE. THIS CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE RE VENUE AUTHORITIES. IT IS CLEAR THAT DISCREPANCY IS ON ACCOUNT OF T RANSACTIONS IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AC COUNT OF THE PARTY WAS RECONCILED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND AMOUN T WAS OFFERED AS INCOME AS ULTIMATELY NOTHING WAS FOUND DUE T O THE PARTY. IN OUR VIEW THERE IS NO CASE FOR ADDITION IN THIS YEAR AS THERE IS NO DISCREPANCY IN THE TRANSACTIONS DURING THIS YEAR. THE ASSE SSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED INCOME IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 ON RECO NCILIATION OF DISCREPANCY AND THEREFORE MAKING ADDITION THIS YEAR WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION. WE, ARE, THEREFORE, UNABLE TO S USTAIN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS THEREFORE, SET ASIDE AND THE ADD ITION MADE IS DELETED. 4. THE THIRD DISPUTE IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF A SUM OF RS.3,62,571/- ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS. THE AO NOTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD WRITTEN OFF BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS.3,62,5 71/- DURING THE YEAR. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRO DUCE THE DETAILS OF NATURE OF DEBT, THE DATE ON WHICH THE DEBT WAS INCURRED AND THE YEAR IN WHICH THE INCOME HAD BEEN OFFERED. THE AO THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM . THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE DECISION OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED BEFORE CIT(A) THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENT ED THE DEBT OUTSTANDING FROM CABLE OPERATORS AND ADVANCES TO EMPLOY EES WHICH COULD NOT BE RECOVERED. THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN FULL PARTI CULARS OF THE ITA NO.2454/M/11 A.Y.99-00 8 PARTIES AND AMOUNT OUTSTANDING. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER OB SERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO ESTABLISH THE YEAR IN WHICH THE DEBT HAS BEEN OFFERED AND THEREFORE, THE SAME COULD NOT BE ALL OWED AS BAD DEBT. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AGGRIE VED BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4.1 BEFORE US THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE BREAK-UP OF THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN GIVEN IN ANNEXURE-C TO THE STATEMENT OF FACT S AND COMPRISES OF 3-CATEGORIES. THE SUM OF RS.1,28,534/- AND RS.1,09,90 0/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSCRIPTIONS RECEIVABLE FROM CABLE OPERATORS, AND A SUM OF RS.68,000/- RELATED TO ADVERTISEMENT AMOUNT RELATI NG TO THE YEARS 1997-98 -1998-99 WHICH HAD BEEN WRITTEN OFF AND THE 3 RD CATEGORY WAS ADVANCES TO EMPLOYEES AMOUNTING TO RS.56,137/- WHICH HAD BEEN WRITTEN OFF AS THE EMPLOYEES HAD LEFT THE COMPANY. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE CLAIM WAS ALLOWABLE AND THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITI ES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM. THE LD. DR STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4.2 WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTE R CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF CLA IM OF BADE DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS .3,62,571/-. THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT CAN BE ALLOWED ONLY IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE CORRESPONDING INCOME H AD BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEAR. THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED ITA NO.2454/M/11 A.Y.99-00 9 THAT BAD DEBT CLAIM WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSCRIPTION FEE REC EIVABLE FROM CABLE OPERATORS AND ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCES TO EMPLOYEES B UT NEITHER BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES NOR BEFORE US, IT HAS BEEN SHOWN AS TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CORRESPONDING INCOME HAD BEEN OFFERE D. WE THEREFORE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITI ES BELOW IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSCRIP TION FEES AND ADVERTISEMENTS, AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. HOWEVER, CASE OF A DVANCE TO EMPLOYEES IS DIFFERENT. THE ADVANCES HAD BEEN GIVEN DUR ING THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON OF BUSINESS AND, IN CASE THE EMPLOYEES LEF T AND THE AMOUNT COULD NOT BE RECOVERED, THE SAME HAS TO BE ALLOW ED AS BUSINESS LOSS. WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THE ISSUE OF CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE TO EMPLOYEES WRITTEN OFF TO THE FILE OF AO FO R FRESH CONSIDERATION AFTER ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING T HE ASSESSEE. GROUND IS THUS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. THE FOURTH DISPUTE IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2 ,86,588/- BEING ADDITION MADE TO FIXED ASSETS. THE AO NOTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON ACCOUNT OF FIXED ASSETS AMOUN TING TO RS.5,93,718/-. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONS OF RS.2,86,588/- T O THE FIXED ASSETS. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF BILLS, THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE ASSETS WITH THE BUSINESS WAS NOT VERIFI ABLE. THE AO THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT AS NON-B USINESS ITA NO.2454/M/11 A.Y.99-00 10 EXPENDITURE. HE ALSO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATIO N AT RS.36,203/-. THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE DECISION OF AO AND SU BMITTED BEFORE CIT(A) THAT BILLS RELATING TO ASSETS ADDED BY TH E AO COULD NOT BE TRACED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE FULL PARTICUL ARS OF ASSETS PURCHASED AND DATE OF PURCHASE HAD BEEN MENTIONED IN FORM 3CD TO THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF ASSETS AND THE SAME WERE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. IT WAS ACCO RDINGLY URGED THAT THE CLAIM SHOULD NOT BE DIS-ALLOWED. ALTERN ATIVELY IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOWANCE IF ANY COULD BE LIMITED TO RS.36,203/- . CIT(A) HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY AO AGGRIEVED BY W HICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5.1 BEFORE US. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WHEREAS THE LD. DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHO RITIES BELOW. 5.2 WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTE R CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.2,86 ,588/-, ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION TO AMOUNTS AND RS.36,203/- BEING TH E DEPRECIATION IN RELATION THERETO. THE AO HAD ADDED THE SAID ASSETS O N THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE BILLS ETC. AND ALSO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. IN OUR VIEW THE ACTION OF A O TO DISALLOW THE ITA NO.2454/M/11 A.Y.99-00 11 ASSETS AND MAKING ADDITION TO TOTAL INCOME IS NOT JUSTIF IED AS ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED ANY EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF THOSE ASPECTS. T HE DETAILS OF ADDITION OF FIXED ASSETS HAD BEEN GIVEN AND ONLY BI LLS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED AS THE SAME WERE NOT TRACEABLE. WE, THEREFOR E, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DELETE THE SAID ADDITION. HOWEVER ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE USAS OF AMOUNTS FOR BUSINESS BY PRODUCIN G NECESSARY DETAILS AND EVIDENCE AND, THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION OF RS.36,023/-. T HE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.36,023/- IS THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.6.2012. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT (RAJENDRA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 22.6.2012. JV. ITA NO.2454/M/11 A.Y.99-00 12 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.