DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Milk Food Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2669/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 266920114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 07-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S NEGI
• Assessee Lawyers: R S SINGHVI
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NOS.2667, 2668 & 2669/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03 TO 2004-05 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, M/S. MILK FOOD LTD ., CIRCLE 6(1), NEW DELHI. VS. 5 TH FLOOR, BHANDARI HOUSE, 91, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAACM5913B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.S. NEGI, SR. DR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.S. SINGHVI, CA. O R D E R PER K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 002-03 TO 2004- 05 ARISE OUT OF SEPARATE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- IX, NEW DELHI. THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER A ND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION WHICH IS COMMO N IN ALL THE THREE YEARS RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT O F LOSS OF MILK HANDLING. THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT OBSERVED THA T THE STANDARD NORMS OF HANDLING LOSS WAS 1.8% FOR FAT AND 3.3% FOR FAT AND SNF. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE GUIDELINES THE AO ANALYZED THE LOSS IN THE RE SPECTIVE MONTHS IN THE 2 PRECEDING YEAR AND CONSIDERED EXCESSIVE HANDLING LO SS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.9,82,130/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03; RS.3,73,1 78/- IN A.Y.2003-04; AND RS.2,87,450/- IN A.Y. 2004-05. 3. BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO C ONSIDERED THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OUT OF CONTEXT WITHOUT APPREC IATING THAT THE CLAIM OF LOSS WAS SUPPORTED FROM AUDITED ACCOUNTS. THE VARY ING CLAIM OF LOSS IN DIFFERENT MONTHS WAS DIRECTLY RELATED TO QUALITY OF MILK WHICH WAS PROCURED FROM VARIOUS AGENCIES ON DAY-TO-DAY BASIS. THE AO HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE HANDLING LOSS WAS DIRECTLY RELATED TO QUAL ITY OF MILK. AS PER QUALITY OF MILK THE LOSS IN SOME OF THE MONTHS WAS SUBSTANT IALLY LOWER THAN THE STANDARD NORMS AND IN SOME OF THE MONTHS THE LOSS W AS HIGHER. HOWEVER, ON ANNUAL BASIS, THE CLAIM OF LOSS WAS IN CONFORMITY W ITH STANDARD NORMS. THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING COMPLETE QUANTITATIVE RECO RD OF RAW MATERIAL AND FINISHED PRODUCTS AND THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO SUBJECT TO EXCISE CONTROL AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DEFICIENCY OR IRR EGULARITY IN THE PRODUCTION RECORD OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE AO WAS NOT COMPETE NT TO DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCE OUT OF CONTEXT AND IN A DISTORTED MANNER. THE AO HAD NOT POINTED OUT THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT RELIABLE OR SAME WERE NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145 AND AS SUCH THERE W AS NO CASE OF ANY DISALLOWANCE. 3 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AN D REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO FOR DISALLOWANCE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WERE SUBJECT TO EXCI SE CONTROL AND WERE SUPPORTED WITH STATUTORY AUDIT AND TAX AUDIT. THE AO HAD NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC MISTAKE OR IRREGULARITY IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT AND AS SUCH THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE ON SELECTED BASIS RELATING TO SOME OF THE MONTHS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED PARTICULARLY WHEN THE CLAIM OF SUCH L OSS WAS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE QUALITY OF MILK. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER NO TED THAT THE LOSSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WHOLE OF THE YEAR WERE BELOW THE STANDARD NORMS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFORE, DELETED THE A DDITION. 5. BEFORE US THE LEARNED SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT ANNUAL LOSS WAS WITHIN THE STANDARD NORMS AND THEREFORE, NO DISALLO WANCE SHOULD BE MADE. HE ACCORDINGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED C IT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THR OUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE AO WHILE DISALLOWING THE CLA IM FOR LOSS HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASONS AS TO WHY THE DISALLOWANCE WAS TO BE MA DE. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND PRODU CTION RECORDS. PRODUCTION RECORDS ARE SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY BY EXCIS E DEPARTMENT. EXCISE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT FOUND ANY IRREGULARITY IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT. THE AO 4 HAS ALSO NOT POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT MERELY BECAUSE IN CERTAIN MONTHS HANDLING LOSS WAS MORE, WHICH WAS TOTALLY DEPENDENT UPON THE QUALITY OF MILK. THE AO IN OUR CONSIDERED OPIN ION, HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECOR D. THE HANDLING LOSS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS WELL BELOW THE STANDARD N ORMS OF THE LOSS. SINCE THE AO HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD, IN O UR CONSIDERED OPINION THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE AD DITION IN ALL THE THREE YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY I N THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ALLOWING THE RELIEF. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 7. NEXT ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION WHICH IS COMMON IN ALL THE THREE YEARS RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INFL ATION OF MILK PRICE. THE AO HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE BY MAKING REFERENCE TO SIMILA R DISALLOWANCE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS SINCE 1993-94. THE AO HAS ADMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) BUT MADE THE DISA LLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS PENDING BEFORE I TAT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT ITAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 AND OTHER YEARS HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE V IDE ORDER DATED 3.03.2006. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT D ELETED THE ADDITION IN ALL THE THREE YEARS. 5 8. BEFORE US THE LEARNED SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON T HE DECISION OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ITAT DELHI BENCH `H IN ITA N OS. 64 TO 69/DEL/2003 & 4164/DEL/2004 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 TO 199 5-96 & 1997-98 TO 1999-2000 & 2001-02 DATED 3 RD MARCH, 2006 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDER OF THE ITAT CONFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INFLA TION OF PRICE OF THE MILK PURCHASED IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 6.4 ON CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEA RNED D.R. AND THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE MATTER. DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH CERTAIN PAPERS WERE FOUND WHICH HAVE BEEN DI SCUSSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THESE PAPERS CAME TO THE CO NCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE INFLATED PRICE OF THE MILK PURCHASED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DID NOT MENTION ANY FAC T IF ANY PROPER QUERY WAS RAISED TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ASSE SSMENT STAGE TO EXPLAIN THE ENTRY CONTAINED IN THE SEIZED PAPERS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, APPEARS TO HAVE IN HI S OWN WAY INTERPRETED THE ENTRY CONTAINED IN THE SEIZED PAPER AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INFLATED THE P RICE OF THE MILK PURCHASED. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) HAS VERY CATEGORICALLY EXPLAINED THE SEIZED PAPER WHICH WAS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DOCUMENTS IN THE NAME OF THE COMMI SSION AGREEMENT THROUGH WHICH COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID TO DIFFERENT COMMISSION AGENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLEA RLY EXPLAINED THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ARE INCORRECT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT DISCUSSIN G ANY FACT OR 6 EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE MADE THE ADDITION WHICH APPEARS TO BE NOT JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT COST ING AT PAGE 17 WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF FAT CONTAINED IN MILK AT 6 .2%. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO BE JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THE MILK ARE GENERALLY PURCHASED AFTER VERIFYING THE QU ALITY OF THE FAT IN THE MILK. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLEARLY EXPLAIN ED THAT BAHADURGARH CENTRE BASICALLY REPRESENTED THE MILK A SSEMBLY CENTER WHICH WAS MANAGED BY THE COMMISSION AGENT AT VILLAGE LEVEL. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED COPY OF THE AGREEME NT WITH THE COMMISSION AGENT IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION OF TH E COMMISSION WAS CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF QUALITY M ILK SOLD BY THEM. SUCH PAYMENT OF COMMISSION HAS BEEN SUPPORTE D BY THE PAYMENT MADE THROUGH VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO F IELD MONTH-WISE COPIES OF THE MILK COMMISSION REPORT OF THE BAHADURGARH CENTRE INDICATING CENTER CODE AND NAME OF THE AGENT AND INTER ALIA DETAILING THE QUANTITY OF MILK PROCURE BY EACH AGENT AND THE COMMISSION RELATING THERETO. AL L THESE ENTRIES HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH VOUCH ERS AND PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE DRAFTS AND THE CIT(A) ON FOLLOWING THOSE EVIDENCES ON RECORD DELET ED THE ADDITION. THE CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING AGENT-WISE WORKING OF THE COMMISSION FOR EACH CENTRE CONCERNING BAHADURGARH CENTRE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THESE COMMISSION AGENTS WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSES SEE. THE CIT(A) WAS SATISFIED WITH THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD T HAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PROPERLY EXPLAINED TO PR OVE THAT THERE IS NO INFLATION IN THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE MILK. THESE FACTS ON RECORD BEFORE THE CIT(A) CLEARLY SUGGEST T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTIO NS AND ASSUMPTIONS OF CERTAIN FACT CAME TO THE FINDINGS TH AT THERE IS A INFLATION IN THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE MILK, WHICH IS CLEARLY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNWARRANTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT HAVE ANY BASIS WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT THIS FINDING W ITH REGARD TO THE INFLATION OF THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE MILK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS OWN WAY WITHOUT SUPPORTING THROUGH A NY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE ON RECORD MADE THE ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ON SUCH CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY BASIS MADE THE ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESS EE PROPERLY 7 EXPLAINED THE ISSUE AND SEIZED MATERIAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND CLEARLY PROVED THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL WAS NOT INC RIMINATING IN NATURE AND AS SUCH THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELE TING THE ENTIRE ADDITION. THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY MATERIAL IN REBUTTAL TO THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED D.R. COULD NOT BRING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT TH E EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS F ACTUALLY INCORRECT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE UNAB LE TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). WE CONFIRM HIS FIND ING AND DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 10. DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL. THE AO HAD MADE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GRO UND THAT SIMILAR ADDITION WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 AND IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. SINCE THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING T HE ADDITION IN ALL THE THREE YEARS. 11. NEXT ISSUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 RELATES T O DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,70,156/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGH T AND LOADING & UPLOADING EXPENSES. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE DEBIT NOTE OF THE PARTY WAS NOT PRODUCED AND AS PER CONFIRMATION FILED BY THE S AID PARTY REIMBURSEMENT WAS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.41,844/- AND ACCORDING LY BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.5,70,155/- WAS DISALLOWED. 8 12. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT D EBIT NOTE DATED 12-07- 2001 FROM M/S. AKARSHAN FOOD STUFF PVT. LTD. RELATI NG TO CLAIM OF FREIGHT, LOADING AND UPHOLDING CHARGES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6 ,12,000/- ALONG WITH DRAFT MAKING CHARGES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.67,030/- W AS DULY PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND IN FACT THE AO HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED CLAI M OF DRAFT MAKING CHARGES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.67,030/-. FURTHER THE AMOUNT OF RS.6,79,030/- WAS DULY CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PARTY WHICH WAS INCLUSIVE OF RS.6,12,000/- RELATING TO FREIGHT, LOADING AND UNLO ADING CHARGES. THE ABOVE SAID CREDIT WAS IN RESPECT OF DEBIT NOTE OF PARTY R ELATING TO THE CLAIM OF VARIOUS EXPENSES AS SALES AGENT AND SIMILAR CREDIT WAS BEING ALLOWED TO OTHER PARTIES ALSO. THE AO HAD MADE DISALLOWANCE MERELY ON TECHNICAL GROUND AND HE HAD NOT DISPUTED THE EXISTENCE AND NECESSITY OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED COPY OF DEBIT NOTE OF THE PAR TY ALONG WITH COPY OF ACCOUNT IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM. THE ASSESSE E CLAIMED THAT THE AO COULD HAVE VERIFIED THE CORRECTNESS OF CLAIM FROM T HE SAID PARTY. THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS GENUINE AND BONA FIDE AND DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONS IDERING THE DETAILS FILED, DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4.5 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT I N THE LIGHT OF EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT IS EN GAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF GHEE AND MILK POWDER ETC. THE SALE IS ORGANIZED THROUGH AGENTS APPOINTE D ALL OVER 9 INDIA AND AS A PART OF BUSINESS UNDERSTANDING, ACTU AL EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF OUTWARD FREIGHT, LOADING AND UNLOADING EXPENSES ARE REIMBURSED TO THE AGENTS. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE BUSINESS EXP EDIENCY OF THE CLAIM OR THE FACT THAT THE CLAIM WAS NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED A COPY OF ACCOUNT AND DEBIT NOTE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. 4.6 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DEBIT NOTE AND COPY OF ACCOUNT PLACED ON RECORD. THE DEBIT NOTE IS FOR RS.6,79,03 0/-, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,70,156/-. THE DEBIT NOTE WAS IN RESPECT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF THE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF FREIGHT AN D LOADING AND UNLOADING CHARGES AND ALSO RELATING TO REIMBURS EMENT OF DRAFT MAKING CHARGES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.67,030/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWE3D THE CLAIM OF RS.67,0 30/- WHICH IS ON THE BASIS OF THE VERY SAME DEBIT NOTE AND, TH EREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT SEEM LOGICAL. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT TH ERE IS RUNNING ACCOUNT WITH OF THE PARTY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT O F THE APPELLANT AND THERE ARE REGULAR TRANSACTIONS OF CRE DIT AND DEBIT IN SUCH ACCOUNT AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT ON THE BASIS OF DEBIT NOTE WAS CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT. IT IS NOT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICERS CASE THAT THE CORRECTNESS OF DEBIT NOTE WAS IN DISP UTE OR ANY CLARIFICATION WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE PARTY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CLAIM ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.41,844/- AND AS S UCH THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ILLEG AL AND ARBITRARY. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION TOTALLY OF TH E FACTS OF THE CASE AND DOCUMENTS ON RECORD, THE ADDITION OF RS.5, 70,156/- IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND SAME IS HEREBY DELETED. THE GR OUND NO.1 IS ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT. 13. BEFORE US THE LEARNED SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A CONFIRMATION FROM M/S. AKARSHAN FOOD STUFF PVT. LTD. IN SUPPORT OF THE CON TENTION THAT EXPENDITURE OF RS.6,79,030/- WAS MADE. 10 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE DETAILS FILED AND ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NO TED THAT THERE WAS RUNNING ACCOUNT WITH THE PARTY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WERE REGULAR TRANSACTIONS OF CREDIT AND DEBIT IN SUCH ACCOUNT AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT ON THE BASIS OF DEBIT NOTE WAS CREDIT ED IN THE ACCOUNT. IT WAS NOT THE AOS CASE THAT CORRECTNESS OF DEBIT NOTE WA S IN DISPUTE OR ANY CLARIFICATION WAS CALLED FOR. THE LEARNED CIT(A) H AS ALSO OBSERVED THAT DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRA RY. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) HAVE NOT BEEN ASSAILED OF BY THE REVENUE. NO DISCREPANCY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT. THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF CLAIM AND NO MATERIAL WA S BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.6 ,79,030/- WAS WRONG. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE LETTER FROM AKARSHAN FOO D STUFF PVT. LTD. IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.6,79,030/- WHICH GIVES THE DETAILS OF FREIGHT, LOADING AND UNLOADING CHARGES AND DRAFT MAKING CHAR GES. THE TOTAL FREIGHT PAID IS RS.5,70,000/-, LOADING AND UNLOADING CHARGE S ARE RS.36,000/- AND DRAFT MAKING CHARGES ARE RS.67,030/-. SINCE THE LE ARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION. 11 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS ARE DISMISSED. 16. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 13 TH JULY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (K.D. RANJAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 13 TH JULY, 2012. ITA NOS2667, 2668 & 2669/DEL/2011 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.