M/s. Cottage Industrial Corporation., Hoshiarpur V. The Income-tax Officer, Hoshiarpur

ITA 269/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68193 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: V K MALHOTRA
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 269 (ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAN: AAAFC9328R COTTAGE INDUSTRIAL CORP. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAILWAY ROAD, HOSHIARPUR WARD-I, HOSHIARPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. V.K. MALHOTRA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SH. AMRIK CHAND, DR DATE OF HEARING: 20.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25.09.2013 ORDER 1) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), JA LANDHAR, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. THAT LEARNED CIT(A) AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEGAL LY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS, DISALLOWING INTEREST PAID ON UNSECURED L OANS, AMOUNTING TO RS. 215618/- II. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N OT APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND HAVE COME TO WRONG CONCLUSION THAT AS SESSEE HAS BORROWED MONEY NOT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, WITHOUT P ROVING ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE AMOUNT BORROWED AND USE FOR PURCH ASE OF BANK FDR. 2 I.T.A. NO. 269 (ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 III. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ALTER, ADD, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2) THE FACTS IN BRIEF RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISP UTE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A FIRM FILED ITS RETURN ELECTRONICAL LY DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 2,73,127/- ON 26.10.2007 WHICH WAS PROCESSED UN DER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). S UBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR COMPULSORY SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AS PER THE GUIDELINES. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 26.09. 2008 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 27.09.2008. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED SOME DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ALONG WITH BALANCE-SHEET AS ON 31.03.2007. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED VARIOUS INFO RMATIONS AS REQUIRED, IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND ALSO FURNISHED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WHICH WAS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM MANUFACTU RING AND TRADING OF WOODEN HANDICRAFTS AND ALSO IN TRADING OF MARBLE DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. GROSS PROFIT OF RS. 22,80,626/- WAS DECLARED ON THE TOTAL SALES OF RS. 58,87,440/- GIVING G.P. RATE OF 38.74% . THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISCUSSED THE G.P. RATE DECLARED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS AND VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT AS PER THE BALANCE-SHEET THE ASSESSEE FI RM HAD RAISED UNSECURED 3 I.T.A. NO. 269 (ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 LOANS OF RS. 1,24,58,197/- ON WHICH INTEREST OF RS. 9,25,537/- HAS BEEN GIVEN. ON VERIFICATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT ALL THESE LOANS ARE FROM THE FAMILY MEMBERS/HUFS OF THE PARTNERS. IT WAS FURTHER FOUND THAT THESE FUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN UTILIZED BY THE FIRM FOR ITS BU SINESS NEEDS BUT HAVE BEEN INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF FDRS IN THE NAME O F FIRM WITH BANKS. THE FIRM HAS FDRS OF RS. 1,13,41,721/- WITH SBI AND RS. 7,12,432/- WITH UTI BANK. ON THESE FDRS THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INT EREST OF RS. 7,10,369/- AGAINST WHICH INTEREST OF RS. 9,25,537/- HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE DEPOSITORS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED VIDE LETTER DATE D 15.09.2009 TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY EXCESS INTEREST PAID ON UNSECURE D LOANS RAISED FROM THE FAMILY MEMBERS MAY NOT BE DISALLOWED AS THESE LOANS WERE NOT NEEDED OR UTILIZED FOR LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS BUT W ERE INVESTED IN THE FDRS ON WHICH LESS INTEREST HAS BEEN RECEIVED. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS WRITTEN EXPLANATION ON 12.11.2009, WHICH IS REPROD UCED AS UNDER: THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT THERE WERE UN SECURED LOANS OF RS. 1,24,58,497/- FROM THE FAMILY MEMBERS ON WHICH INTEREST OF RS. 9,25,537/- WAS PAID/CREDITED DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAD FDRS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,13,41,731/- ON WHICH AND AM OUNT OF RS. 7,10,370/- WAS RECEIVED AS INTEREST DURING THE YEAR . YOUR OBSERVATION THAT THE LOANS RECEIVED FROM FAMILY MEMBERS WERE NO T UTILIZED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE REQUIRED ABOUT RS. 23 LAKHS FOR SMOOTH RUNNING OF BUSINESS SINCE GOOD AMOUNT OF MONEY REMAINED LOCKED UP IN STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS AS PER NATURE OF THE BUSINESS. LARGE QUANTITY OF STOCK REMAINED LYING AGAINST SUPPLIES ON CONSIGNMENT AND TO GOVT. 4 I.T.A. NO. 269 (ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 EMPORIUMS. THE ASSESSEE RAISED A SECURED LOANS OF R S. 11,35,998/- AGAINST FDRS IN ADDITION TO RS. 11,16,766/-, BEING RS. 1,24,58,497- 11,34,731 AT NOMINAL RATE IN PREFERENCE TO LOAN FRO M THE BANK ON HIGHER RATE OF INTEREST. THE LOAN FROM THE BANK WAS AVAILABLE AT 13 TO 15% PERCENT AND THAT TOO, AGAINST SECURITY OF FIXED ASSETS STOCK AT SHOP WHEREAS THE LOAN AGAINST FDRS WAS AVAILABLE AT 11 PERCENT, JUST TWO PER CENT ABOVE THE RATE OF INTEREST ON FDRS AND TOO, WITHOUT SECURITY. IN THE ABSENCE OF FIXED ASSETS WITH THE A SSESSEE TO OFFER AS SECURITY, SECURED LOANS AGAINST FDRS WAS THE ONLY O PTION WITH THE ASSESSEE. AS THE LOANS FROM FAMILY MEMBERS IT MAY B E ADDED THAT THE SAME WAS CONTINUING FOR THE LAST OVER TEN YEARS AND THE RATE OF INTEREST PAID WAS HARDLY 6 TO 9%. SA STATEMENT OF LOANS FROM THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND INTEREST THEREON IS ATTACHED FOR PERUSA L. YOU WILL APPRECIATE THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE RA ISED LOAN FROM ITS BUSINESS NEEDS WHILE SAVING THE INTEREST THEREON TH ERE IS NO SCOPE FOR ANY DISALLOWANCE ON THIS COUNT. 3) THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE AFORESAID EXP LANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND FOUND INCO RRECT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT ASSETS IN THE FORM OF STOCK AT RS. 38,06,940/-, SUNDRY DEBTORS AT RS. 69,58,587/- AND OTHER FIXED ASSETS RS. 13,27,411/- AND FOR RAISING SUCH PETTY LOAN, ASSETS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE BANKS. THE UNSECURED LOANS RAISED FROM THE FAMILY MEMBERS WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PURCHASE FDRS IN THE NAME OF FIRM. THES E WERE NOT REQUIRED OR UTILIZED FOR LEGITIMATE NEED OF THE BUSINESS. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT RAISING OF LOANS FROM THE FAMILY MEMBERS/HUFS OF THE PARTNERS AND THEN KEEPING THE SAME IN FORM OF FDRS IN ITS NAME I S NOTHING BUT A 5 I.T.A. NO. 269 (ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 COLOURFUL DEVICE ADOPTED JUST TO REDUCE ITS TAX LIA BILITY. SUCH COLOURABLE DEVICES TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAX ARE NOT ALLOWABLE I N VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M CDOWELL AND CO. LTD. VS. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148. FINALLY, HE DISALL OWED THE EXCESS INTEREST OF RS. 2,15,168/- PAID TO THE DEPOSITORS ( I.E. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTEREST PAID TO DEPOSITORS AT RS. 9,25,537/- AND I NTEREST EARNED ON FDRS AT RS. 7,10,369/-) AND THE SAME WAS ADDED TO THE T AXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH SOME MINOR ADDITIONS AND COMPLE TED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 23.11.2009. 4) AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE AP PEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.03.2012, DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE AND UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. NOW, THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, FILED THE PRESEN T APPEAL. 5) LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A SMALL P APER BOOKS, IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED VARIOUS CASE LAWS SUPPORTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE; WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE THIS BENC H AS WELL AS BEFORE CIT(A), BALANCE SHEET; FDR SBI A/C IN ASSESSEE BOOK ; FDR LOAN A/C SBI; FDR A/C UTI BANK, COPIES OF A/C UNSECURED LOAN S IN ASSESSEES BOOK. HE DREW MY ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NO. 8 TO 44 WHICH INCLUDES 6 I.T.A. NO. 269 (ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 BALANCE-SHEET AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2007; MANUFACTURING, TRADING AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2007; PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2007; ANNEXURE OF PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2007; ANNEXURES OF UNSECURED LOANS, ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS, OTHER LIABILITIES, CASH AND BANK BALANCE S AND SUNDRY CREDITORS AS ON 31.03.2006; SUNDRY DEBTORS SUMMARY FROM 1.04.2006 TO 31.03.2007; LEDGER ACCOUNT OF FDRS WITH SBI, HOSHIA RPUR; LEDGER ACCOUNT OF FDR LOAN A/C SBI; LEDGER ACCOUNT OF FDR A/C UTI BANK; LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, HUF A/C; LEDGER ACCOUNT OF DEEPIKA JAIN W/O-NIKHIL JAIN, HSP; LEDGER ACCOUNT O F GUNMALA JAIN W/O- A.K. JAIN, HSP; LEDGER ACCOUNT OF GURSURINDER JAIN, HUF A/C; LEDGER ACCOUNT OF GURSURINDER JAIN LOAN A/C; LEDGER ACCOUNT OF H.V. JAIN HSP LOAN A/C; LEDGER ACCOUNT OF JATIN JAIN S/O - A.K. JAIN LOAN A/C; LEDGER ACCOUNT OF MADHU SUDAN JAIN HUF A/C; LEDGER ACCOUNT OF MANJU JAIN W/O- RAJINDER LOAN A/C; LEDGER ACCOUNT O F NIKHIL S/O- H.V. JAIN LOAN A/C; LEDGER ACCOUNT OF NISHA D/O- A.K. JA IN LOAN A/C; LEDGER ACCOUNT OF NITESH S/O- H.V. JAIN LOAN A/C; LEDGER A CCOUNT OF POOJA JAIN W/O- RAJNEESH LOAN A/C; LEDGER ACCOUNT OF RAJINDER KR. JAIN LOAN A/C; LEDGER ACCOUNT OF RAJNEESH JAIN, HUF A/C; LEDGER AC COUNT OF RINKOO D/O- A.K. JAIN LOAN A/C; LEDGER ACCOUNT OF RITESH J AIN/M.S. JAIN LOAN 7 I.T.A. NO. 269 (ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 A/C; LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SACHIN JAIN, LOAN A/C; LEDGE R ACCOUNT OF SANTOSH JAIN, HOSHIARPUR; LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SHOBHANA JAIN W /O- JATIN JAIN, HSP; LEDGER ACCOUNT OF HARSHVARDHAN JAIN, HUF A/C; AND L EDGER ACCOUNT OF RAJINDER KR. JAIN, HUR A/C. HE DREW MY ATTENTION TO WARDS THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO ESTABLISH THAT THE UNSECUR ED LOANS ARE RUNNING FROM THE PAST 30 YEARS AND THESE HAVE BEEN REGULARL Y TREATED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY AND NO DISALLOWAN CE WAS EVER MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT. HE FURTHER EMPHASIZED THAT THE R EVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOWHERE PROVED THE NEXUS OF FUNDS RAISED WAS U TILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF BANK FDRS, ESPECIALLY DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEA R IN DISPUTE AND WITHOUT PROVING THE NEXUS THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT THE LOAN RAISED IS UTILIZED FOR BU SINESS, DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST CANNOT BE MADE. FINALLY, HE STATED THAT TH E REVENUE AUTHORITY HAS TREATED THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM THE FDRS AS BUSINESS INCOME AND EXPENSES INCURRED AS INTEREST ON LOANS AGAINST FDRS ARE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENSES. HE HAS ALSO CITED MANY CASE LAWS IN SUPPORT OF HIS AVERMENTS, SOME OF THEM ARE AS UNDER: 1. S.A. BUILDERS LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) & ANR., REPORTED IN (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). 2. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX VS. SOUTH INDIA CORPORATIO N (AGENCIES) LTD., REPORTED IN (2007) 293 ITR 237 (MA D.). 8 I.T.A. NO. 269 (ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD.; REPORTED IN (2009) 313 ITR 340 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ROCKMAN CYCLE INDUST RIES LTD., REPORTED IN (2009) 176 TAXMAN 21 (P&B). 6) LASTLY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REQUEST ED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED AND THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE MADE BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY MAY BE DE LETED. 7) ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDE RS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 8) I HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WI TH ME AND ALSO THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND LEARNED DR, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT AS P ER RECORD, THE ASSESSEE EARNS INCOME FROM TRADING AND INTEREST INCOME. BOTH THE INCOMES ARE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS FOR LAST MANY YE ARS. AS PER THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, IT IS NOWHERE WR ITTEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED ANY FRESH FDRS FROM THE FUNDS IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A NEW FDR FOR RS. 30,0 2,000/- FROM THE FUNDS OF FIRM WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AT PAGE NO. 16 OF THE PAPER- BOOK IN THE LEGER ACCOUNT OF FDRS WITH SBI HOSHIARP UR FROM 1 ST MARCH, 2007 TO 31 ST MARCH 2007. 9 I.T.A. NO. 269 (ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 9) THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ATTACHED BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE PAPER BOOK ALSO ESTABLISH THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS UN SECURED LOANS RUNNING FROM PREVIOUS YEARS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS USED THESE UNSECURED LOANS FOR ITS BUSINESS PURPOSES AND REVENUE AUTHORITY HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION ON THESE UNSECURED LOANS. REVENUE HAS NOT PRODUCED ON RECORD EVEN A SINGLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING THAT THE F UNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF FDRS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN DISPUTE AND WITHOUT PROVING THE NEXUS THE CONCLU SION ARRIVED AT BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, ESPECIALLY IN THE IMPUGNED ORD ER PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT THE LOAN RAI SED IS UTILIZED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST CANN OT BE MADE. 10) KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITY HAD MADE THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE ON THE BASIS OF CONJECTURES AND SURMISES, W HICH IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND FACTS ON RECORD. SECONDLY, THE REVENUE AUTH ORITY HAS NOT DISAPPROVED THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING R EFUNDS OF UNSECURED LOANS, WHICH WERE RUNNING FROM PREVIOUS YEARS, AND REVENUE AUTHORITY ITSELF TREATING THAT THESE UNSECURED LOANS HAVE BEE N UTILIZED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND NO DISALLOWANCE HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE R EVENUE AS THEY MADE THE DISALLOWANCE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN DIS PUTE, WHICH IS 10 I.T.A. NO. 269 (ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND FACTS ON RECORD WHERE SPECI FICALLY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE FUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF FDRS IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, IN MY VIEW, NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FO R AND LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS WRONGLY UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CITED MANY JUDGMENTS/DECISIONS REN DERED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND HON'BLE HIGH COURTS. IN THE CASE OF S.A. BUILDERS LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) & ANR., REP ORTED IN (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SUPREME COURT), HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT NO BUSINESSMAN CAN BE COMPELLED TO MAXIMIZE THE PROFIT AND THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES MUST PUT THEMSELVES IN THE SHOES OF ASS ESSEE AND SEE HOW A PRUDENT BUSINESS WOULD ACT. THE AUTHORITIES MUST NO T LOOK AT THE MATTER FROM THEIR OWN POINT OF VIEW BUT THAT OF A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN. 11) KEEPING IN THE VIEW THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AS WELL AS THE CASE LAWS CITED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, I A M OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, I CANCEL THE IMPUGNED ORDE R DATED 27.03.2012 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), JALANDHAR, AND DELETE THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 11 I.T.A. NO. 269 (ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 12) IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 SD/./- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: COTTAGE INDUSTRIAL CORP. RAILWAY ROAD , HOSHIARPUR 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I, HOSHIARPUR 3. THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR 4. THE CIT, JALANDAHR 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., ASR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.