Sh Ashok Kumar, Jammu & Kashmir V. The Income-tax Officer, Jammu & Kashmir

ITA 273/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0771 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S KANWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Business income; Earning of tax free income; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 80C; 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [ I.T.A NO. 273(ASR)/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 I.T.A NO. 112(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SH. ASHOK KUMAR, PROP. M/S. BHAGWATI STONE CRUSHER, W. NO.15, SHAKTI NAGAR, UDHAMPUR (JAMMU & KASHMIR) PAN:ABSPK3400F VS. I;; ITO, WARD-2(4) UDHAMPUR (JAMMU & KASHMIR) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. P.N.ARORA (ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. S.S.KANWAL (DR.) DATE OF HEARING: 11.05. 2016 DATE OF PRONO UNCEMENT:16.05.2016 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A), DATED 13.05.2015 AND 23.11.2015 RESPECTIVELY. BOTH THESE APPEALS INVOLVED SIMILAR ISSUES AND THESE WER E HEARD TOGETHER, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE A COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL IN ITA NO.273(ASR)/2011 FOR ASST. YEAR 2010-11. ITA NO.273 & 112 (ASR)/2015 & 16 ASST. YEARS: 2010-11 & 2012-13 2 (I) THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ARE BOTH AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ARE UNTENABLE UND ER THE LAW. (II) THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF STONE I NWARD COST EXPENSES. THE COMPLETE DETAILS WERE GIVEN AND THE EXPENSES AS CLAIMED SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN TOTO AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUS TIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. AS SUCH THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) MAY BE DELETED ALTERNATIVELY THE ADDITION MADE IS VERY HIGH AND EX CESSIVE. (III) AGAIN, WORTHY THE CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,50,000/- OUT OF TOTAL DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.3,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF CARRIAGE EXPENSES. TH E EXPENSES AS CLAIMED SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN TOTO. ALTERNATI VELY, THE DISALLOWANCE CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) IS VERY HIGH & EXCESSIVE. (IV) AGAIN THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY ERRED IN C ONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,01,251/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 40( A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID TO TATA CAPITAL F INANCE SERVICES. THIS WAS CLEARLY AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION WHICH SHOULD HAV E BEEN ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A). AS SUCH ADDITION CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A ) MAY BE DELETED. (V) AGAIN, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN REST RICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.1,13,135/- OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE MADE TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,00,000/- BY THE AO ON A/C OF VARIOUS EXPENSES DEBITED TO P&L A/C. THIS DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN CONFIRMED ON ADHOC BASIS . AS SUCH, THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A0 MAY BE DELETED. AL TERNATIVELY, DISALLOWANCE CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) IS VERY HIGH A ND EXCESSIVE AND FURTHER THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IB MAY BE ALLOW ED ON FINALLY ASSESSED INCOME. (V) AGAIN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONF IRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,79,404/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CRED ITORS MADE BY THE AO. THESE CREDITORS WERE GENUINE AND THE ADDITION C ONFIRMED SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. ALTERNATIVELY, THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS VERY HIGH AND EXCESSIVE AND FURTHER THE DEDUCTION C LAIMED U/S 80IB MAY BE ALLOWED ON FINALLY ASSESSED INCOME. IN ITA NO. 112(ASR)2016 FOR ASST. YEAR 2011-12. (I) THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JAMMU IS BOTH AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IS UNTENABLE UNDER THE LAW. (II) THAT THE A.O. HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING T HE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF STONE INWARD COST AND A GAIN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. THE AO AS WELL AS THE WORTHY CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE A LLOWABLE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN TOTO. AS SUCH, THE ADDITION CO NFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT AT ALL CALLED FOR AND THE SAME IS LIA BLE TO BE DELETED. ITA NO.273 & 112 (ASR)/2015 & 16 ASST. YEARS: 2010-11 & 2012-13 3 ALTERNATIVELY, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE IS VERY HIGH & EXCESSIVE. (III) THAT AGAIN THE LEARNED C1T(A) HAS GROSSLY ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,50,000/- OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS .2,50,000/- MADE BY THE AO UNDER THE HEAD CARRIAGE EXPENDITURE. THE A.O. AS WELL AS THE WORTHY CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT ALL THESE EXPENSES P ERTAINS TO BUSINESS. AS SUCH, NO ADDITION IS AT ALL CALLED FOR AND THE ADDI TION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT RS. 1,50.000/- MAY BE DELETED. ALTERNATIV ELY, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE IS VERY HIGH & EXCESSI VE. (IV) THAT FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN RESTRICTING ADDITION ON TO RS.50,000/- AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00.000/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT ALL THESE EXPENSES ARE RELATED TO BUSINESS AND THERE IS NO OF ITEM OF INADMISSIBLE NATURE HAS EVER BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AO. AS SUCH, THE DISAL LOWANCE OF RS.50,000/- SUSTAINED BY THE WORTHY CIT(A) IS NOT AT ALL CALLED FOR AND THE ADDITION MADE IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. ALTERNATIVELY, WITHOU T PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE IS VERY HIGH & EXCESSIVE. (V) THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE ADDITION OF RS.291736/- BEING 10% OF THE TOTAL CREDITORS/ADVANC ES MADE BY THE AO. THESE CREDITORS WERE GENUINE AND NO ADDITION WAS CA LLED FOR. AS SUCH THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE DELETED . 3. THE BRIEF FACTS AS NOTE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF STONE CRUSHING AND AS PR OPRIETOR OF M/S. BHAGWATI STONE CRUSHER. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCO ME DECLARING INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF STONE CRUSHING, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ETC. THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME HAD CLAIMED DEDUC TION U/S 80IB FOR ITS INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OF STONE CRUSHING, HOWEVER , ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REJECTED THE CLAI M OF ASSESSEE REGARDING HIS EXEMPTION U/S 80-IB AND BESIDES MAKIN G ADDITION OF THE DECLARED PROFITS AS NOT BEING EXEMPT U/S 80-IB, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE CERTAIN OTHER ADDITIONS OUT OF EXPENSES CLAIME D BY ASSESSEE IN HIS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT O F DISALLOWANCE OF ITA NO.273 & 112 (ASR)/2015 & 16 ASST. YEARS: 2010-11 & 2012-13 4 VARIOUS EXPENSES WORKED OUT TO BE RS.12,30,655/- IN ASST. YEAR 2010-11 AND RS.9,91,873/- IN ASST. YEAR 2012-13. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CLA IM OF ASSESSEE U/S 80- IB AND ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH EXEMPTION. HOWEVER, HE UPHELD PART ADDITIONS WHICH THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAD MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF VARIOUS EXPENSES. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST PART SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWANCES CONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT(A). 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED DR HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT BUT WHILE GOING THROUGH THE FILES AND M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FOUND THAT THE APPEALS CAN BE DISPOSED OFF, THEREFO RE, THE LEARNED AR WAS DIRECTED TO PROCEED WITH HIS ARGUMENTS. 7. THE LEARNED AR, FIRST TOOK UP APPEAL IN ITA NO.273(ASR)/2015 FOR A.Y.2010-11 AND INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO VARIOUS SU BMISSIONS MADE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED CIT(A)AND SUBM ITTED THAT ALL THE EXPENSES AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MA DE DISALLOWANCES AND AGAINST WHICH LEARNED CIT(A) HAD CONFIRMED WERE VOUCHED AND DULY ENTERED INTO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THERE WAS NO REAS ON FOR LEARNED CIT(A) TO CONFIRM PART ADDITION. ITA NO.273 & 112 (ASR)/2015 & 16 ASST. YEARS: 2010-11 & 2012-13 5 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED AR S UBMITTED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS EXEMP T U/S 80-IB, THEREFORE, THE INCREASED INCOME DUE TO DISALLOWANCE S MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN IS EXEMPT U/S 80-IB AND THEREFORE, OT HERWISE ALSO THE ADDITION CANNOT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE TAXABLE PROF ITS AS THE ENTIRE PROFITS WERE EARNED FROM ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND ADDITION IF ANY TO THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENSES WILL GO TO INC REASE THE INCOME FROM ELIGIBLE BUSINESS MAKING ELIGIBLE THE EXEMPTION U/S 80-IB OF THE ACT. 9. THE LEARNED AR, IN THIS RESPECT PLACED HIS RELIA NCE ON THE ORDER OF AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR, PROP. M/S. SAINICO ENGINEERS, IN ITA NO. 331(ASR)/2012 AND INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FINDINGS AS CONTAINED IN PARA 11 OF SUCH ORDER. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ORDER OF HONBLE AMRITSAR B ENCH HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE AND THEREFORE, HAS BECOME FINAL. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CA SE OF MS. ASIAN INDUSTRIES, IN ITA 588(ASR)2013 HAS ALSO FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. HARBHAJAN KAUR PROP. M/S SAINICO ENGINEERS AND WHICH ORDER HAS ALSO BECOME FINAL IN VIEW OF TH E FACT THAT NO APPEAL AGAINST THIS ORDER WAS FILED. 10. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY OPP OSED THE CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED AR AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE CANNOT BE GRANTED THE EXEMPTION FOR NOT MAKING ACCOUNTS PROPE RLY AND FOR MAKING ITA NO.273 & 112 (ASR)/2015 & 16 ASST. YEARS: 2010-11 & 2012-13 6 WRONG EXPRESSION AND IF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A UTHORITIES ARE ALLOWED TO BE DELETED THEN IT WILL NOT BE FARE TOWA RDS ASSESSEES WHO MAINTAINED ACCOUNTS PROPERLY AND CORRECTLY. THE LEA RNED DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE BEING ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80-I B CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BOOK ANY KIND OF EXPENDITURE AND THEREFORE, HE SUBM ITTED THAT NO COGNIZANCE OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY AMRITSAR BENCH S HOULD BE TAKEN AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE BENCH ARE PERVERSE. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IT IS AN UN DISPUTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB AS LE ARNED CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF. DURING THE HEARING THE LEARNED AR WAS ADVISED TO FILE COMPUTATION OF INCOMES FOR BOTH YEARS TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER THE BUSINESS INCOME DECLARED BY ASSESSEE INCLUDED INCOM E FROM ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. THE LEARNED AR HAD FILED COPIES OF COMPUT ATION AFTER THE HEARING. ON EXAMINATION OF THESE COMPUTATIONS WE FI ND THAT ASSESSEE DECLARED HIS INCOME AS DETAILED BELOW. (I) ASST. YEAR 2011-12 INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OF STONE CRUSHING CLAIMED U/S 80-IB RS.1731437 .00 INTEREST INCOME RS.2112.00 INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY RS.8400.00 INCOME FROM HONRARIUM RS.70512.00 ITA NO.273 & 112 (ASR)/2015 & 16 ASST. YEARS: 2010-11 & 2012-13 7 GROSS TOTAL INCOME RS.1885949.00 LESS EXEMPT INCOME U/S 80IB -RS.17314 37.00 TAXABLE INCOME RS.154512.0 ROUNDED OFF TO RS.15 4510/- ASST. YEAR 2012-13 INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OF STONE CRUSHING CLAIMED U/S 80-IB RS.20003 94.00 INTEREST INCOME RS.8257.00 INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY RS.126 000.00 GROSS TOTAL INCOME RS.2134651.00 RS.2025573 LESS EXEMPT INCOME U/S 80IB RS.2000394 LESS EXEMPTION U/S 80C RS.25179 TAXABLE INCOME RS.109078.00 ROUNDED OFF TO RS.109080/- THE ABOVE FIGURE IN COMPUTATION SHEETS ARE ALSO VER IFIABLE FROM P&L ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS P&L A CCOUNT OF STONE CRUSHING BUSINESS IN ASST. 2010-11 HAS DECLARED NET PROFIT AT RS.17,33,548.82 AS IS APPARENT FROM PAPER BOOK PAGE 2 AND IF WE REDUCE TOWARDS FORM P&L ACCOUNT THE INTEREST INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.2112/- WHICH IS ALSO MENTIONED AT PAGE 2, THE NET INCOME F ROM STONE CRUSHING BUSINESS COMES OUT AT RS.17,31,436.82 ROUNDED OFF T O RS.17,31,437/-. SIMILARLY IN ASST. YEAR 2012-13 THE ASSESSEE HAS DE CLARED PROFITS FROM STONE CRUSHING BUSINESS AT RS.2008651.60 WHICH IS A PPARENT FROM PAPER (PB-12) WHERE A COPY OF P&L ACCOUNT IS PLACED. FROM THE P&L ACCOUNT IF WE REDUCE THE INTEREST OF SAVING BANK AMOUNTING TO RS.8275/- THE PROFIT FROM STONE CRUSHING BUSINESS COMES OUT AT RS.200039 4/- THESE ARE THE SAME TWO FIGURES WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DI SALLOWED AFTER ITA NO.273 & 112 (ASR)/2015 & 16 ASST. YEARS: 2010-11 & 2012-13 8 MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U /S 80-IB AND WHICH IS VERIFIABLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO. THE A BOVE FIGURES PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ITS BUSINESS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF STONE CRUSHING ONLY AS THE OTHER INCOME CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF I NCOME IS ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY AND HONORARIUM AND I NTEREST AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEA R THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BUSINESS DO NOT INCLUDE THE INCOME FRO M ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAN THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS OF STONE CRUSHING, THERE FORE, TO THE BUSINESS INCOME IF ANY IT MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES O F EXPENSES WILL ONLY INCREASE INCOME FROM ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WHICH AGAIN WILL BE EXEMPT U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE AMRITSAR BENCH IN ITA NO.331(ASR)/2013 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 6 TH DECEMBER, 2013 UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAS HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSE S CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WILL INCREASE I TS INCOME WHICH AGAIN WILL BE EXEMPT U/S 80-IB. THE FINDINGS OF THE HONB LE TRIBUNAL CONTAINED IN PARA 11 OF SUCH ORDER. 11.WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE RENT HAS BEEN PAID IN CASH IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION40A(3) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISAL LOWING THE SAME. IT IS ALSO FACT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF SUM CLAIME D ENHANCES THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE INCOME SO ENHANCED I S AVAILABLE U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A0 IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING D EDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE A.O TO ALLOW D EDUCTION U/S 80-IB OF THE ACT, IN VIEW OF THE OUR DECISION MENTIONED H EREINABOVE. THUS, GROUND NO.4 OF THE ASSESSEE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.273 & 112 (ASR)/2015 & 16 ASST. YEARS: 2010-11 & 2012-13 9 THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR AS FACTS IN THE ITA NO. 331(ASR)/2013, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF AMRITSAR BENCH, WE HOLD THAT THE INCREASE IN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DUE TO ADDITIONS WILL ONLY INCREASE INCOME WHICH AGAIN WILL BE EXEMPT U/S 80- IB OF THE ACT. THE CONTENTION OF LEARNED DR THAT TH E AMRITSAR BENCH HAD PASSED A PERVERSE ORDER AS THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE A LLOWED BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 80-IB ON THE DISALLOWANCES DO NOT HOL D ANY FORCE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES WILL AUTOMATICALLY INCREASE THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE FROM ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AS TH E ADDITIONS HAS BEEN MADE FROM THE EXPENSES INCURRED DURING RUNNING OF S UCH ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND THEREFORE THE INCREASED INCOME CAN ONL Y BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF T HE ABOVE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF AMRITSAR BENCH WE ACCEPT THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED AR THAT ADDITIONS EVEN IF SU STAINED WILL NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE TAXABLE PROFITS AS THE SUSTENANCE WILL ONLY INCREASE THE PROFITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH MAY, 2016 SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (T . S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DATED: 16.05.2016. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: ITA NO.273 & 112 (ASR)/2015 & 16 ASST. YEARS: 2010-11 & 2012-13 10 (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER