Sophia Study Circle, Cuttack V. ITO, Cuttack

ITA 285/CTK/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 28522114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARAMITA TRIPATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: S MISHRA
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Principle of natural justice; Onus to prove
• Section: 40A(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK ( ) BEFORE . . , , HONBLE SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. /AND . . . , HONBLE SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I.T.A.NO. 285/CTK/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08) M/S.SOPHIA STUDY CIRCLE, LINK ROAD, CUTTACK PAN: AAEFS 6101 N - - - VERSUS - INCOME - TAX OFFICER , WARD 2(2), CUTTACK. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / FOR THE APPELLANT : / SHRI S.MISHRA, AR / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / S MT . PARAMITA TRIPATHY, CIT - DR / DATE OF HEARING: 08.08.2012 / DAT E OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.08.2012 / ORDER . . , , SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1 . FOR THAT, THE ORDERS OF THE FORUM BELOW ARE ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND BASED ON INCORR ECT APPRECIATION OF FACTS AS WELL AS LAW AND AS SUCH IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED IN ENTIRETY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 2 . FOR THAT, THE ID. AO HAVING NEITHER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS INCLUDING THAT OF CASH BOOK BASED ON WHICH THE BOOK RESULT W AS ARRIVED AT NOR HAVING GIVEN ANY ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO CORRELATE THE MATCHING ACCOUNTING TREATMENT OF THE ENTRIES IN THE IMPOUNDED CASH BOOK WITH THAT OF THE ACTUAL CASH BOOK READ WITH THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 6DD OF THE IT RULE, THE ADDITION OF 5,72,856 IS SELF - CONTRADICTORY, INCOHERENT AND NON - SUBSTANTIVE ONE. 3 . FOR THAT, THE FORUMS BELOW COMMITTED MISTAKES IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF 4,94,042 SPECIFICALLY FOR THE REASONS THAT, THE QUARRY OF THE LEARNED AO TO THIS EFFECT WAS COMPLIED WITH AND THE APPELLANT WAS NOT FURTHER SHOW CAUSED AS TO THE I.T.A.NO. 285/CTK/2012 2 EXPLANATION OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT BY THE AC WHICH IT COULD HAVE CLARIFIED THROUGH EVIDENCE, AS SUCH THE ADDITION IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4 . FOR T HAT, THE FORUMS BELOW FAILED TO APPLY THE RATIOS OF DECISIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT, A PRO - RATE PROFIT FROM OUT OF UN - EXPLAINED DEPOSITS, IF ANY, IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX BUT NOT THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS, AS SUCH THE ADDITION OF ENTIRE AMOUNT OF 4,94,042 AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY. 5 . FOR THAT, DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES BY THE LEARNED AO UNDER THE HEAD OF TRAINING CENTRE EXPENSES, PRINTING & STATIONARY, EXAMINATION EXPENSES, SEMINAR EXPENSES AND LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES AN D PART SUSTENANCE BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) IS ARBITRARY AND EXCESSIVE AS THE BOOK RESULT OF THE APPELLANT WAS BY FAR ENCOURAGING COMPARED TO THE BOOK RESULT DISCLOSED BY IT AND FINALLY QUANTIFIED BY OPERATION OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN IT S OWN CASE AND IN THE CASE OF OTHER SIMILAR ASSESSEES CARRYING ON SIMILAR PROFESSION UNDER SIMILAR MARKET CONDITION. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS AS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM RUNNING COACHING CENTERS FOR IMPARTING TRAI NING CLASSES FOR VARIOUS INSURANCE AGENTS OF DIFFERENT INSURANCE COMPANIES LIKE SBI LIFE INSURANCE, BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE, HDFC LIFE INSURANCE ETC. RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED ON 30.10.2007 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME AT 49,35,260. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) OBSERVED THAT AN IMPOUNDED CASH BOOK IDENTIFIED AS SC - 02 WAS VERIFIED. ON VERIFICATION OF THE SAID CASH BOO K , IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH PAYMENTS EXCEE DING 20,000 ON INDIVIDUAL DATES TO A PARTY NAMELY SECURE TOTALING 28,64, 280 WHICH WAS HELD AS VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) AND THEREFORE BROUGHT TO TAX 20% THEREOF AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO 5,72,586. HE ALSO OBSERVED DIFFERENC E IN THE BANK RECONCILIATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE TOTAL DEPOSITS IN THE BANK WERE 4.84 CRORES AND WITH DRAWLS WERE 2 .23 CRORES. ON THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IT I.T.A.NO. 285/CTK/2012 3 WAS FOUND THAT ADJUSTMENT ENTRIES IN UTI BANK AND CENTRAL BANK O F INDIA WERE MADE WHEN 15,35,000 AND 10,06,666 WERE ADJUSTED BEING INTERBANK TRANSFER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VERIFIED THE CHEQUES O N THE BASIS OF SUCH ADJUSTMENT WAS CARRIED OUT LEADING TO A DIFFERENCE OF 4,94,042 WHICH CREDIT COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER VERIFIED THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD TRAINING CENTER EXPENSES, PRINTING AND STATIONERY, EXAMINATION EXPENSES, SEMINAR EXP EN SES AND LEGAL AND PROF ESSION EXPENSES WHEREFROM HE DISALLOWED AN EXPENDITURE VARYING FROM 20% TO 25% WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. 3. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHEN THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMMITTED G RAVE ILLEGALITIES BY ADDING 5,72,856 U/S. 40A (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHEN ADMITTEDLY THE SO CALLED ROUGH CASH BOOK IMPOUNDED BY THE AUTHORITY AT THE TIME OF SURVEY IS NOT THE PROPER CASH BOOK MAINT AINED BY THE APPELLANT WHERE IN THE ENTRIES WERE MADE IN RESPECT OF REQUISITION OF CASH BEING REQUIRED TO BE DRAWN FROM BANK THROUGH SELF CHEQUE TO MEET VA RI OUS EXPENDITURE AND THE PROPER CASH BOOK MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT DULY ATTESTED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WAS PRODUCED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING REVEAL ED THAT N O PAYMENT EXCEEDING 20,000 WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR . IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE CASH BOOK PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, HAVING NOT DONE SO THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS LIABLE T O BE QUASHED FOR ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION VESTED IN LAW. I.T.A.NO. 285/CTK/2012 4 FURTHER HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMMITTED A MISTAKE IN RECONCILING THE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES IN THE LEDGER COPIES OF THE BANK ACCOUNT AND ADDED BACK OF 4,94,042 ON THE ALLEGED GROUND THAT UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, THOUGH THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN SUCH CONTRA ENTRY TO NULLIFY THE BILL RAISED IN FAVOUR ITS PRINCIPAL AND ACCOUNTED FOR IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WAS LATER REJECTED FOR NON FULFILLME NT OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT. THE DISALLOWANCE OF 9,41,942 TOWARDS TRAINING CENTRE EXPENSES IS A COLO U RABLE EXERCISE OF POWER FOR ENHANCEMENT OF THE RATE OF PROFIT OF THE APPELLANT SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS TO INCUR THE EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF FULFILLING THE CONTRACTUAL ASSIGNMENTS OF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES BY LOOKING IN TO THE MARKET CONDITION. THE DISALLOWANCE OF 1,91,946, 1,21,944, 84,839 AND 1,13,236 TOWARDS PRINTING & STATIONARY, EXAMINATION EXPENSES, SEMINAR EXPENSES AND LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES ARE UNCALLED FOR AND UNJUSTIFIED A S THE SAME HAVE BEEN MADE FOR ENHANCEMENT OF THE RATE OF PROFIT OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT ANY VALID AND PLAUSIBLE REASONS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) NEGATED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THESE ISSUES OBSERVING THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A(3) WAS APPROPRIATE INSOFAR AS IN THEIR DECISION BY THE HONBLE MP HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PORWAL UDHYOG (INDIA) V. CIT (135 ITR 591) IT WAS HELD THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN SUCH A CASE IS ON THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DISCHARGED. WITH RESPECT TO THE UN - RECONCILED AMOUNT IN THE BANK HE HELD THAT AFTER A TOTAL DIFFERENCE THE ASSESSEE COULD EXPLAIN AMOUNT OF 5,12,324 ONLY AND THE RESIDUAL CREDIT OF 4,94,042 REMAINED UNEXPLAINED WAS RIGHTLY BROUGHT TO T AX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOW EVER, ON THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF 20% TO 25% OF TH E EXPENSES, THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER VERIFYING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE I.T.A.NO. 285/CTK/2012 5 ASSESSEE APPELLANT HELD A VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE TO BE RESTRICTED TO 5% THEREOF ONLY. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INITIATING HIS ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED THE FINANCIAL STATEME NTS ALONG WITH THE DETAILS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 BEING THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF RELYING ON THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE RESTRICTED TO 5% DISALLOWAN CE AS WAS CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). ON THE FIRST ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION U/S.40 A(3) BEING THE 20% OF PAYMENTS MADE TO SECURE HE ARGUED THAT THESE PAYMENTS HAVE NO BEARING TO THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED WHEN THE IMPOUNDED CASHB OOK REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WHEN SURVEY OPERATION U/S.133 A WAS CONDUCTED ON 7.3.2008 IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. HE POINTED OUT THAT THIS REQUISITION OF CASH BY THE VARIOUS EMPLOYEES WAS NOT INCORPORATED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN SOFAR AS IT WAS ONLY A MEMORANDA ACCOUNT OF CASH DISBURSEMENT TO TALLY WITH THE PHYSICAL CASH AVAILABLE ON A PARTICULAR DAY WAS NEVER TO BE CLARIFIED BY THE AUDITORS TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INSOFAR AS THESE PAY MENTS WERE NEVER CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE TO BE DISALLOWED U/S.40A(3) . THE EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ALSO BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. HE ARGUED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CERTIFIED BY THE AUDITORS IN THEIR REPORT AS PER THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED AND PERUSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD CLEARLY INDICATE THAT NO EXPENDITURE COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION I.T.A.NO. 285/CTK/2012 6 40A(3). A MEMORANDA ACCOUNT OF CASH DISBURSEMENT THROUGH SECURE WAS NOT THE DOCUMENT OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CERTIFIED BY THE AUDITORS WHICH WAS TAKEN COGNIZANCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REMAINED IMPOUNDED BY HIM TILL DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . HE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS AN UNILATERAL DECISION OF ASSESSING THE SAID DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A(3) COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED OTHERWISE WHEN THE LEARNED CIT(A) SOUGHT TO CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE HOLDING THE ASSESSEES ONUS R EMAINING UNDISCHARGED. A NEGATIVE CANNOT BE PROVED. WITH RESPECT TO THE INTEREST ISSUE REGARDING UNRECONCILED BANK BALANCE HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HIMSELF HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE TOTAL RECEIPTS ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE WERE 4.84 CRORES WHEN THE WITHDRAWALS WERE 3.23 CRORES. THE INTERBANK TRANSFERS THEREFORE REMAINED UNRECONCILED WHICH ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE INSOFAR AS IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT T HE BANK HAD GIVEN EXCESS CREDIT TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAD REMAINED UNUTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FIT FOR TAXATION IN THE ASSESSEES HANDS. HE PRAYED FOR DELETION OF THE SAME. WITH RESPECT TO 5% SUSTENANCE OF EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED AT 20% TO 30% HE PRAYED FOR A SUITABLE DIRECTION REDUCIN G THE RATE OF DISALLOWANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS SPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR HAVING BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL AS PER THE COPY OF THE ORDER FILED. 5. THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR HER PART SUBMISSIONS. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN DENIED AND IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPOUNDED CASH BOOK REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AN UNILATERAL DECISION FOR INTERPRETING THE DISALL OWANCE U/S.40A(3). SHE INSISTED THAT THE PAYMENTS I.T.A.NO. 285/CTK/2012 7 HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH WERE THEREFORE RIGHTLY CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A(3) WHICH THE LEARNED CIT(A) RIGHTLY NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCHARGED THE BURDEN TO ESTABLISH OTHERWISE. WITH RESPE CT TO THE UNRECONCILED AMOUNT E VEN AT THIS STAGE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CLARIFY THE EXCESS C REDIT GIVEN BY THE BANK AND THEREFORE IS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN IF WRONGFULLY GIVEN CREDIT OF BY THE BANK INSOFAR AS THE SAME HAS NOT B EEN REFUNDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE BANK AS A MATTER OF MORAL OBLIGATION. WITH RESPECT TO THE LAST ISSUE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS MORE THAN LIBERAL IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE AT 5% WHICH WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWA NCE AT 5% IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AS PER THE COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER FILED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS OF NOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF CONFIRMING THE ADDITION U/S.40A(3) MISDIRECTED HIMSELF TO HOLD THAT THE BURDEN WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PAYMENTS NOTED IN THE IMPOUNDED CASH BOOK AMOUNTING TO 28,64,280 WAS TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE IMPOUNDED CASHBOOK REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE THE PRIME BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEING THE ORIGINA L CASHBOOK WERE AUDITED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WHO HAS CERTIFIED THE PAYMENTS FOR EXPENDITURE NOT INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) AS PER THE AUDIT REPORT REQUIREMENT IN FORM 3CD. WE FIND THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E JUSTIFIED THAT A NEGATIVE CANNOT BE PROVED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAD I.T.A.NO. 285/CTK/2012 8 DISALLO WED 20% TO 30% EXPENSES CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS HAVING BEEN VERIFIED THEREFORE CANNOT BE A CASE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 40A(3) FOR PAYMENTS TO SECURE AS PER THE IMPOUNDED CASH BOOK SC - 02. IT WAS NOT A FINDING OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. NEITHER WAS IT A FINDING OF CLAIMING OF EXPENDITURE AS SOUGHT TO BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFORE COULD NOT POINT OUT THE ONUS TO BE DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS AN UNILATERAL ASSESSMENT INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) WITHOUT EVEN APPRECIATING THAT THESE PAYMENTS BEING REQUISITION OF CASH FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEES BUSIN ESS WERE WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE WITHDRAWALS WERE 3.23 CORES FROM GROSS RECEIPTS OF 4.84 CRORES. FINDING NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDE RED VIE W THAT THIS ADDITION AS SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NO LEGS TO STAND ON. THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 6.1. HOWEVER, ON THE NEXT ISSUE THE LEARNED DR RIGHTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT REMAINS UNRECONCILED TO THE EXTENT OF 4,94 ,042 EVEN AS OF NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT AS TO WHY THESE CREDITS HAVE NOT BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. NO CREDITOR WOULD REMAIN SILENT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE OWED MONEY TO THE CREDITORS WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABL E TO REFUND. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THIS AMOUNT HAS RIGHTLY BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST WHICH NO JUSTIFIED EXPLANATION HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED AS CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CI T(A). I.T.A.NO. 285/CTK/2012 9 6.2. WITH RESPECT TO THE LAST ISSUE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR WHEN 5% DISALLOWANCE FROM VARIOUS EXPENDITURE S CLAIMED HAS BEEN SU STAINED BY THE LEARNED CITA) AND UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS LIBERALLY REDUCED THE SUSTENANCE FROM 20% TO 5% NEEDS NO FURTHER INTERFERENCE. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. SD/ - SD/ - ( . . . ) , (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO), JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . . ) , , (K.K.GUPTA), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( ) DATE: 14.08.2012 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````Q - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . / THE APPELLANT : M/S.SOPHIA STUDY CIRCLE, LINK ROAD, CUTTACK 2 / THE RESPONDENT: INCOME - TAX OFFICER , WARD 2(2), CUTTACK. 3 . / THE CIT, 4 . ( )/ THE CIT(A), 5 . / DR, CUTTACK BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, ( ), (H.K.PADHEE), SENIOR.PRIVATE SECRETARY. I.T.A.NO. 285/CTK/2012 10 APPENDIX XVII SEAL TO BE AFFIXED ON THE ORDER SHEET BY THE SR. P.S./P.S. AFTER DICTATION IS GIVEN 1. DATE OF DICTATION 09.08.2012 . 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 10.09.2012 OTHER MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHI CH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.... 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S . 6 . DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 14.08.2012 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER ................ 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER ..