INDUS PROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3046/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1936 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANDAV VAIDYA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIKASH KUMAR AGARWAL
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Retrospective amendment; Revised return
• Section: 43B; 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , I, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES I, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 3046 & 7084 /MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. INDUS PROJECTS LTD. 504, LOHA BAHVAN, P.D. MELLO RD. MUMBAI -400009 / VS. ADDL. CIT 6(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 5 TH FLOOR, MUMBAI 400020 (ASSESSEE ) (REVENUE ) P.A. NO. AAACI2537B ITA NO. 4844/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 DCIT 6(1), R.NO.506, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI 400020 / VS. M/S. INDUS PROJECTS LTD. 504, LOHA BAHVAN, P.D. MELLO RD. MUMBAI -400009 (REVENUE) (RESPONDENT) P.A. NO. AAACI2537B REVENUE BY SHRI VIKASH KUMAR AGARWAL (DR) RESPONDENT BY SHRI MANDAV VAIDYA (AR) / DATE OF HEARING : 14/12/2015 / DATE OF ORDER: 18/12/2015 INDUS PROJECTS LTD. 2 / O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS)-, MUMBAI {(IN SHORT CIT(A)}, PASSED AGA INST THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ( IN SHORT AO) U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2009-10 & 2010-11. FIRST WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.3046/MUM/2013 FOR A.Y. 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT-(A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY ADDL. CIT 6(1) OF RS.29,50,484/- U/S 40(A)(IA). 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT-(A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY ADDL. CIT 6(1) OF RS.9,047/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTER EST ON TDS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT-(A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY ADDL. CIT 6(1) IN REGARD TO NON DEDUCTION OF TDS ON INTEREST PAID TO VARIOUS NBFC OF RS.3,80,622/-. THE LEARNED CIT (A) WHILE PASSING HIS ORDER, DID NO T CONSIDER THE PLEA MADE BY YOUR APPELLATE AND PASSED THE ORDER UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT-(A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY ADDI. CIT 6(1) IN REGARD TO NON DEDUCTION OF TDS ON COMMISSION CHARGES PAID TO M/S. GANPATI HEGDE INDUS PROJECTS LTD. 3 & COMPANY OF RS.1,57,222/-. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT-(A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY ADDL. CIT 6(1) IN REGARD TO NON DEDUCTION OF IDS ON AMC CONTRACT CHARGES PAID TO M/S. KLG SYSTEM PVT. LTD OF RS.1,02,500/-. YOUR APPELLATE DID NOT KNOW THE BIFURCATION AMONGST THE SERVICE PORTION AND MATERIAL PORTION, HENCE TDS WAS NOT DEDUCTED BUT THE LEARNED CIT (A) REJECTED THE CLAIMED AND CONFIR MED THE DISALLOWANCE. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT-(A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY ADDL. CIT 6(1) IN REGARD TO INTEREST ON PURCHASE S PAID OF RS.74,090/-. 7. A. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT-(A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER BY UPHOLDING THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER'S VIEW OF NOT CONSIDERING EXPENSES OF RS.18,41,716/- DISALLOWED IN THE A.Y. 2010-11 AS PR IOR PERIOD EXPENSES CLAIMED AS ALLOWABLE EXPENSE IN THE SECOND REVISE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME ALONG WITH LETTER DATED 12.12.2011. B. THE EXPENSES BEING GENUINE BUSINESS EXPENSES INCURRED BY HOUR APPELLANT FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE S ONLY AND HENCE EITHER ALLOWABLE IN A.Y. 2009-10 OR A.Y. 2010- 11. 3. GROUND NO.2: THIS GROUND HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE SAME IS DISMI SSED. 4. GROUND NOS. 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6: IN THESE GROUNDS THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMI NG THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. INDUS PROJECTS LTD. 4 4.1. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS FAIRLY SUBMIT TED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DED UCT TDS IN WHICH HE FAILED, BUT HE RELIED UPON SECOND PROVISO TO THE SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE THAT I N CASE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS WERE INCLUDED BY THE PAYEES IN TH EIR TAXABLE INCOME AND THE SAME WERE OFFERED BY THEM IN THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS AND DUE TAXES WERE PAID UPON THE RETURNED INCOME, THEN NO DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, AS THERE WAS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE. HE PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP (P) LTD. 1 60/2015 ORDER DATED 26.08.2015 AND JUDGMENT OF COORDINATE B ENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. SELPRINT, (ITA NO.3688/MUM/2012 DA TED 21.10.2015, WHEREIN AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED. ON THE BASIS OF THESE JUDG MENTS, IT HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY HIM THAT THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO VERIFY THIS FACT THAT INCO ME HAS BEEN INCLUDED BY THE PAYEES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURNS. HE PLACED COPY OF CERTIFICATE FROM M/S BAJAJ FINSERVE DATED 1 4.09.2015, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE SAID COMPANY T HAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN INCLUDED BY THE SAID COMPANY IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN FILED WITH TH E DEPARTMENT AND TAX DUE THEREON HAS BEEN PAID. IT WA S FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MOST OF THE PAYEES ARE LARGE COMPANI ES WHICH ARE PROPERLY IDENTIFIED AND DULY ASSESSED WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BUT SINCE THESE ARE NOT IN CONTROL OF T HE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO BRING COMPLETE I NFORMATION ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. IT WAS FURTHER S UBMITTED INDUS PROJECTS LTD. 5 THAT THE AO HAS AMPLE POWERS UNDER THE LAW, AND THE REFORE, THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF AO. T HE ASSESSEE SHALL EXTEND COMPLETE COOPERATION AND AO CAN BRING THIS INFORMATION ON RECORD USING POWERS AS CONFERRED UPON HIM UNDER THE LAW. 4.2. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. BUT HE WAS FAIR ENOUGH TO PL ACE HIS NO OBJECTION FOR VERIFICATION OF THESE FACTS. 4.3. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS LEADING TO THE DISALLOWANCES ON THE BASIS OF A DEEMING FICTION, TH EREBY CAUSING GREAT HARDSHIPS TO VARIOUS TAX PAYERS EVEN IN SOME GENUINE CASES. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR VIE W, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH FULL OPPORTUNITY T O EXPLAIN ITS CASE, BEFORE FINAL TAX LIABILITY IS DETERMINED AGAINST IT APPLYING SUCH DEEMING PROVISIONS. IT IS NOTED THAT SECOND PROVISO WAS INSERTED TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) TO MITIGA TE HARDSHIPS OF THE TAX PAYERS. THE SAID PROVISO HAS BEEN INSERT ED TO AVOID THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES CREATED BY SECTION 40(A )(IA). UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ITS BENEFIT SHOULD BE GI VEN TO ALL THE ASSESSEES IRRESPECTIVE TO THE FACT THAT AT WHAT STAGE THEIR CASES ARE PENDING. IT IS FURTHER WORTH NOTING THAT HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP (P) LTD. (SUPRA) HAS DISCUSSED THIS ENTIRE ISSUE AT LENGTH, AND HELD THAT SECOND PROVISO IS DECLARATORY AND CURATIV E AND HAS RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL 2005. IN VIEW OF THIS MAJOR INDUS PROJECTS LTD. 6 LEGAL DEVELOPMENT, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DESERV ES ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE SEND THIS ISSU E BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH THE DIRECTION THAT HE SHALL EXE RCISE HIS REQUISITE POWERS UNDER THE LAW TO CALL FOR REQUISIT E INFORMATION FROM THE CONCERNED PAYEES. THE ASSESSEE SHALL ALSO EXTEND FULL COOPERATION TO THE AO BY FURNISHING ALL THE DOCUMEN TS AND DETAILS IN THE FORM OF NAMES AND ADDRESS, PAN NOS. PLACE OF ASSESSMENT AND CONFIRMATIONS ETC., TO THE EXTENT AS FEASIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE AO SHALL GIVE AD EQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. GROUND NO.7: IN THIS GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF AO IN NOT GRANTING THE DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES OF RS.18,41,716/ - WHICH WERE DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY IN A.Y. 2010-11 AS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES IN THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5.1. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TO THE AO THAT WHILE FILLING THE RETURN OF INCOME OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 0-11, THE ASSESSEE HAS VOLUNTARILY DISALLOWED IN THE REVISED COMPUTATION SHEET AN AMOUNT OF RS.18,41,716/- BEING PRIOR PERIO D ITEMS, WHICH ACTUALLY PERTAIN TO A.Y. 2009-10 AND SINCE TH ESE EXPENSES PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, T HEREFORE THESE SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR. THE A SSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR TH E INDUS PROJECTS LTD. 7 IMPUGNED YEAR BEFORE THE AO AND REQUESTED THAT IT S HOULD BE CONSIDERED AS REVISED RETURN, HOWEVER, THE AO DID N OT GRANT SAID CLAIM. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE AO DID NOT DEAL THIS ISSUE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN SPEAKING MANNER. 5.2. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED ITS SUBMISSIONS, HOWEVER LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED, AND RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD. 284 ITR 323 (SUPRA) THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED, AND AOS ORDER WAS UPHELD ON THIS ISSUE. 5.3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5.4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US LD. DR HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. LD. COUNSEL ON THE OTHER HAND, STATED THAT LEGITIMATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DENIED TO IT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED SIMILAR CLAIM WHICH WAS MADE IN THE SIMILAR MANNER BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMEN T OF PF AND ESIC, AND THEREFORE, CONTRADICTORY APPROACH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY LD. CIT(A) WHILE REJECTING THE LEGITIMA TE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES AND COPIES OF JUDGMENTS PLACED BEFORE US FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. BEFORE WE PROCEED FURTHER, IT WAS NO TED BY US INDUS PROJECTS LTD. 8 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE ANOTHER CLAIM IN THE SIM ILAR MANNER BY WAY OF FILING OF REVISED COMPUTATION OF I NCOME DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON ACCO UNT OF PAYMENT OF PF AND ESIC, WHICH AS DISALLOWED U/S 43B IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN BUT WAS CLAIMED IN THE REVISED RETU RN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAID CLAIM, FOR THE SAME REASON DUE TO WHICH CLAIM OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES WAS DISALLOWED. BUT THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THIS CLAIM. WHILE ALLOWING THIS CLA IM, LD. CIT(A) HAS MADE DETAILED DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER. HE RELIE D UPON THE LAND MARK CIRCULAR OF THE BOARD I.E. CIRCULAR NO.14 (XL-35) DATED 11 TH APRIL 1955, ISSUE BY THE BOARD OF REVENUE (NOW KNOWN AS CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES). HE ALSO DI SCUSSED VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS AND ALSO FROM HONBLE SUPREME COURT, AND AFTER DISCUSSING THE ENT IRE LEGAL POSITION, IT WAS HELD BY HIM THAT LEGITIMATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED. THE CONCLUDING PARAS OF HIS ORDER ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 8.12 THESE CASES VIS-A-VIS THE CIRCULAR NO. 14 (XL- 35), DATED 11 TH APRIL, 1955 ISSUED BY THE BOARD, THUS INDICATE THAT A CLAIM WHICH CAN'T BE ALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORDS AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE WITH T HE AO AND WHICH RESULTS IN A RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, C AN ALWAYS BE GRANTED, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAD OMITTED TO CLAIM SUCH RELIEF IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 8.13 IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD, 284 ITR 323 ( SC), HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE CLAIM FOR A INDUS PROJECTS LTD. 9 DEDUCTION NOT MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME CANNOT B E ENTERTAINED BY THE AO, OTHERWISE THAN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. HOWEVER, THE FACTS IN THAT CASE WER E NOT SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT A ND NO QUESTION OF A LEGITIMATE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT, TH E MATERIAL FOR WHICH WAS ALREADY AVAILABLE WITH THE A O IN THE FORM OF RETURN OF INCOME AND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WAS INVOLVED: IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WAS NEITHER MADE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, NOR BY FILING A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. THE AO THEREFORE DID NOT ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AND THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS ALSO UPHELD BY THE ITAT. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOW ED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE THE AO DOES NOT HAVE ANY SUCH POWER. THUS, THE DECISION OF ITAT WAS UPHELD BECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL'S POWER WAS ONLY TO ENTERTAIN FOR THE FIRST TIME A POINT OF LAW PROVIDE D THE FACT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ISSUE OF LAW CAN BE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS ALREADY ON RECORD. IT CAN B E SEEN THAT THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD WERE TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WHERE THE QUESTION IS GRANT OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO PF AND ESIC, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE ALREADY ON THE FILE OF THE AO. HENCE THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD WILL NOT APPLY TO THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. INDUS PROJECTS LTD. 10 8.14 IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION THEREFORE, I HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE THAN TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLAN T TOWARDS DEDUCTION OF RS.14,32,481/-, BEING EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO PF AND ESIC WHICH HAS BEEN PAID BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF F ILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. 5.6. IT IS THUS NOTED THAT IT HAS BEEN HELD BY LD. CIT( A), AFTER DISCUSSING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AND POSITION OF LAW, THAT LEGITIMATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE BEE N DENIED. HE HAS ALSO DEALT WITH THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD. (SUPRA). WE FIND N OTHING WRONG, ON FACTS OR IN LAW IN THE AFORESAID WELL REA SONED FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). IN OUR VIEW, THE IMPUGNED C LAIM OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY HIM ON THE SAME REASONING. 5.7. IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY US THAT SIMILAR CLAIM HAS B EEN ALLOWED BY LD. CIT(A) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 BY RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. PRUTHVI BROKERS AND SHARES PVT. LTD. 34 9 ITR 336, WHEREIN JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD. (SUPRA), HAS ALSO BEEN DISCUSSED, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THIS YEAR FOR A SIMILAR CLAIM. INDUS PROJECTS LTD. 11 5.8. THUS, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE AND CLEAR POSITION OF LAW, WE FIND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED IN THIS MA NNER BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE SEND THIS ISSUE BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE AO TO CONSIDER THIS CLAIM AFTER VERIFICATION OF REQ UISITE FACTS TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE REVISED COMPUTATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. THUS, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. GROUND NOS. 8 & 9: THESE GROUNDS ARE GENERAL AND THEREFORE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED . NOW, WE SHALL TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.4844/MUM/2013 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 8. IN GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE CHALLENGE HAS BEE N MADE TO THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM O N ACCOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION TO PF AND ESIC AMOUNTING TO RS.14,32,4 81/-. 8.1. IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE CL AIM WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY FILING REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS ALLOWED BY THE LD. AO FOR THE REASONS AS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSE D ABOVE IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED IT WITH T HE REASONING AS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE. INDUS PROJECTS LTD. 12 8.2. WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE CLAIM HAS BEEN RIGHT LY ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR ORDER AS HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE ASESSEES APPEAL, WE UPHOLD THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, REJECTING THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.7084/MUM/2013 FOR A.Y. 2010-11: 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT-(A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY DY. CIT 6(1) IN REGARD TO NON DEDUCTION OF TDS ON INTEREST PAID TO VARIOUS NBFC OF RS.15,32,129/-. THE LEARNED CIT (A) WHILE PASSING HIS ORDER, DID NOT CONSIDER THE PLEA MADE BY YOUR APPELLANT AND PASSED THE ORDER UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SOLITARY GR OUND CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN MAKING DISA LLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA). 10.1. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SIMILAR SUBMISS IONS AS WERE MADE BY HIM IN HIS APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2009-10. 10.2. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO A.Y. 2009- 10, AND THEREFORE FOLLOWING OUR ORDER, WE SEND THIS ISSUE B ACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE SAME DIRECTIONS AS GIVEN IN OUR ORDER FOR INDUS PROJECTS LTD. 13 A.Y. 2009-10. THUS, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. AS A RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE P ARTLY ALLOWED AND APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH DECEMBER, 2015. SD/- (SANJAY GARG ) SD/- (ASHWANI TANEJA) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; ' DATED :18/12/2015 CTX? P.S/. .. #$%&'(')% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $ %& / THE APPELLANT 2. '(%& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ) * ( $ ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. ) ) * / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. -. ' /0 , ) $ /01 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 2 3 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ( -$ ' //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI