ACIT, Chandigarh V. M/s Punjab State Coop & Marketing Fed. Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 307/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2363 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-05-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R K GOEL
• Keywords: Commercial expediency
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.307 /CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) THE D.C.I.T., VS. M/S PUNJAB STATE COOP CIRCLE 4(1), & MARKETING FED. LTD., CHANDIGARH. MARKFED, PLOT NO.4, SECTOR 35-B, CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAAAT3454G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.K.GOEL DATE OF HEARING : 15.05.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.05.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), CHANDIGARH DATED 02 .12.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF A PPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING TO CHARGE INTEREST ONLY ON RS. 7 .01 CRORE WHEREAS THE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING WAS OF RS.17.01 CRO RE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE INTEREST OF RS.16,47,27,374/-ON THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FROM PUNJAB GOVERNMENT WHILE PAYING INTEREST ON LOANS RAISED TO RUN THE BUSINESS. 2 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST OF RS.70,14 , 38,836/- ON THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FROM FCI WHILE PAYING INTEREST ON LOANS RAISED TO R UN THE BUSINESS. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,39,674/- MA DE BY THE A.O,. ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES CLAIMED AS THERE WERE NO BUSINESS EXIGENCIES FOR INCURRING SUC H EXPENDITURE. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY G ROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD OR IS DISPOSED OF F. 3. THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS GENERAL AND HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 4. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TH AT THE ISSUES RAISED ON MERITS IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE FU LLY COVERED BY THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELAT ING TO THE EARLIER YEARS. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED A .R. FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER YEARS. 5. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAIN ST THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT (APPEALS) TO CHARGE INTEREST ONLY ON RS.7.0 1 CRORES. 7. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY POINTED OUT THAT NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE PART ADDITION MADE BY TH E CIT (APPEALS). THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III) ON INTEREST FREE LOAN ADVANCED TO SUGARFED AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN A SSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES APPEAL BEING ITA NO.802/CHD/2009 AND REVENUES APPEAL BEIN G ITA 3 NO.875/CHD/2009, VIDE ORDER DATED 30.6.2010 ADDRESS ED THE AFORESAID ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON LOAN ADVANCED TO M/S SUGARFED TOTALING RS.17.02 CRORES. AFTER ELABORATION OF THE ISSUE THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARAS 10 TO 13 HELD THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD F AILED TO PROVE THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY OF TRANSACTION WITH M/S SUGAR FED, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT WERE APPLICABLE AN D DISALLOWANCE WAS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) ON INTEREST FREE ADV ANCE OF RS.7.01 CRORES AS AGAINST RS.17.01 CRORES CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS UPHELD. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.579/CHD/2 011 ALONG WITH ITA NO.548/CHD/2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.9.2011 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOLLOWED ITS EARLIER ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND ALLOWED THE RELIEF TO T HE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME ISSUE. 8. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APP EAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08 AND FOLLOWING THE PARITY OF REASONING WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD AND DISMISS GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 9. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY REVENUE IS AG AINST THE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST OF RS.16.47 CRORES ON THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FROM PUNJAB GOVERNMENT, WHICH AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE MADE INTEREST FREE AND ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE W AS PAYING INTEREST ON LOANS RAISED BY IT TO RUN THE BUSINESS. 10. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REFLECTED RECOVERY OF RS.2,35,32,4 8,212/- FROM STATE GOVERNMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT WERE TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIE S AND AS THE ASSESSEE 4 WAS NOT DOING ANY BUSINESS WITH PUNJAB STATE GOVERN MENT THE SAID AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN AS RECOVERABLE IS INTER EST FREE AND THE FUNDS BEING DIVERTED TO STATE GOVERNMENT, INTEREST RELATABLE TO SUCH FUNDS MERITS TO BE DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PAYING INTEREST ON VARIOUS LOANS RAISE D BY IT FROM VARIOUS BANKS FOR RUNNING THE BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER CHARGED INTEREST @ 7% RESULTING IN DISALLOWANCE OF RS.16,47,27,374/- . 11. THE CIT (APPEALS) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 006-07. 12. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BOTH IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND IN ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 (SUPRA ) VIDE ORDER DATED 30.9.2011 IN TURN FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HELD AS UNDER: 17. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.4 IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE DELETION OF INTEREST ON AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FROM PUNJ AB GOVERNMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RECOVERY OF RS.1,73,85,59,612/- FROM STATE GOVERNMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DOING ANY BUSINESS WITH THE PUNJAB STATE GOVERNMENT, INSTEAD HAD PAID AMOUNT ON BEHALF OF TH E STATE GOVERNMENT, WHICH WAS SHOWN RECOVERABLE IN FORM OF ID CESS, GUARANTEE FEE, PADDY CLAIM OUT OF TURN RATION OF PADDY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD DIVERTED ITS FUNDS TO STATE GOVERN MENT INTEREST FREE AND AT THE SAME TIME WAS PAYING INTER EST TO VARIOUS BANKS ON LOANS RAISED BY IT. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EVEN THE STATE GOVERN MENT CHARGES COSTS/INTEREST FROM THE MARKFED. APPLYING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT [(286 ITR 1)(P&H)] , IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE INTEREST @ 7.25% ON THE ABOVESAID ADVANCES AMOUNTING TO RS.16,60,45,571/- W AS DISALLOWED. THE CIT (APPEALS) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL RELATI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED UNDER PARA 19 O F THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS). 5 18. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. T HE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.875/CHD/2009 ALONGWITH ITA NO.802/CHD/2009 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, ORDER DATED 30.6.2010, VID E PARA 22 HELD AS UNDER : 22. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, WHICH IS AN AGENCY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR PROCUREMENT OF WHEAT AND PADDY. IT ALSO UNDERTAKES SUCH ACTIVITIES FOR FCI. IN THE COURSE O F CARRYING ON OF SUCH ACTIVITIES, IT INCURRED AMOUNTS WHICH WERE RECOVERABLE FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND FCI. QUITE CLEARLY, SUCH RECOVERIES ARE ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING FOR RECOVERY AT THE END OF THE YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE EQUATED TO INTEREST-FREE ADVAN CES SO AS TO REQUIRE THE SAME TO BE DECIDED IN TERMS OF SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE PUNJAB GOVERNMENT AND FCI ARE TRADE DEBTORS AND INCOMES THEREOF HAVE BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE EARLI ER ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN THE FACE OF SUCH A FACT SITUAT ION, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF IMPUGNED DEBITS. HENCE, IN THIS BACKGROUND, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). THUS, GROUND NOS. 3 & 4 RAISED ARE DISMISSED. 19. IN THE PRESENT GROUND OF APPEAL THE ISSUE BEING IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND THE CIT (APPEALS) IN TH E PRESENT CASE HAVING FOLLOWED THE ABOVE SAID RATIO, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). UPHOLDING THE SAME WE DISMISS GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 13. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IN FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDERS O F THE TRIBUNAL AND DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,47,27,374/-. THE GR OUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 14. VIDE GROUND NO.4 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE IS SUE OF SIMILAR INTEREST BEING CHARGEABLE ON THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FROM FCI AMOUNTING 6 TO RS.17.14 CRORES. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE O F CHARGING OF INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FROM FCI AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BOTH IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08 AND THE OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08 WERE AS UNDER: 20. THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO.5 IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE INTEREST CHARGED ON THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FROM FCI. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT GUARANTEE FEE, INTEREST STRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT, CESS AND SUCH OTHER LIABILITIES OF FCI WERE BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE AND T HE AMOUNT RECOVERABLE FROM FCI WAS ALSO INCREASING. O N THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE WAS PAYING INTEREST BY RAISING LOANS TO RUN THE BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE INTEREST @ 7.25% ON ADVANCE OF 862.20 CRORES AMOUNTING TO RS.62.50 CRORES AND ADDE D THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) IS UPHELD. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAD DECI DED THE ISSUE IN LINE WITH THE ISSUE RAISED IN RELATION TO THE AMOUNT DUE FROM STATE GOVERNMENT. FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL AS REFERRED TO BY U S IN PARAS HEREINABOVE, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND DISMISS THE GROUND NO.5 OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 15. THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) AND DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 16. THE LAST GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.16,39,674/- MAD OUT OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES. 17. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CLAIMS TO HAVE INCURRED AD VERTISEMENT EXPENSES ON MAINTENANCE OF ANANDPUR SAHIB GATE, BABA MOTIRAM GATE AND JYOTI SAWROOP GURDWARA AT FATEHGARH SAHIB, SST CHOWK, BAD I NADI, PATIALA 7 AND SHOOTING RANGE, MOHALI, MUKTE MINAR, MUKTSAR. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE SPENT THE FOLLOWING SUMS ON THESE RE SPECTIVE SITES: SR.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNTS 1 WELCOME GATE AT ANANDPUR SAHIB (RS.)1,99,322.00 2. BABA MOTI RAM GATE & JYOTI SAWROOP GURDWARA, FAATEHGARH SAHIB (RS.) 58,563.00 3. SST CHOWK AT BADI NADI, PATIALA (RS.)5,77,837.00 4. SHOOTING RANGE AT MOHALI & FEROZPUR (RS.)3,95,725.00 5. MUKTE MINAR, MUKTSAR (RS.)3,13,199.00 6. GHANOUR STADIUM (RS.) 95,028.00 TOTAL 16,39,674.00 18. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT ALL THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR PROPER MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION OF THESE SITES SO THAT HUGE AMOUNTS SPENT ON CONSTRUCTION OF THESE SITES A T PRIME LOCATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF ADVERTISEMENT MAY NOT DECAY WITH THE PA SSAGE OF TIME. THESE EXPENSES ARE IN THE NATURE OF SALARY FOR THE WATCH AND WARD STAFF, GARDENER, SWEEPER, ELECTRICITY AND WATER BILLS AS W ELL AS REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SITE, ELECTRICAL FITTINGS ETC. ALL THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED EXCLUSIVELY TO PROMOTE THE BRAND NAME OF MARKFED . THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT SIMILAR EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE PRECEDING YEARS AND THE SAME MERITS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE YEAR UNDER APP EAL ALSO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DISALLOWED THE EXPENDIT URE AS THE REVENUE HAD FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HAR YANA HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 19. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT TH AT THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS AT VARIANCE WITH THE EARLIER YEARS EXPENDITURE AND THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN SPENT ON THE WATCH AND WARD STAFF, GARDENER, SWEEPER, ELECTRICITY AND WATER BILLS, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SITE, ELECTRICAL FITTINGS ETC., WHEREAS IN THE EARLIER 8 YEARS, THE EXPENDITURE WAS ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ABOVE SAID GATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVERTISEMENT OF THE BRAND NAME OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. MARKFED. 20. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT T HAT SIMILAR EXPENDITURE STANDS ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSE SSEE AND FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE PRECEDING YEAR THE EXPENDITURE MERITS TO BE ALLOWED IN TOTO. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSES SEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO GIVE THE BREAK-UP OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDI TURE INCURRED DURING THE YEAR. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS AND MADE A SUBMISSION THAT NO SUCH QUERY WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. 21. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL RELATING TO THE EARLIER YEARS WE FIND THAT THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN AL LOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SPONSORING VARIOUS SPORT S AND ALSO FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WELCOME GAGE AT ANANDPUR SAHIB, BAB A MOTI RAM GATE AND JYOTI SAWROOP GURDWARA AT FATEHGARH SAHIB, SST CHOWK AT BADI NADI, PATIALA AND AT SHOOTING RANGE, MOHALI. HOWEV ER, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS T HAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.16,39,674/- HAS BEEN INCURRED IN THE NATURE OF S ALARY FOR WATCH AND WARD STAFF, GARDENER, SWEEPER, ELECTRICITY AND WATE R BILLS AS WELL AS REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SITE, ELECTRICAL FITT INGS ETC. THE BREAK-UP OF THE EXPENDITURE AS PUT UP BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS AS UNDER: SR.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNTS 1 WELCOME GATE AT ANANDPUR SAHIB (RS.)1,99,322.00 2. BABA MOTI RAM GATE & JYOTI SAWROOP GURDWARA, FAATEHGARH SAHIB (RS.) 58,563.00 3. SST CHOWK AT BADI NADI, PATIALA (RS.)5,77,837.00 9 4. SHOOTING RANGE AT MOHALI & FEROZPUR (RS.)3,95,725.00 5. MUKTE MINAR, MUKTSAR (RS.)3,13,199.00 6. GHANOUR STADIUM (RS.) 95,028.00 TOTAL 16,39,674.00 22. THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SAID EXPENSES REFLECTS THAT SUM OF RS.1,99,322/- HAS BEEN INCURRED ON WELCOME GAGE AT ANANDPUR SAHIB, RS.5,77,837/- ON SST CHOWK AT BADI NADI, PATIALA, R S.3,95,725/- ON SHOOTING RANGE, MOHALI AND RS.3,13,199/- ON MUKTE M INAR, MUKTSAR AND ON OTHER SITES ALSO. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE N ATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT PER-SE TO BE CALLED AS ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES SIMILAR TO THE EXPENDITURE I NCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVERTISEMENT IN THE EARLIER YEARS. HOWE VER, MINOR MAINTENANCE EXPENSES OF THE SAID GATES MERITS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF WATCH AND WARD STAFF, GARDENER AND SWEEPER. THE NECESSARY DETAILS OF THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON REC ORD. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LOOK INTO THE NA TURE OF EXPENDITURE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ON THE LIMITED ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IN LINE WITH THE DIRECTIONS HERE INABOVE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER S HALL AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 23. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND OF MAY, 2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 22 ND MAY , 2013 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 10