M/s. Speed Eicher, Navsari V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-4, Navsari

ITA 3073/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 307320514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANTOSH KARNANI SR DR
• Assessee Lawyers: MITISH S MODI
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD .. , , BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL,VICE PRESIDEN T (AZ) AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.3073/AHD/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/S.SPEED EICHER COLLEGE ROAD OPP.AAYESHA PARK AT & POST:CHIKHLI DIST.NAVSARI 396 445 / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4 NAVSARI ! '# ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AARFS 3643 N ( !% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &'!% / RESPONDENT ) !%(' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MITISH S.MODI, AR &'!%)(' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANTOSH KARNANI, SR.DR * +) ,# / DATE OF HEARING 24/02/2015 -./0 ) ,# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19/03/2015 '/ O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VALSAD (CIT(A) IN SHORT) DATED 31/07/2010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEA L:- (1) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS O N FACTS WHILE CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ITO, WARD 4, NAVSARI MA KING ITA NO.3073/AHD /2010 M/S.SPEED EICHER VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 2 - DISALLOWANCE OF TRADE DISCOUNT EXPENSES TO THE EXTE NT OF RS.49,90,640/-. (2) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO ALLOW THE APPELL ANT AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND REBUTTING THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY PLACING COGENT AND AUTH ENTIC EVIDENCES AND MATERIALS BEFORE HIM AND THEREFORE, T HE ORDER PASSED BY HIM IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. (3) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN OVERLOOKING A ND IN SUMMARILY REJECTING THE DETAILED STATEMENT OF FACTS SUBMITTED ALONG WITH MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL, VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND EV IDENCES PLACED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED, WHILE ACCE PTING THE LOP- SIDED AND FACTUALLY INCORRECT VERSION OF THE AO AND HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF TRADE DISCOUNT CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) ON MISLEADING, MISCONCEIVED, BASELESS AND CONJECTURAL OBSERVATIONS, IS UNJUSTIFIED. (4) BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDER I N THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVES THAT THE TRADE DISCOUNT, DEDUCTED IN E ACH INDIVIDUAL SALE TRANSACTION AND ACTUALLY PASSED ON TO THE RESP ECTIVE CUSTOMERS BY THE APPELLANT FIRM AND THEREFORE, BEING ACTUALLY INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS, IS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION FOR COMPUTATION OF BUSINESS INCOME. (5) YOUR APPELLANT FURTHER RESERVES HIS RIGHTS TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS BEFORE OR AT TH E TIME OF HEARING OF AN APPEAL. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAI NST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF TRADE DISCOUNT EXPENSES AMOUNTIN G TO RS.49,90,640/-. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 04/12/2009, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) MADE ITA NO.3073/AHD /2010 M/S.SPEED EICHER VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 3 - DISALLOWANCE OF TRADE DISCOUNT EXPENSES OF RS.49,90 ,640/-, DISALLOWANCE OF OFFICE EXPENSE OF RS.5,571/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF REPAIR & MAINTENANCE EXPENSE OF RS.7,236/-. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. WHILE ALLOWING THE APPE AL, THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TRADE DIS COUNT EXPENSES AND OTHER DISALLOWANCES AMOUNTING TO RS.5,571/- AND RS. 7,236/- WERE DELETED. 4. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE S UBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT SUCH TRAD E DISCOUNT EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE EXPENSES. 4.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDING ON FACT HAS BE EN GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE UNDER T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE AO HAS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THERE WAS DIFFERENCE IN T HE EXPENDITURE RECORDED IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AND THE CASH-BOOK. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS POINTED OUT THAT TRADE DISCOUNT PAYMENTS RAN GE BETWEEN RS.60,000/- TO RS.80,000/-, WHEREAS IN CASH-BOOK TH E PAYMENTS ARE BELOW RS.20,000/-. ITA NO.3073/AHD /2010 M/S.SPEED EICHER VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 4 - 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS UNDER: - YOUR HONOURS', FOR THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEA L FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF TRADE DISCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 49,90,640/- ON SALES , I WOULD LIKE TO HUMBLY SUBMIT AS UNDER:- (1) THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT T HE APPELLANT IS THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE AND SE RVICES OF EICHER BRAND TRACTORS AND THEIR ACCESSORIES AND SPARE PARTS UNDER THE DEA LERSHIP AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH TAPE MOTORS & TRACTORS LTD. SINCE THE F.Y. 200 5-06 AND ACCORDINGLY, SHOWING THE INCOME EARNED FROM THIS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED YEAR TO YEAR. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLANT FIRM SHOWING THE TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 3,10,170/- ACCOMPANIED WITH THE TAX AUDIT REPORT U/S 44AB (IN FORM NO. 3CB AND 3CD) OF THE ACT, AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SUCH AS TRADING A/C, PROFIT & LOSS A/C AND BALANCE SHEET WITH ANNEXURES/SCHEDULES AND THE STATEMENT OF COMPUTATIO N OF TOTAL INCOME. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE DULY AUDITED BY THE INDEPENDENT AUD ITOR AND NOWHERE IN THE AUDIT REPORT, THE AUDITOR HAS POINTED OUT/REPORTED ANY DI SCREPANCY/DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED WITH ALL THE SUPPORTED VOUCHERS , BILLS, STATEMENTS, ETC., FOLLOWING THE SAME METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AS THAT OF IN THE EAR LIER YEARS. (2) BEING THE DEALER IN THE BUSINESS OF TRACTOR S OF EICHER BRAND, THE APPELLANT HAS TO ALLOW THE TRADE DISCOUNT TO THE PURCHASERS WHO A RE BASICALLY THE AGRICULTURISTS AS THE PRACTICE PREVAILING IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS. I N OTHER WORDS, THE APPELLANT HAS TO MAINTAIN THE TARGET OF SALES/TURNOVER FOR ITS SURVI VAL AND FOR THAT PURPOSES, THE TRADE INCENTIVE UNDER THE SALES PROMOTION PROGRAMME HAS BEEN GIVEN ON CATALOGUE PRICE OF TRACTORS, TO THE PURCHASERS OF TRACTORS ONLY ON PROMPT PAYMENT RECEIVED THROUGH DEMAND DRAFTS FROM THE PURCHASERS. THUS, THE TRADE DISCOUNT IS IN THE NATURE OF EARLY PAYMENT DISCOUNT. UNFORTUNATELY, BOTH THE LOWER AUT HORITIES HAVE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVES THAT IN THIS LINE OF BUSI NESS I.E. DEALERSHIP IN TRACTORS AND OTHER VEHICLES, IN THE MARKET, THE KEEN COMPETITION IS PREVAILING ON ACCOUNT OF INTRODUCTION OF NUMBERS OF COMPANIES OF TRACTORS OF VARIOUS MAKES INCREASED AND THEREFORE, FOR THE SURVIVAL OF THE BUSINESS IN SUCH CUT-THROAT COMPETITION IN THE OPEN MARKET, THE APPELLANT FIRM HAS TO ALLOW TRADE DISCO UNT ON SALES OF TRACTORS BUT THE SAID TRANSACTION OF TRADE DISCOUNT HAS BEEN DISBELIEVED BY BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ITA NO.3073/AHD /2010 M/S.SPEED EICHER VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 5 - CAPRICIOUSLY, ARBITRARILY, MERELY ON SUSPICION AND DOUBT, IN SPITE OF ALL THE DETAILS OF TRADE DISCOUNT ON SALES OF TRACTORS HAS BEEN FURNIS HED. MORE PARTICULARLY, THE APPELLANT FIRM HAS FURNISHED ON THEIR RECORDS THE C OMPLETE NAMES, ADDRESSES AND IDENTITY PROOFS WITH THE CONFIRMATIONS AND AFFIDAVI TS OF THE PURCHASERS, DATE OF DEMAND DRAFT RECEIVED WITH AMOUNT, DATE OF INVOICE ISSUED, TOTAL BILL AMOUNT AND TRADE DISCOUNT GIVEN TO THE CUSTOMERS, BUT REJECTED THE SAME ONLY ON THE ALLEGATIONS THAT THE TRADE DISCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO THE C USTOMERS AT THE TIME OF SALES, THAT THE CASH DISCOUNT HAS BEEN PAID IN CASH, THE CLAIM OF TRADE DISCOUNT IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT, THAT NO VOUCHERS PRODUCED, THAT MISMA TCH OF SIGNATURE ON CHALLANS/BILLS WITH THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FILED BY THE CUSTOMER S. KINDLY SEE PAGES 30 TO 54 AND PAGES 90 TO 180 APPEAL PAPERS BEING THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS, AFFID AVITS, IDENTITY PROOFS OF THE PURCHASERS, THEIR BANK LOAN STATEMENT S, INSURANCE POLICIES, RTO REGISTRATION PROOF, SALES INVOICES, ETC. WHICH SIMU LTANEOUSLY GOES TO PROVE THAT THE TRADE DISCOUNT HAS BEEN GIVEN ONLY AT THE TIME OF S ALE OF TRACTORS. (3) AS A MATTER OF FACT, DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS OF SALES OF 74 TRACTORS T O VARIOUS CUSTOMERS (AGRICULTURISTS) AND EXPLAINED THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALES AND TRADE D ISCOUNT GIVEN ' THEREON BY FURNISHING DATE WISE BANK STATEMENT SHOWING THE DEP OSIT OF DEMAND DRAFT AGAINST SALE OF TRACTORS AND THE INVOICES WITH COMPLETE NARRATIO NS ON WHICH THE TRADE DISCOUNT GIVEN TO THE PARTICULAR CUSTOMER. IN OTHER WORDS, T HE APPELLANT HAS ESTABLISHED THE DIRECT NEXUS OF TRADE DISCOUNT GIVEN TO THE CUSTOME RS ONLY AT THE TIME OF SALE OF THE TRACTORS AND NOT BEFORE OR AFTER THE SALES AS ALLEG ED BY BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. YOUR HONOURS KIND ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE PAGES 1 TO 15 BEING THE DETAILED STATEMENT SHOWING THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALES AND TRA DE DISCOUNT THEREON ESTABLISHING DIRECT CO.-RELATION WITH THE DEMAND DRAFTS DEPOSITE D IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH AMPLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS NOT A SINGLE INSTAN CE OF ALLOWING TRADE DISCOUNT TO THE CUSTOMERS BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE OF SALE OF T RACTORS AND THUS, THE ALLEGATIONS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAS NO WEIGHTAGE IN THE EYES OF LAW. AS A MATTER OF FACT, BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE GROSSLY FAILED TO U NDERSTAND IN THE RIGHT AND PROPER PERSPECTIVES THE CRUCIAL FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE BUYERS OF THE TRACTORS ARE PURELY THE AGRICULTURISTS PURCHASING TRACTORS THROUGH BANK LOA N (AGRICULTURE LOAN) TO CARRY OUT THE AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES AND TO EARN AGRICULTURE INCOME. FOR THAT PURPOSES, THE BANK HAS ISSUED THE DEMAND DRAFT ON THE SAME DATE OF THE INVOICE ISSUED AND PRESENTED BY THE CUSTOMERS TO THEIR BANK FOR LOAN PURPOSES AND ONLY AFTER DEPOSITING THE DEMAND DRAFT ON SALE OF TRACTORS, THE APPELLANT FIRM HAS G IVEN THE TRADE DISCOUNT IN CASH TO ALL THE CUSTOMERS AT THE PREVAILING RATE OF TRADE D ISCOUNT IN THE OPEN MARKET. MERELY BECAUSE THE TRADE DISCOUNT HAS BEEN GIVEN IN CASH T O THE VARIOUS CUSTOMERS, THE LEARNED AO DISALLOWED THE SAME PURELY ON SUSPICION AND DOUBTS EVEN THOUGH; THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS OF SUCH CUSTOMERS DULY ITA NO.3073/AHD /2010 M/S.SPEED EICHER VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 6 - CONFIRMING OF RECEIVING TRADE DISCOUNT IN CASH SO AS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF MARGIN MONEY ON TRACTOR BANKS LOAN TAKEN BY THEM. (4) YOUR HONOURS, IT IS THE SETTLED LAW POSITIO N THAT THE TRADE DISCOUNT ON SALES IS NOT AN EXPENDITURE AT ALL. IT IS NOT RIGHTLY DISPUTED BY BOTH THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES THAT IT THE CLAIM OF TRADE DISCOUNT ON SALE OF TRACTORS BUT TREATING THE SAME AS AN IN GENUINE EXPENDITURE, THE SAME HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME COMPLETELY UNDER MISCONCEPTION AND MISAPPRECIATION OF THE FACTS OF T HE CASE. MERELY BECAUSE, THE APPELLANT FIRM HAS SHOWN SEPARATELY IN THE DEBIT SI DE OF TRADING A/C, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 49,90,640/- AS TRADE DISCOUNT, IT COULD NOT BE TERMED AS AN EXPENDITURE, BUT IN TRUE EFFECT, IT IS ON THE SALES OF TRACTORS. IN THI S REGARD, I MAY DRAW YOUR HONOUR'S KIND ATTENTION TO THE RELEVANT JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE H IGH COURT OF DELHI IN UNITED EXPORTS VS. CIT REPORTED IN (2011) 230 ITR 549 (DEL HI) IN WHICH THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT - 'THIS PROVISION IN THE ACT PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE TO AN EXPENDITURE WHICH IS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE LE. AN AMOUNT ACTUALLY SPEN T BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN EXPENDITURE. THE EXPRESSION USED IN THIS PROVISION IS 'INCURS AND EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF WHICH PAYMENT HAS BEEN OR IS TO BE MADE TO ANY PERSON' (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED). THE EMPHASIZED WORDS C LEARLY SHOW THAT ACTUAL PAYMENT MUST BE MADE AND THERE HAS TO BE AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED BEFORE THE PROVISION CAN BE SAID TO BE APPLICABLE. A TRADE DISCOUNT, AND ADMITTEDLY IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SUBJECT-MA TTER OF THE CLAIM IS A TRADE DISCOUNT, AND NOT AN EXPENDITURE, CLEARLY THEREFORE THERE DOES NOT ARISE THE QUESTION OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40A(2)(B)' SIR, THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT HAS BEE N FOLLOWED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, DELHI IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. GRANDPRIX FAB. (P) LT D. REPORTED IN (2010) 128 TTJ (DEL.) PAGE 60 IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE T RADE DISCOUNT IS NOT AN EXPENDITURE AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO LAWFUL REASON TO MAKE DI SALLOWANCE OF THE SAME AS EXPENDITURE UNDER THE LAW. YOUR HONOURS WILL CERTAINLY FIND IN THE AUDITED TRA DING A/C ATTACHED HEREWITH AT PAGES 16 TO 49 THAT THE APPELLANT FIRM HAS, COMPLETELY UNDER BONAF IDE IMPRESSION, FROM THE INITIATION OF THE BUSINESS, SHOWN THE GROS S SALES OF TRACTORS AT CREDIT SIDE OF THE TRADING A/C AND SEPARATELY SHOWN THE TRADE DISC OUNT GIVEN TO THE PURCHASERS IN THE DEBIT SIDE OF THE TRADING A/C. MERELY BECAUSE, THE TRADE DISCOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN SEPARATELY IN THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, IT DOE S NOT TANTAMOUNT TO THE CLAIM OF AN EXPENDITURE AS ALLEGED AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT, MORESOWH EN, BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE RIGHTLY ACCEPTED THE SALES OF TRACTORS MADE TO THE VARIOUS CUSTOMERS DURING THE ITA NO.3073/AHD /2010 M/S.SPEED EICHER VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 7 - RELEVANT YEAR. TO PUT IT DIFFERENTLY, BOTH THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVES THAT THE TRADE DISCOUNT IS ONLY AT THE INSTANCE OF SALES, BASED ON THE QUANTUM OF SALE S, WHICH COULD NOT BE DENIED SIMPLY BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN SHOWN SEPARATELY IN THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT IS FURTHER ENLIGHTENED TO YOUR HONOURS THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NOWHERE IN THE AUDIT REPORT, THE IN DEPENDENT AUDITOR HAS POINTED OUT ANY DISCREPANCY/DEFECT AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF TRA DE DISCOUNT GIVEN TO THE CUSTOMERS AT THE TIME OF SALES OF TRACTORS. NOT ONLY THAT, TH E LEARNED AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT OR DISCREPANCY SO FAR AS CLAIM OF TRADE DISC OUNT DURING THE VERIFICATION OF THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER RELEVANT RECORD S CONTAINING THE ENTRIES PASSED FOR THE TRADE DISCOUNT AT THE SALE OF TRACTORS. KINDLY SEE PAGES 21 OF 28 OF APPEAL PAPERS BEING THE LEDGER OF TRADE DISCOUNT GIVEN TO THE VARIOUS CUSTOMERS AT THE TIME SALES WITH DETAILED EXPLANATIONS GIVEN TO BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. UNFORTUNATELY, THE TRADE DISCOUNT HAS BEEN DISBELIE VED ON THE ANOTHER ALLEGATION OF MISMATCH OF TRADE DISCOUNT IN LEDGER ACCOUNT AND SO CALLED CASH BOOK. AS A MATTER OF FACT, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ALL THE LEDGER AND CASH AND BANK BOOK, PURCHASE AND SALES REGISTER AND OTHER RELEVAN T RECORDS WERE PRODUCED, DEMONSTRATING THE CUSTOMER WISE TALLY OF TRADE DISC OUNT ON SALES. THE LEARNED AO HAS ALSO ASSERTED THAT THE TOTAL TRADE DISCOUNT TAL LIES WITH THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN SPITE OF IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT DUE T O IGNORANCE OF THE ACCOUNTANT WHO IS NOT PROFESSIONALLY QUALIFIED AND INADVERTENT MISTAKE WHILE TAKING OUT PRINTOUT OF CASH TRANSACTIONS, SOME TECHNICAL E RROR OCCURRED IN THE COMPUTER ACCOUNTING , SOFTWARE, WHICH HAS RESULTED INTO BIFU RCATION OF CASH EXPENDITURE ON DIFFERENT DATES, OTHERWISE, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRA DE DISCOUNT AND THE SALES DULY TALLIED WITH THE AUDITED CASHBOOK AND LEDGER. SIR, THE APPELLANT FIRM IS CARRYING ON ITS BUSINESS IN THE VILLAGE AREA OF CHIKHLI, DIST: NAVS ARI HAVING NOT ANY STANDARD ACCOUNTING SOFTWARE AND THEREFORE, SUCH INADVERTENT MISTAKE ON THE PART OF ACCOUNTANT OCCURRED, WHICH HAS BEEN TREATED AS THE IN GENUINE TRANSACTION OF TRADE DISCOUNT BRUSHING ASIDE ALL THE OTHER CREDIBLE AND AUTHENTIC EVIDENCES I.E. BANK STATEMENTS, CONFIRMATION LETTERS WITH THEIR IDENTIT Y, ETC. YOUR HONOURS WILL ALSO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION THAT WHEN THE APPELLANT HAS EXP LAINED THE SO-CALLED DIFFERENCE IN THE TRANSACTION OF TRADE DISCOUNT AS ALLEGED BY THE AO, BY PRODUCING ALL THE CREDIBLE AND AUTHENTIC EVIDENCES TO ESTABLISH THE CO.-RELATI ON OF TRADE DISCOUNT ON SALES OF TRACTORS, THERE IS NO LAWFUL REASON TO MAKE ADDITIO N ON ACCOUNT OF TRADE DISCOUNT MERELY ON SUSPICION, ALLEGATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS. IN THIS REGARD, I MAY RELY UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD , LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE CASE OF ASSTT.CIT VS. VIKRAM TRACTORS REPORTED IN (2008) 5 DTK (ALL.) PAG E 323 (COPY ATTACHED) ITA NO.3073/AHD /2010 M/S.SPEED EICHER VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 8 - (5) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, I WOULD LIK E TO FURTHER SUBMIT THAT IN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES, CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF TR ANSACTION OF SALES OF GOODS (I.E. TRACTORS), THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE DIRECTLY DEDUCT ED TRADE DISCOUNT FROM SALES, SINCE, IT IS ON THE SALES OF GOODS AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SA LES OR TURNOVER COULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN 'NET OF TRADE DISCOUNT. IT IS THE SETTLED LAW POSITION THAT THE TRADE DISCOUNT IS NOT FORMING PART OF THE SALES OR TURNOVER AND AS CL ARIFIED IN THE GUIDELINES OF TAX AUDIT ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA. AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, CALCUTTA IN AHMED HASSAN & CO. VS. ITO REPORT ED IN (1993) 44 ITD 669 (CAL.) (SMC), THE AMOUNT OF TRADE DISCOUNT OF FORMI NG PART OF SALES OR TURNOVER IN SO FAR AS LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271B OF THE ACT. SIR, THE APPELLANT FIRM HAS FOLLOWED THE SAME METHO D OF ACCOUNTING CONSISTENTLY IN AS MUCH AS THE GROSS SALES OF GOODS AND TRADE DISCOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN SEPARATELY IN TRADING A/C, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTM ENT IN THE EARLIER AS WELL IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. KINDLY SEE PAGES 50 TO 66 BEING THE ITRS AND COMPUT ATION OF INCOME FROM THE ASSTTYEAR; 2006-07 TO 2009-10 AS WE LL AS REGULAR ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSTTYEAR; 2009-10 PA SSED BY THE SAME ITO RIGHTLY ACCEPTING THE SAME METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOR FOLLOWE D CONSISTENTLY SHOWING TRADE DISCOUNT SEPARATELY IN THE TRADING A/C OF THE YEAR. ALTERNATIVELY, THE SALES/TURNOVER FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR WOULD BE SHOWN 'NET OFF TRADE DISCOUNT I.E. RS.3,72,74,099 - 49,90,640/- = 3,22,83,549/- WHICH WOULD CERTAINLY N OT AFFECT THE G.P. RATIO NOR THE N.P. RATIO NOR IT WOULD BE THE CASE OF INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO DEDUCE THE CORRECT INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. YOUR HONOUR WILL CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE CONTENTION THAT WHEN THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PRESCRIBED ACCOUNTING STANDA RDS THEN THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAS NO LAWFUL REASON TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF TRADE DISCOUNT FOR WHICH, THE DETAILED EXPLANATIONS WITH EVIDENCES FURNISHED. IN THIS REGA RD, I MAY RELY UPON THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT JUDGMENTS:- (I) CIT VS. SIDDARTH TRADE LINKS (P) LTD. (2012) 206 TAXMANN 92 (DEL) PARA 4 AND 5 (II) ITO VS. SIVALINGAM AGENCIES (1994) 50 ITD 509 (MAD.) (III) CIT VS. POPULAR VEHICLE SERVICE LTD. (2010) 191 TAXMANN 33 (KERALA). (IV) FOSTER'S INDIA (P) LTD. VS. ITO (2008) 117 TTJ 346(PUNE) (V) GUJARAT TEA PROCESSORS AND PACKERS LTD. VS. DY. CIT (2012) 28 TAXMANN.COM 187 (GUJARAT) ITA NO.3073/AHD /2010 M/S.SPEED EICHER VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 9 - (6) YOUR HONOURS, THE APPELLANT FIRM HAS NOT INCUR RED THE TRADE DISCOUNT HIGHER THAN THAT WAS IMMEDIATE EARLIER YEAR ON THE SALE OF TRACTORS, BUT AS A MATTER OF FACT, SHOWN BETTER GROSS PROFIT MARGIN, NET PROFIT MARGIN AND APPRECIABLY HIGH RETURNED INCOME AS DEMONSTRATED BELOW. PARTICULARS ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 2007-08 SALES/TURNOVER (INCLUDING TRADE DISCOUNT) 3,79,80,293/- 3,72,74,099/- TRADE DISCOUNT (RS.) 57,13,957/- 49,90,640/- PERCENTAGE OF TRADE DISCOUNT (%) 15.05% 13.38% GROSS PROFIT (RS.) 33,60,116/- 26,46,262/- GROSS PROFIT RATIO 7.28% 7.08% NET PROFIT (RS.) 2,50,130/- 3,10,170/- FROM THE COMPARISON OF TRADING RESULTS WITH THE IMM EDIATE EARLIER YEAR, YOUR HONOURS WILL CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE VERY FACT THA T THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN ALMOST THE SAME G.P. RATIO AND APPRECIABLY HIGH THE AMOUNT OF NET PROFIT OFFERED FOR TAXATION. YOUR HONOUR WILL CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION THAT THE INCOME ASSESSED BY THE LEARNED AO AND THE DISALLOWANCE CON FIRMED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS RESULTED INTO UNIMAGINABLE AND UNREALISTIC NET PROF IT OF RS.53,00,810/- I.E. NET PROFIT RATIO AT 14.22%, WHICH COULD NEVER BE EARNED BY ANY DEALER OF SUCH TYPE OF VEHICLES IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS. MOREOVER, IF THE QUANTUM OF TRADE DISCOUNT INCURRED FOR RS.49,90,640/- DISBELIEVED ON SUCH VAGUE GROUNDS RA ISED BY THE AO, THE GROSS PROFIT WOULD BE RS.76,30,901/- AND THE G.P. RATIO WOULD B E 20.47% WHICH IS UNREALISTIC, UNFAIR, UNREASONABLE AND IRRATIONAL LOOKING TO THE INCOME TAX RECORDS OF THE APPELLANT FIRM AND MUCH LESS, THE NORMAL GROSS PROF IT MARGIN PREVAILING IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS AS DEALERS IN TRACTORS. IT IS FURTHER E NLIGHTENED HERE THAT THE PURCHASES AND SALES AS RECORDED IN THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS SUPPORTED BY THE INVOICES/BILLS ARE DULY ACCEPTED BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES UNDE R THE GUJARAT VAT ACT, 2005. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND LEGAL P OSITION INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL, I HAVE, TO REQUEST YOUR HONOUR TO ALLOW THE APPEAL FU LLY AND OBLIGE. ITA NO.3073/AHD /2010 M/S.SPEED EICHER VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 10 - THANKING YOU IN ANTICIPATION AND HOPING TO BE EXCUS ED FOR THE TROUBLE. I REMAIN, SIR, YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- (M.S. MODI) AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 5.1. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT TH AT THE TRADE DISCOUNT AS GIVEN BY A BUSINESS-MAN IS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, FOR CLAIMING SUCH EXPENDITURE THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSE SSEE TO PROVE THE EXPENDITURE HAS IN FACT BEEN INCURRED. WE FIND TH AT THE AO HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT IN THE CASE OF ONE SHRI MANOJBHAI C. S HAH, THE SALE WAS EFFECTED ON 20/03/2007, HOWEVER, THE PAYMENT OF SO -CALLED TRADE DISCOUNT IS MADE ON 25/03/2007, 26/03/2007, 27/03/2 007, 28/03/2007, 29/03/2007 & 30/03/2007 AND ALL PAYMENTS BELOW RS.2 0,000/-. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF MAGANBHAI D.PATEL, THE SALE WAS EFFE CTED ON 27/03/2007, HOWEVER, THE TRADE DISCOUNT IS MADE EVEN PRIOR TO T HE DATE OF SALE OF TRACTOR ON VARIOUS DATES; I.E. 14/03/2007, 16/03/20 07, 18/03/2007, 21/03/2007 & 25/03/2007. THIS FACT IS NOT REBUTTE D BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON F ACT IN PARA-5.1 OF HIS ORDER, WHEREIN IT IS POINTED OUT THAT IN CASES AT S L NOS.1 TO 15, THE DISCOUNT WAS PAID ON VARIOUS DATES TO THE PURCHASER S OF TRACTORS. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REPRODU CE THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) HEREINBELOW:- 5.1. DECISION; I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ID . AR. AS MENTIONED IN THE EARLIER PARAGRAPHS, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION AF TER BEING CONVINCED THAT ITA NO.3073/AHD /2010 M/S.SPEED EICHER VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 11 - THE CASH DISCOUNT SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT WAS APPARE NTLY NOT GENUINE AND AFTERTHOUGHT. TO JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION, THE AO STA TED THAT I) THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR CASH DISCOUNT WAS MADE BY THE APPELLAN T, II) THE SIGNATURES OF THE CUSTOMERS IN THE DELIVERY CHALLAN FOR PURCHASE OF T RACTORS DO NOT TALLY WITH THE BILLS/VOUCHERS MADE FOR CASH DISCOUNT, III) THE CAS H BOOK ENTRY AND THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT TOWARDS THE CASH DISCOUNT PAID DATE WISE DO NOT TALLY, IV) ALL CASH DISCOUNT PAYMENTS WERE MUCH AFTER THE DATE OF SALES, V) THE TRACTOR SALE BILLS DO NOT SHOW THE DISCOUNT OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE CUSTOMER S DERIVED UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF CLAIMING FULL DEPRECIATION WITHOUT EXC LUDING THE CASH DISCOUNT RECEIVED BY THEM. CLEARLY, THE AO HAD MADE OUT A CA SE AND COME TO THE CONCLUSION AFTER VERIFYING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, P ARTICULARLY CASH BOOK, LEDGER BOOK AND CONFIRMATIONS LETTERS FROM THE CUST OMERS THAT THE CASH DISCOUNT SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS WAS NOT GENUINE AND AFTERTHOUGHT. IN REBUTTING THE FINDING OF THE AO, T HE ID. AR ARGUED MAINLY ON THREE COUNTS I) THE CUSTOMERS ARE FROM FAR OFF VILL AGES AND PRIOR TO PURCHASE OF TRACTORS, THEY HAVE NO BANK FACILITIES, AND THEREFO RE, CASH WAS PAID, II) THE DISCOUNTS ARE PAID TO THE CUSTOMERS TO HELP THEM GE T FULL AMOUNT OF LOAN, III) THE CASH DISCOUNT RECIPIENTS HAVE CONFIRMED WHICH W ERE GIVEN AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. I HAVE CONSIDERED CAREFULLY THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE ID. AR. 1 HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF TRADE DISCOUNT GIVEN AND THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FILED BY THE CUSTOMERS FOR HAVING RECEIVED THE CASH DISCOUNT. THE DETAILS OF CASH DISCOUNT GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH THE DATE OF SALE OF THE TRACTORS TO THE CUSTOMERS ARE G IVEN BELOW: SR.NO. NAME OF THE PURCHASER COST OF TRACTOR & DATE OF PURCHASE DISCOUNT PAID IN CASH DATES BETWEEN DISCOUNT PAID 1. RAMESHBHAI BABARBHAI PATEL 504000/- 60000/- 29.4.2006 TO 15.05.2006 2. GAMANBHAI MAGANBHAI CHOUDHARY 593000/- 26.04.2006 75000/- 30/04/06 TO 10.05.06 3. JANYANTIBHAI SAKKARBHAI DESHMUCK 593000/- 10.05.2006 70500/- 12.05.06 TO 21.05.06 4. NAGINBHAI LIMJIBHAI GARASIA 593000/- 13.05.2006 68560/- 15.05.06 TO 25.05.06 5. DANSUBHAI 593000/- 62150/- 22.05.06 TO ITA NO.3073/AHD /2010 M/S.SPEED EICHER VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 12 - RAMUBHAI GAMIT 20.5.06 03.06.06 6. RAMANBHAI CHATRABHAI PATEL 593000/- 24.05.05 68700/- 27.05.06 TO 05.06.06 7. MANILAL RAMABHAI PATEL 602698/- 29.05.06 70000/- 31.05.06 TO 12.06.06 8. BIJUBHAI RAMJIBHAI BOSAD 602698/- 07.06.06 68000/- 30.06.06 TO 20.06.06 9. CHHANABHAI SAMLUBHAI PADHER 599583/- 26.06.06 65000/- 12.06.06 TO 28.07.06 10. NARSIBHAI JANIABHAI NAIKA 583489/- 26.06.06 78300/- 18.06.06 TO 02.08.06 11. ETHUBHAI JULIABHAI MAHALA 583489/- 26.06.06 65000/- 20.07.06 TO 28.07.06 12. GAJANAND TRACTOR 322941/- 07.07.06 70,000/- 26.06.06 TO 03.07.06 13. MULJIBHAI BHIMABHAI PATEL 501320/- 08.07.06 50,000/- 10.07.06 TO 20.07.06 14. CHIMANBHAI ZINABHAI PATEL 542920/- 29.06.06 70400/- 12.07.06 TO 28.07.06 15. PRAVINBHAI RAMANBHAI MAHALA 583520/- 29.06.06 53100/- 18.07.06 TO 29.07.06 16. VIJAYBHAI DAHYABHAI AHIR 510860/- 04.07.06 70000/- 20.07.06 TO 08.08.06 17. VINODBHAI RANCHODBHAI PATEL 432000/- 04.07.06 46350/- 26.07.06 TO 01.08.06 18. SUDHIRBHAI BABABHAI PATEL 599640/- 24.07.06 70800/- 31.07.06 TO 13.08.06 19. KAKADOBEN LAKHUBHAI VADVI 599640/- 25.07.06 65900/- 25.08.06 TO 05.09.06 20. LAHABHAI KALUBHAI DESHMUKH 495520/- 28.07.06 70300/- 26.08.06 TO 08.09.06 21. ZINABHAI NARANBHAI PATEL 599640/- 60000/- 28.08.06 TO 05.09.06 22. ASHOKBHAI CHHAGANBHAI PATEL 602760/- 23.08.06 75000/- 29.08.06 TO 10.09.06 23. DHANIBHAI DEVJIBHAI CHOUDHARY 602760/- 18.08.06 70300/- 10.09.06 TO 21.09.06 24. KANTOBHAI JIMLABHAI PATEL 543400/- 18.08.06 75400/- 12.09.06 TO 28.09.06 ITA NO.3073/AHD /2010 M/S.SPEED EICHER VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 13 - 25. GAMANBHAI MAGANBHAI CHOUDHARY 603520/- 25.08.06 60200/- 15.09.06 TO 25.09.06 FROM THE ABOVE TABLE, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE SO CALLED CASH DISCOUNT GIVEN TO THE CUSTOMERS WERE MUCH AFTER THE SALES WERE AFF ECTED APART FROM IN A COUPLE OF CASES, A NORMAL PRACTICE, DISCOUNTS ARE O FFERED TO THE CUSTOMERS BY WAY OF ACCESSORIES AND SERVICES. IT IS ALSO FACT TH AT IN FEW CASES DISCOUNTS ARE GIVEN IN CASH FOR SOME GENUINE CAUSE. IN THE INSTAN T CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE, WHY IT HAS OFFERED CASH DI SCOUNT TO THE CUSTOMERS SOMETIMES AFTER ONE MONTH FROM THE SALE EFFECTED. I T IS ALSO SEEN FROM THE DISCOUNT OFFERED THAT THE RATE VARIES FROM 8 TO 8.5 %. THIS KIND OF CASH DISCOUNT IS NATURALLY UNUSUAL IN THIS TRADE. MORE S O, THE APPELLANT IS A DEALER AND THE MARGIN FOR SALE OF TRACTORS WOULD NORMALLY WILL NOT BE MORE THAN 10 TO 15%. THE APPELLANT ALSO HEAVILY INVESTED WHICH INCUR INTEREST COMPONENT OF SUCH CAPITAL. INA THE TIGHT SCENARIO OFFERING I T 8 TO 8.5% CASH DISCOUNT DEFINITELY NOT A VIABLE BUSINESS PROPOSITION. AS TH E AO RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT ENTRY IN LEDGER ACCOUNT DO NOT TALLY WITH THE CASH BOOK CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE CASH DISCOUNT EXPENSES WAS INVENTED BY THE APPE LLANT MUCH AFTER THE SALES WERE AFFECTED. WHEN THE TRACTORS WERE SOLD TO THE C USTOMERS, THEY HAD ALREADY HAD BANK ACCOUNTS THEN WHY THE APPELLANT DID NOT PA Y THEM IN CHEQUES THE DISCOUNT INSTEAD OF PAYING IN CASH. THE CONTENTION OF THE ID. AR THAT CASH DISCOUNTS ARE OFFERED TO THE CUSTOMERS TO AVAIL FUL L BANK LOAN AND TO FACILITATE MARGIN MONEY ALSO DO NOT HOLD MUCH WATER BECAUSE TH E QUESTION OF MARGIN MONEY ARISES BEFORE THE LOAN SANCTIONED AND IT SHOU LD HAVE BEEN IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE LOANEE. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT SHOUL D HAVE GIVEN IN CHEQUES BEFORE THE LOAN WAS OBTAINED BY THE CUSTOMERS AS IT HAPPENS IN NORMAL CASES. THIS OBVIOUSLY RAISED SERIOUS DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUI NENESS OF THE DISCOUNTS GIVEN IN CASH BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT ALSO HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION BEFORE ME AS TO WHY OTHER THA N CASH DISCOUNTS ARE NOT OFFERED TO THE CUSTOMERS WHICH ARE NORMAL PRACTICE IN THIS TYPE OF TRADE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , 1 AM CONVINCED THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF THE AO WHEN THE FACTS ARE CRYSTAL CLEAR AGAINST THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5.2. THE AFORESAID FINDING OF LD.CIT(A) IS NOT CONT ROVERTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT S UCH TRADE DISCOUNTS ARE ALLOWABLE AND IS PREVALENT IN THE SIMILAR LINE OF B USINESS. DURING THE ITA NO.3073/AHD /2010 M/S.SPEED EICHER VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 14 - COURSE OF HEARING, A QUERY WAS RAISED AS TO HOW COM E THE PAYMENT OF DISCOUNT TO THE PURCHASERS OF THE TRACTORS WAS MADE IN INSTALLMENTS AND EVEN BEFORE OR AFTER THE TRACTOR HAS BEEN SOLD. TH E LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE ANY SATISFACTORY REPLY TO T HE QUERY. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE E XPENDITURE WITH SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION, THEREFORE WE DO NOT SEE A NY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPH ELD. THUS, THE GROUND RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THURSDAY, THE 19 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ( ) ( G.D. AGARWAL ) ( KUL BHARAT ) VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 19/ 03 /2015 4,..* , .*../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !% / THE APPELLANT 2. &'!% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 567 8 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 8 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-VALSAD 5. 9 :&*67 , ,670 , 5 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. : <= + / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ' 9& //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD