ITO, WARD-13(2)(1), MUMBAI V. SANJANA WIG, MUMBAI

ITA 3295/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4045 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 28-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LOVE KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: DR K SHIVRAM SHRI RAHUL SARDA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Business expenditure; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 50C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BE NCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / I .TA NO.3295/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 THE ITO, WARD - 13(2)(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. MS. SANJANA WIG, 25, MANGATRAM HOUSE, P. DMELLO ROAD, MUMBAI-400 009 C.O. NO. 15/MUM/2011 (ARISING OUT OF I .TA NO.3295/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 MS. SANJANA WIG, 25, MANGATRAM HOUSE, P. DMELLO ROAD, MUMBAI-400 009 / VS. THE ITO, WARD - 13(2)(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAAPW 8469R ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI LOVE KUMAR / ASSESSEE BY: SHRI DR. K. SHIVRAM SHRI RAHUL SARDA / DATE OF HEARING :21.01.2016 !' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.02.2016 / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-24, MUMBAI DATED 23.02.2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007-08. ITA NO. 3295/M/2011 C.O. NO. 155/M/2011 2 SINCE BOTH THESE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION WER E HEARD TOGETHER, THEY ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE S AKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. ITA NO. 2395/M/2011 REVENUES APPEAL 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITS THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN 10 LAKHS THEREFORE, IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 3. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO AGREED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN 10 LAKHS. 4. BEFORE GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, WE CON SIDER CBDTS LATEST INSTRUCTIONS VIDE CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10/12/2015, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH READ AS UNDER:- CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 F NO 279/MISC. 142/2007-ITJ (PT) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CENTRAL BOARD DIRECT TAXES NEW DELHI THE 10TH DECEMBER, 2015 SUBJECT: REVISION OF MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING O F APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TR IBUNAL AND HIGH COURTS AND SLP BEFORE SUPREME COURT - MEAS URES FOR REDUCING LITIGATION - REG REFERENCE IS INVITED TO BOARD'S INSTRUCTION NO 5/20 14 DATED 10.07.2014 WHEREIN MONETARY LIMITS AND OTHER CONDITIONS FOR FILING DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS (IN INCOME-TAX MATT ERS) BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND HIGH COURTS AND SLP BEFORE T HE SUPREME COURT WERE SPECIFIED. ITA NO. 3295/M/2011 C.O. NO. 155/M/2011 3 2. IN SUPERSESSION OF THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION, IT HA S BEEN DECIDED BY THE BOARD THAT DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS MAY BE FILED ON MERITS BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND HIGH COURTS AN D SLP BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT KEEPING IN VIEW THE MONETARY LIMI TS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BELOW. 3. HENCEFORTH, APPEALS/ SLPS SHALL NOT BE FILED IN CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS GIVEN HEREUNDER: - S. NO APPEALS IN INCOME - TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMIT (IN RS) 1. BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 10,00,000/ - 2. BEFORE HIGH COURT 20,00,000/ - 3. BEFORE SUPREME COURT 25,00,000/ - IT IS CLARIFIED THAT AN APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE FILED MERELY BECAUSE THE TAX EFFECT IN A CASE EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT S PRESCRIBED ABOVE. FILING OF APPEAL IN SUCH CASES IS TO BE DECI DED ON MERITS OF THE CASE. 5. IT IS FURTHER CLARIFIED BY THE BOARD IN ITS CIRC ULAR THAT THESE INSTRUCTIONS WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO PENDING APPEALS AND APPEALS TO BE FILED HENCEFORTH IN HIGH COURTS AND T RIBUNALS. IT IS ALSO MADE CLEAR THAT PENDING APPEALS BELOW THE MONITORY LIMITS FIXED IN PARA-3 ABOVE MAY BE WITHDRAWN OR NOT PRESSED. 6 . IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE TOTAL DEMAND AS PER CIT( A)S ORDER IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10,00,000/-,WHICH IS BE LOW THE MONETARY LIMITS AS MENTIONED IN CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 10.12.20 15 (SUPRA). FOLLOWING THE SAME, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. C.O. NO. 155/MUM/2011 ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO. 3295/M/2011 C.O. NO. 155/M/2011 4 7. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING INDEXATION U/ .S. 48 ON ORIGINAL COST TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER STATING THAT THE UNDERLY ING CAPITAL ASSET WAS ONLY A RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY AND NOT PROPERTY I TSELF. 7.1. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT DURING THIS ASSESSMENT Y EAR, THE ASSESSEE SOLD TWO PROPERTIES ONE SITUATED AT VAISHAKHARE AND THE ANOTHER AT BHANDUP. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED, THE ASSESS EE REDUCED COST OF LAND AT VAISHAKHARE AND COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS LOSS INCURRED FOR THE L AND AT VAISHAKHARE WHICH WAS CLAIMED SET OFF AGAINST THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM THE SALE OF LAND AT BHANDUP WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED B Y THE AO FOR THE REASON THAT THERE IS NO VALID DOCUMENT FOR THE PROP ERTY IN ASSESSEES NAME. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT T HE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY HER FATHER BUT THERE IS NO TRANSFER DO CUMENT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE BEING THE ONLY LEGAL HEIR, THE CLAIM FOR CAPITAL LO SS IS JUSTIFIED. HOWEVER, THIS WAS DENIED BY THE AO THOUGH ACCEPTED THE CAPITAL GAINS FOR THE PROPERTY AT BHANDUP IN WHICH CASE ALS O THERE WAS NO TRANSFER DEED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ADVANCE GI VEN BY ASSESSEES FATHER FOR VAISHAKHARE LAND WHICH IS APP EARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER LATE SHRI T. M. OBHAN IS A CAPITAL ASSET. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO. 3295/M/2011 C.O. NO. 155/M/2011 5 RELINQUISHED/EXTINGUISHED HER RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY AND SUCH RELINQUISHMENT AMOUNTS TO TRANSFER WITHIN THE MEANI NG OF SEC 2(47)(II) OF THE ACT. THUS HE DIRECTED THE AO TO A LLOW THE CAPITAL LOSS WITHOUT GIVING THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION. 8.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAVING HELD THAT THERE IS A TRANSFER AND ASSET IS A CAPITAL ASSET, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN DENYING INDEXATION TO SUCH PROP ERTY. REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 48 OF THE I.T. ACT, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT ONCE IT WAS HELD AS A CAPITAL ASSET, INDEXATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED. 8.2. THE LD. DR SUPPORTS THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES DENYING THE INDEXATION. 8.3. ON READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 48 OF THE ACT WHICH DESCRIBES THE MODE OF COMPUTATION, THE SECOND PROVI SO MAKES IT CLEAR THAT WHERE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE T RANSFER OF A LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET, THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET SHALL BE DEDUCTED FROM THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEI VED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET. THU S, IN OUR VIEW HAVING HELD THAT THERE IS A TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID REASON TO HOLD THAT ASSESSE E IS NOT ENTITLED FOR INDEXATION. THUS, WE DIRECT THE AO TO COMPUTE THE COST OF ACQUISITION BY GIVING INDEXATION. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASS ESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPEN SES INCURRED IN RELATION TO TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET AMOUNTING T O RS. 5,00,000/- OUT ITA NO. 3295/M/2011 C.O. NO. 155/M/2011 6 OF TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 25 LAKHS ON THE GROUND THAT SAME CANNOT BE VERIFIED FULLY. 10. DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT HAD INCURRED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE TOWARDS COST OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTIES AND THE DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT(A) REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE AO TO FORWARD IT TO DVO. THE DVO IN ITS REPORT ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PR OPERTY. 10.1. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES BEFO RE HIM AND DVOS REPORT ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 20 LAKHS ONLY FOR DEMOLISHING, LEVELING AND FILLING OF PLOT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT DISALLOWANCE WAS RESTRICTED TO 5 LAKHS FOR TH E ONLY REASON THAT THE EXPENSES CANNOT BE VERIFIED AT THIS STAGE. THE LD. COUNSEL PLEADS THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN RESTRICTING THE D ISALLOWANCE TO 5 LAKHS FOR THAT REASON ALONE WHEN IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE OF INCURRING EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE LD. DR SUPPORTS THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A ). 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ON A PERUSAL OF THE LD. CIT(A) S ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE DVO STATED IN HIS REPORT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE FOR IMPROVEMENT. IT IS ALSO CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS THAT SHE HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE FOR IMPROVEMENT. IT IS THE OB SERVATION OF THE ITA NO. 3295/M/2011 C.O. NO. 155/M/2011 7 LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN CASH ON VARI OUS DATES TO MEET THE EXPENSES. HOWEVER, HE ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR RS. 20 LAKHS AND BALANCE 5 LAKHS WAS DISALLOWED FOR TH E REASON THAT VERIFICATION OF THESE EXPENSE IS NOT POSSIBLE AT TH IS STAGE. TAKING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INTO ACCOUN T, WE FEEL THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IF RESTRICTED TO 2.5 LAKHS AS AGAINST 5 LAKHS WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. 13. THE THIRD ISSUE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE A SSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ADOPTING VALUATION OF DVO AT RS. 2,34,71,360/- AS AGAINST SA LE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2,17,60,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DISREGA RDING THE FACT THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN TWO VALUATIONS WAS LESS THAN 15% AND APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 55A OF THE I.T. ACT, NO ADJUSTME NT OF SALE CONSIDERATION IS WARRANTED. 13.1. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT IN RESPECT OF BHAN DUP PROPERTY, THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS MENTIONED AT 2,17,60,000/-. HOWEVER, THE VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY WAS CONSIDERED AT RS. 3,08,36,000/-. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE VA LUE ADOPTED FOR STAMP DUTY BY THE REGISTRAR IS ON HIGHER SIDE THAN THE ACTUAL SALE PRICE OF RS. 2,17,60,000/-. HE FURTHER CONTENDED T HAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GET THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY DUE TO DEFECT IN THE PROPERTY AS THERE WAS A DP ROAD RUNNING THROUGH T HE PLOT AND THIS AFFECTED THE MARKET RATE. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED T O REFER THE PROPERTY TO THE DVO. THE AO REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO AND THE REPORT WAS OBTAINED ON 21.12.2009 AND THE PROPERTY WAS VALUED AT ITA NO. 3295/M/2011 C.O. NO. 155/M/2011 8 RS. 2,34,71,360/-. THE AO ACCORDINGLY ADOPTED THE DVOS VALUATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 50C AND THE LONG TERM CAPIT AL GAINS OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) REFERRING TO THE PROV ISIONS OF SEC. 50C(3) HELD THAT THE VALUE TAKEN BY THE DVO IS TO BE ACCEPTED. HE FURTHER HELD THAT WHEN THE DVOS VALUATION IS MORE THAN THE VALUE DONE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY, THEN THE DVO S VALUATION SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN. SINCE IN THIS CASE, THE DVOS VALUATION IS LESS THAN THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION, HE ADOPTED THE DVO S VALUATION. 14.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO PROVISIONS OF SEC. 55A(B)(I) OF THE ACT SUBMITS THAT REFERENCE TO VALU ATION OFFICER SHOULD BE MADE ONLY WHEN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF T HE ASSET IS LIKELY TO EXCEEDS THE VALUE OF ASSETS AS CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE BY MORE THAN SUCH PERCENTAGE AS IS PRESCRIBED IN RULE 111A A OF I.T. RULES. HE SUBMITS THAT THE PERCENTAGE PRESCRIBED IN RULE 1 11AA IS 15% AND RS. 25,000/-. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT IN THIS CASE SINCE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION ADOPTED I N SALE DEED AND THE VALUATION ARRIVED BY THE DVO IS LESS THAN 15%, THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE AGREEMENT OF SALE SHALL BE A DOPTED INSTEAD OF DVOS VALUATION. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT REFERENCE TO DVO IS NOT CORRECT AS THE DIFFERENCE IS LESS THAN 15%. 15. THE LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ITA NO. 3295/M/2011 C.O. NO. 155/M/2011 9 16. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL. FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING , WE EXTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 55 A(B)(I). SEC. 55A .. WITH A VIEW TO ASCERTAINING THE FAIR M ARKET VALUE OF A CAPITAL ASSET FOR VALUATION OF CAPITAL A SSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER (B) (I) THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET EX CEEDS THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BY MO RE THAN SUCH PERCENTAGE OF THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS SO CLA IMED OR BY MORE THAN SUCH AMOUNT AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED IN TH IS BEHALF. 17. AS IT COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE SUB CLAUSE (I) OF CLAUSE (B) OF SEC. 55A, THE AO WITH A VIEW TO ASCERTAIN THE FA IR MARKET VALUE OF A CAPITAL ASSET FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF INC OME FROM CAPITAL GAINS MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF CAPITAL ASSETS T O A VALUATION OFFICER IF THE AO IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE FAIR MARKET VA LUE OF THE ASSET EXCEEDS THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS AS CLAIMED BY THE A SSESSEE BY MORE THAN SUCH PERCENTAGE OF THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE OR BY MORE THAN SUCH AMOUNT AS IS PRESCRIB ED IN THIS BEHALF. IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THE PERCENTAGE AND THE AMOUNT PRESCRIBED IN RULE 111AA IS 15% AND RS. 25,000/- RESPECTIVELY. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE DIFFEREN CE BETWEEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION AND THE DVOS VALUATION IS LESS THAN 15%, THE SALE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT ONLY HAS T O BE ADOPTED APPEARS TO BE NOT CORRECT FOR THE REASON THAT SUB-C LAUSE (I) OF CLAUSE (B) OF SEC. 55A STATES THAT IF THE FAIR MARKET VALU E OF THE ASSET EXCEEDS 15% OR 25,000/- THAN THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS CLAI MED BY THE ITA NO. 3295/M/2011 C.O. NO. 155/M/2011 10 ASSESSE, THEN REFERENCE IS TO BE MADE THE VALUATIO N OFFICER. IN ASSESSEES CASE, THOUGH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION APPEARING IN THE SALE AGREEMENT AND THE DVOS VALUA TION IS LESS THAN 15%, SINCE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET AS PE R THE DVO IS MORE THAN RS. 25,000/- OF THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE SALE AGREEMENT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE REFERENCE IS BAD. THUS, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ADOPTING THE DVOS VALUATION AS SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAP ITAL GAINS. 18. THE LAST ISSUE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE AS SESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADHOC DISALLOWANC E OF BUSINESS EXPENSES INCURRED FOR BUSINESS. 18.1. THE AO WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME DISALLOWED EXPENSES OF RS. 1,00,000/- FROM THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS. 18.2. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS. 50,00 0/-. 18.3. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO DESERVES TO BE DELETED BECAUSE SUPPO RTING VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF THESE EXPENSES WERE PRODUCED BEFORE T HE AO. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO REASON MENTIONED I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS TO WHY THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THESE EXPENSE S. 19. THE LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 20. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES AND THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER ITA NO. 3295/M/2011 C.O. NO. 155/M/2011 11 AUTHORITIES AND TAKING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES INTO CONSIDERATION, WE RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS. 25,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 50,000/-. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD FEBRUARY , 2016. SD/- SD/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (C.N. PRASAD ) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %&# /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; )# DATED : 3 RD FEBRUARY, 2016 . & . ./ RJ , SR. PS !'#$#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. * ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. * / CIT 5. +,-&&./ , ./' , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. -012 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, +& //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI