M/s Jindal Woollen, Panipat V. ACIT, Panipat

ITA 330/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9744 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 27-08-2009
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H K LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R K AGGARWAL ITP
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.330/DEL./2009 (A.Y. : 2005-06) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH `D : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI D.R. SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.330/DEL./2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) M/S JINDAL WOOLLEN INDUSTRIES, VS. ACIT, PANIPAT CIRCLE G-3, INDUSTRIAL AREA, PANIPAT. PANIPAT 132103.. (PAN/GIR NO.AABFJ6683K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.K. AGGARWAL, ITP REVENUE BY : SHRI H.K. LAL, SR.DR ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), KARNAL DATED 2.12.2008 FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS LEGALLY BAD AND FACTUALLY WRONG. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUST AINING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.22.909/- OUT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.49,484/- MADE BY THE A.O., OUT OF INTEREST, U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 [PARA.6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER]. THIS DISALLOWANCE OF RS.22,909/- MAY KINDLY BE DELE TED AND/OR ANY OTHER DUE RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUST AINING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.57,437/- OUT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,29,748/ - MADE BY THE A.O. OUT OF TRAVELING EXPENSES[PARA.9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER]. THIS DISALLOWANCE OF RS.57.437/- MAY KINDLY BE DELETED AND/OR ANY OTHER DUE RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR PERMISSION TO BE ALLOWE D TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. GROUND NOS.1 & 4 ARE GENERAL. REGARDING GROUND NO.2, THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE 1 OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.74.76 LAKHS AND HAS PAID INTEREST OF RS.6.10 LAKHS ON THESE I.T.A. NO.330/DEL./2009 (A.Y. : 2005-06) 2 LOANS. IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADVANCED AN AMOUNT OF RS.605873 TO VARIOUS PERSONS WITHOUT CHAR GING ANY INTEREST AND WITHOUT ANY BUSINESS PURPOSE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE PRO-RATA INTEREST PAID ON THESE UNSECURED LOANS SHOULD NOT B E DISALLOWED, IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE P&H HIGH COURT, RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ABHISHEKH INDUSTRIES LTD., 286 ITR 01. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE THAT NO AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADVANCED TO THESE PARTIES DURING LAST THREE YEARS A ND IN EARLIER YEARS, EXPENDITURE OF INTEREST HAS ALWAYS BEEN TOTALLY ALLOWED. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS FOLLOWED TH E DECISION OF HONBLE P&H HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ABHISHEKH INDUSTRIE S LTD.(SUPRA) AND MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.49484. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), WHO HAS IN PR ICIPLE UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE, BUT ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN MISTAKES POINTED OUT BY THE A SSESSEE IN CALCULATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE, HE HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.22,909. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE P&H HIGH COURT, RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ABHISHEK IN DUSTRIES LTD.(SUPRA) HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION VS. CIT AS REPORTED IN 298 ITR (P&H). IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE P&H HIGH COURT, RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MUNJAL SALES CO RPORATION HAS BEEN REVERSED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT AS PER THE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION VS. CIT, 298 ITR 298. IT IS ALSO SUBMI TTED THAT THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE AND IN THE CASE OF ABHISHEKH INDUSTRIES LTD. ARE D IFFERENT WHEREAS THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE AND FACTS IN THE CASE OF MUNJAL SALES CORPORAT ION ARE SIMILAR, AND HENCE IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RE NDERED IN THE CASE OF MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION (SUPRA) SHOULD BE FOLLOWED AS AGAINST T HE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE P&H HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ABHISHEKH INDUSTRIES LTD.(SUPRA). REGARDING DIFFERENCE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO IN THE CASE OF ABHIS HEKH INDUSTRIES LTD.(SUPRA), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF ABHISHEKH INDUSTRIES LTD.(SUPRA), INTEREST FREE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN IN THE SAME YEAR BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE , INTEREST FREE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN IN EARLIER YEARS AND THERE IS NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTER EST IN THE PRESENT CASE IN EARLIER YEARS. I.T.A. NO.330/DEL./2009 (A.Y. : 2005-06) 3 4. AS AGAINST THIS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.DR O F THE REVENUE THAT IN THE CASE OF MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION(SUPRA), HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE P&H HIGH COURT, RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MUN JAL SALES CORPORATION AND THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE P&H HIGH COURT, RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ABHISHEKH INDUSTRIES LTD.(SUPRA) WAS NOT REVERSED AND IT WAS ONLY REFERR ED TO, AND HENCE IN THE PRESENT CASE, JUDGMENT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ABHISHEKH INDUSTRI ES LTD.(SUPRA) SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FACTS IN THE CASE OF MUNJAL SALE S CORPORATION (SUPRA) ARE DIFFERENT AND HENCE THAT JUDGMENT CANNOT BE FOLLOWED IN THE PRESE NT CASE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW AND THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE JUDGMENTS FOLLO WED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF MUNJAL SALES CORPORATION ( SUPRA), IT WAS NOTED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT ON PAGE 305 THAT INTEREST FREE LOANS IN QUESTION WERE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE REGARDING SUCH LOANS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN AU GUST/SEPTEMBER, 1991. REGARDING FRESH LOAN OF RS.5 LAKHS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE PROFITS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURIN G THE RELEVANT YEAR WERE SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE IMPUGNED LOAN OF RS. 5 LAKHS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN THIS CASE, HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS D ECIDED THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF FACTS OF THAT CASE AND ONLY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE P&H H IGH COURT IN THAT CASE WAS REVERSED AND THERE IS NO REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE P&H HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ABHISHEKH INDUSTRIES LTD.(SUPRA). 6. NOW, WE CONSIDER AND EXAMINE THE FACTS IN THE CA SE OF ABHISHEKH INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA). FROM THE FACTS NOTED IN THIS CASE, WE FIN D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED INTEREST FREE LOANS TO SISTER CONCERN BEFORE THE COMMENCEMEN T OF PRODUCTION AND ALSO AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION. IT WAS THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE THAT THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE NEXUS OF INTERE ST BEARING LOAN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE INTEREST FREE LOANS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO SISTER CONCERN. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SUCH LOANS WERE ADVANCED OUT OF COMPANYS OWN FUNDS . UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE P&H HIGH COURT THAT IF SUCH CAPITAL WAS SUR PLUS AND THE ASSESSEE COULD PART WITH THE SAME TO SISTER CONCERN FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE WITHOUT ANY INTEREST, THERE WAS I.T.A. NO.330/DEL./2009 (A.Y. : 2005-06) 4 NOTHING TO RAISE LOANS TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH SHARE CAPITAL AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PROJECT ITSELF. REGARDING ES TABLISHMENT OF NEXUS OF THE FUNDS BORROWED VIS--VIS THE FUNDS DIVERTED TOWARDS SISTE R CONCERN ON INTEREST FREE BASIS, IT WAS HELD THAT SUCH ONUS IS NOT ON THE REVENUE, BUT IS N OT ON ASSESSEE BECAUSE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OF INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III), THE ONUS WILL BE ON THE ASSESSEE TO SATISFY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT WHATEVER LOANS WERE RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME WERE USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE FIND THAT AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE P&H HIGH COURT WHICH IS JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE PRESENT CASE IF INTEREST FREE ADVANCES ARE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS PAYING INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS, PRO-RATA DISALLOWANCE IS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE AS PER T HIS JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, SUCH BORROWED FUNDS SHOULD EITHER BE USED FO R THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR SHOULD BE RETURNED OR IF RETURN IS NOT POSSIBLE, IT SHOULD BE SO INVESTED TO GENERATE INCOME. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE NOT RETU RNED AND THE SURPLUS MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DIVERTED AS INTEREST FREE ADVANCE. AS PER THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE P&H HIGH COURT, THE REVENUE IS NOT REQUIRED TO ESTABLIS H ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS AND INTEREST FREE ADVANCES A ND THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE ENTIRE INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUND S WERE USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE SAME AND HENCE WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E-TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE. REGARDING THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH INTE REST FREE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN IN EARLIER YEARS AND THERE WAS NO DISALLOWANCE IN EARLIER YEAR S, WE FEEL THAT THIS CANNOT BE A BASIS TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE IN THE PRESENT YEAR, BECAUS E IN INCOME-TAX, RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ABHISHEKH INDUS TRIES LTD.(SUPRA). 7. THE FACTS REGARDING GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEB ITED TRAVELING EXPENSES OF RS.757655 IN P&L A/C WHICH PERTAINED TO TRAVEL OUTSIDE INDIA. IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IN RESPECT OF TRAVELING EXPENSES OF RS .2,29,748, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY SUPPORTING BILLS/EVIDENCES OR ANY OTH ER JUSTIFICATION IN THIS REGARD, AND I.T.A. NO.330/DEL./2009 (A.Y. : 2005-06) 5 HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAME. B EING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX (APPEALS). BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), IT WAS SUBMIT TED THAT OUT OF THIS DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,29,748, RS.70,000 IS ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRA VEL AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT IS ON ACCOUNT OF INLAND TRAVEL. IT IS NOTED BY THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED AIR FARE ON ACCOU NT OF VISIT TO BANGKOK, BUT ENTIRE EXPENSES OF RS.70,000 HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT IS HELD BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E-TAX (APPEALS) THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS OF BILLS FOR RS.70,00 0, 3/4 TH OF THE EXPENSES IS ALLOWED AND DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO 25% I.E. RS.17,500. REGARDING THE BALANCE EXPENSES, IT IS NOTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) T HAT THE SAME IS IN CONNECTION WITH LOCAL TRAVEL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DET AILS AND IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOUND ANY DISCREPANCY WIT H REGARD TO THE BILLS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS ONLY OBSERVED THAT MOST OF THE TRAVELS ARE BY THE PERSONS OTHER THAN THE PARTNERS AND, THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE. IT IS HELD BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEA LS) THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE TRAVELER WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE PURPOSE OF VISIT ETC., 25% OF THE EXPENSES ARE DISALLOWED. HE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.57,437 AS AGAI NST TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,29,748. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE THA T WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX (APPEALS) WERE FORWARDED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 250(4) OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 4.11.08, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ABSTAINED FROM SAYING ANYTHING IN THE MATTER AND HENCE IT IS APPARENT THAT HE HAS ACC EPTED THE FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES AND JUSTIFICATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.17,500 OUT OF RS.70,000. REGARDING THE BALANCE DISALLOWANCE OF R S.159748 OUT OF WHICH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 25%, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS DISALLOWANCE HAS B EEN CONFIRMED ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS, RELATI ONSHIP OF THE TRAVELERS WITH THE ASSESSEE I.T.A. NO.330/DEL./2009 (A.Y. : 2005-06) 6 AND THE PURPOSE OF VISIT ETC. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THIS FINDING IS TOTALLY AND APPARENTLY WRONG. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ENQUIRY WAS NOT M ADE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) HIMSELF AND HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE INQUIRY AND SUBMIT THE REPORT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DID NOT REPORT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS, RELATI ONS OF THE TRAVELERS WITH THE ASSESSEE AND PURPOSE OF VISIT ETC., AND HENCE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. AS AGAINST THIS, LD.DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS REGARDING THE EXPENSES UP TO RS. 70,000 INCURRED IN BANGKOK. A SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED BY THE BENCH AS TO WHETHE R SUCH DETAILS CAN BE FURNISHED NOW, BUT IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO FURNISH SUCH DETAILS. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE REASON THAT NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED. THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF 75% OF THIS AMOUNT AND D ISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN RESTRICTED TO 25% FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNIS HED ANY BILLS OR DETAILS FOR RS.70,000. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS OR BILLS/VOUCHERS ETC., WE FEEL THAT PART DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 25% IS REASONABLE BEC AUSE IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS, BILLS/VOUCHERS, IT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED AS TO WHET HER THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY EXPE NSES OF PERSONAL NATURE OF THE PERSONS TRAVELING. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE FIND NO REASON TO I NTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). REGARDING PART DISALLOWAN CE OUT OF LOCAL TRAVELING, WE FIND THAT NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGA RD TO THESE EXPENSES. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) THA T ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ASK FOR ANY SUCH DETAILS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED FO R DETAILS REGARDING FOREIGN TRAVELING ONLY. THEREAFTER, THE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE WHICH WAS SENT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FOR REMAND REPORT. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SAYS THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE DECIDED ON MERIT WHICH MEANS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) HAS TO CONSIDER THE DETAILS I.T.A. NO.330/DEL./2009 (A.Y. : 2005-06) 7 AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AND HENCE, WE ARE NOT IN AGREE MENT WITH THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONCE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS OBTAINED REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT CANNOT CONSIDER OTHER EVI DENCE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) HAS REJECTED THE OBJECTION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THAT IF THE TRAVELING EXPENSES ARE INCURRED BY NON-PARTNERS, THE SAME IS NOT ALLOWABLE. BUT, IN ALL SUCH CASES, ASSESSEE HAS TO SATISFY THAT TRAVELING WAS ON ACCOU NT OF BUSINESS. WE FIND THAT IN SPITE OF THIS OBJECTION OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEA LS) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS REGARDING RELATIONS OF THE TR AVELER WITH THE ASSESSEE AND PURPOSE OF VISIT ETC., NO SUCH DETAILS ARE FURNISHED BY THE A SSESSEE EVEN BEFORE US TO JUSTIFY THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES . IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS, IT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED AS TO WHETHER THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND UNDER THESE FACTS, WE FEEL NO GOOD REASON TO INTERF ERE IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE. VARIOUS JUDGME NTS CITED BY THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE IN COURSE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE US AND IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ARE NOT RELEVANT IN VIEW OF THIS FACT THAT DETAILS REGARDIN G EXPENSES IN QUESTION ARE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OR BEF ORE US. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. 11. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 11.09.2009. (D.R. SINGH ) (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: SEPT. 11, 2009. *SKB* COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A), KARNAL. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT I.T.A. NO.330/DEL./2009 (A.Y. : 2005-06) 8