Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Mumbai V. JSW Jaigarh Port Limited, Bandra(East)

ITA 3345/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7495 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 24-04-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESHWARI MENON
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional evidence; Bogus
• Section: 251; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 3342/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & ITA No. 3345/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. CIT-5(2)(1), 5th floor, R.N. 571, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Vs. JSW Jaigarh Port Ltd., 5 th floor, JSW Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AABCJ 7959 F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue by : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, DR Date of Hearing : 25/04/2024 Date of pronouncement : 30/04/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These two appeals filed by the Revenue filed electronically are directed against two separate orders, dated 27.07.2023 and 24.07.2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for assessment years 2010-11 and 2013 dispute is involved in these together and disposed of convenience and avoid repetition of facts. 2. The grounds of appeal year 2010-11 in ITA No. 3342/M/2023 are reproduced as under: 1. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made of depreciation claim Rs.6,94,43,326/ under Rule 46A even though the assessee has not conditions under Rule 46A: a. Where the [Assessing Officer] has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or b. Where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was calle Where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the [Assessing Officer] any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal; or d. Where the [Assessing Officer] has made the appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal." 2. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disa appreciating the facts that the depreciation claim on assets for which bills were not produced by the assessee for the assessment year 2010 was Rs.138,88,66,528/ which was Rs.6,94,43,3 3. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the Ld.CIT (A) was justified in deleting addition on account of the Berth Hire Income of Rs. 63,16,668/ during the trial been already offered by the assessee as pre 4. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and confirm the order of the AO. 3. Briefly stated fa is engaged in the business of development and operation of ports and providing port services. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income ITA No 11 and 2013-14 respectively. As common issue in dispute is involved in these appeals, therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue for assessment 11 in ITA No. 3342/M/2023 are reproduced as under: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made of depreciation claim Rs.6,94,43,326/- admitting the additional evidences under Rule 46A even though the assessee has not fulfilled the following conditions under Rule 46A: a. Where the [Assessing Officer] has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or b. Where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the [Assessing Officer]; or c. Where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the [Assessing Officer] any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal; or d. Where the [Assessing Officer] has made the appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal." "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made without appreciating the facts that the depreciation claim on assets for which bills were not produced by the assessee for the assessment year 2010 was Rs.138,88,66,528/- of which depreciation claim at the rate of 5% which was Rs.6,94,43,326/- was disallowed." "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A) was justified in deleting addition on account of the Berth Hire Income of Rs. 63,16,668/- holding that birth hire income earned during the trial run operation are allocated to the fixed assets and has been already offered by the assessee as pre-commencement income." The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and confirm the order of the AO. facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of development and operation of ports and providing port services. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated JSW Jaigarh Port Ltd. 2 ITA Nos. 3342 & 3345/Mum/2023 14 respectively. As common issue in re, same were heard by way of this consolidated order for Revenue for assessment 11 in ITA No. 3342/M/2023 are reproduced as under: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made of admitting the additional evidences fulfilled the following conditions under Rule 46A: a. Where the [Assessing Officer] has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or b. Where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence d upon to produce by the [Assessing Officer]; or c. Where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the [Assessing Officer] any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal; or d. Where the [Assessing Officer] has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, llowance made without appreciating the facts that the depreciation claim on assets for which bills were not produced by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 of which depreciation claim at the rate of 5% the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A) was justified in deleting addition on account of the Berth income earned run operation are allocated to the fixed assets and has commencement income." The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set cts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of development and operation of ports and providing port services. In the assessment completed u/s tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 28.03.2013 , total los assessment, the Assessing Officer made disallowance Rs.6,94,43,326/- for depreciation @ 5% on the bills which were not produced during the assessment proceedings amounting to 138,88,66,528/- and the income out of trial run not shown in the profit and loss account. 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted both the additions. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 5. As far as ground No concerned, the Revenue is mainly aggrieved with additional evidence Income-tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’) the issue in dispute are that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee could not produce respect of fixed assets and therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed deprecation @ 5% on those bills to Rs.6,94,43,326/-. During the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee additional evidence along with application under Rule 46A Rules for admitting forwarded those additional evidence to the file of the Assessing Officer under the procedure laid down under Rule 46A of the Rules. The Ld. Assessing Officer in his remand report though ITA No total loss was determined at Rs.2,67,37,780/ assessment, the Assessing Officer made disallowance for depreciation @ 5% on the bills which were not produced during the assessment proceedings amounting to and secondly , disallowance of Rs.63,16,668/ the income out of trial run not shown in the profit and loss account. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted both the additions. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the s as reproduced above. As far as ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the appeal of the Revenue the Revenue is mainly aggrieved with additional evidence by the ld CIT(A) invoking Rule 46A of the tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’). The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee could not produce bills of Rs. 138,88,66,528/ assets and therefore, the Assessing Officer allowed deprecation @ 5% on those bills , which was worked out . During the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed those bills and vouchers in the form of additional evidence along with application under Rule 46A Rules for admitting those additional evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded those additional evidence to the file of the Assessing Officer under the procedure laid down under Rule 46A of the Rules. The Ld. Assessing Officer in his remand report though JSW Jaigarh Port Ltd. 3 ITA Nos. 3342 & 3345/Mum/2023 37,780/-. In the assessment, the Assessing Officer made disallowance firstly, of for depreciation @ 5% on the bills which were not produced during the assessment proceedings amounting to Rs. disallowance of Rs.63,16,668/- for the income out of trial run not shown in the profit and loss account. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted both the additions. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the of the appeal of the Revenue are the Revenue is mainly aggrieved with admission of invoking Rule 46A of the . The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that during the assessment proceedings, 138,88,66,528/- in assets and therefore, the Assessing Officer which was worked out . During the appellate proceedings before the filed those bills and vouchers in the form of additional evidence along with application under Rule 46A of the additional evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded those additional evidence to the file of the Assessing Officer under the procedure laid down under Rule 46A of the Rules. The Ld. Assessing Officer in his remand report though examined and verified the bills evidence should not be admitted for the reason that the assessee failed to produce those bills and vouchers during the course of the assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) however, ad additional evidence submitted by the assessee and deleted the additional observing as under: “The Assessing Officer has examined additional evidences submitted in the form of 13 box files that were not submitted at the time of assessment proceedings and after detailed verification of such invoices the A.O stated that the same is found correct and acceptable. But without specifying any reasons the AO has requested the CIT( appeals) not to give relief to the assessee based on the additional evidenc illogical where as one side is accepting the correctness of the evidences and at the same time requesting not to give relief. From the remand report submitted by the AO it can be clearly understood that the AO has accepted the cor inference was drawn and hence disallowance of Rs.6,94,43,326/ 5% of the capitalisation amount is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and hence the, same is deleted. Ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 6. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The only objection of the Revenue is that those additional evidence the Ld. CIT(A), being admitted in contrav 46A of the Rules. For ready ref reproduced as under: “46A. Production of additional evidence before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals). (1)The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals), any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the Assessing Officer, except in the following circumstances, namely : ITA No and verified the bills, however submitted that those additional evidence should not be admitted for the reason that the assessee failed to produce those bills and vouchers during the course of the assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) however, ad additional evidence submitted by the assessee and deleted the additional observing as under: The Assessing Officer has examined additional evidences submitted in the form of 13 box files that were not submitted at the time of assessment ings and after detailed verification of such invoices the A.O stated that the same is found correct and acceptable. But without specifying any reasons the AO has requested the CIT( appeals) not to give relief to the assessee based on the additional evidences submitted. This sounds illogical where as one side is accepting the correctness of the evidences and at the same time requesting not to give relief. From the remand report submitted by the AO it can be clearly understood that the AO has accepted the correctness of the claim and no negative inference was drawn and hence disallowance of Rs.6,94,43,326/ 5% of the capitalisation amount is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and hence the, same is deleted. Ground of appeal filed by the essee is allowed.” We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The only objection of the Revenue is that those additional evidences should not have been admitted by , being admitted in contravention of provisions of Rule 46A of the Rules. For ready reference, the Rule 46A of the Ru reproduced as under: “46A. Production of additional evidence before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals), any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the dence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the Assessing Officer, except in the following circumstances, namely : JSW Jaigarh Port Ltd. 4 ITA Nos. 3342 & 3345/Mum/2023 however submitted that those additional evidence should not be admitted for the reason that the assessee failed to produce those bills and vouchers during the course of the assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) however, admitted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee and deleted the The Assessing Officer has examined additional evidences submitted in the form of 13 box files that were not submitted at the time of assessment ings and after detailed verification of such invoices the A.O stated that the same is found correct and acceptable. But without specifying any reasons the AO has requested the CIT( appeals) not to give relief to the es submitted. This sounds illogical where as one side is accepting the correctness of the evidences From the remand report submitted by the AO it can be clearly understood rectness of the claim and no negative inference was drawn and hence disallowance of Rs.6,94,43,326/- being 5% of the capitalisation amount is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and hence the, same is deleted. Ground of appeal filed by the We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The only objection of the Revenue is should not have been admitted by ention of provisions of Rule erence, the Rule 46A of the Rules is “46A. Production of additional evidence before the Deputy The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals), any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the dence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the Assessing Officer, except in the following circumstances, namely :- (a)where the Assessing Officer has refused to admit evidence which o (b)where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer ; or (c)where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the Assessing Officer any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal ; or (d)wher against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal (2)No evidence shall be admitted un Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) records in writing the reasons for its admission. (3)The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as Commissioner (Appeals) shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub allowed a reasonable opportunity (a)to examine the witness produced by the appellant, or (b)to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the (4)Nothing contained in this rule shall affect the power of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) to direct the production of any document, or th any witness, to enable him to dispose of the appeal, or for any other substantial cause including the enhancement of the assessment or penalty (whether on his own motion or on the request of the Assessing Officer) under clause (a) of sub of penalty under section 271. 6.1 Before us the Ld. counsel for the assessee time taken for photocopying of vouchers containing during the course of the assessment proceedings were produced before the Ld. CIT(A) 46A(1)(d) of the Rules take care of such a situation and therefore, ITA No where the Assessing Officer has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted ; or where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer ; or where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the Assessing Officer any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal ; or where the Assessing Officer has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. No evidence shall be admitted under sub-rule (1) unless the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) records in writing the reasons for its admission. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) unless the Assessing Officer has been allowed a reasonable opportunity- to examine the evidence or document or to cross witness produced by the appellant, or to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the appellant. Nothing contained in this rule shall affect the power of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) to direct the production of any document, or the examination of any witness, to enable him to dispose of the appeal, or for any other substantial cause including the enhancement of the assessment or penalty (whether on his own motion or on the request of the Assessing Officer) under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271.” the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that due to time taken for photocopying of voluminous records of containing 13 box files, same could not be produced during the course of the assessment proceedings, h were produced before the Ld. CIT(A). In our opinion the rule 46A(1)(d) of the Rules take care of such a situation and therefore, JSW Jaigarh Port Ltd. 5 ITA Nos. 3342 & 3345/Mum/2023 where the Assessing Officer has refused to admit evidence where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the Assessing Officer any evidence which is e the Assessing Officer has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of rule (1) unless the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall not take into account any evidence rule (1) unless the Assessing Officer has been evidence or document or to cross-examine the to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal appellant. Nothing contained in this rule shall affect the power of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner e examination of any witness, to enable him to dispose of the appeal, or for any other substantial cause including the enhancement of the assessment or penalty (whether on his own motion or on the request of the Assessing ection (1) of section 251 or the imposition submitted that due to voluminous records of bills and , same could not be produced , however, same . In our opinion the rule 46A(1)(d) of the Rules take care of such a situation and therefore, the ld CIT(A) is justified in admit of the opinion that when the Assessing Officer himself as verified those bills and vouchers and found to be correct substantial justice objection to additional evidence is not terms of Rule 46A. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly uphold the same. The ground No Revenue are accordingly dismissed. 7. The ground No. 3 of the appeal of th addition of Rs.63,16,688/ have been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 7.1 We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. birth hire income of Rs.1,28,57,298/ Rs.63,16,688/- was which was adjusted against trial entire cost of fixed assets/capital work in progress. But accordin to the Assessing Officer this income of Rs.63,16,688/ reflected in the profit and loss account and therefore, he added to the returned income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition holding that the birth hire charges during the operation to the tune of Rs.63,16,688/ the assessee. We agree with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and do not find any infirmity in the same as the income during the trial run ITA No the ld CIT(A) is justified in admitting the evidences. when the Assessing Officer himself as verified those bills and vouchers and found to be correct, in the interest of substantial justice objection to additional evidence is not A. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly uphold the same. The ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the accordingly dismissed. The ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee relate to addition of Rs.63,16,688/- in respect of birth hire income which have been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that assessee has earned tota birth hire income of Rs.1,28,57,298/-, out of income of earned during the course of the trial run and adjusted against trial run expenditure or entire cost of fixed assets/capital work in progress. But accordin to the Assessing Officer this income of Rs.63,16,688/ reflected in the profit and loss account and therefore, he added to the returned income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition holding that the birth hire charges during the operation to the tune of Rs.63,16,688/- has already been offered by the assessee. We agree with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and do not find any infirmity in the same as the income during the trial run JSW Jaigarh Port Ltd. 6 ITA Nos. 3342 & 3345/Mum/2023 Further, we are when the Assessing Officer himself as verified in the interest of substantial justice objection to additional evidence is not as per A. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly, we . 1 and 2 of the appeal of the e assessee relate to in respect of birth hire income which We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the We find that assessee has earned total out of income of earned during the course of the trial run and or netted against entire cost of fixed assets/capital work in progress. But according to the Assessing Officer this income of Rs.63,16,688/- was not reflected in the profit and loss account and therefore, he added to the returned income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition holding that the birth hire charges during the trial run has already been offered by the assessee. We agree with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and do not find any infirmity in the same as the income during the trial run has gone to reduce the cost of the assets stand offered to tax. The ground No. 3 of the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. 8. Now we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2013-14. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under: 1. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made of depreciation claim Rs.6,94,43,326/ Ld.CIT(A) for A. Y.2010 disallowance admitting the additional evidences under Rule 46A even though the assessee has not fulfilled the following conditions under Rule 46A in the said 2 "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the 10% of the disallowance made out of total CSR expenses without appreciating the facts that the assessee had not produced any documentary evidences in respect of the above expenses. 3 The appellant prays that the aside and confirm the order of the AO. 9. The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue is identical to the ground No. 1 raised in assessment year 2010 following our finding appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 11. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the Revenue relates to deleting the 10% of the disallowance made out of total CSR expenses. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is reproduced as under: “Ground No. 2: ITA No to reduce the cost of the assets and thus directly income stand offered to tax. The ground No. 3 of the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. Now we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 14. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made of depreciation claim Rs.6,94,43,326/- relying on the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) for A. Y.2010-11 wherein the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the similar disallowance admitting the additional evidences under Rule 46A even though the assessee has not fulfilled the following conditions under Rule 46A in the said A.Y. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, he Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the 10% of the disallowance made out of total CSR expenses without appreciating the facts that the assessee had not produced any documentary evidences in respect of the above expenses. 3 The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and confirm the order of the AO. The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue is identical to the ground No. 1 raised in assessment year 2010-11 and therefore, following our finding in assessment year 2010-11, t appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the Revenue relates to deleting the 10% of the disallowance made out of total CSR expenses. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in produced as under: JSW Jaigarh Port Ltd. 7 ITA Nos. 3342 & 3345/Mum/2023 and thus directly income stand offered to tax. The ground No. 3 of the appeal of the Revenue Now we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 14. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made of relying on the decision of the leted the similar disallowance admitting the additional evidences under Rule 46A even though the assessee has not fulfilled the following conditions under Rule "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, he Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the 10% of the disallowance made out of total CSR expenses without appreciating the facts that the assessee had not produced any documentary evidences in respect of the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue is identical to 11 and therefore, 11, this ground of The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the Revenue relates to deleting the 10% of the disallowance made out of total CSR expenses. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in This ground pertain to adhoc disallowance of Rs.4,57,884/ of the CSR expenses claimed by the assessee during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer in his order while making disallowance at the r ascertain whether entire amount of Rs.45,78,842/ towards Corporate Social Responsibility expenses, of the assessee company and further has stated that this disallowance is being made following the stand taken for AY 2011 drawn the basis to arrive at such conclusion and has not found any invalid/inadmissible documentary evidences. The Assessing Officer is duty bound to bring out detailed facts on record befo taxable income. Adequate materials should have been gathered and placed on record on to established that it warrants upwards modification of the taxable profit. Based on the facts available on record, it is observed that the Assessing Offi the books of accounts of the assessee and has not established that any particular expenditure has not been wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business. Further, the AO has not found any exp bogus or fictitious. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is considered unwarranted and the same is deleted. Grounds of appe this issue stand allowed”. 11.1 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that that the Assessing Officer has made ad Corporate Social Responsibility (C it was not possible Rs.45,78,842/- had been expanded towards Corporate Social Responsibility expenses. Under the scrutiny process, it is the responsibility of the Assessing Officer to verify the bills and vouchers of the expenses if he was having any doubt be permitted to make ad genuineness of the expenses. In our opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the said ad any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance following the binding precedent on the issue in ITA No This ground pertain to adhoc disallowance of Rs.4,57,884/ of the CSR expenses claimed by the assessee during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer in his order while making disallowance at the rate of 10% has stated that it is not possible to ascertain whether entire amount of Rs.45,78,842/- has been expanded towards Corporate Social Responsibility expenses, of the assessee company and further has stated that this disallowance is being made wing the stand taken for AY 2011-12. The Assessing Officer has not drawn the basis to arrive at such conclusion and has not found any invalid/inadmissible documentary evidences. The Assessing Officer is duty bound to bring out detailed facts on record before modifying the taxable income. Adequate materials should have been gathered and placed on record on to established that it warrants upwards modification of the taxable profit. Based on the facts available on record, it is observed that the Assessing Officer had not pointed out any non-genuine entries in the books of accounts of the assessee and has not established that any particular expenditure has not been wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business. Further, the AO has not found any exp bogus or fictitious. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is considered unwarranted and the same is deleted. Grounds of appe this issue stand allowed”. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in ute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that that the Assessing Officer has made ad-hoc disallowance @ 10% orporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenses on the ground that it was not possible to ascertain whether the entire amount of had been expanded towards Corporate Social Responsibility expenses. Under the scrutiny process, it is the responsibility of the Assessing Officer to verify the bills and vouchers of the expenses if he was having any doubt tted to make ad-hoc disallowance without verifying the genuineness of the expenses. In our opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the said ad-hoc disallowance. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the ce following the binding precedent on the issue in JSW Jaigarh Port Ltd. 8 ITA Nos. 3342 & 3345/Mum/2023 This ground pertain to adhoc disallowance of Rs.4,57,884/- which is 10% of the CSR expenses claimed by the assessee during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer in his order while making ate of 10% has stated that it is not possible to has been expanded towards Corporate Social Responsibility expenses, of the assessee company and further has stated that this disallowance is being made 12. The Assessing Officer has not drawn the basis to arrive at such conclusion and has not found any invalid/inadmissible documentary evidences. The Assessing Officer is re modifying the taxable income. Adequate materials should have been gathered and placed on record on to established that it warrants upwards modification of the taxable profit. Based on the facts available on record, it is observed genuine entries in the books of accounts of the assessee and has not established that any particular expenditure has not been wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business. Further, the AO has not found any expenditure to be bogus or fictitious. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is considered unwarranted and the same is deleted. Grounds of appeal of We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in ute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that hoc disallowance @ 10% expenses on the ground that to ascertain whether the entire amount of had been expanded towards Corporate Social Responsibility expenses. Under the scrutiny process, it is the responsibility of the Assessing Officer to verify the bills and vouchers of the expenses if he was having any doubt, but he cannot hoc disallowance without verifying the genuineness of the expenses. In our opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) is hoc disallowance. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the ce following the binding precedent on the issue in dispute. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. 12. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/04/2024 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA No dispute. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. nounced in the open Court on 30/04/2024. Sd/- RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai JSW Jaigarh Port Ltd. 9 ITA Nos. 3342 & 3345/Mum/2023 dispute. The ground No. 2 of the appeal of the Revenue is In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. /04/2024. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai