The ACIT, Circle-2(2), Baroda V. Raymon Glues & Chemicals(Now Known, Baroda

ITA 339/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0290 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-08-2010
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND N.S. SAINI, A M) ITA NO.339 AND 340/AHD/2008 A. Y: 1996-97 AND 1998-99 THE A. C. I. T., CIRCLE 2(2), ROOM NO. 409, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, BARODA VS M/S. RAYMON GLUES & CHEMICALS (NOW KNOWN AS RAMON GELATINE), 61, HARIBHAKTI COLONY, J. P. ROAD, BARODA PA NO. AACFR 0181 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR, DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI M. K. PATEL, AR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: BOTH THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CI T(A)-II, BARODA DATED 26-11-2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 AND 1998-99 ON THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUND: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWA NCE OF 1/5 TH OF PROCESSING CHARGES PAID TO AN ASSOCIATE CONCERN COVERED U/S 40A(2) (B), WITHOUT APPRECIATIN G THE RATIO OF NUND AND SAMONT CO. P. LTD. VS. CIT 78 IT R 268 (SC) HOLDING THAT THE ONUS U/S 40A(2)(B) LIES O N THE ASSESSEE TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE THAT THE PAYMENT WAS NO T EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE NOT ONLY WITH REFERENCE T O MARKET RATES, BUT ALSO WITH REFERENCE TO LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS AND THE BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THE PAYMENT AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EVIDENCE, IT WA S NOT UP TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADDUCE INDEPENDE NT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE PAYMENT AS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. 2. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, THE AO DISALLOWE D A SUM OF RS.4,44,749/- BEING 20% OF PROCESSING CHARGES U/S 4 0A (2) (B) OF THE IT ITA NO.339 AND 340/AHD/2008 ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2) VS RAYMON GLUES & CHEMICALS 2 ACT. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED MARINE PRODUCTS AT ITS COCHIN BRANCH. IT WAS PROCESSED BY M/S. RAYMON FOODS PVT. LTD. DURING THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSE SSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISHED DETAILS OF NATURE OF PROCESSING CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON PAST ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND APPELLATE ORDERS WHER EIN DISALLOWANCE OF ONLY 5% WAS MADE. THE SUBMISSIONS WERE FOUND GENERA L AND NO SPECIFIC DETAILS WERE FURNISHED. THE AO ACCORDINGLY DISALLOW ED PART OF THE PROCESSING CHARGES. ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ASSESSEES SUBMISSION IS REPRODUCED IN THE IMPU GNED ORDER IN WHICH ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT COMPARABLE PRICES OF OTHER PARTIES WHO PROVIDED SUCH SERVICES WAS FILED. THE AO SHOULD HAVE SEEN TH E ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY M/S. RAYMON FOOD PVT. LTD. FOR EARNING PROCE SSING CHARGES. THESE ACTIVITIES AFTER PURCHASE OF MARINE PRODUCTS ARE TR ANSPORTATION, WEIGHING, WASHING, GRADING AND REMOVING OF FILTH, FILL IN SMA LL PACKETS, FLUSHING, PACKING IN THE CARTOONS AND KEEPING IN COLD STORAGE . THE ASSESSEE PAID REASONABLE PROCESSING CHARGES. THE AO IN THE SET AS IDE PROCEEDINGS ALSO CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE GEN ERAL. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE SUBMI SSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED REGARD ING SERVICES PROVIDED BY M/S. RAYMON FOODS PVT. LTD. WHO WAS HAVING INFRA STRUCTURE FOR PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF THE AGR EEMENT AND CORRESPONDENCE WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO ALONG WITH ANNUAL ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE PROVED THAT THE AFORESAID PARTY PROVIDED /RENDERED SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, PROVED THAT REASONABLE PRICES HAVE BEEN PAID TO THE AFORESAID PARTY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS 1989-90 TO 1995-96 SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN MADE BY RESTRICTING TO ONLY 5% OF THE CHARGES PAID TO M/S. RAYMON FOODS PVT. LTD. INSTEAD OF 20%. THE ADDITION OF 5% WAS ALSO DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN VARIOUS YEARS AND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990- 91, THE AO ACCEPTED THE REASONABLENESS OF THE EXPENSES AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDE RING THE ITA NO.339 AND 340/AHD/2008 ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2) VS RAYMON GLUES & CHEMICALS 3 SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDI TION. HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 3.3 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUN SEL AND FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THE SAID GROUND CIT(A) WH ILE PASSING THE APPELLATE ORDER HAS SET-ASIDE THE ISSUE OF PROC ESSING CHARGES CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT. DURING THE YE AR, APPELLANT CLAIMED PROCESS CHARGERS ON MARINE PRODUC T PROCESSED BY RAYMON FOODS PVT. LTD. APPELLANT WAS A SKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS IN THE NATURE OF PROCESSING CHA RGE PAID TO RAYMON FOODS PVT. LTD. WHICH IS RELATED CONCERN. IN THE SET- ASIDE PROCEEDING, ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED SIMILAR DETAILS AS AGAINST WHICH APPELLANT RELIED ON PAST ASSESSMENTS AND APPELLATE ORDERS AND SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOWANCE OF EVEN 5% WAS DELETED UP TO THE LEVEL OF HON. ITAT. IT WAS ME NTIONED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE RAYMON FOODS PVT. LTD. HAD S UFFICIENT INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH WAS USED BY THE APPELLANT AND THREE QUOTATIONS WERE ALSO SUBMITTED. ASSESSING OFFICER D ISALLOWED 20% OF THE CLAIM AGAIN ON ACCOUNT OF NON-SUBMISSION S OF ORIGINAL COPIES OF QUOTATIONS FOR VERIFICATION. HON . CIT(A) WHILE SETTING-ASIDE HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SEE THE ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY RAYMON FOODS PVT. LTD. FOR EARNING THE PROCESSING CHARGES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO SUPPOSED TO SEE ACTIVITIES AND THEIR REASONABLENESS OR OTHER WISE. APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE CHARGES SIMILAR TO WHA T IS PAID DURING THE YEAR HAVE BEEN PAID TO RAYMON FOODS PVT. LTD. SINCE PAST MANY YEARS. APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THR EE QUOTATIONS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE NEVE R EXAMINED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE THE FACT THAT RAY MON FOODS PVT. LTD.S QUOTATION WAS THE LOWEST. THE DETAILS O F SERVICES WERE PROVED INCLUDING THE PROCESSING DONE. APPELLAN T CITED VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISION AS PER THAT UNLESS THERE IS FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE WERE EXCESSIVE CO NSIDERING THE BUSINESS REQUIREMENT OF THE APPELLANT, NO DISA LLOWANCE CAN BE MADE. APPELLANT FURTHER MENTIONED THAT FROM A. Y. 1989-90 TO 1995-96 5% DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS DELETED BY HON. ITATS ORDER NO.2875 TO 2878/A/92 DATED 30.10.2001. IN A. Y. 199 0-91 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE REASONABILIT Y OF CHARGES PAID AND ADDITION WAS NOT MADE IN A. Y. 199 0-91. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE APP ELLANT WAS REGULARLY PAYING THE PROCESSING CHARGES TO RAYM ON FOODS PVT. LTD. SINCE PAST MANY YEARS. THE SERVICE RENDERED ITA NO.339 AND 340/AHD/2008 ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2) VS RAYMON GLUES & CHEMICALS 4 BY THEM WAS NEVER IN DOUBT. DURING THIS YEAR ALSO A PPELLANT SUBMITTED THREE QUOTATIONS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WERE SUBMITTED VERY LATE AND THEREFORE NO VERIFICATION COULD BE MADE. IN SET-ASI DE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE EXAMIN ED AND VERIFIED THE QUOTATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT A RE CORRECT OR NOT. HOWEVER, HE AGAIN MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORIGINAL QUOTATIONS WERE NOT SUBMITTED WHI CH CLEARLY MEANS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ESTABLISHE D THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO RAYMON FOODS PVT. WERE EXCESSIVE O R UNREASONABLE. IN ANY CASE, THE HON. ITAT IN APPELLA NTS OWN CASE FOR PAST SEVERAL YEARS HAS DELETED THE ADDITIO N OF EVEN 5%. EVEN IN A. Y. 1995-96 SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS DEL ETED BY ITAT. NO FRESH FACT OR MATERIAL WAS GATHERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLING FOR 20% DISALLOWANCE. SINCE THE ISS UE REMAINS SAME, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ITATS ORDER IN AP PELLANTS OWN CASE, I DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. 3. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ALSO THE AO MADE SIMI LAR DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11,46,319/- AND THE LEARNED CIT( A) FOLLOWING HIS APPELLATE ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 ABOVE D ELETED THE ENTIRE DELETION. 4. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE GROUNDS MEN TIONED ABOVE. 5. THE LEARNED DR BESIDES RELYING UPON THE GROUND O F APPEAL REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF THE AO IN WHICH THE AO HAS RECORDED THAT NO SPECIFIC DETAILS RELATING TO INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES FOR T HE ABOVE PERIOD AND REASONABLENESS OF THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT QUOTATION WAS ALSO NOT SUBMITTED FOR VERIFICATION, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORD THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF NUND & SAMONT CO. P. LTD. VS CIT 78 ITR 268 AND SUBMITTED THAT BURDEN UPON ITA NO.339 AND 340/AHD/2008 ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2) VS RAYMON GLUES & CHEMICALS 5 THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT PARTICULAR ALLOWANCE IS JUSTIFIABLE AND REASONABLE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE HAS FILED COPY OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD C BENCH IN THE CASE O F SAME ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1450/AHD/1999 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 DA TED 11-10-2005 IN WHICH ON IDENTICAL FACTS PAYMENT OF PROCESSING C HARGES TO M/S. RAYMON FOODS PVT. LTD. CONSIDERED TO BE EXCESSIVE U /S 40A (2) @5% WAS DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL DISM ISSED THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF NUND & SAMONT CO. P. LTD. (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: IN AN ENQUIRY UNDER SECTION 10(4A) OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT, 1922, INTO THE EXCESSIVENESS OR UNREASONABLENE SS OF AN ALLOWANCE RESULTING IN THE PROVISION OF ANY REMUNERATION OR BENEFIT OR AMENITY TO A DIRECTOR OR A PERSON WHO HAS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY, IT IS FOR THE TAXPAYER TO ESTABLISH BY EVI DENCE THAT THE PARTICULAR ALLOWANCE IS JUSTIFIABLE. IF TH E TAXPAYER DOES NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT O F THE CLAIM FOR ALLOWANCE, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS NOT BOUND INDEPENDENTLY TO COLLECT EVIDENCE AND DECIDE THAT THE ALLOWANCE CLAIMED IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE LEGITIMATE BUSINESS NEEDS OF T HE ASSESSEE-COMPANY BEFORE THE POWER UNDER SECTION 10( 4A) MAY BE EXERCISED. THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD PROVIDED TOWARDS REMUNERATION FOR ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR, CERTAIN AMOUNTS IN ACCORDANCE WI TH ITS ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF EVID ENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF REMUNERATION SO PROVIDED, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER ALLOWED REMUNERATI ON AT AN AVERAGE OF THE AMOUNTS ALLOWED DURING THE LAS T THREE YEARS AND DISALLOWED THE BALANCE UNDER SECTIO N ITA NO.339 AND 340/AHD/2008 ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2) VS RAYMON GLUES & CHEMICALS 6 10(4A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922. THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT PROVED THAT THE PAYMENT OF THE REMUNERATION WAS INFLUENCED BY EXTRA-COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: HELD, THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE DUTIES OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND THE DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM, T HE MANNER IN WHICH THE PROFITS OF THE APPELLANT WERE ENHANCED BY REASON OF THEIR SPECIAL APTITUDE OR QUALIFICATIONS, THE LEGITIMATE BUSINESS NEEDS OF TH E APPELLANT, AND THE BENEFIT DERIVED BY THE APPELLANT IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM, THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE INCOME-AX OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL, HAD TO BE ACCEPTED. 8. SINCE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF THE EXPE NDITURE, THEREFORE, BURDEN IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT EXPENDITU RE WAS REASONABLE AND WAS LAID OUT WHOLLY SAND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PU RPOSE OF BUSINESS AS IS REQUIRED U/S 40A (2) (B) OF THE IT ACT. THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A (2) (B) OF THE IT ACT APPLY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, C ONDITIONS OF THAT SECTION SHALL HAVE TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS GIVEN A SPECIFIC FINDING THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS OF NATURE OF THE PROCESSING CHARGED PAID TO M/S. RAYMOND FOODS PVT. LTD. BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT STAGE. EVEN IN THE SET ASID E PROCEEDINGS, THE SIMILAR DETAILS WERE CALLED FOR. BUT THE ASSESSEE R ELIED UPON THE EARLIER YEARS ORDERS. THEREFORE, SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E WERE FOUND TO BE GENERAL IN NATURE AS NO SPECIFIC DETAILS RELATING T O INFRASTRUCTURE AVAILABLE WITH M/S. RAYMON FOODS PVT. LTD. AND REASONABLENESS OF THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. THE AO ALSO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE QUOTATION FOR VERIFICATION BUT THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, SUBMITTED BEFORE T HE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT COMPARABLE PRICES OF OTHER PARTIES WERE SUBMIT TED TO SHOW THAT ON ITA NO.339 AND 340/AHD/2008 ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2) VS RAYMON GLUES & CHEMICALS 7 SIMILAR SERVICES THE ASSESSEE PAID LESSER PROCESSIN G CHARGES. THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ADVERSELY COMMENTED UPON BY THE AO AND THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO T HE DETAILED REPLY FILED BEFORE THE AO WHICH IS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT WOULD PROVE THAT M/S. RAYMON FOODS PVT. LTD. WAS HAVING INFRASTRUCTU RE TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ENTIRE CORRESPONDENCE WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). IT WAS, THEREFORE, CLAIM ED THAT SINCE PAYMENT IS MADE TO THIS PARTY IN THE EARLIER YEAR ALSO WHICH W AS FOUND TO BE REASONABLE, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS UNJUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON EXAMINATION OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM NOT ED THAT SIMILAR DETAILS WERE CALLED FROM THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE EXAMINED I N THE PAST AND EVEN THE DISALLOWANCE @5% WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL. T HE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 IN ITA NO .1450/AHD/1999 DATED 11-10-2005 WHEREBY ON IDENTICAL FACTS DEPARTM ENTAL APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS ORDER IN PARA 4 NOTED THAT PAYMENT IS MADE TO THE SISTER CONCERN M/S. RAYMON FOODS PVT. LTD. WHICH IS SPECIFIED PERS ON U/S 40A (2) (B) OF THE IT ACT. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER NOTED THAT THE AO STATED THAT SIMILAR ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE CONSIDERED IN EARLIE R YEARS BUT HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED. HENCE, PAYMENT IS CONSIDERED EXCESSI VE U/S 40 A (2) OF THE IT ACT @5%. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDI TION BY FOLLOWING ORDERS OF THE EARLIER YEARS. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERI NG EARLIER YEARS DECISION IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE DELETED T HE ADDITION AND DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL ON THIS GROUND. T HE ABOVE FACTS THUS WOULD STRENGTHEN THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT ONCE IN THE EARLIER YEAR EVEN 5% WAS NOT CONSIDERED EXCESSIVE OR UNREAS ONABLE, THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE AO TO MAKE 20% OF DISALLOWANCE ON TH E SAME FACTS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE LEARNED CIT(A), T HEREFORE, RIGHTLY NOTED THAT NO FRESH FACTS ON MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT O N RECORD BY THE AO. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON CONSIDERING THE PREVIOUS HIST ORY OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.339 AND 340/AHD/2008 ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2) VS RAYMON GLUES & CHEMICALS 8 AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D, THEREFORE, RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. THE CRUX OF THE FINDING OF TH E LEARNED CIT(A) THUS WOULD BE THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED EVIDENCE AND M ATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF PROCESS ING CHARGES PAID TO M/S. RAYMOND FOODS PVT. LTD. AND THE VIEW OF THE LE ARNED CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL BY DISMISSING THE DEPARTM ENTAL APPEAL ON THE IDENTICAL FACTS RELATING TO LESSER DISALLOWANCE OF 5%. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO DIFFER WITH THE VIEW ALREADY TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE. IT, THER EFORE, STANDS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE BURDEN UPON IT TO PROVE ITS CASE THR OUGH EVIDENCES AND MATERIAL. NO MATERIAL IS PRODUCED BEFORE US TO REBU T THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO N OT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE CONFIRM HIS FINDINGS AND DISMISS BOTH THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS. 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 13-08-2010. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 13-08-2010 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD