DCIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Virender Kumar Bhatia, New Delhi

ITA 3410/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6564 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 22-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMESH CHAND DUBEY
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Business income; Revised return
• Section: 142(1); 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNA L DELHI BENCH: D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .N O. 3409/DEL/2013 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A .NO. 3410/DEL/2013 (A.Y 2007-08) I.T.A .NO. 3412/DEL/2013 (A.Y 2009-10) DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS VIRENDER KUMAR BHATIA N-71, PANCHSHEEL ENCLAVE NEW DELHI AAMPB2666H (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. UMESH CHAND DUBEY, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SH. GAUTAM JAIN, ADV ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/3/2013 PASSED BY CIT(A)-XXXI, NEW DELHI. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS: (ITA NO. 3409/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2008-09) 1. THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AN D FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE L D.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,39,554/- MADE B Y THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID TO HDFC BA NK AS THE SAME WAS NOT UTILIZED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. DATE OF HEARING 22.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20.02.2017 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE L D.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 21,94,070/- MADE BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE RENT AS NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHE D AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE L D.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,40,000/- MADE BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED ON FOREIGN VISITS. (ITA NO. 3410/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2007-08) 1. THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AN D FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.55,39,401/- MADE BY A.O ON ACCOU NT OF INTEREST CLAIMED RELATED TO HDFC LOAN, DISALLOWED U/S 37(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. (ITA NO. 3412/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2009-10) 1. THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AN D FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS5TRNACES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.64,71,152/- MADE BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID TO HDFC BANK ON LOAN NOT U SE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. 3. AT THE FIRST INSTANCE, WE WILL ADJUDICATE THE AP PEAL IN ITA NO. 3409/DEL/2013 FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR OF M/S. BAANI INTERNATIONAL. NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) W AS ISSUED. IN REVISED RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF INTER EST PAID TO HDFC IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF M/S. BAANI INTERNATIONAL RELATI NG TO RECEIPTS OF INTEREST FROM FDR, RENTAL INCOME FROM M/S BAANI FACILITIES A ND M/S. XCHANGING TECHNOLOGY, NEW DELHI WHILE COMPUTING THE NET PROFI T. WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME, THE ASSESSEE SEPARATELY WORKED OUT INCOME F ROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143( 3) MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITION/DISALLOWANCES:- (I) DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID TO HDF C BANK AND, CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S 36(1) (III) OF THE ACT OF RS. 1,00,39,554/-. (II) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE RENT RECEIVED F ROM M/S XCHANGING TECHNOLOGY, NEW DELHI OF RS. 21,94,070/-. (III) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED E XPENDITURE ON FOREIGN TRAVELLING OF RS. 8,40,000/-. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE A.OS ORDER ASSESSEE FILED APPE AL BEFORE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AS RELA TES TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID TO HDFC BANK AND, CLAIMED AS DEDUCTIO N U/S 36(1) (III) OF THE ACT, THE CIT (A) HELD THAT THE A.O HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REA SONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND OVER LOOKED THE FACT THAT IN THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THERE WAS NO DEBIT BALANCE IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE PROP RIETORSHIP CONCERN AND THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.99.63 L ACS, MORE IMPORTANTLY CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE PROPRIETOR WAS OF RS.13.18 C RORES WHICH WAS UTILIZED ALONG WITH LOANS RAISED FOR INVESTMENT IN REAL ESTA TE THROUGH GROUP COMPANIES AND EARNING INTEREST. THE CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHICH WAS DELETED FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN CASE OF CIT VS. SRIDEVI ENTERPRISES (1991) 192 ITR 165 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ONCE AN EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE INITIAL YEARS I N WHICH IT IS FIRST INCURRED, THE A.O IS NOT PERMITTED TO CHANGE STAND. THUS, TH E CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE U/S 37(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 . AS RELATED TO ADVANCE RENT RECEIVED FROM M/S XCHANGING TECHNOLOGIES SERVI CES INDIA PVT. LTD., THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN DE TAILS OF ADVANCE RENT RECEIVED, TDS MADE BY THE TENANT, RENT ADJUSTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE TDS ADJUSTED WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT (A) FURTHER HELD THAT IT IS S EEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN- FACT TAKEN RENT IN ADVANCE AND ADJUSTED THE SAME YE AR WISE, OUT OF RS.21, 94,070/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, RS.21,68,40 3/- HAS BEEN ADJUSTED IN THE RENT OF PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2009-10 AND THE BALANCE RS.25,667/- HAS BEEN ADJUSTED DURING THE PREVIOUS Y EAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE ANY CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE TENANT. THE COMPLE TE DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER INCLUDING THE NAME OF THE TEN ANT ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT THERE WAS ADVANCE REN T. THUS, THE CIT (A) HELD THAT THE A.O SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE THE ADDITION IN S PITE OF HAVING ALL THE DETAILS WITH HIM. THE AMOUNT WAS ALREADY BEEN OFFE RED TO TAX UNDER THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 2009-10 AND 2010-11. THUS, DELETED THIS ADDITION. AS RELATES TO THE ISSUE OF UNEXPLAI NED EXPENDITURE ON FOREIGN VISITS, THE CIT (A) HELD THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE DETAILS OF THE FOREIGN TRAVELS AN D THE COMPANIES WHO HAD PICKED UP HIS WILLS. IF THE A.O HAD ANY REASON TO HOLD THAT SUCH FOREIGN VISITS WERE WITHOUT ANY BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY, HE SHOULD HAV E TAKEN UP THE ISSUE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE OTHER CONCERNED C OMPANIES WHO FOOTED THE BILLS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE ON FOREIGN VISITS OUT OF HIS BUSINESS INCOME. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED OUT OF THE BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNT. THUS, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE FILED APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LOANS BORROWED FRO M HDFC WERE FOR PERSONAL USE AND THERE IS NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATI ON FURNISHED ON THIS ACCOUNT. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY M ADE DISALLOWANCE U/S 37(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT AS RELATED TO ADVANCE RENT NO CONFIRMATION WAS FILED FROM THE CON CERNED TENANT. THUS, THE A.O RIGHTLY MADE AN ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT. AS RE GARD TO EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON FOREIGN VISITS THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THESE F OREIGN VISITS ARE PURELY PERSONAL, THEREFORE, RIGHTLY ADDED. THUS, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT, AS RELATED TO INTERES T PAID TO HDFC BANK, THE SAME IS PROPERLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OVER LOOKED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.99,63,610/-. THE LOAN OUTSTANDING FOR HDFC BANK WAS RS.36.99 LAC WHICH WAS EVEN LESS THAN THE CAPITAL IN THE PRO PRIETORSHIP CONCERN AT RS.2.32 CRORES. THE BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILI ZED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND INCOME DERIVED THEREON HAS BEEN DULY D ECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SHRISTI SECURITY PVT. LTD. 226 CTR (BOMBAY) 551 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IF THE FUNDS ARE BORROWED FUNDS WOULD BE DEDUCTABLE U/ S 36(1) (III) IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER SUCH SHARES ARE HELD AS INVESTMENT OR AS ST OCK IN TRADE OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTROLLING INTEREST IN OTHER COMPANIES. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE INTEREST BEARING FUND H AVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR MAKING INTEREST FREE ADVANCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED IN TEREST INCOME AND HAS REDUCED THERE FROM THE INTEREST PAID AND THE BALANC E AMOUNT WAS DECLARED AS INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVANCES TO GROU P COMPANIES ARE OF RS.9.04 CRORES WHERE AS INTEREST FREE FUND AVAILABLE WITH T HE ASSESSEE ARE OF RS.17.20 CRORES (13.18 CRORES + RS.4.02 CRORES) AND AS SUCH EVEN THE FACTUM OF ADVANCEMENT TO SISTERS CONCERN CANNOT BE A GROUND T O DISALLOW THE INTEREST THOUGH THE SAME WERE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THUS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ACCOUNT. AS REGARDS TO THE ISSUE RELATING TO A DVANCE RENT, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE RENT WAS ASSESSE D TO TAX IN THE PRIOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 & 2010-11. THEREFORE, THE CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THIS ADDITION. 8. AS REGARDS TO UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON FOREIGN VISITS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN THE TRAV EL ON BEHALF OF THE TWO COMPANIES WHO HAD INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE AND THE SAID FACT WAS DULY CONFIRMED BY THE RESPECTIVE COMPANIES THAT M/S BANI TECHNOLOGIES SERVICES PVT. LTD. HAD INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,67,5 00/-. LIKEWISE, EXPENSES HAD ALSO BEEN INCURRED BY M/S MANDAKNI BUILD AND IN VESTMENT PVT. LTD FOR THE TRAVEL UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF SUCH COMPANIES. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS OF SUCH EXPENDITURE WERE GIVEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND, THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT NO PARTICULARS WERE FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS IS INCORRECT. THE CIT (A) HAS TAKEN COGNIZANCE TO THAT FACT. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THA T SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN THE EARLIER YEAR WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE L D.CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 30/3/2013 BY FOLLOWING JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRIDEVI ENTERPRISES REPORTED AT (1991) 192 ITR 165 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ONCE AN EXPENDITURE H AS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE INITIAL YEARS, WHEN IT WAS FIRST INCURRED, THE A.O WAS NOT PERMITTED TO CHANGE HIS STAND. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD M ADE THE ADVANCES TO GROUP COMPANIES FOR A SUM OF RS.9.04 CRORES OUT OF WHICH RS.8.05 CROREES WAS GIVEN TO THE 4 COMPANIES DETAIL OF WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN A T PAGE NO. 176 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED INT EREST OF RS.99.63 LACS ON THE SAID ADVANCES, WHICH WAS ASSESSED TO TAX, THE R EMAINING ADVANCES WERE ONLY OF RS.99.46 LACS WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVI NG ITS CAPITAL OF RS. 13.18 CRORES WHICH WAS SUFFICIENT FOR GIVING THE SAID ADV ANCE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TAKEN ANY LOAN FOR PERSONAL PU RPOSES AND THE LOANS RAISED FROM THE HDFC BANK WERE FOR THE BUSINESS PUR POSES, IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE LOAN OUTSTANDING FROM HDFC BANK WAS OF RS.36.99 LACS WHICH WAS LESS THAN THE CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE. I N THE INSTANT CASE, THERE WAS NO DIVERGENCE OF FUNDS FOR NON BUSINESS OR PERSONAL PURPOSES, THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE USED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES AND INCOM E DERIVED FROM THE ADVANCES WAS DULY DECLARED AS AN INTEREST INCOME OF RS.99,63,710/-. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD.CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELE TED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DO NOT SEE MERIT, IN THE GROUND RA ISED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON THIS ISSUE. ON AN IDENTICAL ISSUE, THE HONBLE JUR ISDICTION HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GIVO LTD. IN ITA NO. 941/2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 27 TH JULY 2010, (COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGE NO. 4 TO 6 O F THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK) HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 4. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT AS IN PAST ASSESSMEN T YEARS, THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN ALLOWED, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW THE SAID EXPENDITURE IN THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION. THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SRIDEV ENTERPRISES, (1991) 192 ITR 165 HAS HELD THAT A DEP ARTURE FROM A FINDING IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTIONS PERMITTED DURING THE PAST YEARS WOULD RESULT IN A CONTRADICTORY FINDING. 5. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT IT WOULD NOT BE EQ UITABLE TO PERMIT THE REVENEU TO TAKE A DIFFERENT STAND IN RESPECT OF EXP ENSES WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PREVIOUS YEARS ASSESSMENTS. IN OUR OPINION, CONSISTENCY AND DEFINITENESS OF APPROACH BY THE REVENUE IS NECE SSARY IN THE MATTER OF RECOGNIZING THE NATURE OF AN ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE SO THAT THE BASIS OF A CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT IS NOT IGNORED WITHOUT ACTUALLY REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT AND OBSERVED THAT ONCE AN EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE INITIAL YEARS, WHEN IT WAS FIRST INCURRED, THE A.O IS NOT PERMITTED TO CHANGE HIS STAND. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACT AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, DO N OT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND AC CORDINGLY DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 10. AS REGARDS TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANC E RENT, IT APPEARS THAT THE A.O MADE THE ADDITION FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO GIVE PARTICULARS OF RECEIPT OF ADVANCE RENT AND AS TO HOW IT WAS ADJ USTABLE AGAINST FUTURE RENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE A.O BROUGHT TO TAX THE REN T WHICH WAS ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11. THE LD. CIT(A) ON PERUSING THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASS ESSEE (WHICH HAD BEEN REPRODUCED IN PARA 3.4.4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER) CAM E TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED COMPLETE DETAILS BEFORE THE A.O INCLUDING THE NAME OF THE TENANT AND THAT THE AMOUNT HAD BEEN OFFERED TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME HOUSE PROPERTY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 & 201 0-11. NOTHING CONTRARY TO THE ABOVE OBSERVATION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS BROUGH T ON RECORD. WE, THEREFORE, ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD.CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. 11. AS REGARDS TO THE OTHER ISSUE RELATING TO FOR EIGN TRIP EXPENSES, IT IS NOTICED THAT THOSE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED ON BEHALF OF OTHER COMPANIES NAMELY M/S MANDAKINI BUILD & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. AND M/S BANI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PVT. LTD, THOSE COMPANIES DULY CONFIRMED THE SAID FACT AND THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE O F HIS FOREIGN VISITS ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANIES. IN OUR OPINION, WHEN THE ASSESSE E HAD NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE, THE NOTIONAL ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. MOREOVER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED ANY DED UCTION OF EXPENDITURE ON FOREIGN VISIT OUT OF HIS BUSINESS INCOME THEN THE D ISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O WAS ARBITRARY. IF THE A.O HAD ANY REASON TO HOLD T HAT SUCH FOREIGN VISITS WERE WITHOUT ANY BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY, HE SHOULD HAVE TAK EN UP THE ISSUE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE OTHER CONCERNED COMPA NIES WHO PRESENTED THE BILL. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM ANY DEDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE ON FOREIGN VISITS OUT OF HIS BUSINESS INCOME. IT IS ALSO NOT A CASE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED OUT OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELETED THIS ADDITION. WE DO N OT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A). 12. IN THE OTHER APPEALS OF THE DEPARTMENT IN ITA N O. 3410 & 3412/DEL/2013 THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR AS WERE INVOLVE D IN ITA NO. 3409/DEL/2013 (SUPRA). THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS GIV EN IN THE FORMER PARTS OF HIS ORDER SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS FOR THOSE AP PEALS. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2017 . SD/- SD/- (N. K. SAINI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20/02/2017 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 22/11/2016 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 22/11/2016 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER .2017 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS .02.2017 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK .02.2017 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.