Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kanpur V. M/s. Kailash Motoes, Kanpur

ITA 361/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70563 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Notional interest; Commercial expediency
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A : LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.361/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006 - 07 DY. C.I.T. - II, VS. M/S KAILASH MOTORS, KANPUR. 84/105, G.T.ROAD, KANPUR. PAN:AACFK5659B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.67/LKW/2012 (IN I.T.A. NO.361/LKW/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006 - 07 M/S KAILASH MOTORS, VS. DY. C.I.T. - II, KANPUR. KANPUR. (OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING :16/09/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 0 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 3 ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), INTER ALIA, ON VARIOUS GROUNDS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) - LL, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE 2 DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30,07,117 / - OUT OF INTEREST PAID TO OTHERS, ON BORROWINGS OF RS. 3,00,71,173/ - CORRES PONDING TO ITS INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF SISTER CONCERNS FROM WHICH IT WAS EARNING NO DIVIDENDS, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - LL, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EVEN OTHERWISE, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC . 14A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO DIVIDEND INCOME, WHICH IS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN TOTAL INCOME, WOULD NOT BE ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTION UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - LL, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELET ING THE SIMILAR ADDITION OF RS. 1,34,677/ - , ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST ON INVESTMENT IN FLAT A T ORIENT RESORTS, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - LL, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE SIMILAR ADDITION OF RS . 1,23,250/ - , ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST ON INVESTMENT IN 'ARADHANA SABHAGAR' WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - LL, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS DIVERTED ITS FUNDS TO ITS SISTER CONCERNS BY INVESTING IN THEIR SHARES FROM WHICH IT EARNED NO INCOME. 6. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - LL, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE 3 FLAT AT ORIENT RESORTS WAS AN ASSET USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES BY IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE BUSINESS USE OF THIS ASSET. 7. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - LL, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT SINCE THE 'ARADHANA SABHAGAR' CEASED TO EXIST ON 31.03.2006, NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE IN RESPECT OF THE SAME, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO BUSIN ESS PURPOSE FOR THE INVESTMENT IN THE SAID 'ARADHANA SABHAGAR'. 8. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) - LL, KANPUR DATED 23.03.2012 NEEDS TO BE QUASHED AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 29.12.2008 TO BE RESTORED. 9. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAV ES LEAVE TO MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL MENTIONED ABOVE AND/OR TO ADD ANY FRESH GROUNDS AS AND WHEN IT IS REQUIRED TO DO SO. 2. GROUND NO. 1,2 & 5 RELATE TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30,07,117/ - OUT OF INTEREST PAID TO OTHERS ON BORROWINGS OF RS.3,00,71,173/ - CORRESPONDING TO INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF SISTER CONCERNS. 3. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD, ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED INTEREST OF RS .1,35,28,136/ - PAID TO OTHERS AND HAS CREDITED RS.78,28,000/ - AS INTEREST RECEIVED. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.3,35,13,509/ - IN SHARES OF DIFFERENT COMPANIES OUT OF W HICH AN INVESTMENT OF RS.3,00,71,173/ - HAS BEEN MADE IN SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO INCOME FROM THIS INVESTMENT IS SHOWN. 4 THE OTHER INVESTMENT OF RS. 34,42,336/ - WAS MADE IN OTHER COMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR NOT SHOWING ANY INCOME FROM THE INVESTMENT MADE IN SISTER CONCERNS. ALL THE SHARES OF SISTER CONCERNS WERE PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM. IT WAS STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE LONG BACK AND IT HAS BUSI NESS RELATIONS WITH THE SISTER CONCERN AND THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE FROM THE FUNDS WHICH WERE LYING IDLE WITH THE FIRM IN THE YEARS OF INVESTMENTS AND BORROWED FUNDS WERE USED ONLY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES I.E. FOR STOCK AND DEBTORS. BEING NOT CONVINCED W ITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE CORRESPONDING INTEREST ON THE BORROWED FUNDS HAVING OBSERVED THAT THE FUNDS WERE DIVERTED FOR NON BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND IT WAS GIVEN TO THE PARTNERS FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES IN T HE SISTER CONCERNS. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE IDLE FUNDS WERE INVESTED IN SHARES OF THE SISTER CONCERNS IN THE NAME OF THE PARTNERS. THE RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HON 'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI DEV ENTERPRI9SES 192 ITR 165 (KAR) AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MALWA COTTON & SPINNING MILLS VS. CIT 89 ITD 65 (TM) AND IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT - II, KANPUR VS. KAILASH AUTOMOBILES, KANPUR , A GROUP CONCERN. FINDING FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE HAVING OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ESTABLISHED NEXUS BETWEEN THE FUNDS ADVANCE AND THE BORROWED FUNDS ON INTEREST. 5 5. NOW THE REVEN UE IS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE FUNDS WERE DIVERTED TO SISTER CONCERN FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY RECEIPT FROM THE DIVIDEND; THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED OR ASSUMED THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN T HE SISTER CONCERN FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED BY LEARNED D.R. THAT THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF PARTNERS, THEREFORE, DIVIDEND CAN ONLY BE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF PARTNERS AND NOT IN THE NAME OF FIRM. IN THAT SITUATION IF THE PARTNERS ARE BENEFITED BY THE DIVIDEND RECEIVED FROM THE SISTER CONCERN, THE DIVERSION OF FUND TO SISTER CONCERN FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARES CANNOT BE CALLED TO BE FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED SUBSTANTIAL A MOUNT ON INTEREST. THE LEARNED D.R. FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 A OF THE I.T. ACT WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT WHEREVER INVESTMENTS ARE MADE IN SHARES AND THE DIVIDEND S ARE NOT TAXABLE, THE DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENSES ARE TO BE MADE AS PER RULE 8D OF THE I.T. RULES. THE LEARNED D.R. FURTHER CONTENDED THAT EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IS INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR IF THIS ISSUE ESCAPED THE ATTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT C ANNOT BE EXAMINED IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS THE INTEREST ON THE BORROWINGS ARE REGULARLY PAID AND CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS CONTENDED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN S HARES WERE MADE IN THE SISTER CONCERNS OUT OF THE IDLE FUNDS . S INCE THE SHARES CANNOT BE PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, IT WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF ITS PARTNERS. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT HE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT FUND, HE PLACED THE 6 RELIANCE UPON THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT - II, KANPUR VS. KAILASH AUTOMOBIL ES, KANPUR I.T.A. NO.197/LKW/2009 IN WHICH SIMILAR TYPE OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERN OUT OF THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND, NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN THAT CASE. 7. HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT OF RS.3,00,71,173/ - WITH THE SISTER CONCERNS IN PURCHASE OF SHARES IN THE NAME OF ITS PARTNERS . THE OBJ ECT OF INVESTMENT WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL OR BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC OBJECT OF THE INVESTMENT , IT HAS BECOME VERY DIFFICULT TO HOLD WHETHER THE INVESTMENT WAS MAD E FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE OR FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSE. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, THEREFORE, THE DIVIDEND, IF ANY, RECEIVED BY THE PARTNERS, CANNOT BE SHOWN IN THE HANDS OF THE F IRM AS THE DIVIDEND CAN ONLY BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE SHAREHOLDERS I.E. THE PARTNERS AND NOT TO A PERSON WHO HAS MADE THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHETHER THE PARTNERS HAVE EVER RECEIVED ANY DIVIDEND ON SHARES OF THE SISTER CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM , PURCHASED OUT OF THE INVESTMENT OF RS.3,00,71,173/ - . IF ANY DIVIDENDS ARE RECEIVED IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNER, THE SAME ARE EXEMPT ED FROM THE TAX AND, THEREFORE, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 1 4A IS TO BE A TTRACTED BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF FACTS IN THIS REGARD, THE SPECIFIC FINDING 7 CANNOT BE GIVEN WITH REGARD TO INVOCATION OF SECTION 1 4A OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED HAVING PLACED REL IANCE UPON THE BALANCE SHEETS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT IDLE FUNDS FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARES BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD THAT HOW MUCH FUND WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE THE FUNDS WERE BORROWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE DETAILS, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO HOLD THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF THE IDLE FUNDS. 7.1 OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO THE JUDGMENT OF TH E APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF S.A. BUILDERS LTD. VS. CIT 288 ITR 1 IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE THE AMOUNT IS DIVERTED TO SISTER CONCERN AND IF THE DIRECTORS OF THE SISTER CONCERN UTILIZE THIS AMOUNT FOR THEIR PERSONAL BENEFIT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT SUCH MONEY WAS ADVANCED AS A MEASURE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. THE INTEREST ON AMOUNT DIVERTED TO THE SISTER CONCERN CAN ONLY BE ALLOWED IF THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY . SIMILAR OBSERVATION WAS MADE BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS AMRITABEN R. SHAH [1999] 238 ITR 777 (BOM) BY HOLDING THAT WHERE PURCHASE OF SHARES WITH A VIEW TO ACQUIRE CONTROLLING INTEREST IN COMPANY AND NOT WITH THE OBJECT TO EARN DIVIDEND, THE INTERES T ON LOAN TAKEN TO PURCHASE SHARES, ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE LEGAL PROPOSITION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHERE THE FUNDS ARE DIVERTED TO SISTER CONCERN, THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE INVESTMENT/DIVERSION TO SIS TER CONCERN WAS MADE FOR COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. IN THE INSTANT CASE NO EVIDENCE IS 8 PLACED ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE INVESTMENT IN SISTER CONCERN ON ACCOUNT OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. 7. 2 IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE IN EARLIER YEARS AND IN THOSE YEARS THIS ISSUE WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS ISSUE IS EXA MINED FIRST TIME DURING THE IMP UGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WAS ALLOWED IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. 7. 3 THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KAILASH AUTOMOBILES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT UNDER THE SIMILAR SET OF FACTS, THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED BUT FROM THE PERUSAL OF THIS ORDER OF KAILASH AUTOMOBILES, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING WHILE ALLOWING THE CLAIM THAT NO PORTION OF INTEREST DEBITED IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT RELATES TO INVESTMENT IN SHARE S AND ENTIRE PAYMENT OF INTEREST WAS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE FINDING S OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KAILASH AUTOMOBILES ARE FINDING OF FACTS BASED ON DIFFERENT SET OF MATERIAL, THEREFORE, THAT FINDING CANNOT BE CALLED TO BE THE LEGAL FINDING ON THE IS SUE IN DISPUTE. SINCE THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS MATTER REQUIRES A FRESH ADJUDICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTOR E THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO READJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF THE SURPLUS FUNDS OR FROM THE MIXED FUNDS AND ALSO TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE PARTNERS OF THE FIR M HAVE EVER RECEIVED ANY DIVIDEND FROM THE SISTER 9 CONCERN OF WHICH SHARES WERE PURCHASED OUT OF THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE OBJECT OF THE INVESTMENT IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE INVESTM ENT WAS MADE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE OR OTHERWISE. ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR READJUDICATION OF THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IN TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 8. GROUND NO. 3 AND 6 RELATE TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,3 4,677/ - ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST ON INVESTMENT IN FLAT IN ORIENT RESORTS. IN THIS REGARD IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.13,46,773/ - IN FLAT IN ORIENT RESORTS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THIS INVESTMENT IS FOR NO N BUSINESS PURPOSE. HE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED INTEREST @10% ON THE INVESTMENT MADE. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT YEAR AFTER YEAR THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE FLAT WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES AND INTEREST ON NOTIONAL BASIS CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. BEING CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOW ANCE. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US BUT COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 9. GROUND NO. 4 & 7 RELATE TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,23,250/ - ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST ON INVESTMENT IN ARADHANA SABHAGAR. IN THIS REGARD IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ARADHANA SABHAGAR HAS BEEN SOLD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS SUCH THE QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE DOES NOT ARISE. IF ON ACCOUNT OF ANY REASON, DISALLOWANCE IS UPHELD THE N 10 THE SAME SHOULD BE SET OFF AGAINST THE SALE CONSIDERATION. THE CIT(A) WAS CONVI NCED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION. 10. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US BUT COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). SINCE THE CIT(A) HAS PROPERLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 11. GROUND NO. 8 & 9 OF THE APPEAL ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEED NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 12. THE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPOR T OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON DIFFERENT ISSUES. SINCE THE ISSUES IN REVENUES APPEAL HAVE BEEN DECIDED INDEPENDENTLY, THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND HENCE DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 0 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 3 ) SD/. SD/. (SAMIM YAHYA) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2 0 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 3 *SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO THE: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT (A) 4. CIT 5. DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR