DCIT 1(2), MUMBAI V. PROCAM INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3695/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84257 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SACHCHIDANAND DUBEY
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM ./ I.T.A. NO.3695/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) DY. CIT-1(2), ROOM NO. 535, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. PROCAM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, 14, ST. JAMES COURT, MARINE DRIVE, MUMBAI-400 020 ! ./' ./PAN/GIR NO. AABCP 7300 E ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) !# & ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SACHCHIDANAND DUBEY $%!# & ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJIV M. SHAH () * & + / DATE OF HEARING : 20.11.2014 DATE OF ORDER : 27.11.2014 / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SHO RT) DATED 12.02.2013, DELETING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2003-04 VIDE ORDER DATED 29. 03.2011. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISING IN THIS APPEAL IS THE MAI NTAINABILITY IN LAW OF THE PENALTY, LEVIED IN THE SUM OF RS.10,54,869/- U/S.271(1)(C) O F THE ACT, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, SINCE DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, IN THE BUSINESS OF SPORTS EVENT M ANAGEMENT AND BRAND PROMOTION, WROTE OFF IN ITS ACCOUNTS FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR BAL ANCES ACCUMULATED UNDER THE HEAD 2 ITA NO. 3695/MUM/2013 (A.Y.2003-04) DY. CIT VS. PROCAM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED TALENT MANAGEMENT ASIA (OR TMA, AT RS.18,30,957/- ), WORLD OPEN SQUASH (WOS) (AT RS.11,58,206/-), AS WELL AS THAT OUTSTANDING IN THE NAMES OF VARIOUS PARTIES (AGGREGATING TO RS.3,83,000/-), CLAIMING THE SAME AS AN EXPENSE. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION FOR THE SAME WAS THAT THE BALANCES WRITTEN OFF REPRESENT EX PENSES INCURRED BY IT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME IN RELATION TO DIFFERENT EVENTS, WHICH ARE, UN DER THE MATCHING PRINCIPLE, CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED, ADJUSTED AGAINST THE REVENUE FROM THE REL EVANT EVENT. THE ADVANCES (RS.3.83 LACS) WERE, AGAIN, GIVEN IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF B USINESS TOWARD DIFFERENT EVENTS. HOWEVER, AS IT COULD NOT, DESPITE EFFORTS TO ESTABL ISH ITSELF IN THE BUSINESS OF NURTURING YOUNG TALENT, WHICH IS ONLY IN LINE WITH ITS EXIST ING BUSINESS OF SPORTS EVENT MANAGEMENT, SUCCEED IN DOING SO, THE BALANCE IN ACCOUNT TMA, WH ICH ALSO INCLUDES PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSETS, WAS WRITTEN OFF. THE OTHER BALANCES WERE AL SO WRITTEN OFF AS THE RELEVANT EVENTS DID NOT TAKE OFF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM QUA THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING UNDER THE ACCOUNT WOS (WHICH INCLUDES R S.2 LACS GIVEN TO DOODARSHAN) AS THE SAME WAS FOR A SPECIFIED EVENT, ACCUMULATED FOL LOWING ITS CONSISTENT METHOD OF ACCOUNTING, WRITTEN OFF AS THE RELEVANT EVENT (WORL D OPEN SQUASH) DID NOT TAKE PLACE. FOR THE BALANCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THAT T HE EXPENDITURE WAS IN RELATION TO ANY SPECIFIED EVENT. IN ITS ABSENCE, THE ALLOWABILITY O F EXPENDITURE COULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS INCURRED, SO THAT IT W AS A PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AND, THUS, NOT DEDUCTIBLE. THE ADVANCES WERE A GAIN NOT SHOWN TO BE IN RELATION TO ANY SPECIFIC EVENT. THE WRITE OFF WAS ALSO NOT ADMI SSIBLE U/S. 36(1)(VII) IN-AS-MUCH AS THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 36(2) WAS NOT MET. DISALLOWA NCE IN THE SUM OF RS.22.14 LACS WAS ACCORDINGLY EFFECTED, AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITI ATED. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY COULD NOT BE PROCEEDED WI TH IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER VERIFICATION, I.E., AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW AND, ACCORDINGLY, DISMIS SED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE ASSESSEE FAILING TO RESPOND TO THE NOTICE U/S.2 74, PENALTY WAS IMPOSED FOR THE SAME REASONS. EVEN THOUGH THE BILLS FOR THE PURCHAS E OF FIXED ASSETS HAD NOT BEEN PRODUCED, THE SAME, EVEN SO, WOULD ONLY BE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND, AS SUCH, NOT ADMISSIBLE (REFER PARA 2 OF THE PENALTY ORDER). IN APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE FOUND FAVOUR WITH THE LD. CIT(A). THE A.OS CHARGE WAS THAT THE EXPEN DITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED IN THE 3 ITA NO. 3695/MUM/2013 (A.Y.2003-04) DY. CIT VS. PROCAM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED PRECEDING YEARS AND, FURTHER, THAT THE DETAILS OF T HE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE HAD NOT BEEN FILED. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, HAD GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THE BILLS RELATING TO THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, AND ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE EXPENDITUR E WAS ACCUMULATED FOLLOWING ITS CONSISTENT METHOD OF ACCOUNTING. AS REGARDS LOANS A ND ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF, THE A.O.S CASE WAS OF INADMISSIBILITY OF THE CLAIM IN VIEW OF SECTION 36(2). THE APEX COURT HAS SINCE CLARIFIED THAT MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM WOULD N OT BE FATAL AND THAT THEREFORE THE DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT FOUND TO BE ERRONEOUS OR FALSE, SO THAT NO PENALTY COULD BE LEVIED. THE PENALTY WAS ACCORDINGL Y DELETED, RELYING ON THE DECISION IN CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P.) LTD. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) AND ADITYA BIRLA NUO LTD . [2012-TIOL-692-HC-MUM] (REFER PARAS 4 TO 7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER). AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 3.1 THE FIRST THING THAT WE OBSERVE IS THAT WHILE T HE A.O. STATES THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES U/S.274, SO THAT HE PROCEEDED WITH THE MATTER, ADJUDICATING IT VIDE PENALTY ORDER DATED 29.03.2011 , THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE RESPONDED (TO THE SECOND NOTICE U/S.274 DATED 23.03 .2011) PER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 28.03.2011; IN FACT, ALSO STATING THAT THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE A.O. WAS VERY SHORT, TAKING THIS (NON-GRANT OF OPPORTUNITY) AS ITS FIRST OBJECTION (VIDE GROUND NO.1) BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ADDRESSED THE SAID ISSUE. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD INDEED FILED ITS EXPLANATION (WHICH WE HAVE NO REA SON TO BELIEVE WAS NOT), THE SAME BEING ADMITTEDLY NOT CONSIDERED BY THE A.O., HE OUG HT TO HAVE CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM HIM AFTER VERIFYING/ASCERTAINING THE VERACITY OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM, TOWARD WHICH WE FIND NO FINDING. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DOES NOT RAIS E THIS ISSUE BEFORE US, PRESUMABLY AS ITS APPEAL STANDS DECIDED IN ITS FAVOUR. SO, HOWEVER, A DETAILED SUBMISSION HAVING BEEN MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH STANDS REPRODUCED BY H IM IN HIS ORDER, WE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONSIDER THE SAME TO HAVE INCLUDED TH E ASSESSEES CASE AS MADE OUT BEFORE THE A.O. AS WELL. FURTHER, WE OBSERVE THE SAME TO B E ON FACTS THE SAME AS THAT ASSUMED BY 4 ITA NO. 3695/MUM/2013 (A.Y.2003-04) DY. CIT VS. PROCAM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED THE ASSESSEE AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, WHICH STANDS CONSIDERED BY THE AO, WHO CAN THUS ALSO BE TAKEN TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES CAS E. 3.2 OUR SECOND OBSERVATION IN THE MATTER IS THAT TH E BASIS OF THE REVENUES CASE ON MERITS IS NOT THE NON-ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF WRITE OFF FOR THE REASON OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING, IN VIEW OF THE NATURE OF ITS BU SINESS, SET OFF OF ACCUMULATED BALANCES IN THE YEAR OF REVENUE GENERATION FROM A SPECIFIED/ PARTICULAR EVENT, AS CONTENDED AND SOUGHT TO BE PROJECTED BEFORE US BY THE LD. AR. IN FACT, THE A.O. ACCEPTS THE SAME, ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IN RESPECT OF A BALAN CE, SIMILARLY WRITTEN OFF, UNDER THE HEAD WORLD OPEN SQUASH. THE PRIME, IF NOT THE SOLE, BA SIS OF THE A.O.S DENIAL OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS THE NON-FURNISHING OF THE RELEV ANT DETAILS, I.E., THE EVENTS QUA WHICH THE EXPENSES ARE STATED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED OR AC CUMULATED. IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF, HOW COULD IT BE SAID THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED TH EREFOR AND, FURTHER, WRITTEN OFF DUE TO THE NON-OCCURRENCE OR THE UNLIKELY-HOOD OF THE RELE VANT EVENT TAKING PLACE. IN SHORT, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE FACTUAL BASIS TO THE ASSESSEES CLAI M. THE LD. CIT(A)S TREATMENT OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON MERITS IS AGAIN CRYPTIC AND, IN FACT, INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, E VEN AS HE DELINEATES THE ISSUE ARISING FOR CONSIDERATION CORRECTLY, I.E., AS TO WHETHER THE AS SESSEE COULD BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING CONCEALED OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME. HE, HOWEVER, WHILE CORRECTLY FRAMING THE ISSUE, DOES NOT EXPLAIN IF THE CONDITIO NS OF EXPLANATION 1, PROVIDING THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED HIS INCOME, AND THUS IS TO BE READ ALONG WITH, STAND SA TISFIED OR NOT. 3.3 THE LAW ON PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHIN G INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT MATT ER OF SEVERAL DECISIONS BY THE APEX COURT, CRYSTALLIZING INTO A DICTUM THAT A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION SAVES PENALTY. WHERE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES AN EXPLANATION, I .E., FOR MAKING THE CLAIM, WHICH IS BORNE OUT BY THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, SO THAT ALL THE MATE RIAL FACTS HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED, NO PENALTY COULD BE LEVIED. THIS IS AS THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY WITHIN HIS RIGHT TO MAKE A CLAIM WHICH COULD ARISE, GIVEN THE POSITION OF LAW, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS 5 ITA NO. 3695/MUM/2013 (A.Y.2003-04) DY. CIT VS. PROCAM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED CASE. ALL, THEREFORE, DEPENDS ON THE RETURN OF INCO ME, AND THE DISCLOSURE/S MADE THEREBY, EVEN AS CLARIFIED BY THE APEX COURT IN CIT V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P.) LTD . [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC), RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT ITS OBSERVATION THEREIN THAT A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINA BLE IN LAW WOULD NOT BY ITSELF ATTRACT PENALTY, IS TO BE READ AND UNDERSTOOD. THE SAID DEC ISION DOES NOT DETRACT FROM, AND IS TO BE READ IN CONFORMITY AND HARMONY WITH A CATENA OF DECISIONS BY THE APEX COURT IN THE MATTER, VIZ. CIT V. ATUL MOHAN BINDAL [2009] 317 ITR 1 (SC); UNION OF INDIA V. DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. MADHUSUDHANAN VS. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. BALASUBRAMANIAM AND BROS V. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); ADDL. CIT VS. JEEVAN LAL SHAH [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC), CONTINUING TO DECISIONS RENDERED EVEN PRIOR THERETO. FURTHER, EVEN THE RECENT DECISION BY THE APEX COURT IN MAK DATA (P.) LTD. VS. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC), AS WELL AS THAT BY THE HO NBLE HIGH COURTS, AS IN CIT VS. USHA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [2013] 214 TAXMANN.COM 519 (DEL); CIT VS. ESCORTS FINANCE LTD . [2010] 328 ITR 44 (DEL); AND CIT VS. ZOOM COMMUNICATION (P.) LTD . [2010] 327 ITR 510 (DEL.), APPLYING THE LAW IN DI FFERENT FACT SITUATIONS, INCLUDING AS EXPLAINED IN RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P.) LTD. (SUPRA), CONFIRM THE CONTINUING POSITION OF THE LAW IN THE MATTER. A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR A CLAIM, MADE BONA FIDE , SAVES PENALTY, WHICH THOUGH IS A STRICT CIVIL LIABILITY; MENS REA OR WILLFUL NEGLECT BEING NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT THEREOF. THE FACTS OF ITS CLAIM, PER IT S RETURN, BEING ONLY IN ITS KNOW, THE ONUS TO EXPLAIN THE SAME IS ONLY ON THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HE IS REQUIRED TO SUBSTANTIATE, FURTHER ESTABLISHING HIS BONA FIDES , AS WHERE THERE IS PROPER DISCLOSURE OF ALL MATERI AL FACTS. THE FAILURE TO DO SO WOULD ATTRACT PENALTY, AS INDEED I T WOULD WHERE THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION, OR SAME IS FOUND TO BE FALSE. 3.4 QUA MERITS, WE SHALL PROCEED TO EXAMINE THE CASE FOR B OTH THE DISALLOWANCES: A) TMA (RS.18.31 LACS): THE A.O.S REASON IS THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE CL AIM HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED IN- AS-MUCH AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SPECIFY THE E VENT/S FOR WHICH THE EXPENSES HAD BEEN ACCUMULATED. ACCORDINGLY, ITS EXPLANATION THAT THE BALANCE WRITTEN OFF REPRESENTED 6 ITA NO. 3695/MUM/2013 (A.Y.2003-04) DY. CIT VS. PROCAM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED REVENUE EXPENDITURE, ACCUMULATED FOR BEING SET OFF ON MATCHING PRINCIPLE, COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED, AS WAS IN FACT ITS CLAIM QUA (EXPENSES RELATING TO) WOS. IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFICATION OF THE EVENTS, THE ADMISSIBILITY OF E XPENSES, WHERE ON THE REVENUE ACCOUNT, COULD ONLY BE IN THE YEAR THE SAME WERE INCURRED. I N ANY CASE, TO THE EXTENT THE EXPENDITURE IS ADMITTEDLY CAPITAL, THERE IS NO BASI S FOR ITS CLAIM. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE A.O., EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM INC LUDES CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, EVEN AS WE DO NOT FIND OURSELVES IN AGREEMENT WITH THE REASONS STATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE MATTER. THE REASON FOR OUR DECISION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S CLEARLY STATED TO HAVE, AS A PART OF ITS EXISTING BUSINESS, ALSO TRIED TO PROMOTE YOUNG TALE NT IN THE FIELD OF SPORTS, AS A SEPARATE DIVISION, SINCE FINANCIAL YEAR (F.Y.) 2000-01, INCU RRING EXPENDITURE ON SALARIES, RENT, ETC. SINCE THAT YEAR. THE ASSESSEES METHOD OF ACCOUNTIN G, PECULIAR TO ITS BUSINESS, STANDS IN FACT ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. THERE IS ACCORDINGLY NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING FAILED TO SPECIFY ANY EVENT, WHICH REASON PREVAILED WITH THE A.O., SO THAT A CLAIM IN ITS RESPECT WOULD ARISE ONLY FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SAME STOOD INCURRED. WE ARE IN ANY CASE IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, WHEREAT OUR PERSPECTIV E IS QUA THE PLAUSIBILITY OF THE CLAIM, WHICH WE HAVE FOUND AS SO, SO THAT THERE IS NO CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO ITS CLAIM COMPRISING ADMITT EDLY PURCHASE COST OF FIXED ASSETS, STATED TO BE AT RS.3.82 LACS, WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR), ON B EING COMMUNICATED SO DURING HEARING, COULD NOT FURNISH ANY ANSWER, THOUGH WOULD CONTEND THAT THE FIXED ASSETS ALSO INCLUDES FIXTURE AND FITTINGS, CLAIM QUA WHICH MAY BE VALID, BEING IN RESPECT OF RENTED PREMISES. WE AGREE. IF AND TO THE EXTENT THE ASSESS EES CLAIM IS IN RESPECT OF FITTINGS, ETC., WHICH CANNOT BE REMOVED OR WOULD BE OF LITTLE VALUE UPON BEING SO, THE SAME WOULD BEAR THE CHARACTER OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHERE INCURRED IN RELATION TO A RENTED PREMISES. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE UP ON VERIFICATION IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENSES OUT OF ITS TOTAL CLAIM OF RS.3.82 LACS QUA FIXED ASSETS. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY, AND THE REVENUE GETS PART RE LIEF. B) ADVANCES (RS.3.83 LACS): 7 ITA NO. 3695/MUM/2013 (A.Y.2003-04) DY. CIT VS. PROCAM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED THE REVENUES CHARGE IS OF THE ASSESSEE BEING UNABL E TO CORRELATE THE SAME WITH SPECIFIED EVENTS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING IT TO BE MA DE TO VARIOUS PARTIES IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS, FOR CARRYING OUT VARIOUS PR OPOSED EVENTS, IT IS ONLY IT WHO CAN AND IS REQUIRED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. HOW COULD, IN ITS ABSENCE, THE SAME BE CONSIDERED AS TOWARD ANY EVENT, WHICH HOWEVER DID NOT MATERIALIZE , SO THAT THE SAME STOOD FORFEITED OR REPRESENTS A LOSS AS THE EVENT/S BECAME UNLIKELY, E TC. IT NEEDS TO BE APPRECIATED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE RELEVANT DETAILS, THE EXPLANATION IS NO MORE THAN A BALD ASSERTION, AND WOULD THUS NOT EVEN QUALIFY TO BE AN EXPLANATION, E VEN AS CLARIFIED TIME AND AGAIN BY THE HONOURABLE COURTS. THE STATUS CONTINUES TO BE SO EV EN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION BEING NOT FOUND TO BE ERRONEOUS OR FALSE, AS STATED BY HIM, IN DEPARTURE OF THE REVENUES CASE, WOULD ARISE ONLY A FTER THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES ONE. THERE BEING, HOWEVER, EVEN AS OBSERVED EARLIER, LAC K OF APPLICATION EVEN BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE ONLY CONSIDER IT FIT AND PR OPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O., WHO SHALL DECIDE THE MATTER BY ISSUING DEFINITE FINDINGS OF FACT, ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABL E OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE HIM, I.E., TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS EXPLANATION. WE DEC IDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY AL LOWED AND PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ,- . ) & ) / 0 1& 23 4 5 ) / & 67 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON NOVEMBER 20, 2014 AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ITSELF. SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 8* MUMBAI; 9( DATED : 27.11.2014 ).(../ ROSHANI , SR. PS 8 ITA NO. 3695/MUM/2013 (A.Y.2003-04) DY. CIT VS. PROCAM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED !' # $%&' (!'% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. <)= > $(?@ , + ?@- , 8* / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. > BC D * / GUARD FILE !' / BY ORDER, )/* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , 8* / ITAT, MUMBAI