M/s. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Barwani V. The ITO, Khargone

ITA 377/IND/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1528 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-10-2009
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K KARAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Revenue expenditure; Set aside
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH : INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PAN NO. :AAAAK4300N I.T.A.NO. 377/IND/2009 A.Y. : 2006-07 KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, ITO ANJAD VS KHARGONE APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A.NO. 396/IND/2009 A.Y. : 2006-07 ITO KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, KHARGONE VS ANJAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAKASH JAIN, C.A. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI V.K.KARAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 12.10.2009 O R D E R PER GUPTA, A.M. THESE APPEALS BELONG TO THE SAME ASSESSEE AND IN VOLVE COMMON ISSUES, HENCE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIEN CE. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE ALSO PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. FIRST, WE SHALL DISPOSE OF APPEAL IN I.T.A.NO. 377/ IND/2009. PAGE 2 OF 11 4. GROUND NO. 1 READS AS UNDER :- THE LD. CIT(A)-II HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISAL LOWANCE OF RS. 1,00,965/- BEING ARAKSHIT NIDHI 1/3, SENT TO CONTROLLING OFFICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF PE NSION TO THE STAFF DEPUTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. AS PER THE RULE 7(1) OF M.P. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI (MANDI NIDHI & ACCOU NT) RULES 1980- ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO MAKE PAYMENT TO CONTROLLING OFFICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PENS9ION TO T HE STAFF DEPUTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO ITS OFFICES TO LOOK AFTER THE WORKING OF THE KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI. DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A PAYME NT OF RS. 1,00,965/- WHICH IS NAMED AS ARAKSHIT NIDHI 1/3 SENT TO THE CONTROLLING OFFICE ( HEAD OFFICE ) I.E. M.P. ST ATE KRISHI VIPANAN BOARD, BHOPAL. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY SUBMITT ED THAT THE ISSUE WAS TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF A.O. IN VIE W OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMI TI, BURHANPUR VS. ITO, (2009) 12 ITJ 12 (TRIBUNAL) AND REFERRED TO SE COND PARA AT PAGE 24 OF THE SAID ORDER. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO AGREED. 7. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL. IN THE SAID DECISION, CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR ADJ UDICATION OF THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO T HE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO MADE CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS WHILE DOING SO. HENCE, WE REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL AS UNDER AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO BE DECIDED ON SIMI LAR LINES :- PAGE 3 OF 11 AS REGARDS PART OF GROUND NO.9 WITH REGARD TO AARA KSHIT NIDHI, IT IS STATED TO BE CONTRIBUTION MADE FOR MEE TING THE FUTURE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PENSION, GRATUITY ETC. THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTEDLY MAINTAINING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AN D AS SUCH, AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT TH E PROVISION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED UNLESS THE LIABILITY AR OSE. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS HOWEVER NOT CONSIDERED THE RU LE REFERRED TO BY LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE IN HIS ARGUMENTS AND HAVE ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING IF THE ASSESSEE SPENT ANY ACT UAL AMOUNT ON THIS HAND UNDER THE YEAR APPEAL BECAUSE ON PROVISIO N BASIS THIS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE MADE CLAIM IN EARLIER YEAR FOR WHICH, THE AMOUNT COULD HAVE BEEN SPENT BY THE ASSE SSEE. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF THE LETTER D ATED 9.7.8 (PB- 34) THROUGH WHICH ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO KEEP AAR AKSHIT NIDHI IN SUCH A FIND FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE PAYMENTS. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO THE PROCE DURE FOR KEEPING ACCOUNTS ON THIS ISSUE. HOWEVER, WE FIND TH AT THE SAME IS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THIS IS SUE THEREFORE, REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON TH IS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RECONSI DERATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. THE AO SHALL GIVE REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT, PART OF THIS GR OUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. ASSESSEE MAY PROVIDE ADEQUATE MATERIAL BEFORE THE A O IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION. PAGE 4 OF 11 8. THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. GROUND NO.2 READS AS UNDER :- THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ENHANCING THE INCOME B Y DISALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 9,50, 948/- ON ALL THE ASSETS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSI NESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY SUBMITT ED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND REFERRED TO PARA 20 & 21 AT PAGES 28 T O 36 OF THE SAID ORDER. 11. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO AGREED. 12. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, BURHANPUR VS. ITO, ( 2009) 12 ITJ 12 (TRIBUNAL), DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT IN THE SAID DECISION, THE TRIBUNAL HAD TAKEN NOTE OF V ARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS REGARDING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE W.D.V. WAS TO BE WORKED OUT AS ON 1.4.2002 AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE NOTION AL DEPRECIATION AND HAD HELD THAT AFTER INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTI ON 32(1) OF THE ACT THAT DEPRECIATION WAS TO BE ALLOWED ON THE W.D.V. I.E. H ISTORICAL COST LESS NOTIONAL DEPRECIATION THEREON TILL THAT DATE. ACCOR DINGLY, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. PAGE 5 OF 11 13. GROUND NO. 3 READS AS UNDER :- THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS. 5,00,000/- TOWARDS BEING ELECTION EXPENDITURE S ENT TO ITS HEAD OFFICE MP STATE KRISHI VIPNAN BOARD, BHOPAL. 14. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE A.O. DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 5 LAKHS BEING CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR E LECTION PURPOSES FOR THE REASON THAT THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IT WAS NOT OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND IT HAD ALSO NOT BEEN INCURRED FOR T HE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, IN APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A), SUBMITTED THAT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO SHOW THAT THIS EXPENDI TURE WAS TOWARDS ASSESSEES OBJECT AND ALSO SUBMITTED COPY OF CIRCUL AR AND CIRCULAR OF BOARD, WHEREIN SUCH CONTRIBUTION HAD BEEN ASKED FRO M THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THIS SUM, AS PER THE CIRCULAR, HAD TOBE CONTRIBUTED OUT OF FUND AVAILABLE IN STHAI NIDHI/SURAKSHIT NIDH I. HENCE, IF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED TRANSFER OF SUMS TO THOSE FUNDS AS EXPENDITURE AT THAT STAGE, THEN, THIS EXPENDITURE WAS ALLOWABLE. AGGRIE VED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 15. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE NARRATED THE F ACTS AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A). 16. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. PAGE 6 OF 11 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. IT IS NOTED THAT THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE OF RE VENUE NATURE AND HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REQUIRED THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE FACT , SO THAT THERE DOES NOT RESULT DOUBLE DEDUCTION I.E. FIRSTLY AT THE STAGE O F CONTRIBUTION TO STHAI FUND AND SURAKSHIT FUND IN RESPECTIVE YEARS AND SEC ONDLY IN THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH FUND IS ACTUALLY REMITTED TO THE MANDI B OARD. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE IN RESPECT OF SU CH DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 18. GROUND NO. 4 READS AS UNDER :- THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ASSESSING THE INCOME F ROM THE BUSINESS ASSETS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE P ROPERTY INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM BUSINESS. ALL THE ASSETS U SED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PURELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS . 19. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY SUBMITT ED THAT THIS GROUND WAS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DEC ISION OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED HEREINABOVE AND REFERRED TO PARA 25 AT PAGE 3 8 OF THE SAID ORDER. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO AGREED. 20. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL IN THE CASE CITED BY THE ASSESSEE HEREIN BEFORE. THE TRIBUNAL I N THAT CASE HELD AS UNDER :- PAGE 7 OF 11 25. ON CONSIDERATION OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. NEW INDIA MARITIME AGENCIES P. LTD., 256 ITR 51 3 : (2002) 178 CTR 34: (2003) 130 TAXMAN 307 HELD THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT OF BEING A MERITI ME AGENT. NO PART OF THE PREMISES, FROM WHICH, IT RECE IVED RENT IN THE AY WAS USED FOR ITS BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE RENTAL INCOME WAS THEREFORE, ASSESSABLE INCOME AS I NCOME FROM PROPERTY. HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AGAIN IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHENNAI PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENT L TD., 266 ITR 685 HELD THAT ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE AS OWNER OF THE BUILDING WA S ONLY EXPLOITING THE PROPERTY AS OWNER BY LEASING OUT THE SAME AND REALIZING INCOME BY WAY OF RENT. SUCH RENTAL IN COME WAS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FR OM HOUSE PROPERTY. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISION S, WE EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS NOTED BY LD. CIT( A). THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT ASSESSEE CONSTRUCTED SHOP S, GODOWNS ETC. IN MANDI AREA AND LEASED OUT ON RENT T O THE MEMBERS FOR USE BY THEM. THERE EXIST THE RELATIONSH IP OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. THE PURPOSE OF CREATING THE AS SESSEE MANDI WAS TO SAVE THE FARMERS FROM EXPLOITATION. TH E OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NO CORRELATION OR N EXUS WITH LEASING OUT OF ITS PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE LE T OUT THE PROPERTIES PURELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING RENT. IT HAS NOT EXPLOITED THE PROPERTIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUS INESS. THE DECISIONS CITED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. WE THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY PAGE 8 OF 11 ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISS ED. 21. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS RATIO OF THIS DECISION, WE HOLD THAT SUCH INCOME IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM HO USE PROPERTY. THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 22. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 23. NOW, WE SHALL TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN I.T.A.NO. 396/IND/2009. 24. GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 52,46, 968/-, RS. 6,58,847/- AND RS. 5,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION TO KISAN SADAK NIDHI, MA NDI BOARD VIKAS NIDHI AND ELECTION EXPENSES RESPECTIVEL Y. 25. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE VERY O UT-SET, SUBMITTED THAT THESE ISSUES RAISED IN THIS GROUND W ERE ALSO COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HEREIN CITED BEFORE AND REFER RED TO PARA 16 AT PAGE 27, PARA 32 AT PAGE 39 AND PARA 15 AT PAGE 26 AND 2 7 OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. PAGE 9 OF 11 26. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HOWEVER, REFER RED TO RELY ON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 27. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. IT IS NOTED THAT IN THE CASE CITED BY THE ASSESSEE HEREINABOVE, THE ISSUE RELATING TO ALLOWABILITY OF CONTRIBUTION BY THE ASSESSEE TO KIS AN SADAK NIDHI AND MANDI BOARD VIKAS NIDHI AROSE. THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA S 15 & 16 OF THE SAID ORDER HELD AS UNDER :- 15. ON CONSIDERATION OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF ITAT, JABALPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF KR ISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI & OTHERS (SUPRA) IN WHICH, IN PARA 12 THE TRIBUNAL HELD WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. THE VIEW OF THE AO THAT THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE BOARD F OR ROAD DEVELOPMENT AND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH WAS FOR CAPIT AL EXPENDITURE AND HENCE NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 37 OF THE A CT, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED CORRECT BECAUSE THE PAYMENT WA S MADE AS STATUTORY LIABILITY AS PER SEC. 43 OF THE RELEVA NT ACT. SIMILARLY, BOARD FEES WERE ALSO MADE AS PER PROVISI ONS OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE AND WAS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. THE AO IS THEREFORE, NOT CORRECT TO DISALLOW THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION WAS IN THE NATURE OF A PPLICATION OF INCOME. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DESERVES NO INTERFERENCE. THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THEREFORE, DISMISSED. PAGE 10 OF 11 WE FIND THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ON IDENTIC AL FACTS BECAUSE THE BOARD FEES IS PAID AS PER SEC. 43 OF MP KRISHI UPAJ MANDI ADHINIYAM WHICH IS STATUTORY LIABILITY O F THE ASSESSEE TO PAY IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE ITS OBJECTIVES. IT IS THEREFORE, ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION AS WAS SPENT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSE SSEE. AS PER SEC. 36(1)(XII), ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY TH E CORPORATION OR BODY CORPORATE BY WHATEVER NAME CALL ED CONSTITUTED OR ESTABLISHED BY CENTRAL, STATE OR PRO VINCIAL ACT FOR THE OBJECTS AND PURPOSES AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT FOR WHICH, IT WAS ESTABLISHED SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. T HE LD. CIT(A) MISUNDERSTOOD THIS ISSUE BY TREATING THE BOA RD FEES TO BE THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS. IN THE AFORESAID SEC. 36( 1)(XII), IT IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRE D COULD HAVE ANY NAME WHATSOEVER THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN THE BROAD PERSPECTIVE CONSIDERING THE NATURE AND FUNCTIONING OF THE ASSES SEE INSTITUTION UNDER THE SPECIAL ACT. IN VIEW OF THE A BOVE, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND E NTIRE ADDITION IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 16. GROUND NO.6 : THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE OF KISAN SADAK NIDHI PAID TO THE BOARD AT RS.4,18,0 2,411/- BEING STATUTORY PAYMENTS PAID UNDER MANDI ACT AND W AS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(XII) OF THE IT ACT. IT IS STATED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS IS CONSIDERED ON GROUND NO.5 ABOVE. LD. DR ADDED THAT IT WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE. HOWEVER , ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SAME AS WAS CONSIDERED ON GR OUND NO.5 PAGE 11 OF 11 ON ACCOUNT OF BOARD FEES. BY FOLLOWING THE REASONS FOR DECISION ON THAT ISSUE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION. T HIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 17. THERE BEING NO CHANGE IN LAW AND IN THE FACTUAL MAT RIX OF THE CASE BEFORE US, HENCE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE R ATIO OF THIS DECISION, WE HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN LAW. 18. AS REGARDS THE REMAINING ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF E LECTION EXPENSES IS CONCERNED, WE HAVE ALREADY UPHELD THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A), WHILE DISPOSING OF GROUND NO. 3 OF ASSESSEES APPEA L HEREIN BEFORE, HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF THE REVE NUE. THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. 20. TO SUM UP, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE REVENUES APPEAL STAND S DISMISSED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH OCTOBER, 2009. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (V. K. GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 20 TH OCTOBER, 2009. CPU* 121310