DCIT, V. Tulip Apparels Pvt. Ltd.,

ITA 385/BANG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 38521114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L V BHASKAR REDDY J
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Source of fund
• Section: 143(3); 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER A ND SHRI JASON P.BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 385 / BANG/20 13 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 ) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 11(4), BANGALORE. APPELLANT VS. M/S.TULIP APPARELS P.LTD., (NOW KNOWN AS M/S.INDUS FILA LTD.,) NO.17(D), 2 ND PHASE, 1 ST MAIN, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI L.V.BHASKAR REDDY, JCIT(DR) R ESPONDENT BY: SMT.SH EETAL BORKAR, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 07 - 08 - 2014. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26 - 09 - 2014. O R D E R PER JASON P BOAZ, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - I, BANGALORE, DAT ED 31 - 12 - 2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BRIEFLY, ARE AS UNDER: - ITA NO . 385 /BANG/20 13 M/S.TULIP APPARELS P.LTD. PAGE 2 OF 12 2.1 THE ASSESSEE, A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF WOVEN LABELS AND FABRICS, FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 ON 25 - 11 - 2006 DEC LARING LOSS OF RS.3,78,26,828/ - . THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961[HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT'] VIDE ORDER DATED 28 - 11 - 2008 WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DET ERMINED AT RS.59,55,936/ - IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES: I ADDITION UNDER JOB WORKS, SALARIES AND WAGES RS.3,78,26,454/ - II ADDITION UNDER COMMISSION PAYABLE .. RS. 20,54,038/ - III ADDITION UNDER INTEREST RECEIVABLE RS. 32, 02,889/ - IV ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD LOAN RS. 6,99,383/ - 2.2 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, DATED 28 - 11 - 2008 , THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) - I, BANGALORE. THE LD.CIT(A) EXAMINED THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL AND CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) DISPOSED OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL BY ORDER DATED 31 - 12 - 2012 ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE PARTIAL RELIEF BY DELETING THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES OF THE ITEMS LISTED AT SL.NOS. (I) AND (III) AT PARA.2.1 OF THIS ORDER AND RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE AT SL.NO. (II) (SUPRA) TO RS.80,000/ - . ITA NO . 385 /BANG/20 13 M/S.TULIP APPARELS P.LTD. PAGE 3 OF 12 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), BANGALORE, DATED 31 - 1 2 - 2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,K02,47,691 BEING 20% OF THE JOB WORK CHARGES AND SALARIES AND WAGES HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHAT IS TO BE DISALLOWED. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED A PRECISE QUANTUM OF 20% OF THE JOB WORK CHARGES AND SALARIES AND WAGES DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS. 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AO'S ACTION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20% OF SALARIES IS N OT BASED ON ANY EVIDENCE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE AS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM BY PRODUCING THE PAY ROLL REGISTER AND PF DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE AO. 5. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT AP PRECIATING THAT THE ONUS LAY ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENTS. 6. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE LIABILITY OF RS.2,75,78,763 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODU CE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF LIABILITY TO INDUS FILA. 7. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SUNDRY CREDITORS TO RS.80,000 AS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20,54,038 MADE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE OUTSTANDING SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS.19,56,990 AND RS.97,048 AS ON 31 - 03 - 2006. 8. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.32,02,881 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EVEN IF ADVAN CES ARE NOT MADE DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE INCURRING INTEREST ON THE FUNDS BORROWED. ITA NO . 385 /BANG/20 13 M/S.TULIP APPARELS P.LTD. PAGE 4 OF 12 9. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT NOT ALL OF THE ADVANCES WERE MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. 10. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORRELATION BETWEEN THE ADVANCES AND INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AND DISALLOWANCE IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. 11. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 12. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ASSAILED THE IMPUGNED ORD ER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND RELIED ON THE FINDINGS RENDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. PER CONTRA, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING DETAILS IN THIS REGARD. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE VARIOUS ISSUES AS UNDER: 5. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE AT SL.NO.1, 11 AND 12 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, NO ADJUDICATIO N IS CALLED FOR THEREON. 6. DISALLOWANCE TOWARDS PAYMENTS FOR JOB WORKS, SALARIES AND WAGES (GROUND NOS.2 TO 6): ITA NO . 385 /BANG/20 13 M/S.TULIP APPARELS P.LTD. PAGE 5 OF 12 6.1.1 IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,21,38, 455/ - TOWARDS JOB WORKS, SALARIES AND WAGES - COMPRISING OF RS.30,66,291/ - TOWARDS JOB WORK CHARGES AND RS.4,90,72,164/ - TOWARDS SALARIES AND WAGES. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES WITH D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCE LIKE PAYROLL REGISTER, PF AND ESI PAYMENTS, DETAILS OF TDS, SERVICE CONTRACTS AND SOURCES OF FUNDS ETC., AND THEREFORE DISALLOWED 20% OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER D ISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,02, 47,691/ - BEING 20% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED AMOUNTING TO RS.5,21,38,455/ - . 6.1.2 IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY RAISED REGARDING THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR THESE EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE APPARENTLY, INTER ALIA, SUBMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,75,78,763/ - WAS PAID BY M/S.INDUS FILA, A GROUP /CONCERN , ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.2,75,78,763/ - ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE GROUP CO NCERN , ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.2 ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BY MAKING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: ITA NO . 385 /BANG/20 13 M/S.TULIP APPARELS P.LTD. PAGE 6 OF 12 I. THE ASSESSING OFFICER S ACTION IN DISALLOW ING 20% OF SALARIES IS NOT BASED ON ANY EVIDENCE. II. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED DETAILS LIKE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, AUDITED STATEMENTS AND FORM 3CD. III. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CLEAR WHAT IS THE AMOUNT, WHICH IS TO BE DISALLOWED. IV. THE DISALLOWANCE CAN BE CLAIMED ONLY OF THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND NOT THE AMOUN T SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. 6 .3.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS OBSERVED BY THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE AUDITED STATEMENTS/FORM 3CD WHIC H WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RENDERED ANY FINDING OF THERE BEING ANY INFIRMITY OR IRREGULARITY IN THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES TOWARDS SALARIES AND WAGES. NOT EVEN A SINGLE INSTANCE HAS BEEN POINTED OUT NOR HAS AN Y EVIDENCE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD WHICH CAN POINT TOWARDS ANY WRONG OR INCORRECT CLAIM OF EXPENSES BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OR FINDING TO THIS EFFECT BEING RENDERED, A SUMMARY, AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF THE KIND MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN THE CASE ON HAND IS NOT TENABLE. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ASSIGNED ANY REASON FOR PEGGING THE DISALLOWANCE AT 20% ITA NO . 385 /BANG/20 13 M/S.TULIP APPARELS P.LTD. PAGE 7 OF 12 OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED (I.E. RS.102,47,891/ - OF RS.5,21,38,455/ - ) 6 .3.2 AS REGARDS THE DI SALLOWANCE OF RS.2,75,78,763/ - , WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SPELLED OUT AS TO WHY THIS AMOUNT IS BEING DISALLOWED. WHILE STATING THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SPECIFIED AS TO HOW HE ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION, OF WHETHER HE SUSPECTS THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE ITSELF OR WHETHER HE SUSPECTS THE CLAIM OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE GROUP CONCERN M/S.INDUS FILA. THE LD.CIT(A) EXAMINED THE ASSESSEE S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OBSERVED THAT OUT OF THE JOB WORK CHARGES, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.30,66,291/ - AS EXPENSES IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,75,78,763/ - SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD.CIT(A), ONLY THE AMOUNT CLAIMED AS AN EXPENSE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE AND NOT THE AMOUNT SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING IN THE BALANCE SHEET. 6 .3.3 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT WILL BE IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS FOR THIS ISSUE TO BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A DE - NOVO EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUE AND TO RENDER A CLEAR AND ELABO RATE SPEAKING ORDER/FINDING AS TO ITA NO . 385 /BANG/20 13 M/S.TULIP APPARELS P.LTD. PAGE 8 OF 12 THE ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENSES CLAIMED TOWARDS PAYMENTS FOR JOB WORKS, SALARIES AND WAGES IN THE LIGHT OF OUR OBSERVATIONS AND AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND TO FILE DETAILS REQUIRED WHI LE DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 7 . INTEREST ON ADVANCES RECEIVABLE (GROUND NOS.8 TO 10): 7.1 IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,31,77, 368/ - AS ADVANCES, WHICH WERE GIVEN TO VARIOUS RELATE D PARTIES, AS PER THE DETAILED LIST REPRODUCED AT PARA 7.1 OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. AS THESE ADVANCES HAD BEEN GIVEN TO RELATED PARTIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THESE ADVANCES HAVE NOT BEEN M ADE IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS BUT WERE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT, WHILE ON THE ONE HAND THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT DUE TO PAUCITY OF FUNDS, THE GROUP CONCERN M/S.IN DUS FILA MADE PAYMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE ADVANCED MONEYS TO VARIOUS RELATED PARTIES. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THESE ADVANCES HAD BEEN GIVEN TO RELATED PARTIES FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE INTEREST ON THESE ADVANCES. IN VIEW OF TH IS, MATTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED A RATIONAL INTEREST OF 10.5% ITA NO . 385 /BANG/20 13 M/S.TULIP APPARELS P.LTD. PAGE 9 OF 12 (BEING THE AVERAGE PRIME LENDING RATE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA) TO THE OUTSTANDING ADV ANCES AND ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.32,02,889/ - TOWARDS THE SAME. 7 . 2 ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO CO - RELATION BETWEEN THE ADVANCES AND INTEREST - BEARING FUNDS AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 7 . 3 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THESE ADVANCES AMOUNTING TO RS.3,31,77,368/ - HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO RELATED PARTIES AND THAT NO INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED ON THESE ADVANCES. IT IS ALSO SEEN FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PAYING INTEREST @ OF 9% TO HDFC BANK FOR OVERDRAFT FACILITY. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED WHETHER THERE WAS ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE BANK FUNDS AND THE A MOUNT ADVANCED TO RELATED PARTIES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE ON THIS ISSUE IS NOT CLEAR. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT IT WILL BE IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS FOR THIS ISSUE TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR PROPER EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION AND TO THEREAFTER RENDER A CLEAR FINDING AS TO WHETHER THERE IS A NEXUS BETWEEN THE ADVANCES TO RELATED PARTIES AND INTEREST BEARING FUNDS, AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAD AND TO SUB MIT ITA NO . 385 /BANG/20 13 M/S.TULIP APPARELS P.LTD. PAGE 10 OF 12 DETAILS/EVIDENCES REQUIRED AND DULY CONSIDERING THE SAME. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 8 . COMMISSION PAYABLE (GROUND NO.7): 8.1 IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.20,54,038/ - APPEARED IN THE ASSESSEE S ACCOUNTS AS THE OPENING BALANCE OF COMMISSION PAYABLE AS ON 1 - 4 - 2005 TO THE FOLLOWING RELATED PARTIES: I) M/S. MAND H ANA EXPORTS RS.19,56,990/ - II) M/S. S.R.ENTERPRISES RS. 97,048/ - ---- ------------ TOTAL RS.20,54,038/ - ======== THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS AND EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO SERVICES RENDERED, WORK ORDER, AMOUNT OF BU SINESS GENERATED FOR THE COMMISSION, INVOICES RAISED IN THIS REGARD ETC., A CCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM AND HE THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE OPENING BALANCE OF COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS.20,54,038/ - . 8 .2 ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) ON VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS ON RECORD, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS.80,000/ - AS BROKERAGE, WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.20,54,038/ - WHICH WAS REFLECT ED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS THE OPENING BALANCE AS ON ITA NO . 385 /BANG/20 13 M/S.TULIP APPARELS P.LTD. PAGE 11 OF 12 1 - 4 - 2005 UNDER THE HEAD SUNDRY CREDITORS . THE LD.CIT(A) HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER S ACTION IN DISALLOWING THE AMOUNT OF RS.20,54,038/ - APPEARING IN THE ASSESSEE S BALANCE - SHEET WAS NOT CORRECT, RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.80,000/ - . 8 .3 .1 WE HAVE HEA R D THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACT ON RECORD, ON THIS ISSUE, IS THAT COMMISSION PAYABLE AMOUNTING TO RS.2 0,54,038/ - WAS THE OPENING BALANCE AS ON 1 - 4 - 2005 IN THE ASSESSEE S BALANCE - SHEET UNDER THE HEAD SUNDRY CREDITORS . ACCORDING TO THE LD.CIT(A), OUT OF THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS.80,000/ - AS BROKERAGE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUN T IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE WAS RESTRICTED TO RS.80,000/ - . THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HELD AS UNDER IN PARA 4.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER: 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE APPELLANT S SUBMISSIONS AND THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE A.O IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS SEEN FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, THE APPELLANT, ACTUALLY CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS.80,000/ - AS THE BROKERAGE. WHEREAS, THE A .O ADOPTED THE FIGURE OF RS.20,54,038/ - REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET UNDER THE HEAD SUNDRY CREDITORS ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE A.O IS NOT CORRECT IN DISALLOWING THE AMOUNT AS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET AGAINST THE CLAIM MADE I N THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO RS.80,000/ - AND THE A.O IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO . 385 /BANG/20 13 M/S.TULIP APPARELS P.LTD. PAGE 12 OF 12 8.3.2 WE FIND THAT APART FROM REITERATING THE GROUNDS RAISED AND PLACING RELIANCE ON THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N THIS ISSUE, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT ABLE TO BRING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A). IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.80,000/ - AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISS GROUND NO.7 RAISED BY REVENUE. 9 . IN THE RESULT, REVENUE S APPEAL IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRON OUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH SEPTEMBER , 201 4. S D/ - SD/ - ( N.V.VASUDEVAN ) (JASON P BOAZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER EKSRINIVASULU COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE