The ACIT, Bhopal V. Shri Aloki Khanna., Bhopal

ITA 388/IND/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 38822714 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KESHAVE SAXENA
• Assessee Lawyers: R K MANGAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; Salary income; Opportunity of being heard; Commercial expediency

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 388/IND/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 ACIT-1(1), BHOPAL . APPELLANT VS. ALOK KHANNA, BHOPAL PAN AGHPK 0874 K . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI KESHAVE SAXENA, CIT/DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.K. MANGAL, CA DATE OF HEARING : 29.2.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2.3.2012 ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DAT ED 13.5.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY FOR THE AY 2006-07. 2 2. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT O N THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELET ING THE ADDITION OF RS.40,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF STAFF WE LFARE EXPENSES. THE LD. CIT/DR SHRI KESHAVE SAXENA SUPPOR TED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE ISSUE. 2.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING FROM TIN CONTAINE RS, TIN COMPONENTS ETC. BESIDES INCOME FROM SALARY AND HOUS E PROPERTY ETC. THERE ARE THREE UNITS NAMELY, M/S. IS PAT CANS & PLASTIC INDUSTRIES, SITUATED AT, SILVASA, (IN A NOT IFIED BACKWARD AREA) AND OTHER TWO UNITS NAMELY, M/S. NARMADA ENTE RPRISES, BHOPAL (UNIT 1) AND NARMADA ENTERPRISES, MANDIDEEP (UNIT 2) AT INDUSTRIAL AREA, MANDIDEEP. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DERIV ED INCOME FROM SALARY ON ACCOUNT OF HIS DIRECTORSHIP FROM M/S . ANCHOR AGENCY P. LTD. THE ASSESSEE DEBITED A SUM OF RS.2,2 8,877/-, 3 ON ACCOUNT OF STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES, IN ITS P & L ACCOUNT OF M/S. ISPAT CANS & PLASTIC INDUSTRIES. ON AN INQUIRY BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING INCURRING OF STAFF WELF ARE EXPENSES, IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THUS ARE FULLY A LLOWABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT MOST OF THE EXP ENSES WERE INCURRED FOR TEA, SNACKS, BREAKFAST AND KITCHE N EXPENSES AND ONLY FEW EXPENSES WERE DEBITED ON ACCOUNT OF ME DICINES AND OTHER NECESSITIES. A LUMP SUM AMOUNT OF RS.40,0 00/- WAS DISALLOWED OUT OF STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES. ON APPEAL , THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED UNDER THE HEAD STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES AND THUS ARE ALLOWABL E AS BUSINESS EXPENSES, WHICH ARE UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND THE ASSERTIO N MADE BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL ARE KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION, THE M AJOR OBJECTION FOR DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES IS REGARDING RS.1,245/ -, DEBITED ON ACCOUNT OF GUESTS WHICH WERE INCURRED AS HOTEL E XPENDITURE ON THE BANK OFFICERS WHO VISITED BHOPAL ON VERIFICA TION OF STOCK AND OTHER ASSETS AGAINST WHICH CASH CREDIT LIMIT WA S AVAILED, 4 THEREFORE, THESE EXPENSES CANNOT BE SAID TO BE NON- BUSINESS PURPOSES. SO FAR AS THE OTHER EXPENSES ARE CONCERNE D, UNDISPUTEDLY, THESE PERTAIN TO TEA, KIRANA AND LIKE EXPENSES ON THE WELFARE OF THE STAFF AS THE UNIT WAS CLAIMED TO BE SITUATED IN THE REMOTE AREA HAVING NO FACILITIES OF FOOD, TEA E TC. THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN CIT VS. MACHINERY MANUFACTURING CORPOR ATION LTD. (198 ITR 559) (CAL), CIT VS. HAYHAYARD WALDIA REFIN ERY LTD. (209 ITR 159) (CAL) AND TEKSONS P. LTD. VS. CIT (12 2 ITR 754) (BOM) SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE STAND OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO TREAT THE SAME AS BUSINESS EXPENSES IN THE FORM OF STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES. 3. THE REVENUE IS ALSO AGGRIEVED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.8 LACS MADE OUT OF TRAVELING EXPENSES. THE LD. C IT/DR SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ON PERUSA L OF RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED RS.31,15,907/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVE LING EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE THE 5 JUSTIFICATION OF CLAIMING SUCH HUGE EXPENSES VIDE Q UESTIONNAIRE DATED 4.12.2008. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF TRAVELING EXPENSES BY CLAIMING THAT THESE WERE INCU RRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE IS THAT THE DETAILS OF TRAV ELING EXPENSES WAS NOT FULLY MAINTAINED AND ONLY LEDGER A CCOUNT WAS FURNISHED BY FURTHER OBSERVING THAT THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF JOURNEY ALSO HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED. THE PERSONAL E LEMENT OF EXPENSES WAS ALSO NOT RULED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER, CONSEQUENTLY, HE MADE A LUMP SUM DISALLOWANCE OF RS .8 LACS. ON APPEAL, IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENSES MUST BE CONSIDERED FROM THE VIEW POINT OF A BUSINES SMAN AND NOT FROM THE THINKING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESPE CIALLY WHEN THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENC Y. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE TRAVEL BY AIR HAS BECOME A NE CESSITY TO SAVE THE TIME. SUCH DELETION BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS U NDER CHALLENGE BEFORE US. IF THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS A ND THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL AR E ANALYSED, WE FIND THAT FIRSTLY, THE LD. ASSESSING O FFICER HAS NOT 6 POINTED OUT THAT WHICH OF THE EXPENSES ARE OF PERSO NAL NATURE AND SECONDLY, WHICH EXPENSES ARE OF NON-ALLOWABLE I N NATURE ESPECIALLY WHEN THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR BU SINESS PURPOSES OUT OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. EVEN OTHERWISE , NO LUMP SUM DISALLOWANCE IS PERMISSIBLE THAT TOO WITHOUT PI NPOINTING ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS. SO FAR AS NECESSITY OF INC URRING ANY EXPENSES ARE CONCERNED, THESE ARE TO BE VIEWED FROM THE ANGLE OF THE BUSINESSMAN AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT PERMITTED TO SIT IN THE ARMCHAIR OF THE BUSINESSMAN . FOR MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE GUISE OF EXCESSIVE OR UN REASONABLE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EXPECTED TO PROVE THAT FIR STLY, THESE WERE NOT INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND HOW SAM E ARE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE THAT TOO IN THE LIGHT OF BUSINESS EXIGENCIES/COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PARTI CULAR EXPENSES ARE UNREASONABLE, EXCESSIVE OR INFLATED TO REDUCE THE TAX LIABILITY, NO ADHOC DISALLOWANCE IS OTHERWISE P ERMITTED. THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF UPPER INDIA PUBLISHI NG HOUSE P. LTD. VS. CIT (117 ITR 569) (SC) FURTHER SUPPORTS TH E CASE OF THE 7 ASSESSEE. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING THE UNITS AT THREE DIFFERENT PLACES, THE BUSINESS I NTEREST HAS TO BE SAFEGUARDED, THEREFORE, THERE IS ALL LIKELIHOOD OF INCURRING OF TRAVELING EXPENSES, THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE STAND OF THE LD. CIT(A). IT IS AFFIRMED. 4. THE LAST GROUND ON WHICH THE REVENUE IS STRONGLY AGITATING PERTAINS TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 ,07,56,663/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF LOSS MAKING UNITS NAMELY, M/S. NARMADA ENTERPRISES, BHOPAL (UNI T 1) AND NARMADA ENTERPRISES, MANDIDEEP (UNIT 2). THE LD. CI T/DR SUBMITTED THAT FIRSTLY, THERE IS NO PURCHASE FOR MA NUFACTURING THE GOODS IN THE LOSS MAKING UNITS AND EVEN TILL DA TE, THE BUSINESS WAS NOT RESTARTED FOR WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGES 21, 22 AND 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS SP ECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEAL PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 AND TILL THE DATE OF ARGUMENT, THE POSITION REMA INS THE SAME, MEANING THEREBY, PRACTICALLY THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN CLOSED OUT AND THERE IS NO HOPE FOR REVIVAL. IT WAS ALSO PLEAD ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY PROOF REGARDING NATUR E OF 8 EXPENSES WHICH HAVE BEEN CLAIMED IN ITS INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT BY FURTHER POINTING OUT THAT MA JOR INCOME IS FROM RENT AND NOT FROM MANUFACTURING. RELIANCE W AS PLACED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: MADRAS SILK & RAYON MILLS P. LTD. VS. ITO (262 ITR 122) (MAD); NEW SAVAN SUGAR & GUR REFINING CO. LTD. VS. CIT (74 ITR 7) (SC); EXPRESS NEWSPAPER P. LTD. VS. CIT (227 ITR 325) (MA D); AND UNIVERSAL PLAST LTD. & OTHERS VS. CIT (237 ITR 454) (SC). 4.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE PLEADED THAT ALL THE UNITS ARE SEPARATE, MANUFACTUR ING SAME ITEMS AND THE UNITS LOCATED IN MADHYA PRADESH HAD B EEN SUPPLYING ITS GOODS TO VARIOUS UNITS IN MADHYA PRAD ESH AND SINCE SOME UNITS TO WHOM SUPPLY WAS BEING MADE HAVE FAILED/CLOSED, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO STOP THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. PLEA WAS ALSO RAISED THAT T ILL TODAY, THE UNIT IS HAVING ELECTRICAL CONNECTION, MACHINE IS KE PT IN WORKING CONDITION (THOUGH KEPT IDLE), INTEREST IS PAID TO T HE BANK AND THE UNIT WAS EVEN NOT LET OUT. REGARDING THE QUERRY, RA ISED BY THE REVENUE, ABOUT THE RENTAL INCOME, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THIS INCOME IS FROM OTHER UNIT. PLEA WAS ALSO RAISED THA T SOME 9 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, ELECTRIC EXPENSES, SALARY TO THE SECURITY STAFF AND ACCOUNTANT, CONSULTANCY CHARGES ARE REGULARLY PAID. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PL ACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION IN L.V.E. VARIVAN CHETTIAR VS. CI T (72 ITR 114) (MAD) AND CIT VS. BHARAT NIDHI LIMITED (60 ITR 520) (PUN). IN REPLY, THE LD. CIT/DR CONTENDED THAT IN T HE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDI NG BUSINESS EXPENSES HAS NOT BEEN ADVERTED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOWED NET LOSS OF RS.93,80,689/- FROM M/S. NARMADA ENTERPRISES, BHOPAL (UNIT 1) AND RS.6,77,378/- FROM NARMADA ENTERPRISES, MANDIDEEP (UNIT 2) AND CLAIMED SET OFF OF THESE LOSSES (TOTAL RS.1,00, 58,067/-) FROM THE INCOME OF ANOTHER PROPRIETARY BUSINESS M/S. ISPAT CANS & PLASTIC INDU STRIES, SILVASA. THE WHOLE THRUST OF THE ISSUE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS THAT INFLATED EXPENSES HAVE BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ESPECIALLY WHEN NO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY IS DONE I N NARMADA 10 ENTERPRISES. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE BUSINESS IS TEMPORARILY IN LULL, WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO REVIVE I TS BUSINESS AND THE EXPENDITURE HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN THE INTER EST OF THE BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND SOME OF THE E XPENSES LIKE, CONSULTANCY CHARGES, SALARY CHARGES, TELEPHON E EXPENSES, VEHICLE MAINTENANCE, STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES TOWARDS HIGHER SIDE ESPECIALLY WHEN NO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY IS D ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SISTER CONCERN WHICH IS SHOWING HU GE PROFIT AND IS DOING CONTINUOUS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES HAS BEE N MADE TO SUFFER DUE TO SET OFF OF INCOME IN THE LOSS MAKING UNITS. BEFORE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSION, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUN DER THE RELEVANT PORTION, AS CONTAINED IN PARA 5.5 OF THE I MPUGNED ORDER: - 5.5 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSI ONS AFTER PERUSING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE BUSINESS LOSS CLAIMED IS NOT JU STIFIED. I AM IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE APPELLANT THAT THE SUSP ENSION OF CARRYING ON BUSINESS DOES NOT NECESSARILY AMOUNT TO DISCONTINUANCE OF THE BUSINESS. A COMPANY MAY NOT O BTAIN OR BE ABLE TO EXECUTE A SINGLE BUSINESS CONTRACT FOR M ONTHS AND YET MAY BE DEEMED TO CARRY ON ITS BUSINESS IF DURIN G THE PERIOD OF LULL AND INACTIVITY IT IS KEPT ALIVE AND IF IT R ETAINS ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HOLDS MEETINGS. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT A BUSINESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN WORK ALL THE TIME. THERE MAY BE LO NG INTERVALS 11 OF INACTIVITY AND A CONCERN MAY STILL BE A GOING CO NCERN THOUGH IT MAY FOR SOME TIME BE QUIET AND DORMANT. THE MERE FA CT THAT A BUSINESSMAN HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN A CONTRACT AND THE BUSINESS HAS FOR SOME TIME BEEN IN THAT SENSE DORMA NT WOULD NOT MEAN THAT IT HAS CEASED TO EXIST IF THE APPELLA TE CONTINUES TO MAINTAIN AN ESTABLISHMENT AND INCUR EXPENSES IN THE EXPECTATION THAT WORK WOULD COME AND THE BUSINESS W OULD BE SUCCESSFUL. THE APPELLANT HAS ON ITS OWN NOT CLAIME D DEPRECIATION ON ANY OF THE ASSETS NOT USED DURING T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF OTHER EXPENSES GENUINELY INCURRED, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, IS NOT MERITED OR JUSTIFIED. THE SAME IS DELETED. 5.1 SO FAR AS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. CIT/DR AND AL SO THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER (PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED SET OFF OF THESE LOSSES FROM THE INCOME OF THE PROFIT MAKING U NIT SITUATED IN SILVASA ARE NOT PERMISSIBLE AND THE ASSESSEE UND ER THE FACTS HAS REDUCED THE TAX LIABILITY IS CONCERNED, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SECTION 72(1)(I) IS VERY MUCH CLEAR AND IT SPE CIFICALLY ALLOWS SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFIT AND GAINS, IF ANY, OF A NY BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, C ARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF LOSSES ARE ALLOWABLE IN THE SAME YEA R. 5.2 SO FAR AS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. CIT/DR THAT W HEN NO EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED FOR MANUFACTURING BY THE AS SESSEE, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED, IS CONCERNED, WE FIND T HAT UNDER THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ONLY THE REASONABLENESS OF THE 12 EXPENSES ARE IN DISPUTE AS SOME OF THE EXPENSES ARE BOUND TO INCUR EVEN IN THE UNITS WHERE NO MANUFACTURING IS C ARRIED OUT. THE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED LOANS FOR ITS BUSINESS AN D THERE ARE OUTSTANDING ALSO, THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE MACHIN ERIES ARE KEPT READY FOR USE, STILL THE JUSTIFIED CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE T HAT AS PER SECTION 72(3) OF THE ACT, NO LOSS (OTHER THAN THE L OSS REFERRED TO IN PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION) SHAL L BE CARRIED FORWARD UNDER THIS SECTION FOR MORE THAN EIGHT YEAR S IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHIC H THE LOSS WAS FIRST COMPUTED. 6. IF THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTI CE, CONTAINED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE ASSERTION MADE BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL ARE ANALYSED, WE FIND THAT THE L D. CIT(A) HAS NOT DELIBERATED UPON THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE ALLOWED UNDER THE FACTS NARRATED BEFORE US, BUT THE BASIC QUESTION REMAINS ABOUT THE 13 REASONABLENESS OF THESE EXPENSES BECAUSE THE NARMAD A ENTERPRISES IS DOING NO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. AT THE SAME TIME, SOME EXPENSES BOUND TO INCUR LIKE, ELECTRICIT Y EXPENSES (UP TO A REASONABLE LIMIT), SALARY OF SECURITY STAF F SO THAT THE ASSET LIKE, MACHINERY AND OTHER INSTALLATIONS MAY B E SAVED FROM THEFT ETC., REASONABLE CONSULTANCY CHARGES AND SOME OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT ON TH E ISSUE OF REASONABLENESS, NO DELIBERATION HAS BEEN MADE IN TH E IMPUGNED ORDER. THE SUSPICION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT HUGE PROFIT EARNED FROM SILVASA UNIT IS BEING SIPHONED O FF IN THE LOSS MAKING UNIT BY SHOWING THE INFLATED EXPENSES, THERE FORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF REASONABLENESS OF THESE EXPENSES LIKE SALARY PAID T O THE SECURITY STAFF AND THEIR ACTUAL STRENGTH IN THE LOS S MAKING UNITS, CONSULTANCY CHARGES, USE OF ELECTRICITY TO ITS REQU IRED EXTENT AND PURPOSE AND OTHER MAJOR EXPENSES, CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXAMINE T HE NATURE AND SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST FOR THE LOANS ETC . TAKEN FOR THE LOSS MAKING UNITS AND AFTER DUE EXAMINATION OF THESE 14 EXPENSES ALLOW THE SAME TO A REASONABLE LIMIT FOR WHICH DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSES SEE WITH FURTHER LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVIDENCE, IF ANY, TO SUB STANTIATE THE CLAIM, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 7. SO FAR AS THE CASES RELIED UPON BY BOTH SIDES AR E CONCERNED, THE SAME ARE ON DIFFERENT FACTS AND SINC E WE HAVE REMANDED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR FRESH EXAMINATION NEED NOT BE ADVERTED IN DETAIL. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2.3.201 2. SD SD (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2.3.2012 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR !VYS!