Elecon Engineering Co.Ltd., V. The ACIT.,(OSD)Anand Circle, Anand

ITA 3893/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60353 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 23-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Gift; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Opportunity of being heard; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3893/AHD/07 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ELECON ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED ANAND- SOJITRA ROAD, VALLABH VIDHYANAGAR-388120 VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (O.S.D.), ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 23-04-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18-05-2012 / ORDER PER : A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS)-IV, BARODA, DATED 31.07.2007 FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2002-03. 2. GROUND NO.1 IS AS UNDER: R.T.O. TAX EXPENSES RS. 384550/- (REFER PARA 4, PAGE 2 OF CIT(A)-IV ORDER) APPELLANT BY SHRI M.K.PATEL RESPONDENT BY SHRI B.L.YADAV ITA NO.3893/AHD/2007 , A. Y. 2002-03 2 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-IV, HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 38455O/- IN RESP ECT OF RTO TAX EXPENSES PAYABLE ON VEHICLE. THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT, RTO TAXES A RE ALLOWABLE AS AN ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. MOR EOVER, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT CLAIM IS ALSO ADMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 43 B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE LD. A.O. ON PAGE NO.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED R.T. O. TAX IN RESPECT OF NEW CAR AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,84,550/- AS REVENUE EXPENSES. HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE TAXES PAID ON NEW ASSET ARE CAPITAL IN NATURE A ND HE DISALLOWED THE SAME. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS AND NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE US THAT THE RELIANCE IS BEING PLACED ON THE SUBMISSIONS SUBMITTED BEFORE LD . CIT (A), WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.3 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 6. LD. D.R. OF THE REVENUE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES B ELOW. WE FIND THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT (A) AS PER PAGE NOS. 3 AND 4 OF PAPER BOOK THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO PAY THE R.T.O. TAX TO PUT THE CARS INTO USE AND IT CANNOT BE PAID WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN THE RE SPECTIVE LAW BUT THE CARS CAN BE USED BEFORE PAYING THE SAME. IT WAS ALSO SUBMIT TED THAT IT HAS NO ENDURING BENEFIT AND THE VALUE OF THE VEHICLE IS NOT APPRECI ATED BY PAYING THE R.T.O. TAX. ITA NO.3893/AHD/2007 , A. Y. 2002-03 3 RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF JANARDAN PRASAD ASHOK PRASAD VS . CIT AS REPORTED IN 193 ITR 186. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE, IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT THAT THE DEPRECIATION WAS ALLO WABLE EVEN THOUGH THE VEHICLE WAS PLIED WITHOUT GETTING THE PERMIT AS PROVIDED UN DER THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. ONE MORE SUBMISSION IS MADE THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43 (B). WE FIND THAT THIS IS NOT AN ALLOWING SECTION BUT IT IS IN FACT RESTRICTING THE ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION IN R ESPECT OF TAX WHICH IS NOT PAID. EVEN IF IT IS OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE, IT CANNOT BE ALL OWED IF THE SAME IS NOT PAID WITHIN THE RELEVANT YEAR. THEREFORE, THE RELIANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS SECTION IS NOT RELEVANT BECAUSE IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DI SALLOWANCE WAS MADE ON THIS BASIS THAT EXPENDITURE IS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. REG ARDING THE FIRST CONTENTION THAT CARS CAN BE USED BEFORE PAYING THE R.T.O. TAX AND R EGARDING RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD H IGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF JANARDAN PRASAD ASHOK PRASAD VS CIT (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THIS DISALLOWANCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED BECAUSE PAYMENT OF RO AD TAX DOES NOT RESULT INTO THE CREATION OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET. CAPITAL ASSET I.E. CAR IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE AND THE ROAD TAX IS REQUIRED TO BE PAID FOR RUNNING THE CAR . 8. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT IS A REVENUE EXPEN DITURE AND NOT A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. FUEL IS ALSO REQUIRED TO RUN A CAR AN D WITHOUT FUEL, NO CAR CAN BE RUN BUT STILL IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT EXPENDITURE IN CURRED ON FUEL FOR RUNNING A CAR IS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. SIMILARLY EXPENDITURE INCU RRED ON ROAD TAX TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO RUN A CAR ON ROAD CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. WE, THEREFORE, DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE. ITA NO.3893/AHD/2007 , A. Y. 2002-03 4 9. GROUND NO.1 IS ALLOWED. 10. GROUND NO.2 IS AS UNDER: OTHER LEGAL INCIDENTAL EXPENSES: (REFER PARA 5, PAGE 3 OF CIT(A)-IV ORDER) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-IV HAD ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,37,898/- BEING 25% OF TOTAL LEGAL INCIDENTAL EXPENSE. THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS MADE THIS DISALLOWANCE ARBITRARILY WITHOUT DISCHARGING B Y COGENT EVIDENCE TO BUTTRESS ITS CLAIM. 11. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT IN THE PRESENT YEAR, THE A SSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RS. 5,51,594/- AS OTHER LEGAL INCIDENTAL EXPENSES. THE LD. A.O. HAS NOTED THAT AFTER SCRUTINY OF THE VOUCHERS, THE NATURE OF THE EXPENSE S CLAIMED COULD NOT BE SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED NOR ARE THEY AMENABLE TO F ULL VERIFICATION. HE MADE DISALLOWANCE OF LUMP SUM OF RS. 2,50,000/- ON THIS BASIS THAT EXPENSES ARE NOT VERIFIABLE IN NATURE. 12. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A). IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THESE EXPENSES ARE DULY SUPPORTED BY VOUCHERS AND HAVE ALSO BEEN AUDIT ED BY THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT INCLUDES VA RIOUS EXPENSES SUCH AS TRAVEL, CONVEYANCE, LUNCH & DINNER, TYPING AND XEROX AND OT HER MISCELLANEIOUS EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE EMPLOYEES OR OTHER CONCERNED PERSON S IN RELATION TO SALES TAX MATTERS, EXCISE MATTERS, LEGAL MATTERS AND OTHER WO RKS OF THE COMPANY. EXPENSES WERE EXPLAINED AND DETAILS OF EXPENSES WER E FILED. ITA NO.3893/AHD/2007 , A. Y. 2002-03 5 13. LEARNED CIT (A) HAS NOTED THAT NATURE OF THESE EXPENSES CONTINUED TO BE VAGUE AND BY THEIR VERY DESCRIPTION, SOME EXPENDITU RES ARE INADMISSIBLE EXPENDITURE/PERSONAL EXPENSES AND THIS CANNOT BE RU LED OUT. HE HELD THAT 25% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE U NDER THIS CIRCUMSTANCE SHOULD BE DISALLOWED. IN THIS MANNER, HE RESTRICTED THE D ISALLOWANCE TO RS. 137898/- BEING 25% OF TOTAL LEGAL INCIDENTAL EXPENSES. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 14. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT DISALLOWANCE CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS EXCESSIVE. 15. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE HAS SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF LD. CIT (A). 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND WE FIND THAT DISALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ON THE BASIS OF THIS PRESUMPTION THAT SOME PERSONAL EXPEND ITURE/ INADMISSIBLE EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE RULED OUT. BEFORE US, IT WAS THE ONLY CONTENTION RAISED BY LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DISALLOWANCE CONFIRME D BY LD. CIT (A) IS EXCESSIVE. 17. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE, WE HOLD THAT IF THE DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF TOTAL SUCH EXPEN SES, IT WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND CONFIRM THE DISA LLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 55,159/- BEING 10% OF TOTAL EXPENSES. 18. THUS, GROUND NO.2 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 19. GROUND NO.3 IS AS UNDER: COMMISSION BY WAY OF GIFT CHEQUE CLAIM PAID TO MR. VIVEK B. AJRI: (REFER PARA 9, PAGE 7 OF CIT(A)-IV ORDER) ITA NO.3893/AHD/2007 , A. Y. 2002-03 6 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-IV ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 55700/-. THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT GIFT GIVEN BY THE COMPANY IS A LEGITIMATE GENUINE EXPENDITURE FOR PROMOTION OF BUSINESS. 20. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY LD. A.O. ON PAGE NO.5 OF THE ASSESSEMENT ORDER THAT A GIFT CHEQUE OF RS. 55,700/- WAS PAID B Y THE ASSESSEE TO MR. VIVEK B. AJRI. WHEN THE A.O. OF THE ASSESSEE ASKED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THIS IS FOR ADDITIONAL DISC OUNT AT THE RATE OF 5% ON A SUM WORKED OUT AT RS. 11,13,995/-. THE LD. A.O. NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHO IS THIS VIVEK B. AJRI AND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH ADDITIONAL DISCOUNT WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. A.O. HAS A LSO NOTED THAT THERE IS NOTING ON THIS LETTER BY THE RECEIVING END MR. PRATAP, KI NDLY DO THE NEEDFUL TO COLLECT BALANCE 10% OF PAYMENT. AND LD. A.O. HAS NOTED TH AT WHEN QUESTIONED, THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT THROW LIGHT ON THESE REMARKS. LEARNED A.O. HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THIS PAYMENT IS ALWAYS AT STAKE. HE HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT IF IT IS A REAL B USINESS TRANSACTION, THERE IS NO NEED FOR PAYMENT BY GIFT CHEQUE. HE HELD THAT THIS PAYMENT IS NOT CONNECTED WITH BUSINESS AND DISALLOWED THE SAME. 21. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS AND NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 22. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE BE FORE US THAT THIS PAYMENT IS FOR SALE COMMISSION AND DRAWN THE ATTENTION TO THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE LD. CIT (A) WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.8 OF PAPER BOOK. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE SAME SUBMISSION BEFORE US. ITA NO.3893/AHD/2007 , A. Y. 2002-03 7 23. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE HAS SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF LD. CIT (A). 24. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FIL ED BEFORE LD. CIT (A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MADE SALES OF RS. 11,13,995/- TO M/S AJRI ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED AND THEREFORE, 5% DISCOUNT ON THE SALE WAS ALLOWED AND THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION BY WAY OF GIFT CHEQUE IS IN RESPECT OF DISCOUNT AND THE SAME WAS PAID IN THE NAME OF MR. V IVEK B. AJRI OF M/S AJRI ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED. 25. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT T.D.S. HAS ALSO BEEN DEDUCTED AND THEREFORE THE PAYMENT IS PURELY FOR THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE COMP ANY. 26. WHEN WE CONSIDERED THESE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE, WE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF THIS WAS ON ACCOUNT OF DISCOUNT ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF DEDUCTING TDS FROM DISCOUNT AN D THERE IS NO NEED FOR MAKING ANY PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF DISCOUNT BECAUSE D ISCOUNT IS GENERALLY DEDUCTED BY THE BUYER FROM THE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO TH E SELLER AND NET PAYMENT IS MADE BY THE BUYER TO THE SELLER. BUT, IT IS NOT TH E CASE THAT BUYER HAS MADE PAYMENT AFTER DEDUCTING THE AMOUNT. IN FACT, THE P AYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY WAY OF GIFT CHEQUE TO ONE MR. V IVEK B. AJRI. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT MR. VIVEK B. AJRI IS OF THAT COMPANY M/S AJRI ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED BUT WHAT IS HIS POSITION IN THAT COMPANY, I S NOT EXPLAINED AND WHY THIS PAYMENT WAS MADE TO HIM AND THAT TOO BY WAY OF GIFT CHEQUE INSTEAD OF A NORMAL CHEQUE. ITA NO.3893/AHD/2007 , A. Y. 2002-03 8 27. HENCE, WE FIND THAT THE BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THI S PAYMENT COULD NOT BE PROPERLY EXPLAINED AND THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS JUSTIFIED. GROUND NO.3 IS REJECTED. 28. GROUND NO. 4 IS AS UNDER: PROFESSIONLA SERVICE CHARGES PAID TO MR. FIROZ ALAM : (REFER PARA 10, PAGE 8 OF CIT (A)-IV ORDER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-IV ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,25,000/- PAID TOWARDS PROFESS IONAL CHARGES. THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT, THE PAYMENT TO THE AFORESAID PARTY WAS MADE TOWARDS REPAIRING CHARGES FOR SERVICING OF GEARBOXES LOCATED IN SUGAR PLANT OF NORTH BIHAR. AND IT IS RIGHTLY CLAI MED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 29. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE LD. A.O . IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1.25 LACS WAS PAID TO MR. FIROZ AL AM OF NARKATIAGUNJ, BIHAR. WHEN THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE THE BILL FOR THIS PAYMENT, THE ASSESSEE FILED A XEROX COPY OF BILL DATED 11.08.200 1 IN WHICH IT WAS STATED THAT THESE ARE CHARGES TOWARDS SERVICING OF ELECON MAKE GEAR BOXES LOCATED IN SUGAR PLANTS OF NORTH BIHAR. LD. A.O. WAS NOT SATISFIED AND HE DISALLOWED THE PAYMENT. 30. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS AND NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 31. IT IS SUBMITTED BY LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THA T THE COPY OF BILL IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.101 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH CONTAINS THE ADDRESS ALSO. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE AFTER DEDUCTING TDS AND BY WAY OF ITA NO.3893/AHD/2007 , A. Y. 2002-03 9 DEMAND DRAFT. HE ALSO FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS PAYMENT IS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 32. LD. D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 33. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN THE BILL AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 101 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THERE IS NO MENTION AS TO FOR WHICH SUGAR PLANT IN NORTH BIHAR, THE SERVICING WAS CARRIED OUT BY MR. FIROZ ALAM AND WHEN THE SAME WAS CARRIED OUT AND HOW THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BEAR SUCH EXPENSES OF SERVICING IN SUGAR PLANTS OF NORTH BIHAR. AS TO WHETHER, THE SAME WERE WITHIN WARRANTY PERIOD OR WHETHER ANY CHARGES WERE REALIZED BY ASSESSEE FROM SUCH SUGAR PLANTS. 34. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). THUS, THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 35. GROUND NO.5 IS AS UNDER: WEBSITE EXPENSES: (PARA 11, PAE 9 OF CIT(A)-IV ORDER) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-IV ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5,57,650/- INCURRED FOR DEVELOP ING AND MAINTAINING COMPANYS WEBSITE. THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THIS EXPENDI TURE HAS RIGHTLY BEEN CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND THIS CAN NOT BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 36. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT EXPENSES ARE INCURRED FOR DEVELOPING AND MAINTAINING THE WEBSITE AND THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE CONTINUOUSLY UPDATED AND THEREFORE IT IS RECURRING EXPENDITURE. HE FURTHER ITA NO.3893/AHD/2007 , A. Y. 2002-03 10 SUBMITTED THAT DETAILS OF EXPENSES AND CORRESPONDIN G BILLS ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGES 104 TO 106 OF THE PAPER BOOK. RELIANCE WAS PLACED O N THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INDIAN VISIT.COM PRIVATE LIMITED. 37. LD. D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTH ORITIES BELOW. 38. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND P ERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND THE JUDGMENT CITED BY LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INDIAN VISIT.COM PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA ), THE FACTS WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE TRAVEL BUSINESS AND USED TO MAKE ALL KINDS O F ARRANGEMENTS FOR ITS CLIENTS SUCH AS BOOKING OF HOTEL ROOMS, PROVIDING TAXI SERV ICES, BOOKING OF AIR TICKETS AND RAILWAY TICKETS ETC. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IN CURRED THE EXPENDITURE ON DEVELOPMENT OF ITS WEBSITE WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE LD. A.O. BY HOLDING THAT IT IS CAPITAL IN NATURE. UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT THAT MERELY BECAUSE A PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE HAS PR OVIDED SOME ENDURING BENEFIT, IT WOULD NOT MAKE SUCH EXPENDITURE OF CAPI TAL NATURE BECAUSE WHAT IS TO BE SEEN IS WHAT IS THE REAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF T HE EXPENDITURE AND AS TO WHETHER THERE IS ANY ACCRETION TO THE FIXED CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF WEBSITE DOES NOT RESUL T INTO ANY CREATION TO FIXED CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE ALTHOUGH, IT MAY PROVIDE SO ME ENDURING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 39. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WE HOLD THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON WEBSITE ITA NO.3893/AHD/2007 , A. Y. 2002-03 11 DEVELOPMENT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS REVENUE EXPENDI TURE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 40. GROUND NO.6 IS AS UNDER: SALES PROMOTION/EXPORT EXPENSES: (PARA 12, PAGE 10 OF CIT(A)-IV ORDER) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-IV ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 13,16,836 INCURRED TOWARDS PROF ESSIONAL CHANGES PAID FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 13,16,836/-WAS PAID FOR DEVELOPMENT OF OWN BUSINESS IN EXPORT, MAR KET AND ACCORDINGLY SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 41. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT LD. A.O. HAS MADE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS. 38,31,437/- INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SALES PROMOT ION/EXPORT EXPENSES. WHEN THE ASSESSE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A), HE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 13,16,836/-, WHICH WAS PAID TO MR. TERRY HALL OF AUSTRALIA AS RETAINERSHIP FEES AND DELETED THE BALANCE DISALLOWA NCE RS. 25,14,601/-. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US FOR THE DI SALLOWANCE CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT (A). 42. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE BE FORE US THAT THE COMPANY HAS APPOINTED MR. TERRY HALL AS A CONSULTANT TO SUR VEY AND STUDY OF THE AUSTRALIAN MARKET FOR COMPANYS PRODUCTS. HE FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT HIS APPOINTMENT LETTER IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 107 AND 108 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CON FIRMING DISALLOWANCE ON THIS BASIS THAT THIS EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR SETTING UP A ITA NO.3893/AHD/2007 , A. Y. 2002-03 12 SUBSIDIARY COMPANY IN AUSTRALIA AND THEREFORE, EXPE NSES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THAT SUBSIDIARY COMPANY, WHICH WAS SET UP APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS LATER. HE STRONGLY SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND THEREFORE, SHOULD BE ALLOWED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF BTX CHEMICAL P. LTD. VS. C.I.T. AS REPORTED IN [2007] 288 ITR 196 (GUJ) AND ALSO ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JYOTI ELECTRIC MOTORS LTD. AS REPORTED IN 255 ITR 345 (GUJ.). 43. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 44. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERU SED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AN D JUDGMENTS CITED BY LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. 45. WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE APPOINTMENT LETTER WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NOS. 107 AND 108 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THAT IT IS S TATED IN THIS APPOINTMENT LETTER THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WANTS TO SET UP A SUBSIDI ARY COMPANY IN AUSTRALIA AND FOR THIS PURPOSE, THEY WANT TO CARRY OUT A SURV EY AND FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE APPOINTMENT OF MR. TERRY HALL IS MADE AS CONSULTANT . AS PER THIS APPOINTMENT LETTER, MR. TERRY HALL WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A REP ORT BASED ON STUDY. IT IS ADMITTED POSITION OF FACT THAT ULTIMATELY A SUBSIDI ARY COMPANY WAS SET UP BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALTHOUGH TWO YEARS LATER. THERE I S NO SUCH MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE US THAT ON THE BASIS OF SURVEY CAR RIED OUT BY MR. TERRY HALL, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS GOT ANY BENEFIT IN THE FORM OF ANY EXPORT TO ASUTRALIA. NOW, IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE EXAMINE THE AP PLICABILITY OF TWO JUDGMENTS CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. FIRST, WE E XAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ITA NO.3893/AHD/2007 , A. Y. 2002-03 13 JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JYOTI ELECTRIC MOTORS LIMITED (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE, THE ISSUE INVOLVED WAS REGARDING FEES PAID FOR TECHNICAL REPORT FOR EXPANSION OF EXI STING BUSINESS. IN THAT CASE, THERE WAS NO ISSUE SUCH AS FORMATION OF SUBSIDIARY COMPANY AND THEREFORE, THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. SE COND JUDGMENT CITED BY LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APE X COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF BTX CHEMICALS (P) LTD. VS. CIT. (SUPRA) IN THAT CASE, THE ISSUE INVOLVED WAS REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE UNDE R SECTION 36(1)(III) WHEN THE MONEY BORROWED WAS LENT TO A CONCERN WITHOUT CHARGI NG INTEREST. IN THAT CASE, IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE THE APEX COURT THAT IF IT CANNO T BE ESTABLISHED THAT SUCH ADVANCING OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCES WAS FOR BUSINES S PURPOSE, INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWABLE. BUT, IN THE PRESENT CASE , FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT WHETHER EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CONNEC TION WITH SETTING UP OF A SUBSIDIARY COMPANY IS ALLOWABLE OR NOT. THEREFORE, THIS JUDGMENT IS ALSO OF NO HELP IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SETTING UP OF A COMPANY IS TO BE DEBITED IN THE SAID COMPANY AS PRELIMINARY EX PENSES AND THE DEDUCTION FOR THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE IN THE HANDS OF THAT COMPANY UNDER SECTION 35D TO THE EXTENT OF 1/5 TH OF SUCH EXPENDITURE FOR EACH OF THE FIVE SUCCESSIV E PREVIOUS YEARS. 46. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFE RE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 47. GROUND NO.7 IS AS UNDER: ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES: (REFER PARA 14, PAGE 14 OF CIT(A)-IV ORDER) ITA NO.3893/AHD/2007 , A. Y. 2002-03 14 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-IV ERRED IN DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 150000/- (1/3 RD ) OUT OF RS. 4,52,233/- INCURRED TOWARDS ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES. THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT, COMPANY HAS INCURRED THE SAID EXPENSES IN RELATION TO ENTERTAINMENT OF COMPANYS CLIENTS OR CUSTOMERS AND HENCE AN ADMISSIBLE EXPENDITURE. 48. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAM E ARGUMENTS WHICH WERE MADE BEFORE LD. CIT (A) AND WHICH ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS OF THE EX PENDITURE INCURRED ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGES 145 TO 149 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 49. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 50. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES B ELOW. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY LD. CIT (A) ON PAGE NO. 14 OF HIS ORDER THAT ASS ESSEE HAS INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 4,52,233/- ON ACCOUNT OF ENTERTA INMENT OF COMPANYS CLIENTS OR CUSTOMERS BUT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS SUBMIT TED BEFORE THE LD. A.O. FOR VERIFICATION. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ELEMENT OF PERSONAL EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE RULED OUT AND SINCE THE LD. A.O. HAS DISALLOWED ONLY 1/3 RD OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED, THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED. 51. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DISAL LOWANCE OF 1/3 RD IS EXCESSIVE AND THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE 1 /5 TH OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE I.E. RS. 90,000/-. THE ASSESSEE GETS A RELIEF OF RS. 60 ,000/-. THUS, THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 52. GROUND NO.8 IS AS UNDER: ITA NO.3893/AHD/2007 , A. Y. 2002-03 15 GIFT PRESENTATION ARTICLES: (REFER PARA 15, PAGE 15 OF CIT (A)-IV ORDER) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 92904/- INCURRED TOWARDS GIFTS PRESENTATION EXPENSES. THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT, THE LEARNE D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ARBITRARILY DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 92904 WHICH WERE INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PROMOTION PURPOSE AND IS RIGH TLY CLAIMED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 53. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAM E ARGUMENTS WHICH WERE MADE BEFORE LD. CIT (A) AND WHICH ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGE NOS. 14 AND 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGES 150 TO 157 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 54. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 55. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND P ERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES B ELOW. WE FIND THAT THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGE NOS. 150 TO 1 57 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE SAME INCLUDES EXPENDITURE OF RS. 25,000/- FOR PURCH ASE OF THOMSON COLOUR TELEVISION AND ALSO RS. 23,397/- FOR PURCHASE OF JE WELRY. THERE ARE VARIOUS EXPENDITURE FOR PURCHASE OF SILVER UTENSILS AND OTH ER SILVER ARTICLES AND THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE DETAILS AS TO FOR WHICH GUEST, TH ESE EXPENSIVE GIFTS WERE GIVEN AND WHETHER THE SAME IS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE OR NOT . LD. CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 92,904/- OUT OF TOTAL DISAL LOWANCE MADE BY LD. A.O. OF RS. 1.20 LACS ALTHOUGH, THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS OF RS. 2,84,902/-. ITA NO.3893/AHD/2007 , A. Y. 2002-03 16 56. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE SOME ELEMENT OF PERSONAL EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE RULED OUT IN SUCH TYPE OF GIFTS OF EXPENSIVE ITEMS SUCH AS TELEVISION, GOL D JEWELLERY AND SILVER ARTICLES. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 57. GROUND NO.9 IS AS UNDER: GENERAL REPAIRS EXPENSES: (REFER PARA 15, PAGE 15 OF CIT (A)-IV ORDER) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-IV ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 57,646/- INCURRED TOWARDS GENERAL R EPAIR EXPENSES. THE APPELLANT HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT THE EXPENSES BELI NG TO ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACT AND ARE COMMON IN NATURE AND H ENCE RIGHTLY CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 58. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAM E ARGUMENTS WHICH WERE MADE BEFORE LD. CIT (A) AND WHICH ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE RELEVANT DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGES 158 AND 159 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 54. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 55. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND P ERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES B ELOW. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY LD. CIT (A) IN HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY HAS PAID RS. 57,646/- TO M/S EIMCO ELECON IN RESPECT OF ANNUAL MAINTENANCE C ONTRACT CHARGES OF A/C PLANT AND SINCE THE SAME WAS PERTAINING TO EARLIER YEARS, THE LD. A.O. DISALLOWED ITA NO.3893/AHD/2007 , A. Y. 2002-03 17 THE SAME. LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFOR E THE LD. CIT (A) THAT THE DEBIT NOTES FOR SHARING OF CHARGES FOR ANNUAL MAINT ENANCE CONTRACT OF A.C. WAS UNDER DISPUTE AND THEREFORE, THESE EXPENSES COULD N OT BE BOOKED IN THE RESPECTIVE YEAR AND AFTER SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE, TH E SAME BILLS HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THIS YEAR AS EXPENSES. FROM THE C OPY OF THESE TWO DEBIT NOTES AVAILABLE ON 158 AND 159 OF PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THA T THE SAME WAS FOR THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 2000 TO SEPTEMEBER 2000 AND FROM OCTOBER 2000 TO MARCH 2001. 56. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THIS THAT THE RE WAS DISPUTE AND FOR THIS REASON, THE SAME COULD NOT BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN RELE VANT YEAR. THE DISPUTE WAS SETTLED IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS CLAIMED IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THIS IS NOT A CASE OF THE REVENUE AND THESE ARE NOT REVENUE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND ONLY OBJECTION OF LD. CIT (A) IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTI NG AND THEREFORE, EXPENSES RELATED TO THE EARLIER YEAR CANNOT BE ALLOWED. IT IS NOW THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT THE EXPENSES, WHICH CRYSTALISES ARE IN THE PRE SENT YEAR, HAS TO BE ALLOWED. THEREFORE, WE DELETE THIS DISALLOWANCE. THIS GROUN D IS ALLOWED. 57. GROUND NO.10 IS AS UNDER: INFLATE JOB WORK EXPENSES: (REFER PARA 17, PAGE 16 OF CIT (A)-IV ORDER) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-IV ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,34,579/- BEING NOT SATISFIED W ITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.3893/AHD/2007 , A. Y. 2002-03 18 THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THE APPELLA NT HAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5,34,579/- AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY EXCESSIVE CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF JOB WORK CHARGES. 58. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAM E ARGUMENTS WHICH WERE MADE BEFORE LD. CIT (A) AND WHICH ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.16 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS AND D ETAILS ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGES 162 TO 199 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE TO THE LD. A.O. FOR A FRESH DECISION. 59. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 60. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND P ERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BE LOW. WE FIND THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT (A) THAT I N EARLIER YEAR, THE EXPENSES WERE ACCOUNTED FOR BY WAY OF CREDIT TO PROVISION OF EXPENSES AND IN THE PRESENT YEAR, BILLS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR BY WAY OF CREDIT TO T HE ACCOUNT OF M/S VVN MFG. & INVESTA LTD. BUT THE PROVISION HAS BEEN REVERSED. IF THIS IS SO, THEN THE DEBIT IN THE EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT WILL BE TO THE EXTENT OF EX PENSES OF PRESENT YEAR ONLY WHICH COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OR BEFORE US BUT STILL, WE FEEL THAT IN THE INTEREST O F JUSTICE AND IN THE LIGHT OF THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE MATTER SHOULD GO B ACK TO THE LD. A.O. FOR A FRESH DECISION AND HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. C IT (A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK FOR THE A.O. FOR A FRESH DECISION. THE ASSESS EE HAS TO ESTABLISH AS TO HOW MUCH AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY DEBITED TO THE EXPENSE ACC OUNT BY WAY OF CREDIT TO THE PARTYS ACCOUNT M/S VVN MFG. & INVESTA LTD. AND HOW MUCH AMOUNT IS CREDITED TO THE RELEVANT EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT BY WAY OF DEBIT TO THE PROVISION ITA NO.3893/AHD/2007 , A. Y. 2002-03 19 ACCOUNT AND IN THIS MANNER, HOW MUCH NET AMOUNT REM AINS DEBITED TO THE ACCOUNT IN THIS REGARD AND THE SAME IS EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF BILLS RAISED BY THAT PARTY IN THE PRESENT YEAR I.E. OF RS. 264267/-. NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR, IF THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHES THAT NET AMOUNT DEBITED TO THE RELEVANT EXPENSE ACCOUNT IS EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF BILLS RAISED BY THE PARTY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS YEAR. WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE BURDEN IS ON T HE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THIS ASPECT. THE LD. A.O. SHOULD PASS THE NECESSARY ORDE R AS PER LAW AS PER ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 61. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HE REINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- ( D.K. TYAGI ) ( A.K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) 5. , ! , '# / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. $% &' / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , ( / ' ) ! , '# *