CONCORD ENVIRO SYSTEMS (P ) LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT CC 10, MUMBAI

ITA 3917/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2917 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Fair market value; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 37(1); 132

Judgement Text

C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.3917 /MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) CONCORD ENVIRO SYSTEMS (PVT) LTD., 101, HDIL TOWER, ANANT KANEKAR MARG, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400051 / V. ACIT -10, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ANNEX. M.K. MARG, MUMBAI 400 020. ./ PAN : AAACC8962C ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI NIRAJ SHETH REVENUE BY : DR. S. PANDIAN,DR / DATE OF HEARING : 31-03-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-06-2016 / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, BEING ITA NO. 3917/MUM/2013, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE APPELLATE OR DER DATED 28-02-2013 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)- 37, MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE CIT(A)), FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2009-10, THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ARI SING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29-12-2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE AO) U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1 961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT). ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 2 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COM PANY IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE TRIBUNAL) READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRM ING THE AVERMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ACTIVITIES SHOWN BY T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE ACTUALLY PART OF THE TOTAL ACTIVITIES OF ROC HEM SEPARATION SYSTEMS (1) PVT. LTD., WHICH WERE TRANSFERRED/RECORD ED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE WITH THE PURPOSE TO PASS OVER BENEFITS TO THE F AMILY MEMBERS AND ALSO TO INFLATE THE EXPENSES. THIS FINDING MUST B E REVERSED. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW ON FACTS IN REFUSING TO A DMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE U/R 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, WHICH IS TH E CRUX OF THE DISPUTED ISSUE, SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF HEARING TO AP PRECIATE THE FACTS. THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY HIM AND THE ISS UE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED ACCORDINGLY FOR WHICH NECESSARY DIRECT IONS SHOULD BE ISSUED. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMIN G DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY OF RS. 71,01,116/- PAID TO THE DIRECTORS AS UNAUTHORIZED ON THE BASIS OF AN INITIAL RESOLUTION AND IN EXCESS U/S 4 0A(2)(B) OF THE ACT BY IGNORING THE SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD. THUS, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE SHOULD BE DELETED. 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMIN G DISALLOWANCE OF THE TRAVELING EXPENSES OF RS. 1,79,324/- TREATING IT AS NOT INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMI SSION MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS, THE DISALLOWA NCE MADE SHOULD BE DELETED. 5. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMIN G DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,00,000/- OUT OF THE CAR EXPENSES ON ADHOC BA SIS, TREATING IT AS NOT REASONABLE IN COMPARISON TO THE PRECEDING YEAR E XPENSES. THUS, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE SHOULD BE DELETED. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY BELONG TO ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEMS GROUP , WHICH WAS COVERED U/S 132 OF THE ACT IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE GROUP IS ENGAGED IN THE BUS INESS OF WATER PURIFICATION SYSTEMS AND CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING AND TRADING. TH ERE ARE THREE DIRECTORS IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY NAMELY (I) SHRI BIMAL GOEL, (II) MRS. NIDHI GOEL AND (III) MRS. NAMRATA GOEL . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE A SSESSEE COMPANY THAT MRS. ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 3 NIDHI GOEL AND MRS. NAMRATA GOEL ARE DIRECTORS SINC E 1-12-2005 AND AS REGARDS THEIR QUALIFICATION IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT M RS. NAMRATA GOEL IS MBA IN FINANCE AND MRS. NIDHI GOEL IS BACHELOR OF MANAGEME NT STUDIES. THE SALARY PAID TO THE DIRECTORS DURING THE YEAR WAS RS. 44,50 ,588/- TO EACH OF THE DIRECTORS I.E. MRS. NAMRATA GOEL AND MRS. NIDHI GOE L , TOTALING RS. 89,01,115/-. AS PER THE RECORD THE TOTAL INCOME SHO WN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE YEAR WAS RS. 7,10,11,150/- FROM SALES AND RS. 8,05,733/- FROM OTHERS. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O . FROM THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS INCURRED EXPE NSES ON ACCOUNT OF WAGES AND SALARIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 94,622/- OF WHI CH THE MONTHLY AVERAGE COMES TO RS. 7,885/- WHICH IS A MEAGER FIGURE, WHER EAS THE REMUNERATION PAID TO THE DIRECTORS WAS AT RS. 89,01,115/-. ON P ERUSAL OF THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IT WAS OB SERVED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS PAID RENT TO ROCHEM SEPARA TION SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED FOR USING SPACE AND SET UP AT VASAI FACTORY . THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ALSO SHOWING ITS ADDRESS AT 101,DHEERAJ ARMA, ANAND KANEKAR MARG, HDIL TOWER, BANDRA(EAST) , MUMBAI WHICH IS PR OPERTY OWNED BY M/S ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEMS AND OTHER GROUP COMPANIES FOR WHICH NO RENT WAS APPARENTLY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS PER THE AO. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT THAT IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS MERELY A TRANSFER OF SOME BUSINESS OF THE PARENT/OT HER GROUP COMPANY OWNED BY THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS I.E. M/S ROCHEM SEPARAT ION SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. . THE AO OBSERVED FROM THE RESOLUTION SUBMITTE D BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT VIDE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTIONS DA TED 2-4-2008, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLVED THE MONTHLY REMUNERATION OF T HE DIRECTORS AS UNDER:- SR. NO. DIRECTORS NAME REMUNERATION(RS) 1 MRS. NAMRATA GOEL RS. 75,000/- PM 2 MRS. NIDHI GOEL RS. 75,000/- PM 3 MR. VIMAL KUMAR GOEL RS. 75,000/- PM ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 4 THE ACTUAL SALARY ALLOWABLE AS PER THE RESOLUTION P ASSED IS RS. 18 LACS FOR THE TWO DIRECTORS NAMELY MRS. NAMRATA GOEL AND MRS. NID HI GOEL, HOWEVER, THE DETAILS SHOW THAT THE ACTUAL SALARY PAID TO BOTH TH ESE DIRECTORS WERE RS. 89,01,116/- , THUS AS PER THE AO AN AMOUNT OF RS. 7 1,01,116/- HAD BEEN PAID UNAUTHORIZED AND IN EXCESS OF THE PERMITTED SA LARY NOT APPROVED BY THE MANAGEMENT AND ALSO BY BOARD RESOLUTION, BEING PAID IN EXCESS IS COVERED U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT AND DESERVES TO BE DISALL OWED AS EXPENDITURE AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE A.O. THAT MRS. NIDHI GO EL AND MRS. NAMRATA GOEL ARE WIVES OF OTHER TWO DIRECTORS IN THE MAIN COMPAN Y I.E. M/S ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. . IT WAS ALSO OB SERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS OPERATING ITS BUSINESS FROM THE OFFICE O F ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. AND IS ALSO OCCUPYING THE FACTORY OF ROCHEM SEPERATION SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. . ON PERUSAL OF THE P&L AC COUNT IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT SALES WERE AMOUNTING TO RS. 7.10 CRORES , MATERIAL CONSUMED RS. 4 CRORES, ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES RS. 1.20 CRORE AN D FINANCE EXPENSES OF RS. 0.22 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ITS SCHEDULE IS SHOWING SALES TRADING AT RS. 2.67 CRORES AND SALES MANUFACTURING AT RS. 4 .94 CRORES AND EXCISE DUTY PAID DURING THE YEAR WAS RS. 51.86 LACS. THESE FIG URES REFLECT THAT THESE ACCOUNTS ARE OF SOME OTHER MANUFACTURING CONCERNS ACCOUNT WHICH IS ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND B ECAUSE OF THAT THE SUBSTANTIAL EXCISE DUTY WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THERE WAS NO CONTRACT MANUFACTURING CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THERE WERE NO EXPENSES FOR ANY L ABOUR CHARGES. THE ONLY EXPENDITURE ARE FOR WAGES AND SALARIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 94,622/- FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR WHICH COMES TO AVERAGE MONTHLY EXPENDIT URE AT RS. 7885/- PER MONTH WHICH IS SUFFICIENT TO HIRE ONLY ONE OFFICE S TAFF. THE DIRECTORS ARE NOT TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED FOR MANUFACTURING OF THE TECH NICAL EQUIPMENTS DEALT WITH ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 5 BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY . THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS HAVING ITS OFFICE IN THE OFFICE BUILDING OF THE MAIN COMPANY OF THE GROUP I. E. M/S ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. . THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS HAVING ITS FACTORY/MANUFACTURING FACILITY AGAIN IN THE FACTORY OF THE MAIN COMPANY OF THE GROUP I.E. M/S ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. AND ALSO ENGAGED IN THE SIMILAR BUSINESS AS THE MAIN COMPANY AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE WIVES OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE MAIN COMPANY M/S ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. , HENCE I T IS CLEAR THAT THE TOTAL SALES , MANUFACTURING AND OTHER ACTIVITIES SHOWN IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE PART OF THE TOTAL ACTIVITIES OF THE ROCHEM SEPARATI ON SYSTEM INDIA PVT. LTD. WHICH HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSES SEE COMPANY WITH THE OBJECT TO PASS OVER BENEFITS TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND INFLATE THE EXPENSES. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE TRAVELLING EXPE NSES OF RS. 1,79,324/- SINCE THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT INCURRED IN THE PRECE DING YEAR AND ALSO NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME. THE MOTOR CAR EXPENSES OF RS. 53,497/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE PRECEDING YEAR , WHICH IN THE CURRENT YEAR HAD BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 3,00,283/- FOR WHICH ALSO NO REASONABLE CAUSE HAD B EEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN SUPPORT OF THE INCREASE AND ACC ORDINGLY THE A.O. DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2 LAKHS FROM THESE MOTO R CAR EXPENSES, VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 29.12.2011 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 29.12.2 011 PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FI LED ITS FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5.1 BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS ALLOWED SALARY OF RS. 18 LACS TO THE DIREC TORS, MRS. NIDHI GOEL AND MRS. NAMRATA GOEL AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 71, 01,115/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID ON TURNOVER TO THE DIRECTORS WAS DI SALLOWED BY THE AO ON ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 6 THE GROUNDS THAT THE SAME WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY AS PER ITS BOARD RESOLUTION DATED 02/4/ 2008 AND THEREFORE IT IS EXCESSIVE U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT . IT WAS SUBMIT TED THAT THIS RESOLUTION DATED 02/04/2008 WAS FOR THE SALARY ONLY AND NOT F OR THE COMMISSION ON TURNOVER WHICH WAS PAID AS PER THE EARLIER AGREEMEN T EFFECTIVE IN THE PRECEDING PERIOD ALSO. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FURNIS HED THE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHICH HAS APPR OVED THE COMMISSION PAYMENT TO THE DIRECTORS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THI S FACT WAS ALREADY PART OF THE RECORD OF THE A.O. FOR THE EARLIER YEAR, HENCE, THE SAME WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN THIS YEAR BUT THE A.O. WITHOUT RAISING ANY QUERY DISALLOWED THE SAME. THE A.O. HAS NOT MADE ANY QUERY IN THIS REGARD AND DIRE CTLY DISALLOWED THE COMMISSION BASED ON TURNOVER PAID TO THE DIRECTORS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT COPY OF TDS RETURN INCLUDING COMMISSION PAID TO THE DIRECTORS BASED ON TURNOVER WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. AND PHOTOCOPY OF FORM 16 AND TDS THEREON OF THE DIRECTORS WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. , WHI CH WAS AGAIN SUBMITTED TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE A PPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTORS SALARY AND COMMISS ION AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,41,95,115/- WAS ALLOWED IN FULL IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ASSESSME NT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT(A) ALONG WITH P&L ACCOUNT AND TAX AUDIT REPORT ETC. FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008-09. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SALARY INCLUDING THE COMMISS ION ON TURNOVER PAID TO BOTH THE DIRECTORS I.E. MRS. NAMRATA GOEL AND MRS. NIDHI GOEL IN THE PRECEDING PREVIOUS YEAR WAS RS. 48,13,546/- AND RS. 48,13,546/- RESPECTIVELY AND THE SAME WAS NOT DISALLOWED BY THE AO IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. COPIES OF THE AC KNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED WITH THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALO NG WITH THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF MRS. NIDHI GOEL AND MRS. NAMRATA GOEL FOR THE RELEVANT AND PRECEDING YEARS WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE SAID ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 7 SALARY INCLUDING COMMISSIONS ON TURNOVER PAID TO TH E DIRECTORS MRS NAMRATA GOEL AND MRS NIDHI GOEL HAS SUFFERED TAX IN THEIR R ESPECTIVE HANDS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THEM WITH THE REVENUE. I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID TWO DIRECTORS ARE PROFESSIONALLY QUALIFIED AND THEIR SALARY AND COMMISSION ON TURNOVER WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND THE SAME WAS ALSO APPROVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN T HE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE SHAREHOLDERS HELD ON 30-09-2009 ADOP TING AND APPROVING THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS. THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE RELEVANT R ESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WERE ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED CI T(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MADE ARRANGEMENT WITH THE MAJOR SUPPLIERS TO DELIVER THE MATERIAL IN CKD FORM AT THE FACTORY AND THEN FINISH IN THE FACTORY AND THIS ARRANGEMENT WAS MADE TO CUT COST OF THE GO ODS AS A PRUDENT BUSINESS DECISION TO AVOID ALL LABOUR RELATED PROBL EMS. THE A.O. HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE BUSINESS RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY MAINTAINED VIDE ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITHOUT FINDING ANY PERVERSITY AND NOT DISTURBED THE AUDITED ANNUAL ACCOUNT OF THE RELEVANT PERIOD. NO A DVERSE ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THIS ACCOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSOCIATE D COMPANY M/S ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD.. THE DIRECTORS HAVE ALSO PAID THE TAX AT THE MAXIMUM RATE AND THERE WAS NO LOSS TO THE REVEN UE , AND THE DIRECTORS ARE PROFESSIONALLY WELL QUALIFIED TO DISCHARGE THEI R DUTIES. THUS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SALARY PAID INCLUDING THE COMMIS SION ON TURNOVER TO THE DIRECTORS SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS:- 1. CIT V. SRIDEV ENTERPRISES, 192 ITR 165 (KAR.) 2. SARDAR KEHAR SINGH V. CIT 195 ITR 769(RAJ.) 3. PUKHRAJ RIKHABDASS V. CWT, 203 ITR 770 (RAJ) 4. SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA V. CIT 232 ITR 135 (M.P) 5. PARSHURAM POTTERY WORKS CO. LTD. V. ITO(1977) 106 I TR 1(SC) ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 8 5.2 WITH RESPECT TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,79,32 4/- BEING THE TOTAL TRAVELLING EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. IGNORED THAT THE ENTIRE WORK OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS MA NAGED BY THE TWO DIRECTORS AND THEY WERE TO TRAVEL FOR BUSINESS NECE SSITIES INCLUDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW VENDORS AND MARKETS. IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED ONLY BY THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. NO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE A.O. BEFORE MAK ING DISALLOWANCE OF THESE EXPENSES . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THE ENTIRE BUSINESS WAS CARRIED FOR THE ASSOCIATED COMPANY YET IT CANNOT BE SAID TH AT NO EXPENSES COULD BE INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS NECESSITIES PARTICULARLY WHEN OTHER EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE REVENUE. NO DEFECT HAS BEEN PO INTED BY THE A.O. TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENSES WERE NOT INCURRED FOR THE P URPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BEC AUSE NO EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE FOR THIS YEAR. THUS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME S HOULD BE ALLOWED AND THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO BE DELETED. 5.3 WITH RESPECT TO THE MOTOR CAR EXPENSES OF RS. 2 LACS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR VEHICLE REPAIRS AND FUEL TO THE PETROL PUMP. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE OFFICE AND FACTORY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE SITUATED AT BANDRA AND VASAI AND MINIMUM TWO TRIPS A DAY, ONE BY EACH DIRECTOR WERE MUST BECAUSE THE ENTIRE WORK WAS MANA GED BY THE DIRECTORS ONLY. NO EXPLANATION WAS CALLED FOR BY THE A.O. BE FORE DISALLOWING THE SAME, HENCE, NO PART OF THE SAME COULD BE DISALLOWED. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL S UBMISSION AND OTHER MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY HAS VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 10 TH OCTOBER, 2012 REQUESTED FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONA L EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF COPY OF TWO BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOL UTIONS DATED 15 TH MARCH, ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 9 2006 APPROVING THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION ON TURNOVE R TO THE WORKING DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION DATED 4 TH APRIL, 2007 INCREASING THE COMMISSION TO 5% TO EACH OF THE WORKING DIRECTORS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EE COMPANY HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. MADE ADDITION WITHOUT SHOW CAUSING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE COMMI SSION ON TURNOVER PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO THE DIRECTORS NAMELY MRS NI DHI GOEL AND MRS NAMRATA GOEL BASED ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLU TION PASSED IN FINANCIAL YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY PRAYED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND ACCORDINGLY A COPY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANYS APPLICATION ALONG WI TH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SO SUBMITTED WAS FORWARDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO T HE A.O. FOR HIS COMMENTS. THE A.O. SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT AND THE SAME W AS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR ITS REJOINDER. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE A.O. OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND MENTI ONED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ASKED TO FILE THE DETAILS WITH REGARD T O DETAILS OF COMMISSION PAYMENT, TDS DEDUCTED, COPIES OF THE RESOLUTIONS PA SSED DURING THE LAST TWO YEARS AND COPY OF ALL BOARD MEETINGS HELD IN THE PR EVIOUS YEAR 2008-09 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSES SEE COMPANY VIDE LETTER DATED 15 TH NOVEMBER, 2011 HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COM PANY HAD PAID COMMISSION ON TURNOVER TO ONLY ONE COMPANY I.E . M/S MMP FILTERATION PVT. LTD. ON WHICH DUE TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE B UT DETAILS OF THE BOARD MEETING AND RESOLUTION(S) PASSED WERE NOT FURNISHED , DESPITE FURTHER OPPORTUNITY BEING GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THUS THE A.O. STATED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WA S NOT AFFORDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE CASE AND THE ASSESSEE CO MPANYS CONTENTION IS WRONG, BASELESS AND UNTRUE. THUS AS PER THE AO, R ULE 46A(1)(C) OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 PLACES A CONDITION ON ADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIE NT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE A.O. IN THIS CASE , THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 10 HAS NOT PLACED ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING TH E BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTIONS FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS BEFORE THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS, THE A.O. IN HIS REMA ND REPORT REQUESTED THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOT TO ADMIT ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 7. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN REJO INDER TO REMAND REPORT THAT AO ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE COMMISS ION IS PAID ONLY TO M/S MMP FILTRATION PVT. LTD. OF RS.22,950/- , WHILE COM MISSION ON TURNOVER TO DIRECTORS WAS ALSO PAID WHICH WAS FORMING PART OF T HE REMUNERATION TO THE DIRECTORS. THE ENTIRE REMUNERATION TO DIRECTORS INC LUDING COMMISSION IS INCLUDED IN REMUNERATION AND COMMISSION ON TURNOVER IS NOT SHOWN SEPARATELY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT WAS SUBMIT TED THAT VIDE LETTER DATED 13 TH DECEMBER, 2011, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF THE BOARD RESOLUTIONS PASSED DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALONG WITH THE COPIES OF THE TDS RETURNS. IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT THE A.O.S OBJECTION IS INCORRECT AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTIONS AS WERE ASKED FOR VI DE ITS REPLY DATED 13 TH DECEMBER, 2011 AND IT IS INCORRECT TO STATE THAT TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY SKIPPED THE PRODUCTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS R ESOLUTION FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-1 0. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS REGARDING THE REMUNERATION PAID TO THE DIRECTORS WERE FURNISHED SUCH AS COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT, COPIES OF THE FORM 16 , THE DIRECTORS INCOME TAX RETURNS AND THE COPIES OF THE TDS RETURNS TO THE A.O. . THE SAID COMMISSION TO DIRECTORS FORMED PART OF THE REMUNERATION AND WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL REMUNERATION PAID TO THE DIRECTO RS. THE DESCRIPTION ON THE QUALIFICATION OF THE DIRECTORS AND THE DETAILS OF T HE PAYMENT TO DIRECTORS WERE ALSO FURNISHED WHICH WERE AGAIN FURNISHED BEFORE TH E LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT MRS. NAMRATA GOEL AND MRS. NIDHI GOEL WERE DIRECTORS ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 11 AND THEY WERE PAID SALARY DURING THE YEAR ALONG WIT H THE COMMISSION ON SALES. MRS. NAMRATA GOEL IS MBA (FINANCE) AND MRS. NIDHI GOEL IS A BACHELOR OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES FROM MUMBAI AND THEY WERE ACT IVELY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR ALSO THEY WERE THE SAME DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND WERE PAID THE REMUNERATION INCLUSIVE OF COMMISS ION ON TURNOVER. HOWEVER, IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE THIRD DIRECTOR MR. BIMAL GOEL WAS NOT PAID ANY REMUNERATION FROM THE ASSESSEE COM PANY AS HE WAS LOOKING AFTER THE BUSINESS OF M/S ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND WAS PAID SALARY AND PROFESSIONAL FEE FROM ROCHEM SE PARATION SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. TILL DECEMBER, 2008 AND THEREAFTER HE WAS NOT LOOKING AFTER ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF M/S ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEM S (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T THE TRAVELLING EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE DIRECTORS WAS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IF THE A.O. HAS ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE REMUNERATION PAID, HE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SAME BUT THE A.O. HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY OPPORTUN ITY BEFORE MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE. COPIES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RES OLUTIONS PASSED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR WERE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARN ED CIT(A) AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2008-09 ALSO THE COMMISSION WAS PAID TO THE DIRECTORS ON THE BASIS O F BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE REVENUE IN SCRU TINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 B OARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED FOR INCREASE IN THE RATE OF COMMISSION. IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT THE COMMISSION IS PAID TO THE DIRECTORS FOR THEIR EFFORTS WHICH RESULTED INTO PROCUREMENT OF GOODS AT A CHEAPER RATE AS COMPARED TO GOODS IMPORTED EARLIER AT HIGHER PRICE TO BE SOLD TO ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. . THE A.O. HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PROVE THAT T HE REMUNERATION TO DIRECTORS WAS NOT EXCESSIVE AND CANNOT BE DISALLOWE D U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 12 THUS, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION SUBMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED . HOWEVER, THE A.O. REQUESTED FOR NON-ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE BY CONTENDING THAT IT IS AN AFTER-THOUGHT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSES SEE COMPANY THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY NOT TO PRO VIDE ANY DETAILS AND ALL THE DETAILS RELATING TO REMUNERATION TO THE DIRECTO RS WERE ALREADY SUBMITTED, THERE WAS NO REASON FOR NOT PROVIDING THE COPY OF T HE BOARD RESOLUTIONS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ACCOUNTS HAVING PAYMENT OF S UCH REMUNERATION WERE APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE SHAREHOLDERS. IT WAS SU BMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT THE AO HAS IN HIS REMAND REPORT NOT CH ALLENGED THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SAID RESOLUTION(S) FORMING PART OF THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THUS, IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE REMUNERATION INCLUDING COMMISSIONS ON SALES PAID TO DIRECTORS MRS. NIDHI GOEL AND MRS NAMRATA GOEL WAS DULY AUTHORIZED BY T HE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION AND IT WAS REQUESTED TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 8. THE LD. CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY HAS ADMITTED IN HIS REJOINDER THAT THE A.O. HAD ASKED FOR THE BOARD RES OLUTIONS FOR THE LAST TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS, THUS, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE COMPANY IS INCORRECT. THE A.O. DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 71,01,116/- AS UNAUTHORIZED AND IN EXCESS OF PERMITTED SALARY. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED BY THE A.O. THAT THE DIRECTORS ARE WIVES OF OTHER TWO DIRECTORS OF THE M AIN GROUP COMPANY M/S ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS OPERATING ITS BUSINESS FROM THE OFFICE OF MAIN GROU P COMPANY. IT IS ALSO RECORDED BY THE A.O. THAT THESE TWO DIRECTORS ARE N OT TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED FOR MANUFACTURING OF THE TECHNICAL EQUIPMENTS WHICH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MANUFACTURED AND SOLD. IT IS ALSO RECORDED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ENTIRE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT MAINTAIN ING ITS OFFICE IN THE BUILDING OF MAIN GROUP COMPANY HAVING FACTORIES/MAN UFACTURING FACILITIES IN ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 13 THE FACTORY OF THE MAIN GROUP AND OVERALL RELATIONS HIP WITH THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY OF THE MAIN GROUP ARE ONLY WITH THE PURPOSE TO PASS OVER THE BENEFITS TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS. THUS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY MADE AND ALSO THE ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE NEED NOT BE ADMITTED. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DOES NOT FALL IN ANY OF THE CATEGORIES PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 AND IN THE LIGHT OF THIS, THE ADDITIONA L EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE ADMITTED WAS REJECTED. IN SUPPORT, THE LEARNED CIT (A) RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS DECISION NOT TO ADMIT A DDITIONAL EVIDENCES : A) CIT V. RANJIT KUMAR CHOUDHARY 288 ITR 179(GAU. HC) B) SMT. PRABHAVATI S. SHAH 231 ITR 01 (BOM). C) FAIRDEAL FILAMENTS LIMITED V. CIT 302 ITR 173(G UJ HC) D) RAM PRASAD SHARMA V. CIT 119 ITR 867(ALL HC) E) CIT V. RAO RAJA HANUTSINGH 252 ITR 528(RAJ.HC) 9. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ADJUDICATED GROUND NO. 1 WHER EBY IT WAS AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT THE AO HAS ERRED IN STATI NG THAT THE ACTIVITIES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE ACTUALLY PART OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE MAIN GROUP COMPANY I.E. ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEMS ( I) P. LTD. WHICH HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED/RECORDED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESS EE COMPANY WITH THE PURPOSE TO PASS OVER BENEFITS TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND ALSO TO INFLATE THE EXPENSES AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY PRAYED FOR REVERS ING THE SAID FINDING OF THE AO. IT WAS HELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT AS PER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANYS REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE COM PANY IS NOT SERIOUS IN PROSECUTING THIS GROUND OF APPEAL AND HENCE THIS GR OUND WAS DISMISSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 10. REGARDING THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL I.E. DISALL OWANCE OF RS. 71,01,611/- ON THE PLEA THAT THE SAME WAS NOT AUTHO RIZED BY THE BOARD OF ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 14 DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ALSO KEEPING IN VIEW THE CLOSE NEXUS BETWEEN THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY AND THE DIRECT ORS OF THE MAIN GROUP COMPANY AND CERTAIN OTHER OVERLAPPING BUSINESS OPER ATIONS OF THE ABOVE SAID TWO COMPANIES , THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT TH E A.O. SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO SUBMIT THE BOARD RESOLUTION S OF THE PAST TWO YEARS AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS PRODUCED BAC K DATED BOARD RESOLUTIONS PRODUCED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH A PPEARS TO BE AN AFTER- THOUGHT. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO TRUTH I N THE AVERMENTS AND CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT OPPORTUNIT Y WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS THE RECORDS REVEAL THAT MORE TH AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES WERE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE A.O. HAS ALSO RECORDED THAT THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE NOT TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED FOR THE PROMOTION OF THE SALES FOR WHICH ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONS WERE GIVEN. WHILE APPLYING SECTION 40A(2)(B) FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCES, IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION HAD BEEN OFF ERED BY THE TAX-PAYER IN HIS OR HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR WHICH NOT MUCH CRED ENCE CAN BE GIVEN TO THE SALARY CERTIFICATE. AS PER THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE A.O., THE EXPENDITURE WAS EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE COMPARED TO THE FAIR MAR KET VALUE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE DIRECTORS IN QUESTION WHO WERE TECH NICALLY UNQUALIFIED. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE A.O. HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TH E MATERIAL FACTS AND ALSO THE CIRCUMSTANCES ON WHICH HE FORMED HIS OPINION TH AT THE EXPENDITURE WAS EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE LEG ITIMATE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OR BENEFIT DERIVED OR ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THUS, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM AS TO WHAT KIND OF SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY THE TWO DIRECTORS IN ORDER TO MAKE THEM ELIGIBLE FOR EXTRA COMMISSION. PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN TERMS OF PR INCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY. NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISS UED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BUT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FAILED TO COMPLY W ITH THE DETAILS CALLED FOR IN THE SAID NOTICE. SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS PRO VIDED TO THE ASSESSEE ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 15 COMPANY TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM. IT W AS ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE INSTANT CASE IS NOT ABLE TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTION TO SUGGEST ANY REAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE AND THE OBJECT AND SUCH A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE AND THE OBJECT BEING REMOTE AND ILLUSORY AND HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE WAS JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ALSO FAILED TO ADDUCE THE EVIDENCES NECESSITATING T HE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO THE TWO DIRECTORS NAMELY MRS. NIDHI GOEL AND MRS NAMRATA GOEL, WHO ARE THE WIVES OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE MAIN GROUP COMPAN IES. THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OF PROVING THE NECESSARY FACTS THA T THE EXPENDITURE FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF THE A.O. PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED VIDE HIS APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 28.02.2013. 11. THE NEXT GROUND RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS. 1,79,324/- INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY TREA TING IT AS NOT INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE A.O. RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DOES NOT HAVE ANY EXPENSE S FOR CONTRACT MANUFACTURING OR LABOUR CHARGES. THE A.O. STATED T HAT THE ENTIRE CIRCUMSTANCES REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS HAVING ITS OFFICE/FACTORY/MANUFACTURING FACILITY IN THE MAIN G ROUP COMPANY HENCE THE EXPENDITURE COULD NOT BE RELATED TO THE BUSINESS PU RPOSES. THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PRODUCE NECESSARY EVIDENCE/ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND SI NCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FAILED TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCES , THUS, THE LEARNE D CIT(A) UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT PASSED BY T HE A.O. VIDE HIS APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 28-02-2013 . ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 16 12. THE NEXT GROUND RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES OF RS. 2 LACS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE A .O. HAS RECORDED A FINDING THAT NO REASONABLE CAUSE WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSES SEE COMPANY IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF ADDUCING SUFFICIENT EV IDENCE BUT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS WHO LLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEE COMPANYS BUSI NESS ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS AN OVERLAPPING OF THE BUSIN ESS OPERATIONS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT MERE PRODUCTION OF CERTAIN VOUCHERS WILL NOT GO TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WHOLLY AND E XCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS DISMISSED, VIDE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 28-02-2013 13. AGGRIEVED BY THE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 28-02-2 013 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN APPEAL BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. 14. WITH RESPECT TO THE GROUND NO 1 RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE COMPANY , WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS AGITATED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AVERMENT OF THE AO STATING THAT T HE ACTIVITIES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE ACTUALLY PART OF THE ACTIVITI ES OF THE MAIN GROUP COMPANY I.E. ROCHEM SEPARATION SYSTEMS (I) P. LTD. WHICH HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED/RECORDED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY WITH THE PURPOSE TO PASS OVER BENEFITS TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND ALS O TO INFLATE THE EXPENSES AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY PRAYED FOR REVERSING THE S AID FINDING OF THE AO. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT PRE SENTED ANY CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) DI SMISSED THIS GROUND AT THRESHOLD FOR NON-PROSECUTION BY HOLDING THAT THE A SSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY HAS ONCE AGAIN CHOSEN NOT TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ANY COGENT MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS AVERMENTS TO ENABLE T HE TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL BUT LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 17 THIS GROUND BE ADJUDICATED BASED ON THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE REVENUE HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS MERELY A FRONT CO MPANY OF ROCHEM SEPERATION SYSTMES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED BEING CREATED TO INFL ATE EXPENSES AND PASS ON THE BENEFITS TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS. IT IS THE CONTE NTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE OFFICE AND FACTORY SPACE OF THE ROCHEM SEPERATI ON SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED IS USED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND PERUSAL OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT REVEALS THAT MANUFACTURING PROCESS OF OTHER COMPANY IS BEING USED. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE REVENUE THAT FOR MANUFACTURING CARR IED ON BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY , NO WAGES AND LABOUR CHARGES WERE PAID AND SIMILARLY NO CONTRACT MANUFACTURING CHARGES ARE PAID FOR CARRYING ON MANU FACTURING ACTIVITIES AS DETAILED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO PASSED U /S 143(3) OF THE ACT . IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE COM PANY DOES NOT HAVE ANY TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED MANPOWER TO CARRY OUT MANUFAC TURING OF TECHNICAL EQUIPMENTS MANUFACTURED AND DEALT WITH BY THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY. THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE ALSO NOT TECH NICALLY QUALIFIED TO CARRY OUT THE MANUFACTURING OF TECHNICAL EQUIPMENTS. IN R EPLY, THE ASSESSE COMPANY HAS MERELY STATED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW THAT IT IS GETTING THE PRODUCTS IN CKD FORM IN THE FACTORY AND FINISH THE SAME THERE IN THE FACTORY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BUSINESS RESULTS OF THE ASSES SEE COMPANY AND ITS ASSOCIATED COMPANY ARE ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, TO ADJUDICATE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL REQUIRES THE DETAI LED ANALYSIS OF THE WORKING OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND PROCESSES EMPLOYED BY T HE ASSESSSEE COMPANY, INFRASTRUCTURE EMPLOYED AND/OR UTILIZED BY THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY, MODUS OPERANDI OF OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH REQUIRED UNDERSTANDING, EVALUATION AND APPRECIATION OF THE E NTIRE SPECTRUM OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS, THE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES D EPLOYED AND UTILIZED IN THE BUSINESS BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ETC., WHICH RE QUIRED EXAMINATION, VERIFICATION AND ENQUIRY BEFORE ADJUDICATING THIS G ROUND OF APPEAL ON MERITS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT PLACED ANY SUCH MATERI AL BEFORE US TO ADJUDICATE THE SAID GROUND OF APPEAL ON MERITS. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE OF THE ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 18 CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE AND RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DE-NOVO DETERMINATION ON MERITS AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AO AND PRESENT ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES/EXPLANATIONS AND MATERIAL TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTION SO THAT THE MATTER CAN BE DETERMINED DE-NOVO ON MERITS BY THE A O AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES, MATERIAL AND EXPLANATIONS S UBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND AFTER CONDUCTING DUE ENQUIRY, EXAMINATI ON AND VERIFICATION AS MAY DEEM FIT BY THE AO. THE LD. D.R. HAS ALSO NOT OBJECTED TO THE SAME. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 15. WITH RESPECT TO THE GROUND RELATES TO THE DISAL LOWANCE OF RS. 71,01,611/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION ON TURNOVER PA ID TO THE DIRECTORS FORMING PART OF THE REMUNERATION OF THE DIRECTORS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WHICH ARE NOT REPEATED FOR SAKE OF BREVITY AN D SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY WAY OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION APPR OVING THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION ON TURNOVER TO THE DIRECTORS GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING THE SAME ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS WHILE THE SAME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST OF JUSTICE BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AC CORDINGLY PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMITTED AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING THE SAME. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO SUBMIT ONLY THE BOARD OF DIRECT ORS RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THIS ASSESSMENT YE AR WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE POINT NO. 11 OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT , HENCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED COPIES OF THE BOARD OF D IRECTORS RESOLUTIONS PASSED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THIS AS SESSMENT YEAR ALONG WITH COPIES OF TDS RETURN IN FORM NO 24Q WHEREBY THE COM MISSION INCOME WAS ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 19 DULY INCLUDED IN TDS RETURN VIDE LETTER DATED 13 TH DECEMBER, 2011 AND DUE TAXES WERE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND DEPOSITED WITH TH E REVENUE ON THE SAID COMMISSION ON TURNOVER PAID TO THE DIRECTORS. THE A SSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTI ONS PASSED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BEFOR E THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. COPIES OF BOARD OF DIRECTOR S RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN THE PRECEDING YEARS HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE L EARNED CIT(A) AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, AS THE A.O. DID NOT SPECIFICA LLY PROVIDED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE AM OUNT PAID TO THE DIRECTORS WAS NOT EXCESSIVE BEFORE INVOKING PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE NOT ADMITT ED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO WHICH HAS CAUSED SEVERE PREJUDICE TO THE ASSES SEE COMPANY WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 THE COMMISSION ON TURNOVER PAID TO THE DIRECTORS BASED ON THE BASIS OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION PASSED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 WAS ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMEN T FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 BOARD OF DIRECT ORS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED FOR INCREASE IN THE RATE OF COMMISSION ON TURNOVER TO 5% FOR EACH OF THE DIRECTORS. THUS, THE LD. COUNSEL PRAYED THAT THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD BE ADMIT TED. THE LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. INDO SAUDI SERVICES (TRAVEL) (P.) LTD. [2008] 219 CTR 56 2 (BOM) AND ALSO THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 6-P DATED 06-07-1968. IT IS ALSO THE A VERMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE LEARNED C OUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE TAXES WERE DULY PAID BY THE DIRECTORS ON THE TO TAL REMUNERATION INCLUDING COMMISSION ON TURNOVER AND NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE H AS OCCURRED DUE TO THIS COMMISSION ON TURNOVER PAID TO THE DIRECTORS. THE L D. COUNSEL ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE PAPER BOOK WHEREBY ALL THE NECESSA RY EVIDENCES WERE PLACED ON RECORD SUCH AS FORM NO 16 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO THE TWO ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 20 DIRECTORS TO WHOM SALARY INCLUDING COMMISSION WAS P AID, COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURN OF BOTH THE DIRECTORS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009- 10, COPIES OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y WHEREBY THE SALARY AND COMMISSION TO DIRECTORS WERE CREDITED, COPIES OF TH E RESOLUTIONS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS PASSED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALONG W ITH COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008-09 WERE ALL PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED WITH THE TRIBUNA L. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONS WERE PAID TO THE DIR ECTORS IN VIEW OF COST SAVING IN PURCHASE OF MATERIAL DUE TO THEIR EFFORTS VIS--VIS COSTS INCURRED EARLIER ON IMPORTS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED T HAT THE DIRECTOR REMUNERATION WAS DULY APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE S HAREHOLDERS IN THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING WHILE ADOPTING AND APPROVING THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER GROUND S OF APPEAL, THE LEARNED COUNSEL RELIED UPON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS ARE PLACED IN PAPER BOOK FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL AND THE MATTER MAY BE ADJUDICATED ON MERITS 16. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T SUBMITTED THE COPY OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF COMMISSION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO DESPITE BEING SPECIFICALL Y ASKED BY THE AO TO PROVIDE THE SAME . THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE COMPARED TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE DIRECTORS IN QUESTION WHO WERE TECHNICALLY U NQUALIFIED AND HENCE THE AO HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(2)( B) OF THE ACT. NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESS EE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM AND AS SUCH THE A.O. HAS R IGHTLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE.THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF RES-JUDICATA ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS AN D EVEN IF THE SAID REMUNERATION INCLUDING COMMISSION WAS ALLOWED IN TH E PRECEDING YEAR, THE SAME DOES NOT BIND THE REVENUE TO ALLOW IN THE INST ANT YEAR AND THE CLAIM OF ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 21 THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ALLOWED ON MERITS IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW DESPITE ALSO OF THE FACT THAT THE DIRECTORS HAVE INCLUDED THE SAME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND PAID DUE TAXES TO THE REVENUE , OTHERWISE SECTI ON 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT WILL BECOME OTIOSE. IT IS THE FINDING OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE REMUNERATION PAID TO THE DIRECTORS MRS NIDHI GOEL AND MRS NAMRAT A GOEL IS EXCESSIVE AND UN-REASONABLE AS THEY ARE TECHNICALLY UNQUALIFIED. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE AS MEAGER SALARY OF RS.94,622/- IS PAID FOR OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY FOR THE ENTIRE PREVIOUS YE AR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON BY TH E AO TO PRODUCE ALL RESOLUTIONS PASSED FOR PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION INCL UDING COMMISSION TO THE DIRECTOR BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NO SUBMITTED THE RESO LUTIONS BEFORE THE AO DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEING GIVEN AND LEARNED CIT(A) RIGHTLY REFUSED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES A S THE CASE DOES NOT FALL UNDER EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND AL SO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. LOOKING INTO THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) SH OULD HAVE ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING A PPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEING RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION INCLUDING COMMISSIONS TO THE DIRECTOR AND THEN EXAMINED AND VERIFIED THES E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ON MERITS BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE, BECAUSE THE A.O. HAS NOT SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE BEFORE MAKING DISALLOWANCE TO EXPLAIN THE COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DIRECTORS BASED ON THE RESOLUTI ON PASSED IN FINANCIAL YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY AND ITS NEXUS WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE BEING SPENT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. THE GENUINENESS AND REASONABILITY OF THE COMMISSION ON TURNOVER HAS BEEN DOUBTED BY THE REVENUE. WE MAY HASTEN TO ADD THAT W E HAVE ALREADY SET ASIDE THE GROUND NO1 TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DE-N OVO DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE ON MERITS AS SET OUT ABOVE IN PRECEDING PARA S, WHOSE DECISIONS ALSO ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 22 SHALL HAVE BEARING IN DECIDING THIS ISSUE ON MERITS . WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE B ACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR FRESH DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE ON MERITS AFTER CO NSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES , MATERIAL AND EXPLANATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS DEFENSE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE A.O. WITH ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES AND MATERIAL TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND REASONABI LITY OF THE COMMISSION ON TURNOVER OF RS.71,01,116/- PAID TO THE TWO DIREC TORS NAMELY MRS. NIDHI GOEL AND MRS. NAMRATA GOEL. THIS DISPOSES OF GROUND NO 2 AND 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH T HE TRIBUNAL. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 18 WITH RESPECT TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF TRAVELLING E XPENSES OF RS.1,79,324/- AND MOTOR CAR EXPENSES OF RS.2,00,000/- , IN OUR CO NSIDERED VIEW, THESE ISSUES ALSO NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF TH E A.O. ON THE SAME BASIS AS WE SET ASIDE GROUND NO1 TO 3 AS SET OUT ABOVE AND THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT SUPPORTING MATERIAL AND EXPLAN ATIONS TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO EVALUATE AND EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES/SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO B E SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. THIS DISPOSES OF GROUND NO 4 AN D 5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE TRIBUN AL. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ITA N0. 3917/MUM/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA 3917 /MUM/2013 23 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH JUNE , 2016. # $% &' 24-06-2016 ( ) SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ MUMBAI ; & DATED 24-06-2016 [ .9../ R.K. R.K. R.K. R.K. , EX. SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. : / CIT- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. =>( 99?@ , ?@ , $ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI C BENCH 6. (BC D / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, = 9 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ / ITAT, MUMBAI