THE Dy. CIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), Vijayawada V. M/s Friends Shoe Company, Vijayawada

ITA 41/VIZ/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9852 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K SETHI
• Assessee Lawyers: C SUBRAHMANYAMAR
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts; Notional interest
• Section: 142(1); 37

Judgement Text

ITA NO.41/VIZAG/2013 & CO 46/VIZAG/2013 FRIENDS SHOE COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . , $ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.41/VIZAG/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), VIJAYAWADA VS. FRIENDS SHOE COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA [PAN: A AAFF4033C ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.46/VIZAG/2013 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.41/VIZAG/2013) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) FRIENDS SHOE COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA VS. DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), VIJAYAWADA ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. SETHI, DR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C. SUBR AHMANYAM,AR / DATE OF HEARING : 08.09.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.09.2016 ITA NO.41/VIZAG/2013 & CO 46/VIZAG/2013 FRIENDS SHOE COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA 2 / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTI ON FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A), VIJAYAWADA DATED 27.11.2012 AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10. SINCE, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND ISSUES ARE COMMON, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF, BY WAY OF THIS COMMON OR DER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALER IN FOOTWEAR FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 29.9.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.68,58,677/-. THE CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICES U/ S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES, TH E AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME T O TIME AND PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER RELEVANT INFOR MATION AS CALLED FOR. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED INTEREST FREE ADVANC E TO PARTNERS AND M/S. FRIENDS CONSOLIDATION LIMITED, A SISTER CONCER N OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CHARGING ANY INTEREST. THE A.O. FURTHER OB SERVED THAT THE ITA NO.41/VIZAG/2013 & CO 46/VIZAG/2013 FRIENDS SHOE COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA 3 ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED FUNDS ON WHICH IT HAS PAID HU GE INTEREST, HOWEVER DIVERTED FUNDS TO PARTNERS AND SISTER CONCE RNS WITHOUT INTEREST, THEREFORE, ISSUED A NOTICE AND ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE NOTIONAL INTEREST SHALL NOT BE CHARGED ON THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN TO PARTNERS OF THE FIRM AND SISTER CONCERN. SIMILARLY, THE A.O. N OTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RS.20,20,763/- UNDER THE HEAD ADVANCE TURNING BAD. TO ASCERTAIN THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE DEBIT ED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED AND ASKED T O EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF. IN RESPONSE TO NOT ICE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 23.12.2011 SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD W RITTEN OFF THE BALANCE STANDING TO THE DEBIT OF M/S. UNIVERSAL FOOTWEAR, M /S. HARINI FOOTWEAR AND M/S. MAGIC LANTERN, ALL OF THEM WERE SUPPLIERS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ADVANCES ARE GIVEN IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSI NESS WHICH WERE TURNED BAD. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS GIVEN ADVANCES TO SUPPLIERS TOWARDS SUPPLY OF RAW MATERIALS AND TH E SUPPLIERS NEITHER SUPPLIED THE GOODS NOR RETURNED THE ADVANCES, THERE FORE, AFTER PUTTING ITS BEST EFFORT TO RECOVER THE MONEY, DECIDED TO WR ITE OFF AS ADVANCES IRRECOVERABLE. TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENTS, THE ASSES SEE HAS TAKEN SUPPORT FROM THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF J&K, IN THE CASE OF CHENAB FOREST COMPANY VS. CIT (1974) 96 ITR 568 AND THE HIGH ITA NO.41/VIZAG/2013 & CO 46/VIZAG/2013 FRIENDS SHOE COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA 4 COURT OF DELHI, IN THE CASE OF MOHAN MEAKIN LIMITED VS. CIT IN ITA NO.405/2007. 4. THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN INTEREST FREE ADVANCES OUT OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS TO ITS PARTNERS AND SISTER CONCERN WI THOUT CHARGING ANY INTEREST. THE A.O. FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED HUGE FUNDS FROM BANKS AND WITHOUT CHARGING ANY INTEREST DIVERTED ITS INTEREST BEARING FUNDS TO THE MANAGING PARTNERS AND SISTER C ONCERNS. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN INTEREST FREE ADVANCES, THER E WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY NECESSITY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO BORROW FUNDS AND PAY HUGE INTEREST. AS IT IS EVIDENT THAT INTEREST BEARING F UNDS HAVE BEEN EXTENDED TO ITS PARTNERS AND SISTER CONCERNS, CHARGED NOTION AL INTEREST OF 12% PER ANNUM ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT ADVANCED TO PARTNERS AND SISTER CONCERNS AND BROUGHT TO TAX. AS REGARDS ADVANCES TURNING BA D, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE GIVEN ADV ANCES TO SUPPLIERS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIALS, HOWEVER, ON VERI FICATION OF DETAILS OF TRADE DEBTORS IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 RELEVAN T TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE NAMES OF THE ABOVE SUPPLIERS WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE DEBTORS LIST, BUT THE SAME WAS REFLECTED IN THE CUR RENT ASSETS. THE A.O. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ABOVE ADVANCES ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF TRADE ADVANCES BUT ADVANCES IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL ADVA NCES. THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.41/VIZAG/2013 & CO 46/VIZAG/2013 FRIENDS SHOE COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA 5 IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO WRITE OFF CAPITAL ADVANCES AS BA D DEBT. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, MADE ADDITIONS OF RS.20,20,673/- AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE A SSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE A.O. THE CIT(A) AF TER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT THE PARTNERS HAVE WITHDRAWN FUNDS FROM THEIR EARLIER CONTRIBUTIONS, THEREFORE, THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN CHARGING NOTIONAL INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN BY THE PARTNERS FROM THEIR CAPITAL ACCOUNT. AS REGARDS AD VANCES GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERNS, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIV EN ADVANCES TO ITS SISTER CONCERNS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS AN D THE ADVANCES ARE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE ADVANCES ON WHICH CHARGING OF I NTEREST IS NOT CORRECT. THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE A.O. THAT SUCH ADVANCES HAVE NO BUSINESS NEXUS, THEREFORE, THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN CHARGING INTEREST ON ADVANCES GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERNS. WITH THESE O BSERVATIONS, DIRECTED THE A.O. TO DELETE NOTIONAL INTEREST CHARGED ON ADV ANCES GIVEN TO PARTNERS AND SISTER CONCERNS. AS REGARDS WRITE OFF OF ADVANCES GIVEN TO SUPPLIERS, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GI VEN ADVANCES TO SUPPLIERS TOWARDS SUPPLY OF MATERIALS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS AND THE ADVANCES TURNED BAD BECAUSE THE SUPPLIERS N EITHER SUPPLIED THE ITA NO.41/VIZAG/2013 & CO 46/VIZAG/2013 FRIENDS SHOE COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA 6 GOODS NOR RETURNED THE ADVANCES. THUS, ADVANCES WE RE MADE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS WITH AN INTENTION TO CA RRY ON THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS SMOOTHLY AND WITHOUT ANY HITCH. SINCE T HE WHEREABOUTS OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM ADVANCES WERE GIVEN WERE NOT KN OWN, AFTER MAKING DUE EFFORTS, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME TO THE CO NCLUSION THAT IT IS PRUDENT ON ITS PART TO WRITE OFF THE IMPUGNED ADVAN CES. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THESE ADVANCES AS EXPENDITURE AS CONTEMPLATED IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37 OF THE ACT AND THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE TOWARDS WRITE OFF OF TRADE ADVANCES. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A) ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING CHARGING OF INTEREST ON ADVANCES GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERNS AN D PARTNERS TERMING THEM AS TRADE ADVANCES, SINCE THESE FUNDS ARE ORIGI NATED FROM INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. THE D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED FUNDS FROM BANK ON WHICH IT HAS PAID HUGE INTEREST. IF ADVANCES ARE NOT GIVEN TO THE PARTNERS AND SISTER C ONCERNS, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE SUFFERED INTEREST EXPENSES, CONSEQUE NTLY, THE TAX PAYABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT WOULD ENHANCE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN INTEREST FREE ADVANCES TO PARTNERS AND SISTER CONCERNS, THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY CHARGED INTEREST AND HIS ORDER SHOULD B E UPHELD. AS REGARDS ITA NO.41/VIZAG/2013 & CO 46/VIZAG/2013 FRIENDS SHOE COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA 7 ADVANCES WRITTEN OF, THE D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE LD . CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.20,20,7 63/- TOWARDS ADVANCE TO SUPPLIERS IS CAPITAL IN NATURE AND NOT A LLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. THE D.R. FURT HER ARGUED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SAME IS BUSINESS L OSS AS SUCH ADVANCES DO NOT REFLECT IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. ON THE OT HER HAND, THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. THE FIRST ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS A DDITIONS TOWARDS NOTIONAL INTEREST ON ADVANCES GIVEN TO PARTNERS AND SISTER CONCERNS. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DIVERTED ITS IN TEREST BEARING FUNDS TO PARTNERS OF THE FIRM AND SISTER CONCERNS WITHOUT CHARGING ANY INTEREST. THE A.O. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAI D HUGE INTEREST AND DIVERTED INTEREST BEARING FUNDS TO PARTNERS. IF TH E FUNDS WERE NOT GIVEN TO PARTNERS AND SISTER CONCERNS, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE BORROWED FUNDS FROM THE BANKS, CONSEQUENTLY, THE BURDEN OF I NTEREST EXPENDITURE SHOULD HAVE COME DOWN. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PARTNERS HAVE DRAWN AMOUNT OUT OF FUNDS STANDING CR EDIT IN THEIR CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND NO INTEREST BEARING FUNDS HAS BEEN GIVE N TO THE PARTNERS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT HAS GIVEN AD VANCES TO ITS SISTER ITA NO.41/VIZAG/2013 & CO 46/VIZAG/2013 FRIENDS SHOE COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA 8 CONCERN IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS AND THE AD VANCE GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERNS IS HAVING BUSINESS NEXUS, THEREFORE , THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN INTE REST FREE ADVANCES TO SISTER CONCERNS OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS. 8. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND FORCE IN TH E ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE PARTNERS HAVE WITH DRAWN AN AMOUNT OF RS.59,73,600/- DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07, R ELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 OUT OF THE AMOUNT STANDING TO THE CREDIT OF THEIR CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS HAVI NG BORROWED FUNDS, THE BORROWED FUNDS REPRESENT THE DEPLOYMENT OF FUND S IN THE BUSINESS ASSETS IN THE FORM OF STOCK IN TRADE AND RECEIVABLE S. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DIVERTED ANY INTEREST BEARING FUNDS TO ITS PART NERS OR SISTER CONCERNS. THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE GIVEN TO PARTNERS AND SISTER CONCERNS IS DEBITED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNERS, STILL THERE IS A CREDIT BALANCE IN THE PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE A.O. WAS N OT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DIVERTED ITS INTEREST BEARING FUNDS TO ITS PARTNERS AND SISTER CONCERNS. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT DETAILS RIGHTLY DELETED ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. WE DO NO T SEE ANY REASONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HENCE, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELETE ADDITIONS TOWARDS NOTIONAL INTEREST AND REJE CT THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. ITA NO.41/VIZAG/2013 & CO 46/VIZAG/2013 FRIENDS SHOE COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA 9 9. THE NEXT ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR OUR CONSIDERATIO N IS ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF OF RS.20,20,763/-. THE A.O. HAS MADE A DDITIONS OF RS.20,20,763/- TOWARDS ADVANCES TURNING BAD. THE A .O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ADVANCES TO SUPPLIERS ARE IN THE NATUR E OF CAPITAL ADVANCES AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO WRITE OF F CAPITAL ADVANCES EITHER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(V) OR SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADVAN CES ARE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE ADVANCES. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT HAS GIVEN ADVANCES TO SUPPLIERS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF RAW MATER IALS AND THE ADVANCES TURNING BAD, BECAUSE THE SUPPLIERS NEITHER SUPPLIED THE RAW MATERIALS NOR RETURNED ADVANCES. THE ASSESSEE AFTE R PUTTING ITS BEST EFFORTS TO RECOVER THE MONEY FROM THE SUPPLIER, WRI TTEN OFF THE ADVANCES AS IRRECOVERABLE, THEREFORE, THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRE CT IN HOLDING THAT THESE ADVANCES ARE CAPITAL IN NATURE. 10. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND HAVING CONSIDER ED MATERIALS, WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ADVANCES IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIALS. WHEN THE SUPPLIERS NEITH ER SUPPLIED THE GOODS NOR RETURNED THE ADVANCES, THE ASSESSEE HAS W RITTEN OFF ADVANCES AS IRRECOVERABLE. THE A.O. DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT F OR THE REASON THAT THESE ADVANCES ARE APPEARING UNDER THE HEAD CURREN T ASSETS, BUT NOT ITA NO.41/VIZAG/2013 & CO 46/VIZAG/2013 FRIENDS SHOE COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA 10 UNDER THE HEAD SUNDRY DEBTORS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK WHEREIN HE HAS FURNISHED COPIES OF LEDGER ACCOUNT O F PARTIES AND ALSO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. ON PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THESE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIALS. WHEN THE SUPPLIERS NOT SUPPLIED THE GOODS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLASSIFIED THE SE ADVANCES UNDER THE HEAD ADVANCES TO SUPPLIERS AND KEPT UNDER CUR RENT ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF THESE ADVANCES IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS AS BAD DEBTS. EVEN IF THESE AMOUNTS ARE NOT ALLOWED AS DE DUCTION U/S 36(1)(V) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE CAN ALWAYS CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 37 OF THE ACT, AS THE SCOPE OF SECTION 37 OF THE ACT IS VIDE ENOUGH T O INCLUDE ALL SUCH AMOUNTS PAID FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND ARE TO BE ALLOWED UNLESS AND OTHERWISE THE ADVANCE IS CAPITAL IN NATURE. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND, ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORD , WE NOTICED THAT THESE ADVANCES ARE GIVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHAS E OF RAW MATERIALS. THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF THESE ADVANCES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.O. WAS ERR ED IN HOLDING THAT THE ADVANCES ARE IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL ADVANCES AND HENCE, NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION U/S 37 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) AFTER C ONSIDERING THE RELEVANT DETAILS RIGHTLY DELETED ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, ITA NO.41/VIZAG/2013 & CO 46/VIZAG/2013 FRIENDS SHOE COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA 11 WE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE CIT(A) ORDER AND REJECT T HE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION IN SUPPO RT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS RECORDE D IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, WE DISMISS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND SEPT16. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V. DURGA RAO) (G. MANJUNATHA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 22.09.2016 VG/SPS )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWAD A 2. / THE RESPONDENT M/S. FRIENDS SHOE COMPANY, 14-1 4-24, MALLIKARJUNA STREET, HANUMANPET, VIJAYAWADA 3. + / THE CIT, VIJAYAWADA 4. + ( ) / THE CIT (A), VIJAYAWADA ITA NO.41/VIZAG/2013 & CO 46/VIZAG/2013 FRIENDS SHOE COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA 12 5. # . , . , # / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // 12 . (SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY) . , # / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM