The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda V. M/s. Himalaya Machinery Pvt.Ltd., Baroda

ITA 438/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63010 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts; Revenue expenditure

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD , ! '#, $% $ & BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.438/AHD/2010 ( ! ) ! ) ! ) ! ) / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03) THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(2) BARODA ! ! ! ! / VS. M/S.HIMALAYA MACHINERY P LTD. 608, GIDC IND.ESTATE MAKARPURA BARODA 390 010 * $% ./+, ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCH 0034 K ( *- / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ./*- / RESPONDENT ) *- 0 $ / APPELLANT BY : SHRI D.P.GUPTA, CIT D.R. WITH SHRI PHAGU ORAM SR.D.R. ./*- 1 0 $ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.J.SHAH, A.R. !2 1 % / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 24/08/2012 34) 1 % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.10.12 $5 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FRO M THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS)-I, BARODA DATED 15.10.2009. GROUN DS RAISED ARE HEREBY DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:- 2. GROUND NO.1 READS AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF GUARANTEE COMMIS SION. ITA NO.438/AHD/ 2010 DCIT VS. M/S.HIMALAYA MACHINERY P LTD. ASST.YEAR - 2002-03 - 2 - 2.1. THE ISSUE OF GUARANTEE COMMISSION PAID TO TH E DIRECTORS HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BY THE RESPE CTED CO-ORDINATE BENCH D ITAT AHMEDABAD IN ITA NO.738/AHD/2009 FOR A.Y. 2006-07, DATED 05/06/2009, WHEREIN VIDE PARAGRAPH NO.6 IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- 6. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF METALIZING EQUIPMENT CO.( P) LTD. (SUPRA) AND IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE FACTS ARE EXACTLY IDEN TICAL AS THE DIRECTORS HAVE BEEN PAID GUARANTEE COMMISSION TO COMPENSATE T HEM FROM THE RISK ASSUMED BY THEM IN STANDING AS GUARANTOR FOR THE BA NK LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. IT WAS ALSO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BANK HAS NECESSITATED ON SUCH PERSONAL GUARANTEE AND ACC ORDINGLY PERSONAL GUARANTEE WAS NEEDED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS W E REVERSED THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THIS APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 2.2. EVEN THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR. ON THE SA ME LINES, FOR THIS YEAR AS WELL THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 3. GROUND NO.2 READS AS UNDER:- 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF R S.1,87,187/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON FOREIGN TRAVEL. 3.1. IN THE PAST, THE ISSUE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON FOREIGN TRAVEL HAS BEEN DEALT WITH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BY THE TRIBUNAL I N FOLLOWING TWO YEARS:- (I) IN THE CASE OF HIMALAYA MACHINERY PVT.LTD. IN ITA NO.1658/AHD/2001, 1972/AHD/2001, 143/AHD/200 3 AND 3461/AHD/2003 DATED 08.08.2008 FOR A.Y. 1995-96 & 1 997-98 (II) IN THE CASE OF HIMALAYA MACHINERY PVT.LTD. IN ITA NO.144/AHD/2003 DATED 30.06.2010 FOR A.Y. 1998- 99. ITA NO.438/AHD/ 2010 DCIT VS. M/S.HIMALAYA MACHINERY P LTD. ASST.YEAR - 2002-03 - 3 - 3.2. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, A FINDING ON FACT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY LD.CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE PURPO SE OF THE FOREIGN VISITS OF THE DIRECTORS AND THE TOUR REPORT HAS BEEN SUBMITTE D ON THEIR RETURN WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ON LAST TWO OCCASIONS THE RESPECTED COORDI NATE BENCHES HAVE TAKEN A CONSISTENT VIEW IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR, THEREFORE I N THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN THEREIN FOR THIS YEAR AS WELL CONSIDERING THE FACTS AS NOTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE VIEW TAKEN BY LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 4. GROUND NOS.3 & 5 READ AS UNDER:- GROUND NO.3 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF R S.15,06,472/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENDITURE ON AFTER SALES OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. GROUND NO.5 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF R S.4,11,717/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES OF WARRANTY OBLIGATION. 4.1. THESE TWO GROUNDS HAVE A COMMON ISSUE, THEREFO RE CONSOLIDATED. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSME NT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 DATED 29.03.2006 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF ENGINEERING GOODS. IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT UNDER THE HEAD AFTER SALES OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. AT THE OUTSET, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT T HE AMOUNT OF RS.15,06,472/- BUT IT WAS ONLY RS.10,46,949/- (REFE R PARA 6.2). WE THEREFORE DEEM IT PROPER TO CONSIDER THIS AMOUNT ONLY AND THE QUANTUM OF THE ADDITION AS ITA NO.438/AHD/ 2010 DCIT VS. M/S.HIMALAYA MACHINERY P LTD. ASST.YEAR - 2002-03 - 4 - MENTIONED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BY THE REVENUE S HALL BE MODIFIED TO THIS EXTENT. AS FAR AS THE MERITS ARE CONCERNED, THE EXPLANATION IS THAT A PROVISION WAS MADE FOR AN ANTICIPATED WARRANTY. THIS ISSUE H AS ALSO BEEN DEALT WITH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FOLLOWIN G ORDERS:- I) A COMBINED ORDER IN ASSESSEES APPEAL BEARING I TA NOS.465 & 764/AHD/2001 FOR A.Y. 1996-97, DATED 8.8.2008 WAS P ASSED, WHEREIN WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE OF WARRANTY OBLIGATION, IT WAS HELD THAT THE LIABILITY WAS MADE ON SOME SCIENTIFIC BASIS. REL EVANT PARA-13 IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- L3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND CONSIDERED R IVAL SUBMISSIONS.. WHEN THE ASSESSEE SOLD WIND ELECTRICITY GENERATORS WITH FIVE YEARS' W ARRANTY OBLIGATION INCLUDING COMPENSATION FOR ANY DEFICIENCY, THE LIABILITY WOUL D BE IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE, AND IF ESTIMATED ON SOME SCIENTIFIC BA SIS, IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN VIEW OF THE, SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF BHARAT EARTH MOVERS VS. CIT, 245 ITR 428 (SC) WHEREIN THE COURT OBSERVED THAT IF A B USINESS LIABILITY HAS DEFINITELY ARISEN IN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR, THE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALL OWED ALTHOUGH THE LIABILITY MAY HAVE TO BE QUANTIFIED AND DISCHARGED AT A FUTURE DATE. W HAT SHOULD BE CERTAIN IS THE INCURRING OF THE LIABILITY. IT SHOULD ALSO BE CAPABLE OF BEING ESTIM ATED WITH REASONABLE CERTAINLY THOUGH THE ACTUAL QUANTIFICATION MAY NOT BE POSSIBL E. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE OPINION .OF THEIR LORDSHIP, SUCH LIABILITY CANNOT B E CONTINGENT ONE AND THE LIABILITY IN PRAESENTI AND WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF THE FUTURE DATE ON WHICH THE LIABILITY SHALL HAVE TO BE DISCHARGED IS NOT CERTAIN. IT MAY ALSO BE STAT ED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS YEAR AS WELL AS IN TH E SUBSEQUENT YEAR, MAJOR PORTION OF THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS DISCHARGE OF ITS LIABILITY FOR WARRANTY. FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF THIS YEAR, I.E. O UT OF RS.60 LAKHS, ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY INCURRED RS.13,22,164/- FOR A.Y.I996-97, RS.13,02,6 17/- FOR A.Y.1997-98, RS.12,25,430/- FOR A.Y.1998-99, RS.13,83,985/- FOR A.Y.1999-2000 A ND RS.9.91,380/- FOR A.Y.2000-2001 THUS TOTALING TO RS.62.25.578/- AND EXTRA EXPENDITU RE OF RS.2,25,578/- WAS CHARGED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT-IN THE YEAR 2000-2001. IN VIE W OF THE AFORESAID FIGURES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ESTIMATE OF THE ASSESSEE, ESTIMATE D WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY, WILL BE ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION IN VIEW OF SUPREME COURT DEC ISION IN THE/CASE OF BHARAT EARTH MOVERS (SUPRA). ORDER OF THE CIT(A), IN THESE CIRCU MSTANCES, IS UPHELD, AS IN OUR OPINION, HE IS RIGHT IN ALLOWING CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE. ALTHOUGH THE LD.AR HAS REFERRED AN ANOTHER COMBINE D ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BUT THAT ORDER HAS SIMPLY FOLLO WED THE ORDER WE HAVE REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL IS TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW THAT THE WARRANT OBLIGATION HAPPENED TO BE A B USINESS LIABILITY AND ITA NO.438/AHD/ 2010 DCIT VS. M/S.HIMALAYA MACHINERY P LTD. ASST.YEAR - 2002-03 - 5 - MADE ON SCIENTIFIC BASIS AS PER THE RECURRENCE OF THE AFTER SALES OBLIGATION THE AMOUNT WAS DEBITED TO P&L ACCOUNT, T HEREFORE IN THE LIKE MANNER FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE HEREBY CONSIDER IT PROPER TO AFFIRM THE FACTUAL AS ALSO LEGAL FINDING OF LD.CIT( A). THESE TWO GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ARE THEREFORE DISMISSED. 5. GROUND NO.4 READS AS UNDER:- 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF R S.24,52,215/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES OF INTEREST ON INTER-CO RPORATE DEPOSITS. 5.1. IT WAS NOTED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN INTER-CORPORATE DEPOSIT OF RS.63 LACS, HOWEVER NO INTEREST WAS SHOW N. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE BORROWER COMPANIES HAVE FAILE D TO REPAY THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, THEREFORE THE RECOVERY OF INTEREST OF RS.24 ,52,215/- HAD BECOME DOUBTFUL. ACCORDING TO AO, THE ICD HAVE DULY BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THEY WERE NOT CONSIDERED AS BAD, THEREF ORE THE INTEREST ON ACCRUAL BASIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. APPLYING THE PRINCIPAL OF MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE AO HAS TAXED T HE INTEREST OF RS.24,52,215/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. BEING AGGRIEVED THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 6. THE LD.CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE INTERE ST OF RECOVERY WAS DOUBTFUL, THEREFORE NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED AND IN T HIS REGARD REFERRED IQBAL CHAND KHURANA 149 TAXMAN 23 (DEL) (TRI) LD.C IT(A) HAS ALSO REFERRED ACCOUNTING STANDARD-9 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE INTEREST IS TO BE RECOGNIZED ONLY WHEN THERE IS CERTAINTY. LD.CIT(A) HAS OPINED THAT THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT ITSELF WAS UNCERTAIN, THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE GUIDE LINES ISSUED BY ICAI THE ITA NO.438/AHD/ 2010 DCIT VS. M/S.HIMALAYA MACHINERY P LTD. ASST.YEAR - 2002-03 - 6 - INTEREST WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE RECOGNIZED. IN T HE RESULT, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED. 7. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LD.DR MR.D.P.GUPTA , CIT & MR.PHAGU ORAM SR.D.R. HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE PRINCIPAL HAD BECOME DOUBTFUL THE NON-RECOGNITION OF INTEREST FOR THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS AGAINST THE PRUDENTIAL NORMS OF ACCOUNTANCY. 8. FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, LD.AR MR.M.J.SHAH APPEARED AND PLACED RELIANCE ON IQBAL CHAND KHURANA 149 TAX MAN 23 AND GODHRA ELECTRIC 225 ITR 746 (SC). 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SI DES AND ALSO CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF THE COMPILATION FILED AND CASE LAWS CITED. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED ICD OF RS.63 LACS. IN THIS REGARD, FACTS HAVE REVEALED T HAT A SUM OF RS.50 LACS WAS ADVANCED TO M/S.INDU NISHAN OXO CHEMICALS LTD. ON A N INTEREST @ 21%, STATED TO BE ADVANCED ON 22.5.1998. THERE IS NOTH ING ON RECORD THAT THE SAID COMPANY HAD GONE UNDER LIQUIDATION OR WHY THE SAID AMOUNT WAS TREATED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NON-RECOVERABLE. FOR EVERY PRUDENT B USINESS-MAN SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT HAS SUBSTANTIAL VALUE, THEREFORE DEFINITELY TAKES ALL POSSIBLE EFFORT FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE SAME. NEITHER BEFORE AO NOR B EFORE LD.CIT(A), IT WAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EVER TAKEN ANY S TEP FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT. RATHER, IT WAS NOTICED THAT ON 2 ND NOVEMBER-1998 THE SAID BORROWER HAD PAID A SUM OF RS.7 LACS AND AS PER ASS ESSEES OWN SUBMISSION PROMISED TO PAY REST OF THE AMOUNT IN INSTALLMENTS. FACTS HAVE ALSO REVEALED THAT SUBSEQUENTLY A CHEQUE DATED 9.2.1999 OF DENA B ANK OF RS.1,37,977/- WAS ITA NO.438/AHD/ 2010 DCIT VS. M/S.HIMALAYA MACHINERY P LTD. ASST.YEAR - 2002-03 - 7 - ALSO REALISED. BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT A CRIMINAL CASE AND A CIVIL CASE HAVE BEEN FIL ED IN THE COURT OF LAW. 9.1 THERE IS AN ANOTHER INTER-CORPORATE DEPOSIT OF RS.20 LACS STATED TO BE ADVANCED TO M/S.PAREKH ALUMINIUM COMPANY @ 21% ON 2 0/08/1998. AS PER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THIS ASSESSEE, AN INTEREST WAS P AID, HOWEVER IT WAS RETURNED BY THE BANK AND DUE TO NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS OF RS.4 5,096/-, THE ASSESSEE WAS PUT TO LOSS. AGAIN IT HAD HAPPENED IN THE SUBSEQU ENT YEARS THAT DUE TO NON- ISSUANCE OF TDS CERTIFICATE, THE ASSESSEE WAS PUT T O LOSS. FACTS HAVE ALSO REVEALED THAT THE SAID BORROWED COMPANY HAD ISSUED SIX CHEQUES OF RS.2,67,148/-, ALTHOUGH BOUNCED BY THE BANK. NOW THE QUESTION IS THAT THE SAID BORROWER BEING IDENTIFIABLE AND SOMETIMES MAKI NG THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST, THEN UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSE E HAS CHOSEN TO TREAT THE SAID BORROWER AS A DEFAULTER IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS FACTUAL BACKGROUND, WE HAVE EXAMINED THE CASE LAWS CITED. IF THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THEN HE IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE THE INTEREST INCOME ON ACCRUAL BASIS. W HETHER THE INCOME WAS REAL INCOME OR NOT HAS TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF TH E EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS. ONLY HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, IT CAN BE ASCERTAINED WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECTLY APPLY ING THE CONCEPT OF REAL INCOME. RATHER, THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF BALARAMPUR COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE 262 ITR 439, AS REFERRED IN O NE OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS OPINED THAT, QUOT E BUT IT WAS TO BE SEEN WHETHER HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS ABUSING OR MISUSING THE CONCEPT OF REAL INCOME O R NOT . UNQUOTE. EVEN IN THE CASE OF IQBAL CHAND KHURAN (SUPRA), THERE WAS A CLEAR FINDING ON FACTS THAT THE AMOUNT HAD BECOME BAD AND IRRECOVERABLE. FURT HER THE AS-9 ALSO SUBSCRIBES THAT THE INTEREST ON DOUBTFUL DEBTS HAS TO BE RECOGNIZED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNTIL THE UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE DOUBTFUL NESS OF THE DEBT CEASED TO ITA NO.438/AHD/ 2010 DCIT VS. M/S.HIMALAYA MACHINERY P LTD. ASST.YEAR - 2002-03 - 8 - EXIST. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS YET TO PLACE ON RECORD THAT THE BORROWERS HAVE GONE UNDER LIQUIDATION; THAT EVEN A FTER THE BEST EFFORTS OF THE ASSESSEE THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT COULD NOT BE RECOVERED FROM THEM; AND THAT THE CIVIL SUITES FILED HAVE NOT RESULTED INTO ANY GAIN. ACCORDING TO US, THEN ONLY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE ALLOWED SUCH CLAIM. WE, THEREF ORE, DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE STAGE OF THE AO, SO THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN PLACE ON RECORD THE FATE OF THE COURT PROCEEDINGS TO ESTABLI SH THE GENUINENESS OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE BORROWERS AS ALSO OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AS DISCUSSED SUPRA. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- ( ! '# ) ( ) $% ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( MUKU L KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 12 / 10 /2012 6..!, .!../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS $5 1 .7 8$7) $5 1 .7 8$7) $5 1 .7 8$7) $5 1 .7 8$7)/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./*- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 9() / THE CIT(A)-I, BARODA 5. 7<= .! , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. = >2 / GUARD FILE. $5! $5! $5! $5! / BY ORDER, /7 . //TRUE COPY// ? ?? ?/ // / + + + + ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD