FIROZ A. NADIADWALA, MUMBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 16(1) , MUMBAI

ITA 4424/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3766 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV GUBGOTRA
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Proportionate interest; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HONBLE SH. G. MANJUNATHA, AM ./ I.T.A. NO . 4424 /MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ) F IROZ A. NADIADWALA, BARKAT PLOT NO. 20, GULMOHAR CROSS ROAD, NO.S 5, JVPD MUMBAI 400 049 / VS. ACIT - 16 (1) , 437, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI - 400 020 ./ ./ PAN NO. A A DPN1426C ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENTBY : SHRI RAJEEV GUBGOTRA , D R / DATE OF HEARING : 19 .12 .2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.02.2019 / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J UDICIAL MEMBER : THE P RESENT APPE AL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (APPEAL) 3 , MUMBAI DATED 02 .03.2017 F OR AY 2010 - 11 ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HEREIN BELOW: - 2 I.T.A. NO. 4424 /MUM/201 7 FIROZ A. NADIADWALA , 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AMOU NTING RS. 1,67,67,160/ - U/S 36(1 )(III) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961(ACT). 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 12,30,927 / - U/S 14A OF THE ACT R.W.R. 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962( RULES). 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES AMOUNTING RS.39,89 ,340/ - . 4. THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 5. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR VARY ALL OR ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT IS NOTICED THAT NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE IN SPIT E OF CALLS AND EVEN NO APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED. FROM THE ORDERSHEET, WE NOTICED THAT NOTICE WAS ISSUED UPON THE ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD AND THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT HAS COME BACK AFTER SERVICE. ON THE OTHER HAND 3 I.T.A. NO. 4424 /MUM/201 7 FIROZ A. NADIADWALA , L D. DR IS PRESENT IN THE COURT AND IS READY WITH ARGUMENTS. THEREFORE WE HAVE DECIDED TO PROCEED WITH THE HEARING OF THE CASE EX - PA RTE WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE L D. DR AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09 .2010 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 3,64,89,053/ - . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT ACCEPTING THE INCOME RETURNED. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 24.09.11 WAS ISSUED AND DULY SEVERED UP ON THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY AO ON 11.03.13 U/S 143(3) THEREBY M AKING ADDITIONS UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASE OF BOT H THE PARTIES, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE . NOW BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APP EAL BY RAISING THE ABOVE GROUND . 4 I.T.A. NO. 4424 /MUM/201 7 FIROZ A. NADIADWALA , GROUND NO. 1 4 . THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO CHA LLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AMOUNTING RS. 1,67,67,160/ - U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961(ACT). 5 . WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES. BEFORE WE DECIDE THE MERITS OF THE CASE, IT IS NECESSARY TO EVALUATE THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ABOVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PARA NO. 6.8 TO 6.10 OF ITS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: - 6.8 I HAVE C AREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FACTS OF THE CASE. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND REMAND REPORT OF THE AO CAREFULLY. FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN INTEREST BEARING UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 23,53,84,0 00/ - AGAINST WHICH IT HAS GIVEN INTEREST FREE ADVANCES OF RS. 24,41,80,898/ - . THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT SINCE OWN FUNDS IN THE FORM OF CAPITAL IS VERY LESS AS COMPARED TO INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN, 5 I.T.A. NO. 4424 /MUM/201 7 FIROZ A. NADIADWALA , THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES MUST HAVE BEEN GIVEN OUT OF I NTEREST BEARING FUNDS. FURTHER, IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, HE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE NEXUS BETWEEN INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND ITS NON - UTILIZATION FOR GIVING INTEREST FREE ADVANCES. A CCORDINGLY, THE AO DISALLOWED PROPORTIONATE INTEREST EXPENSES U/S 361(1)(III). ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE RELIES HEAVILY ON BORROWED FUNDS FOR HIS BUSINESS PURPOSE AND THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES HAVE BEEN MAJORLY GIV EN TO PJP AND HIS SISTER CONCERN NET FOR PRODUCTION OF FILM 'AARAKSHAN'. THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT LOW CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF POINT OUT TO THE FACT THAT MAJORITY OF FUNDS DEPLOYED IN THE BUSINESS ARE FROM BORROWED FUNDS. 6.9 I DO NOT FIND ANY M ERITS IN THE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BORROWED HUGE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS IN RESPECT OF WHICH INTEREST HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS EXPENSE AND HAS ALSO GIVEN INTEREST - FREE ADVANCES TO VARIOUS PARTIES. THE APPELLANT HA S NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM WITH RELEVANT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES THROUGHOUT THE ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH PJP AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO WHOM RS. 6 I.T.A. NO. 4424 /MUM/201 7 FIROZ A. NADIADWALA , 1,11,00,000/ - HAVE B EEN GIVEN AS ADVANCES FOR PRODUCTION OF FILM. IN HIS ENTIRE SUBMISSION, HIS FOCUS IS TO PROVE THAT THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO PJP ARE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BOTHERED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF BALANCE AMOUNT OF INTEREST ADVANCES GIVEN O UT OF BORROWED FUNDS WHICH IS AS HIGH AS RS. 23.30 CRORES. THE APPELLANT HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT HIS CAPITAL IS NEGLIGIBLE AND HE MAJORLY RELIES ON, BORROWED FUNDS. THIS CLEARLY PROVES THAT INTEREST FREE ADVANCES HAVE BEEN GIVEN OUT OF INTEREST BEARING B ORROWED FUNDS AND NOT OUT OF OWN FUNDS. FURTHER, LACK OF PROPER EXPLANATION ALSO STRENGTHENS THIS VIEW. 6.10 THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AS NARRATED ABOVE, I DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO E STABLISH DIRECT NEXUS OF BORROWED FUNDS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE NOR COULD HE SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN TO PARTIES. THEREFORE, IT CAN SAFELY BE HELD THAT INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR GIVING INTEREST FREE ADVANCES. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 1,67,67,160/ - IS CONFIRMED. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED. 7 I.T.A. NO. 4424 /MUM/201 7 FIROZ A. NADIADWALA , 6. AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) AFTER APPREC IATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAD RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED HUGE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS IN RESPECT OF WHICH INTEREST HAD BEEN CLAIMED AS EXPENSE AND HAD ALSO GIVEN INTEREST - FREE ADVANCES TO VARIOUS PARTIES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM WITH RELEVANT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES THROUGHOUT THE ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE LD. CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS. 7. EVEN BEFORE US, N O NEW FACTS O R CONTRARY JUDGMENTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US I N ORDER TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO REASON S FOR US TO INTERFERE INTO OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A ). HENCE , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ARE JUDICIOUS AND ARE WE LL REASONED. RESULTANTLY, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED . 8 I.T.A. NO. 4424 /MUM/201 7 FIROZ A. NADIADWALA , GROUND NO. 2 8 . THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 12,30,927/ - U/S 14A OF THE ACT R.W.R. 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (R ULES). 9 . WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES. BEFORE WE DECIDE THE MERITS OF THE CASE, IT IS NECESSARY TO EVALUATE THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ABOVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PARA NO. 7.2 TO 7.4 OF ITS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: - 7.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FACTS OF THE CASE. THE A.O. HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES AGAINST THE EXEMPT INCOME, HOWEVER, HAS NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE I T ACT, 1961 R.W.R. 8D (2) OF THE IT RULES, 1962 IN THIS REGARD. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT NO EXPENSES WERE CLAIMED BY IT AGAINST THE EXEMPT INCOME. I FIND THAT THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS EARNED EXEMPT INCOME, HE HAS 9 I.T.A. NO. 4424 /MUM/201 7 FIROZ A. NADIADWALA , NOT DISALLOWED ANY EXPENSES U/S 14A OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT NO EXPENDITURE IS FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME IS NOT .CORRECT. THE EXPENDITURE MAY BE DIRECT OR INDIRECT BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT NO EXEMPT INCOME CAN BE EARNED WITHOUT INCURRING EXPENSES.. THE APPELLANT CANNOT SAY THAT INVESTMENTS ARE MADE/MAINTAINED WITHOUT ANY RESOURCES. THE COMPUTER, ELECTRICITY, OFFICE STAFF, VEHICLE, TELEPHONE BA NK ARE RESOURCES, WHICH ARE USED FOR BOTH PURPOSES I.E. EARNING TAXABLE INCOME. THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14AOF THE ACT TO BE MADE IS THUS, NOT ACCEPTABLE. THEREFORE, IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THERE MUST BE SOME EXPENSES WH ICH HAVE BEEN INCURRED TOWARDS EXEMPT INCOME INVESTMENTS. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT THAT NO DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE AT ALL CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 7.3 ON PERUSAL OF DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS HUGE BORROWED FUNDS ON WHICH INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE'S OWN FUNDS ARE VERY LESS ENTIRE INVESTMENT MUST HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF INTEREST BEARING BORRO WED FUNDS. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY HIM FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT. THE TERM EXPENDITURE OCCURRING IN SECTION 14A WOULD TAKE IN ITS SWEEP NOT 10 I.T.A. NO. 4424 /MUM/201 7 FIROZ A. NADIADWALA , ONLY DIRECT EXPENDITURE BUT ALSO ALL FORM S OF EXPENDITURE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE FIXED, VARIABLE, DIRECT, INDIRECT, ADMINISTRATIVE, MANAGERIAL OR FINANCIAL. AS REGARDS THE APPLICABILITY OF RULE 8D(2) OF THE IT RULES 1962, IT IS NO LONGER OPEN TO THE AO TO APPLY HIS DISCRETION IN COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND THEREFORE, THE A.O. IS DUTY BOUND TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF U/S 14A OF THE I T ACT, 1961 R.W.R. 8D (2) OF THE I T RULES, 1962. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN UPHELD IN MANY CASES SOME OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: - (I) GODREJ & BOYCE VS. DCIT 328 ITR 8T (BOM) (II) YATISH TRADING CO. (P) LTD. VS. ACIT (2011) 50 DTR 138 (MUM) (III) DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (P) LTD. (2009) 117 ITD 169 (MUM) (SB) 7.4 THEREFORE, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION IS REJECTED AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 12,30,927 / - MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 14A OF THE I T ACT, 1961 R.W.R. 8D (2) OF THE I T RULES, 1962 IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 2 IS DISMISSED. 11 I.T.A. NO. 4424 /MUM/201 7 FIROZ A. NADIADWALA , 10 . AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS P ASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) AFTER APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAD RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD HUGE BORROWED FUNDS ON WHICH INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE'S OWN FUNDS WERE VERY LESS ENTIRE INVESTMENT MUST HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS. THEREFORE, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPEN SES HAD BEEN INCURRED BY HIM FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS WERE DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT. THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. 11 . EVEN BEFORE US, N O NEW FACTS O R CONTRARY JUDGMENTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US I N ORDER TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO REASON S FOR US TO INTERFERE INTO OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A). HENCE , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ARE JUDICIOUS AND ARE WE LL REASONED. RESULTANTLY, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED . 12 I.T.A. NO. 4424 /MUM/201 7 FIROZ A. NADIADWALA , GROUND NO. 3 12 . THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES AMOUNTING RS.39,89,340/ - . 13 . WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES. BEFORE WE DECIDE THE MERITS OF THE CASE, IT IS NECESSARY TO EVALUATE TH E ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ABOVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PARA NO. 8.2 & 8.3 OF ITS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: - 8.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AS ALSO PERUSED THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUCH AS BUSINESS OR CONFERENCE INVITATIONS, CORRESPONDENCE THROUGH E - MAILS OR FAX, BUSINESS INVITES, PROOF OF TRAVEL AND STAY, ANY PERMISSION FROM L OCAL AGENCY OR AUTHORITIES EVIDENCING FOREIGN SHOOTING ETC. THE APPELLANT HAS SIMPLY STATED THAT THE TRAVELLING EXPENSES 13 I.T.A. NO. 4424 /MUM/201 7 FIROZ A. NADIADWALA , HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR TRAVEL TO LOS ANGELES AND UAE AND THE SAME WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 8.3 THE APPELLANT'S STATEMENT WITHOU T ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. MERELY STATING THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATING THE SAME WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES CANNOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES IN CURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER EXPLANATION AND SUPPORTING, THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CONSIDERED TO BE INCURRED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ENTIRE EXPENSES OF RS. 39,89,3407 - MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY SUSTAINED. THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 3 IS DISMISSED. 14 . AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED ABOV E, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) AFTER APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAD RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT M ERELY STATING THAT THE EXPENSES HAD BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATING THE SAME WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES CANNOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. 14 I.T.A. NO. 4424 /MUM/201 7 FIROZ A. NADIADWALA , THEREFORE LD. CIT(A) HAD RIGHTL Y CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. 15 . EVEN BEFORE US, N O NEW FACTS O R CONTRARY JUDGMENTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US I N ORDER TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO REASON S FOR US TO INTER FERE INTO OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A). HENCE , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ARE JUDICIOUS AND ARE WE LL REASONED. RESULTANTLY, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED . GROUND NO. 4 & 5. 16. THESE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, THUS REQUIRES NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 17 . IN THE NET RESULT , THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COST. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH FEB , 2019. SD/ - SD/ - ( G. MANJUNATHA ) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 12 . 02 .201 9 SR.PS . DHANANJAY 15 I.T.A. NO. 4424 /MUM/201 7 FIROZ A. NADIADWALA , / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F I LE / BY ORDER, . / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI