Super Tannery Ltd., Kanpur V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Kanpur

ITA 468/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 46823714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 43B; 80HHC; 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.468 & 469/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04 & 2005-06 M/S SUPER TANNERY LTD. 187/170, JAJMAU KANPUR V. ACIT RANGE VI KANPUR TAN/PAN:AAICS1142C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.532 & 533/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04 & 2005-06 ACIT RANGE VI KANPUR V. M/S SUPER TANNERY LTD. 187/170, JAJMAU KANPUR TAN/PAN:AAICS1142C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BB: SHRI. P. K. KAPOOR, C.A. REVENUE BY: SHRI. O. N. PATHAK, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 24 03 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16 04 2015 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THESE CROSS-APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2005-06. 2. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. WE, HOWEVER, PREFER TO ADJUDICATE THEM ONE AFTER THE OTHER. I.T.A. NO. 532/LKW/2013: :- 2 -: 3. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS2,91,148/- ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE LIABILITIES OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES WERE CRYSTALLIZED IN THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING PERIOD. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.2,74,802/- ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES ADMITTING HIMSELF THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS JUSTIFIED IN PRINCIPLE BUT RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.54,080/- ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE & TELEX EXPENSES ADMITTING HIMSELF THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS JUSTIFIED IN PRINCIPLE BUT RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.1,06,834/- ON ACCOUNT OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION ADMITTING HIMSELF THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS JUSTIFIED IN PRINCIPLE BUT RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.5,95,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS WITHOUT GIVING ANY SPECIFIC FINDINGS AND WITHOUT CALLING FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.4,21,344/- ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURE EXPENSES WITHOUT GIVING ANY SPECIFIC FINDINGS AND WITHOUT CALLING FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. 7. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), KANPUR BEING ERRONEOUS, UNJUST AND BAD IN LAW BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED. :- 3 -: 4. APROPOS GROUND NO.1, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THESE ARE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. 5. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURNISHED EXPLANATIONS ITEM-WISE WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE CRYSTALLIZED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOLLOWING SIMILAR SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOR THE LAST SO MANY YEARS. WITH REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED BILLS DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEREFORE, IT WAS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE REASONING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT THROUGH LD. A.R. RELEVANT PART OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED ABOVE. MY POINT WISE VIEW IS GIVEN AS UNDER:- 1. MATERIAL BILLS OF PREVIOUS YEAR RECEIVED AND ACCOUNTED FOR DURING THE CURRENT YEAR AMOUNTING TO RS 50,353: THE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNTS WERE EXAMINED AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THESE EXPENSES RELATE TO PURCHASE OF MATERIAL ETC. AS THESE EXPENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR ON A MERCANTILE BASIS IN YEAR IN WHICH THESE WERE INCURRED, THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN THE CURRENT YEAR. THUS DISALLOWANCE OF RS 50,353 IS CONFIRMED. 2. SERVICE BILLS OF PREVIOUS YEAR RECEIVED AND ACCOUNTED FOR DURING THE CURRENT YEAR AMOUNTING TO RS 15,693: THESE SERVICE BILLS AMOUNTING TO RS 15,693 WERE BILLS RECEIVED IN THE CURRENT YEAR FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS. SINCE THE SERVICE BILLS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN THIS YEAR, THE EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWABLE IN THIS YEAR. THUS, ADDITION OF RS 15,693 IS DELETED. :- 4 -: 3. EXPENSES OF PREVIOUS YEARS SETTLED DURING THE CURRENT YEAR AMOUNTING TO RS .10,642: SINCE THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THIS YEAR, THE AMOUNT IS ALLOWABLE AS A EXPENDITURE IN THIS YEAR ITSELF. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THIS AS A DEDUCTION. THUS ADDITION OF RS.10,642 IS DELETED. 4. SHORT/EXCESS ESTIMATION OF EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,41,143: THIS AMOUNT RELATES TO DUTY DRAWBACK, FOREIGN COMMISSION PAID AND SETTLEMENT OF INSURANCE CLAIM. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT NORMALLY THE DUTY DRAWBACK CHEQUES WERE RECEIVED WITHIN 3 TO 4 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF SHIPMENT. AS THE APPELLANT IS FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AT THE TIME OF FINALIZATION OF ACCOUNTS THE CREDIT FOR DUTY DRAWBACK RECEIVABLE WAS TAKEN IN THE ACCOUNT ON THE BASIS OF OWN COMPUTATION/ESTIMATE. HOWEVER SOMETIMES THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN THE COMPUTATION AND THE COMPUTATION MADE BY THE CUSTOM DEPARTMENT WHICH RESULTED IN EITHER EXCESS CREDIT OR SHORT CREDIT, IN THIS CASE SINCE EXCESS CREDIT WAS MADE EARLIER THE NECESSARY ENTRIES WERE PASSED DEBITING THE ACCOUNTS OF THE EXCESS AMOUNT OF DUTY DRAWBACK. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT THAT IT WAS A REGULAR SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY HIM AND DID NOT RESULT IN ANY PROFIT OR LOSS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. IN MY VIEW THIS AMOUNT IS ALLOWABLE. SIMILAR IS THE CASE OF INSURANCE CLAIM. NOW COMING TO THE COMMISSION PAYMENT THE SAME IS PAYABLE IS FOREIGN CURRENCY AND ACCORDING TO THE MERCANTILE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING THE SAME HAS TO BE PROVIDED ON THE ESTIMATE BASIS OF VALUE OF CURRENCY AS PREVAILING ON THE LAST DAY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. THE PAYMENT MAY GET SETTLED IN THE NEXT YEAR WHEREBY ON THE DATE OF PAYMENT THERE MIGHT BE A CHANGE IN THE FOREIGN CURRENCY RATES. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT THAT IT WAS A REGULAR SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY HIM AND DID NOT IN ANY PROFIT OR LOSS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ADDITION OF RS.1,41 ,143 IS DELETED. EXPENSES ALLOWABLE U/S 43B: :- 5 -: EXPENSES ALLOWABLE U/S 43B ARE ONLY ALLOWED ON PAYMENT BASIS. EVEN IF THE LIABILITY WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED. THUS PAYMENT OF BONUS, CUSTOMS AND TAX ARE COVERED WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 .ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION OF RS. 73,316 IS DELETED. OVERALL THE AO IS TO ALLOW THE AMOUNTS [15,693+10,642+ 1,41,143+ 73,316]= RS. 2,40,794. THE ADDITION OF RS.50,353 IS CONFIRMED. THUS THIS GROUND NO 11 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, NO INFIRMITY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LD. D.R. IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE, HOWEVER, HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE PARTIES AND SINCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 7. APROPOS GROUND NO.2, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.2,74,802/-, AGAINST WHICH AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES, POSTAGE, TELEGRAM AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,06,834/- AND RS.54,080/- RESPECTIVELY WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD. CIT(A), RE-EXAMINED THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAVING NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT EVEN A SINGLE VOUCHER WHICH CAN BE DOUBTED AND NO PERSONAL EXPENSES WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.33,148/-. 8. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 9. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE :- 6 -: DISALLOWANCE ON AD HOC BASIS WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT THEREIN. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.33,148/-, AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL. 10. SINCE THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ON AD HOC BASIS WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECT EITHER IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR IN THE VOUCHERS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, NO DISALLOWANCE ON AD HOC BASIS IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION EVEN SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.5 OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO.468/LKW/2013, WHICH IS ON THE SAME ISSUE, IS ALSO DISPOSED OF ALONG WITH THIS GROUND. 11. APROPOS GROUND NO.3, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF POSTAGE, TELEGRAM AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.54,080/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPENDITURES MIGHT HAVE BEEN INCURRED NOT FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES. 12. THE LD. CIT(A) RE-EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AND FINDING FORCE THEREIN HE RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.24,000/-, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 13. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY WHERE EXPENDITURES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE OF PERSONAL IN NATURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE HAVING NOTED THAT THESE EXPENDITURES WERE INCURRED FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES, WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECT. EVEN BEFORE US, NOTHING HAS BEEN STATED BY THE REVENUE THAT A PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT NO DISALLOWANCE IS SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT RS.24,000/- IS ALSO HEREBY DELETED. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.7(A) OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO.468/LKW/2013 IS ALSO DISPOSED OF ALONG WITH THIS GROUND. :- 7 -: 14. APROPOS GROUND NO.4, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.49,910/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS.56,914/- ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE WITHOUT BRINGING ANYTHING ON RECORD. WHEN THE MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCES TO RS.60,000/-, AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 15. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. D.R. COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE MOTOR CAR WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OTHER THAN BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY. THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE ON AD HOC BASIS IS SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.60,000/- SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISPOSE OF GROUND NO.7(B) OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO.468/LKW/2013 ALONG WITH THIS GROUND. 16. APROPOS GROUND NO.5, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF BALANCE WRITTEN OFF AMOUNTING TO RS.5.95 LAKHS, AGAINST WHICH AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE BALANCE WRITTEN OFF AMOUNTING TO RS.5.95 LAKHS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN OFF, AS THE POSSESSION OF THE RENTAL PROPERTY WAS FINALLY RELEASED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE RENTAL TO BE ADJUSTED, WHICH HAD BEEN PAID IN ADVANCE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEBITED TO THE RENT ACCOUNT INSTEAD OF BALANCES WRITTEN OFF. THE LD. CIT(A) RE-EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND BEING CONVINCED WITH IT, HE DELETED THE ADDITION. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. ON PERUSAL OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF ENTERING THE RENTAL AGREEMENT HAD PAID RS 5,95,500 AS AN ADVANCE :- 8 -: WHICH, AS PER THE AGREEMENT, WAS TO BE ADJUSTED IN THE LAST YEAR WHEN THE PROPERTY IS VACATED. THE AGREEMENT CLEARLY THAT THE ADVANCE RENTAL SHALL BE ADJUSTED IN THE LAST 5 INSTALLMENTS OF THE RENT, THIS PROPERTY HAD BEEN VACATED IN THIS YEAR, THE IMPUGNED ADVANCE NEEDED TO BE ADJUSTED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ACCOUNTING TREATMENT WHETHER THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER 'RENT1 OR 'BALANCES WRITTEN OFF' DOES NOT AFFECT THE ALLOWABILITY OF SUCH EXPENSES. AS THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN LOCATED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE IMPUGNED EXPENSE HAS TO BE ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITION MADE IS HEREBY, DELETED. 17. THOUGH THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), BUT COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). SINCE NO INFIRMITY IS NOTICED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 18. APROPOS GROUND NO.6, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.5,56,623/-, AGAINST WHICH AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT RS.4,21,344/- HAS BEEN WRITTEN OFF BEING LEASE RENT RECOVERABLE FROM PARTIES FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. COPIES OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM. THE LD. CIT(A) RE-EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND BEING CONVINCED WITH IT, HE RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.29,418/-. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE BOOKS, NET LOSS FROM AGRICULTURE OPERATIONS HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.5,56,622, WHICH WRONGLY INCLUDED A SUM OF RS.4,21,344/- ON ACCOUNT OF TEASE RENTALS WRITTEN OFF, WHICH WAS NOT AT ALL RELATED TO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. IF ONE EXCLUDES THIS AMOUNT, THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURE EXPENSES WOULD HAVE BEEN RS.1.35,278/-. OUT OF THIS :- 9 -: AMOUNT, THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY ADDED BACK AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,05,860/- IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED FOR THAT YEAR, THUS THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS 29,418 ONLY NEEDS TO BE DISALLOWED. THE A.O. WOULD DO SO. 19. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, BUT COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HAVING NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN A PROPER MANNER, WE SUBSCRIBE THE SAME. I.T.A. NO. 468/LKW/2013: 20. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), INTER ALIA, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. BECAUSE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SUM OF RS.50,353/- REPRESENTING THE COST OF MATERIAL RECEIVED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPENSES RELATED TO EARLIER YEAR. 2. BECAUSE THE LIABILITY HAD ACCRUED AND CRYSTALLIZED IN THE PREVIOUS, YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ONLY AND, LOOKING TO THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN MAINTAINING ACCOUNTS ON MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, CLAIM DESERVE TO BE ALLOWED. 3. BECAUSE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN NOT ALLOWING COMPLETELY THE JOB WORK RECEIPTS BEING ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT AND RESTRICTING THE SAME ON AD- HOC BASIS. 3.1 BECAUSE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID, THE ADDITION SUSTAINED IS HIGH AND EXCESSIVE TOO AND THE SAME DESERVED TO BE DELETED. 4. BECAUSE THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC IS NOT CORRECT AND THE SAME DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED ON THE BASIS ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS RETURN FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. :- 10 -: 5. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.33,148/-, OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY ON FOREIGN TRAVEL HOLDING IT TO BE OF PERSONAL NATURE. 6. BECAUSE THE ENTIRE TRAVELLING EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN IMMURED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT AND NO DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THIS EXPENDITURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(APPEALS). 7. BECAUSE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCES OF A) RS.24,000/- OUT OF TELEPHONE AND TELEX EXPENSE; AND B) RS.60,000 OUT OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLES ON THE GROUND OF PERSONAL USER. 8. BECAUSE LOOKING TO THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS A BODY CORPORATE AND A LISTED COMPANY, NO DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND OF PERSONAL USER COULD HAVE BEEN MADE. 9. BECAUSE IN ANY CASE THE DISALLOWANCE AS REFERRED TO ABOVE LETTER MUCH TOO HIGH AND EXCESSIVE. 10. BECAUSE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST IS CONTRARY TO FACTS LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 21. GROUND NOS. 5 & 7 HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED WHILE DEALING WITH THE REVENUES APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO.532/LKW/2013 ALONG WITH GROUNDS NO.2, 3 AND 4. 22. APROPOS GROUNDS NO.1 & 2, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,353/- OF THE MATERIAL BILLS OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR RECEIVED AND ACCOUNTED FOR DURING THE CURRENT YEAR. 23. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT COULD NOT FURNISH THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THAT THE LIABILITIES ARE CRYSTALLIZED :- 11 -: DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE HAVING OBSERVED THAT THE EXPENSES RELATE TO THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, ETC. SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR ON MERCANTILE BASIS IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THESE WERE INCURRED AND THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN THE CURRENT YEAR. EVEN BEFORE US, NOTHING HAS BEEN PLACED TO JUSTIFY THAT THE BILLS FOR THE MATERIALS PURCHASED IN PREVIOUS YEAR IS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY WE FIND NO FORCE IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 24. GROUNDS NO.3 & 4 RELATE TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAVINDRA NATH NAIR, 295 ITR 228 (SC) SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ISSUED A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT PURSUANT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY THEREIN. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 25. GROUNDS NO.6, 8 & 9 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE NEED NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. I.T.A. NOS. 533/LKW/2013 & 469/LKW/2013: 26. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN I.T.A. NO. 533/LKW/2013 ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD, CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.96,037/- ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE LIABILITIES OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES WERE CRYSTALLIZED IN THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING PERIOD, 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF :- 12 -: OF RS.6,75,058/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES ADMITTING HIMSELF THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS JUSTIFIED IN PRINCIPLE BUT RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS, 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.2,47,894/- ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE & TELEX EXPENSES ADMITTING HIMSELF THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS JUSTIFIED IN PRINCIPLE BUT RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS, 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.99,125/- ON ACCOUNT OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION ADMITTING HIMSELF THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS JUSTIFIED IN PRINCIPLE BUT RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.1,37,525/- ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPROVAL FROM RBI WAS NOT TAKEN DURING THE YEAR ON THE SAID AMOUNT. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.1,77,570/- ON THE ADDITIONS MADE U/S 14A WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT PROVISIONS 2 & 3 AND RULE 8D WERE MERELY INTRODUCED TO CLARIFY THE MODE OF CALCULATION OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPTED INCOME. 7. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), KANPUR BEING ERRONEOUS, UNJUST AND BAD IN LAW BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 27. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO. 469/LKW/2013 ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,79,096/-, OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE DIRECTORS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY ON FOREIGN TRAVEL HOLDING IT TO BE OF PERSONAL NATURE. 2. BECAUSE THE ENTIRE TRAVELLING EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE :- 13 -: PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT AND NO DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THIS EXPENDITURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(APPEALS). 3. BECAUSE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCES OF A) RS. 50,000 : OUT OF TELEPHONE AND TELEX EXPENSE; AND B) RS.1,00,000 : OUT OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLES ON THE GROUND OF PERSONAL USER. 4. BECAUSE THE 'CIT(APPEALS)' HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I UPHOLDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.24,000/- AS HAD BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT OUT OF EXPENDITURE, BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 5. BECAUSE LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF INVESTMENT AND THE INCOME YIELDED THERE FROM (WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A HAD BEEN INVOKED) NO SUCH EXPENDITURE AS HAS BEEN DISALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT, CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT. 6. BECAUSE LOOKING TO THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS A BODY CORPORATE AND A LISTED COMPANY, NO DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND OF PERSONAL USER COULD HAVE BEEN MADE. 7. BECAUSE IN ANY CASE THE DISALLOWANCE AS REFERRED TO ABOVE LETTER MUCH TOO HIGH AND EXCESSIVE. 8. BECAUSE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST IS CONTRARY TO FACTS LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 28. APROPOS GROUND NO.1 IN I.T.A. NO. 533/LKW/2013, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.96,037/-, AGAINST WHICH AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COMPLETE :- 14 -: DETAILS OF THE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AND OTHER BILLS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN THIS YEAR OR LIABILITY HAS BEEN CRYSTALLIZED. THE LD. CIT(A) RE-EXAMINED THE ISSUE ITEM-WISE AND BEING CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, HE DELETED THE ADDITION. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE REASONING OF THE AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT THROUGH LD. A.R., RELEVANT PART OF WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED ABOVE. MY POINT WISE VIEW IS GIVEN AS UNDER; 1. SERVICE BILLS OF PREVIOUS YEAR RECEIVED AND ACCOUNTED FOR DURING THE CURRENT YEAR AMOUNTING TO RS 7,012: THESE SERVICE BILLS AMOUNTING TO RS 7,012 WERE BILLS RECEIVED IN THE CURRENT YEAR FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS. SINCE THE SERVICE BILLS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN THIS YEAR, THE EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWABLE IN THIS YEAR. THUS ADDITION OF RS 44,235 IS DELETED. 2. EXPENSES OF PREVIOUS YEARS SETTLED DURING THE CURRENT YEAR AMOUNTING TO RS 2525: SINCE THE SETTLEMENT OF HAS THIS YEAR, THE AMOUNT IS ALLOWABLE AS A EXPENDITURE IN THIS YEAR ITSELF. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THIS AS A DEDUCTION. THUS, ADDITION OF RS 2,525 IS DELETED. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS OF THE CREDITORS CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AMOUNTING TO RS 86,500: SINCE THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THIS YEAR, HE AMOUNT IS AS AN EXPENDITURE IN THIS YEAR ITSELF. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THIS AS A DEDUCTION. THUS, ADDITION OF RS.86500 IS DELETED. :- 15 -: 29. THOUGH THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, BUT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, NO DEFECT WAS POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 30. APROPOS GROUND NO.2 IN I.T.A. NO. 533/LKW/2013 AND GROUNDS NO.1 & 2 IN I.T.A. NO. 469/LKW/2013, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,54,155/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES. 31. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE ON AD HOC BASIS WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECT THEREIN. THE LD. CIT(A) RE-EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED ON FOREIGN TRAVELLING. 32. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE FOREIGN TRAVEL WAS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND WE FIND THAT UNDER THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PROPERLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY THEREIN AND ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 33. APROPOS GROUND NO.3 IN I.T.A. NO. 533/LKW/2013 AND GROUND NO.3(A) IN I.T.A. NO. 469/LKW/2013, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF TELEPHONE AND MOBILE EXPENSES AT RS.2,97,894/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OTHER THAN BUSINESS, AGAINST WHICH AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT NO LOG BOOK OF EXPENDITURE ON TELEPHONES HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED. HE, HOWEVER, RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.50,000/- ONLY. :- 16 -: 34. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, BUT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED ALL THE DETAILS OF TELEPHONE CALLS MADE. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE DISALLOWANCES ON THIS ACCOUNT WERE MADE ON AD HOC BASIS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN THE CASE OF A COMPANY, THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF PERSONAL USE OF TELEPHONE. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THE DISALLOWANCE CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE, ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.50,000/-. 35. APROPOS GROUND NO.4 IN I.T.A. NO. 533/LKW/13 AND GROUND NO.3(B) IN I.T.A. NO. 469/LKW/2013, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,99,125/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS.3,28,652/- ON SUCH MOTOR CARS FOR THE REASON THAT THESE VEHICLES WERE USED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES. 36. AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.1 LAKH. 37. NOW THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF PERSONAL USE OF CAR IN THE CASE OF COMPANIES. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND ACCORDINGLY WE DELETE THE SAME. 38. APROPOS GROUND NO.5 IN I.T.A. NO. 533/LKW/2013, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,37,525/-, AGAINST WHICH AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.1,37,525/- HAS ONLY BEEN DISALLOWED BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT RBI HAS NOT APPROVED THIS MUCH AMOUNT IN THE SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIMS SENT TO THEM. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT IT MAY NOT BE OUT OF CONTEXT TO MENTION THAT THE BAD DEBTS ARE GOVERNED BY SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT WHICH CLEARLY :- 17 -: STIPULATES THAT IF THE INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN OFFERED AS INCOME, THEN IN THAT CASE THE AMOUNTS CAN BE WRITTEN OFF AS BAD DEBTS. THE LD. CIT(A) RE- EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND FINDING FORCE IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, HE DELETED THE ADDITION. 39. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, HE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE, HOWEVER, HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY THEREIN. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 40. APROPOS GROUND NO.6 IN I.T.A. NO. 533/LKW/201 AND GROUNDS NO.4 & 5 IN I.T.A. NO. 469/LKW/2013, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AT RS.2,01,570/-, AGAINST WHICH AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AND RULE 8D OF THE RULES CANNOT BE INVOKED. AT THE MOST, IF THE DISALLOWANCE IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE, IT MAY BE ON AD HOC BASIS. THE LD. CIT(A) RE-EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND FINALLY HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT RULE 8D OF THE RULES CANNOT BE APPLIED TO COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. HE, HOWEVER, RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.24,000/-. 41. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 42. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND WE FIND THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1) AND (2) OF SECTION 14A AND RULE 8D OF THE RULES ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE COMPUTED AS PER RULE 8D OF THE RULES. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MADE A REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.24,000/-, WE DO NOT FIND ANY DEFECT THEREIN. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE SAME. :- 18 -: 43. THE OTHER GROUNDS IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEED NO ADJUDICATION. 44. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN I.T.A. NO. 532 & 533/LKW/2013 ARE DISMISSED AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO. 469/LKW/2013 AND I.T.A. NO. 468/LKW/2013 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTIONED PAGE. SD/- SD/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: APRIL, 2015 JJ:2503 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR