The ACIT, Circle-2, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. M/s. Jalaram Cotex, Jasdan

ITA 499/RJT/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 49924914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR M L MEENA DR RE
• Keywords: Commercial expediency
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL; RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT. Z . . R Z . . Z BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA JM AND SHRI D. K. SRIVASTAVA AM ITA NO. 4 9 9 /RJT/2012 R R / ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 THE ASS ISTANT . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE - 2 , RAJKOT. ( S / APPELLANT) M/S. JALARAM COTEX, AHMEDABAD HIGHWAY, JASDAN, DIST: RAJKOT. PAN : A AFFJ5039D S / RE SPONDENT . / REVENUE BY DR. M. L. MEENA , DR RE. / ASSESSEE BY SHRI CHETAN AGARWAL , CA . / DATE OF HEARING 1 2 - 0 7 - 2013 . / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31 - 0 7 - 2013 / ORDER . . , R D ST: / T. K. SHARMA, J. M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08 - 06 - 2012 OF CIT (A) - I II , RAJKOT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, T HE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM DOING BUSINESS OF MANUFACTUR ERS AND TRADERS OF COTTON, COTTON SEEDS, GINNED COTTON, REFINED COTTON SEEDS OIL AND COTTON SEEDS OIL CAKE. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, IT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 30 - 09 - 2009 DECLARING THE TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 83,69,857/ - . AO FRAMED THE ASSESSM ENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON 31 - 12 - 2010 WHEREIN, HE INTER ALIA DISALLOWED THE FOLLOWING THREE EXPENSES : - (I) INTEREST MADE U/S.36(1)(III) OF RS.13,90,526/ - ; (II) INTEREST MADE U/S.36(1)(III) OF RS.37,92,665/ - AND (III) COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS.9,27,268/ - . 3. ON APPEAL, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED ALL THE AFORESAID THREE ADDITIONS. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - ITA 4 9 9 - 201 2 2 1 . THE LD. CIT (A) - III, RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST MADE U/S.36(1)(III) OF RS.13,90,526/ - . 2 . THE LD. CIT (A) - III, RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST MADE U/S.36(1)(III) OF RS.39,92,665/ - . 3 . THE LD . CIT (A) - III, RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE OUT OF EXPENSES OF RS.9,27,268/ - . 4 . ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) - III, RAJKOT OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5 . IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYE D THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - III, RAJKOT MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY KINDLY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, ON BEHALF OF REVENUE, SHRI M. L. MEENA, DR APPEARED AND WITH REGARD TO GROUN D NOS.1 AND 2, CONTENDED THAT AO U/S.36(1)(III) DISALLOWED INTEREST OF RS.13,90,526/ - IN RESPECT OF ADVANCES MADE TO GMMCO LTD., JALARAM FACTORY AND RATILAL MANILAL. THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THIS ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT NO INTEREST CAN BE DISALLOWED IN RESPECT OF DEBIT BALANCE APPEARING IN THE ACCOUNTS OF ABOVEMENTIONED PARTIES. THE SECOND ADDITION MADE BY AO U/S.36(1)(III) IS DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.37,92,665/ - IN RESPECT OF ADVANCES MADE TO SUPPLIERS CONSIDERING THE ADVANCES FOR NON - BUSINESS P URPOSE. THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THIS ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT DEBIT BALANCE WHICH IS NOT ARISING OUT OF THE BUSINESS TRANSACTION AND ON WHICH ANY INTEREST MAY BE DISALLOWED. THE LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT THE DECISION OF LD. CIT (A) DELETING BOTH THESE DI SALLOWANCES IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT INTEREST FEE ADVANCES WERE MADE BY HIM FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND AS A MATTER OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. THUS, USE F OR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE CLAIM FOR INTEREST ON THESE BORROWING HAVE TO BE REGULATED IN TERMS OF SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. FURTHER, BEFORE THE AO, ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT CAPITAL BORROWED TO TH IS EXTENT IS BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED BOTH THESE ADDITIONS. 5 . WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.3, LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT BEFORE THE AO, ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE REQUIRED DETAILS AND P ROOFS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ITA 4 9 9 - 201 2 3 EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THAT, THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, AO RIGHTLY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KRISH NAVENI AMMAL, 158 ITR 826 (MAD) AND RIGHTLY DISALLOWED 10% OF SUCH EXPENDITURE AND LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE SAME MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT ADDITION WAS MADE ON A GUESS WORK INSTEAD OF FINDING ANY SPECIFIC ERROR THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 9,27,268/ - MADE BY AO BE RESTO RED. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI CHETAN AGARWAL, CA APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PARAS - 3, 4 AND 5 ON PAGE - 29 OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) FROM WHICH IT IS CLEAR THAT LD. CIT (A) CALLED THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO, COUNTER COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE THEREON AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN PARAS - 6.1 AND 6.2 ON PAGE - 31, LD. CIT (A) DELETED BOTH THE ADDITIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IN THESE TWO PARAGRAPHS AFTER APPRECIATING THE F ACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, EVIDENCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE, COMMENTS OF THE AO THEREON, DELETED BOTH THE ADDITIONS. THEREFORE, VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT (A) BE UPHELD. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIE S BELOW IN RESPECT OF GROUND NOS.1 AND 2. ADMITTEDLY, THE LD. CIT (A) CALLED THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO, COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE ON REMAND REPORT AND THEREAFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS DELETED BOTH THE ADDITIONS FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVE N IN PARAS - 6.1 AND 6.2 ON PAGE - 31, WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 6.1 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT AND ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ADVANCE OF RS.13,00,000/ - TO GMMCO LTD WAS FOR PURCHASE OF DIESEL GENERATOR IN APRIL 2008 WHICH IS F OR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. APPELLANT HAS A RUNNING ACCOUNT WITH JALARAM GINNING FACTORY AND IN FACT APPELLANT HAD MOSTLY USED FUNDS OF THIS PARTY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND IT IS ONLY NEAR THE END OF THE YEAR, APPELLANT HAS DEBITED THIS PARTY WITH A LARGE AM OUNT DUE TO WHICH THERE WAS A CLOSING DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.92,87,717. THEREFORE, THE QUESTION OF GIVING AWAY INTEREST FREE FUNDS TO THIS PARTY DOES NOT ARISE WHEN APPELLANT HAD USED THE FUNDS OF THIS PARTY FOR MOST PART OF THE YEAR AND PAID INTEREST TO THIS PARTY. THE ADVANCE OF RS.10,00,000/ - WAS GIVEN TO RATILAL MANILAL ON THE LAST DAY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR AND THERE WOULD BE NO INTEREST IMPLICATION BECAUSE THE TIME OF UTILIZATION OF FUNDS FOR THIS ADVANCE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS NIL. I THE REFORE FIND THAT NO INTEREST CAN BE DISALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE DEBIT BALANCES APPEARING AGAINST THE NAMES OF GMMCO LTD, JALARAM GINNING FACTORY AND RATILAL MANILAL. I THEREFORE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE INTEREST OF RS.13,90,526/ - WHICH WA S DISALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT A RATE OF 12% ON THESE BALANCES AND REDUCE THE TOTAL INCOME ACCORDINGLY. ITA 4 9 9 - 201 2 4 6.2 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER DISALLOWED INTEREST ON TOTAL ADVANCE OF RS.3,16,05,549/ - GIVEN BY APPELLANT TO SUPPLIERS IN A SIMILAR MANNER AS IN CASE OF ABOVE MENTIONED THREE PARTIES. APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,16,05,549/ - IS MADE UP OF ADVANCE TO SUPPLIERS OF RS.30201643/ - AND SUNDRY CREDITORS WITH DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.14,03,906. THE AMOUNT OF RS.13,00,000/ - TO GMMCO LIMITED, RS.92,87,717/ - TO JALARAM GINNING FACTORY AND RS.10,00,000/ - TO RATILAL MANILAL IS INCLUDED IN RS. ADVANCE TO SUPPLIER OF 3,02,01,643/ - . THEREFORE TO THIS EXTENT, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.13,90,526/ - OUT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.37,92,665/ - . THEREFORE, THE INTEREST OF RS.13,90,526/ - OUT OF RS.37,92,665/ - IS DIRECTED TO BE REDUCED FROM ANY DISALLOWANCE. THE BALANCE ADVANCES OR ADVANCES WITH SUNDRY CREDITORS ARE MOSTLY FROM THE SUPPLIER OF COTT ON BALES, WASH OIL, KAPAS ETC AND THE SMALL DEBIT BALANCE AT THE END OF THE YEAR WAS A NATURAL BALANCE OUT OF SUCH BUSINESS TRANSACTION. IN MANY OF SUCH CASES, THE BALANCE WAS ADJUSTED IN BILLS OF SUBSEQUENT YEAR. SOME OF THESE DEBIT BALANCE ARE RELATED TO DESIGN CONTRACT COMPLETED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR, PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR, AGENCY CHARGES FOR EXPORT, LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES, CLEARING AND FORWARDING CHARGES, EXPORT BROKERAGE AND SUCH BALANCES ARE NATURAL BALANCES OUT OF BUSINESS TRANSAC TIONS. SOME OF THESE DEBIT BALANCE ARE RELATED TO FABRICATION OF REFINERY, SUPPLY OF PART OF REFINERY MACHINERY, SUPPLY OF OIL MILL AND GIN PRESS, SUPPLY OF OIL TANKER, SUPPLY OF CEMENT SHEET, LIGNITE, TIN TO APPELLANT AND SUCH BALANCES ARE NATURAL BALANCE S OUT OF BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. THE ONLY TRANSACTIONS, WHICH REQUIRE SOME CONSIDERATION, ARE THE TRANSA C TIONS WITH SHREENATHJI COTTON INDUSTRIES AND OM TRADERS. IN CASE OF SHREENATHJI COTTON INDUSTRIES THERE IS A DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.1,85,48,291/ - . THERE AR E REGULAR FINANCIAL TRANSACTION OF APPELLANT WITH THIS PARTY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND APPELLANT HAS CHARGED INTEREST OF RS.13,35,544/ - FROM HIS PARTY ON THE DAY TODAY BALANCE AT A RATE OF 12% THEREFORE THE VERY BASIS OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON THIS DEBIT BALANCE FOR NOT CHARGING ANY INTEREST IS INCORRECT IN THIS CASE. ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE MADE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF THIS INTEREST CHARGED DEBIT BALANCE. THE OTHER PARTY, OM TRADERS WAS A CREDITOR OF RS.1,30,18,414 AT THE B EGINNING OF THE YEAR AND APPELLANT REPAID TO THIS PARTY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND NEAR THE END OF THE YEAR OVERPAID THE PARTY WHICH RESULTED IN DEBIT BALANCE. IN ANY CASE, APPELLANT HAS UTILIZED THE FUNDS OF THIS PARTY FREE OF COST FOR A LONGER DURATION IN THE YEAR THAN GIVING THE FUNDS FREE OF COST TO SUCH PARTY. THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON SUCH DEBIT BALANCE APPEARING AT THE END OF THE YEAR MAY BE MADE WHEN SUCH PARTY HAD SUPPLIED FUNDS FREE OF COST FOR SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD OF THE YEAR. THE OVE RALL ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO DEBIT BALANCE WHICH IS NOT ARISING OUT OF A BUSINESS TRANSACTION AND ON WHICH ANY INTEREST MAY BE DISALLOWED. I THEREFORE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE INTEREST OF RS.37,92,665/ - DISALLOWED BY HIM ON THE DEB IT BALANCE OF VARIOUS PARTIES. 7. FROM THE PERUSAL OF PARA - 6.1, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAD MOSTLY USED THE FUNDS OF THIS PARTY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND IT IS ONLY NEAR THE END OF THE YEAR, ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THIS PARTY WITH A LARGE AMOUNT DUE TO WHICH THERE WAS A CLOSING DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.92,87,717/. THIS QUESTION OF GIVING AWAY INTEREST FREE FUNDS TO THIS PARTY DOES NOT ARISE. FURTHER, THE ADVANCE OF RS.10,00,000/ - WAS GIVEN TO RATILAL MANILAL ON THE LAST DAY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR AND THERE W OULD BE NO INTEREST IMPLICATION BECAUSE THE TIME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS NIL. THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF FACTS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT ITA 4 9 9 - 201 2 5 (A) ARE NOT DISPUTED BY LD. DR. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN COGENT REASONS FO R DELETING THE ADVANCE OF RS. 13,90,526/ - . WE THEREFORE DECLINED TO INTERFER E . GROUND NO.1 IS REJECTED. 8. COMING TO THE GROUND NO.2, FROM THE FINDINGS OF FACTS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN PARAT - 6.2., IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE TOTAL ADVANCE OF RS.3,16,05, 549/ - WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THREE PARTIES. IN OTHER WORDS, AMOUNT OF RS.3,16,05,549/ - IS MADE UP OF ADVANCE TO SUPPLIERS OF RS.3,02,01,643/ - AND SUNDRY CREDITORS WITH DEBIT BALANCES OF RS.14,03,906/ - . THE AMOUNT OF RS.13,00,000/ - TO GMMCO LIMITE D. RS.92,87,717/ - TO JALRAM GINNING FACTORY AND RS.10,00,000/ - TO RATILAL MANILAL IS INCLUDED IN RS. ADVANCE TO SUPPLIER OF RS.3,02,01,643/ - . THEREFORE TO THIS EXTENT, AO MADE A TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.13,90,526/ - OUT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTER EST OF RS.37,92,665/ - . ON THESE BASES, THE LD. CIT (A) DIRECTED TO REDUCE THE DISALLOWANCE BY RS.13,90526/ - . THE BALANCE ADVANCE OR ADVANCES WITH SUNDRY ARE MOSTLY FROM THE SUPPLIER OF COTTON BALES, WASH OIL, KAPAS AND SMALL DEBIT BALANCE AT THE END OF TH E YEAR WHICH WERE NOTHING BUT BUSINESS TRANSACTION. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NARRATED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN PARA - 6.2 WHICH ARE NOT DISPUTED BY LD. DR, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ON DOUBT AND SUSPICION A ND LD. CIT (A) IS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY CORRECT IN DELETING THE SAME. GROUND NO.2 IS ALSO REJECTED. 9. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.3, WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES. IN RESPECT OF THIS ALSO, THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WERE FORWARDED TO THE AO FOR ITS COMMENTS AND AFTER CONSIDERING AOS COMMENTS AND COUNTER COMMENTS THEREON OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN PARA - 6 WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 6. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SUBMISSION S OF APPELLANT AND ASSESSING OFFICER. I FIND THAT APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED BROKER WISE PAYMENT OF BROKERAGE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. PAYMENT OF BROKERAGE ON PURCHASE OF RUT, I.E. FINISHED COTTON, IS A GENERALLY FOLLOWED PRACTICE PRACTICALLY BY ALL GIN NING UNITS AND APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED RUT/QASDI/COTTON BALES FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY FOR WHICH THE HELP OF BROKERS IS REQUIRED. SIMILARLY, COTTON BALES ARE EXPORTED OUTSIDE INDIA THROUGH THE BROKERS FOR WHICH BROKERS ARE REQUIRED AND FOR THAT REASON EXP ORT BROKERAGE IS PAID. I FIND THAT APPELLANT HAS GIVEN FULL DETAILS OF EACH ITA 4 9 9 - 201 2 6 BROKER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND SOME BROKERS DIRECTLY SUBMITTED THEIR CONFIRMATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DEDUCT ED THE TDS ALSO WHEREVER IT WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED. HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPROVED ANY SINGLE SUCH PAYMENT BY EITHER EXAMINING THE BROKER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ANY SUCH BROKER. NO DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE LEDGE ACCOUNT OF ANY SUCH BROKERS OR THE CONFIRMATION DIRECTLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM SOME OF THESE BROKERS. SIMILARLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT FROM THE LEDGE OF CASH DISCOUNT A ND TRADE DISCOUNT SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM. I THEREFORE FIND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF ALL SUCH EXPENSES, IE BROKERAGE, EXPORT BROKERAGE, TRADE DISCOUNT, CASH DISCOUNT IS AN AD HOC DISALLOWANCE AND HAS BEEN MADE ON A GUESS WORK INSTEAD OF FINDING ANY SPE CIFIC ERROR OR INCORRECT CLAIM. I THEREFORE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.9272684/ - DISALLOWED BY HIM ON AD HOC BASIS AND REDUCE THE TOTAL INCOME OF APPELLANT ACCORDINGLY. 10. THE LD. DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SERIOUS MISTA KE OR OBJECTION TO THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE CIT (A) EXCEPT POINTING OUT THAT THERE IS NO GUESS WORK AND ADHO C DISALLOWANCE WAS RIGHTLY MADE. IN OUR VIEW, ALL THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES DEDUCTED UNDER THE HEAD BROKERAGE, TRADE DISCOUNT/CASH DISCOUNT WERE A VAILABLE BEFORE THE AO AND AO COULD NOT POINT OUT A SINGLE ITEM OF DISALLOWABLE NATURE IN THE REMAND RE P ORT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN COGENT REASON FOR DELETING ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,27,268/ - . GROUND NO.3 IS ALSO REJEC TED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. THIS O RDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OP EN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD/ - SD/ - ( . . D D. K. SRIVASTAVA ) ( . . R / T. K. SHARMA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ORDER DATE 31 - 07 - 2013. /RAJKOT NVA/ - 7 DRJO O / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1 . S / APPELLANT - THE ASSISTANT C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX , CIR - 2 , RAJKOT. 2 . S / RESPONDENT - M/S. JALARAM COTEX, AHMEDABAD HIGHWAY, JASDAN, DIST: RAJKOT. 3 . / CONCERNED CIT - I I , RAJKOT. 4 . - / CIT (A) - I II , RAJKOT. . 5 . 1 , , / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6 . R / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER TRUE COPY. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, RAJKOT .