ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Fox Mandal & Co., Noida

ITA 5309/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 82201 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARVINDER KAUR
• Keywords: Proportionate interest; Additional evidence; Revenue expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY : JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5309/DEL/2012 A.Y. 2009-10 ACIT, CIRCLE 37(1), VS. M/S FOX MANDAL & CO., NEW DELHI. A-9, SECTOR 9, NOIDA. PAN: AAAFF 0687 J ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SMT. PARVINDER KAUR SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.P. RASTOGI ADV. & SHRI DEEPAK MALIK ADV. DATE OF HEARING : 11-12-2014 DATE OF ORDER : 30-12-2014. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M:- THIS APPEAL, PREFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT, IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31-08-2012, PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) -XXVIII, NEW DELHI IN APPEAL NO. 224/2011-12 FOR A.Y. 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN ADVOCATES FIRM AND DERIVING E ARNING INCOME FROM PROFESSION. IT HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLA RING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,83,04,708/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AFTER M AKING FOLLOWING ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES: 2 ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF OUTSTANDING LIABILITY OF RS. 93,819/- OF M/S EVERSHED DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID TO THE BANK AMOUNTIN G TO RS. 1,08,67,588/-. DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15,03,129/- UNDER THE HEAD LOND ON RATES & TAXES. 3. THE CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON AC COUNT OF AMOUNT PAYABLE TO M/S EVERSHED AMOUNTING TO RS. 93, 819/- WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOU NTING. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AMOUN TING TO RS. 1,08,67,588/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST DISALLOWED OUT OF TOTAL INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 2,10,35,698/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE LOANS AVAILED B Y THE ASSESSEE WERE UTILIZED IN GIVING INTEREST FREE LOANS AND ADV ANCES TO RELATED PARTIES AND OTHERS. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON AC COUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST OUT OF TOTAL INTEREST EXPENSES SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH NECES SARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS W.R.T. LOANS AND ADVANCES INSPITE OF NUMEROUS OPPOR TUNITIES GIVEN TO HIM BY THE AO. 4. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON AC COUNT OF LONDON RATES AND TAXES TO RS. 1,50,312/- SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TH E COURSE OF 3 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INSPITE OF NUMEROUS OPPORTUN ITIES GIVEN TO HIM BY THE AO. 5. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON TH E BASIS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND BY NOT CALLING FOR ANY REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO IN UTTER DISREGARD TO THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S MANISH BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. (201 1-TIOL- 756-HC-DEL-IT) APPEAL NO. 928/2011. 6. THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 7. THE APPELLANT CAN CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY/ ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPEAL. 4. BRIEF FACTS APROPOS GROUND NO. 1 ARE THAT THE AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN ADVANCE FROM CLIENT OF RS. 95,44,055/-. H E REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHEN THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING WAS CASH, WHY THE ADVANCE FROM CLIENTS AND OTHER LIABILITIES SHOULD NOT BE AD DED TO THE INCOME. 5. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE W AS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THEREFORE, IT WAS DECLARING I TS INCOME ON RECEIPT BASIS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT OUT OF RS. 95 ,44,055/-, RS. 68,08,701/- WAS ADJUSTED AS PROFESSIONAL FEES, AS RECEIVED FROM M/S PEAK CHEMICALS DURING AY 2010-11 AND IN CASE OF M/S EVERSHED (CLIE NT), AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF VARIOUS EXPENDITURE/ FEES BALANCE OF RS. 93,813/- W AS PAYABLE ON 31-3-2010. 4 THE AO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, MA DE ADDITION OF RS. 93,819/-. 6. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE, INTER ALIA, POI NTED OUT THAT THE RECEIPT OF OUTSTANDING BALANCE HAD BEEN CLEARED OFF ON 12-1 -2012 AS PROFESSIONAL FEES. 7. LD. CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASESSEES SUBM ISSIONS, ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TOWARDS PROFESSIONAL FEES ON 12-1 -2012 AS PER THE REGULAR METHOD OF ACCOUNTING EMPLOYED BY ASSESSEE. THE NATU RE OF ASSESSEES PROFESSION IS SUCH WHERE THE FEES CAN BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ACTUAL SERVICES ARE RENDERED AND TILL THEN THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IS TO BE TREATED AS ADVANCE TOWARDS PROFESSIONAL FEES IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER O F CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. THE ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT DATED 11-1- 2008, IN ASESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2003-04 RENDER ED IN ITA NO.3377/DEL/2006, WHEREIN IN PARA 3, THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMI SSIONS AVAILABLE BEFORE US. THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 1 ,22,04,9601- AS ADVANCES FROM CLIENTS , OUT OF WHICH A SUM OF RS. 1,65,0001- WAS ADJUSTED TOWARDS INCOME FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED IN THIS YEAR. . IT WAS POINTE D OUT THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS ADJUSTED AS INCOME IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR TO WHICH THERE IS NO REBUTTAL FROM THE REVENUE. IN VIE W OF THIS FACT, WE TEND TO AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TAKEN BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT BRINGING TO TAX THE IMPU GNED AMOUNT IN THIS' YEAR WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION OF TH E SAME INCOME IN DIFFERENT YEARS. WE ALSO FIND THAT VARIOU S CASES CITED BY THE LEARNED OR ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN THE CASE OF TAPARIA TOOLS LTD. (SUPRA), THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE DEDUCTION OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE, DEBITED IN THE BOOKS IN ONE YEAR. THE COURT HELD THAT SINCE THE BENEFIT. OF THE DEBENTURES WAS AVAILABLE FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS , THE UP FRONT INTEREST WAS TO BE ALLOWED IN FIVE YEARS AND NOT IN 'ONE YEAR, THE CASE DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE DETERMINATION WHETH ER ANY PARTICULAR RECEIPT WAS AN ADVANCE OR INCOME. IN THE CASE OF T.V. SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS LTD. (SUPRA), THE ASS ESSEE HAD CREDITED UNCLAIMED ADVANCES TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUN T, WHICH HAD OTHERWISE BECOME TIME BARRED BY EFFLUX OF TIME. THE COURT HELD THAT THE AMOUNT WAS INCOME ON COMMONSENSE . VI EW AS THE PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS ITS ASSETS INCRE ASED BY THE CORRESPONDING AMOUNT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AMOU NTS HAVE NOT BECOME TIME BARRED BY LIMITATION AND OVER AND A BOVE THAT THE AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN WRITTEN BACK TO PROFIT. AN D LOSS ACCOUNT. IN THE CASE OF MORVI INDUSTRIES (SUPRA), T HE QUESTION WAS ABOUT DEDUCTIBILITY OF AN AMOUNT WHICH HAD ACCR UED AS INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF AGENCY COMMISSIO N. THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT UNILATERAL RELINQUISHMENT TH EREOF DID NOT AMOUNT TO EXPENDITURE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE H AS BEEN NO UNILATERAL RELINQUISHMENT OF ANY INCOME BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE QUESTION IN THE CASE OF GUDUTHUR BROS. (SUPRA) WAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT, NAMELY. WHETHER A NOTICE U/S 28(1)(A) AB ATED AFTER 6 THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SET A SIDE BY THE AAC. THUS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NONE OF THE CASE S CITED BY THE LEARNED DR HAVE ANY BEARING ON DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE AT HAND. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE VIPIN MALIK AND OTH ERS, . DATED 25.6.2007' WHICH WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE CONSOLIDATE D ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN . ITA NO. 742(DEL)/2005 IN THE CASE OF LD. D .R. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, DEALS DIRECTLY WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND. IN THAT CASE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ADVANCE S RECEIVED WERE HELD IN TRUST IN A FIDUCIARY CAPACITY AND IT W ILL BECOME INCOME ONLY WHEN BILL IS RAISED FOR THE SERVICES RE NDERED. IT MAY ALSO BE MENTIONED THAT THE AO. HAS NOT SHOWN EV EN IN A PRIMA-FACIE MANNER THAT THE ADVANCES WERE IN THE NA TURE OF INCOME. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS CITA TION AND KEEPING IN MIND THE FACT THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT W AS ADJUSTED AS INCOME III SUBSEQUENT YEAR AS INCOME, T HE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED ON THESE GROUNDS. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE GROUND TAKE N BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. APROPOS GROUND NOS. 2 & 3, BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED BANK CHARGES OF RS. 2,10,35,69 8/-. THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT DETAILS OF LOANS AND ADVANCE S AND TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH LOANS AND ADVANCES WITH PROPER DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, SINCE NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED, THE AO RE QUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY PROPORTIONATE INTEREST EXPENDITUR E BE NOT DISALLOWED. HE OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS INCREASE IN LOAN AND INTERE ST CHARGES AND 7 SIMULTANEOUSLY THERE WAS INCREASE IN INTEREST FREE ADVANCE AND INVESTMENT IN LITTLE & CO., AS UNDER: AS ON 31-03-2009 AS ON 31-03-2008 ADVANCES 3,24,54,341 1,62,95,144 LITTLE & CO. 5,81,08,891 4,56,08,891 TOTAL 9,05,63,232 6,19,04,035 AS ON 31-03-2009 AS ON 31-03-2008 LOAN 10,62,04,547 8,36,99,113 INTEREST 2,10,35,698 1,34,29,295 11. FROM THE ABOVE CHART, THE AO POINTED OUT THAT A SSESSEE HAD INVESTED HEAVILY IN THE LITTLE & CO. WHICH WAS A RELATED PAR TY. CONSIDERING VARIOUS CASE LAWS, THE AO COMPUTED THE DISALLOWABLE INTERES T @ 12% ON ADVANCE OF RS. 9,05,63,232/-, WHICH AGGREGATED TO RS. 1,08,67, 588/-. 12. BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ADVANCE AS LOAN TO M/S LITTLE & CO., BUT THE S AME WAS IN THE FORM OF ADVANCE TO ENTER INTO PARTNERSHIP WITH A SHARE OF 4 5% IN PROFIT AND LOSS OF THE FIRM M/S LITTLE & CO., WHICH WAS DULY ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AT PAN AAAFL 1699. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT SINCE T HE INCEPTION OF THIS PARTNERSHIP FIRM, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY PROFIT OR LOSS, WHICH RESULTED INTO DISPUTE AMONGST THE PARTNERS, WHICH D ISPUTE HAD GONE BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND SETTLED ON CERTAIN TE RMS AND CONDITIONS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER, INTER ALIA, SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 8 SUBSEQUENTLY HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SETTLE D ALL THE DISPUTE UNDER TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 158 OF 2012 AND TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 53 OF 2012, VIDE O RDER DATED 08-02-2012. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA WAS PLEASED TO A WARD A SUM OF RS. 8.5 CRORE IN INSTALLMENT AS AGAINST RS. 5,81,08,891/- IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT WHEREIN THE PAYABLE PAYM ENTS FALLS DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-12 AND 2013-14 RESP ECTIVELY. DETAILS OF INSTALLMENT OF PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN ORDERE D TO BE MADE TO THE APPELLANT AS UNDER:- RS. 6 CRORE ON OR BEFORE 27-02-2012 RS. 1 CRORE ON OR BEFORE 01-04-2012 RS. 1.5 CRORE ON OR BEFORE 01-06-2012 ALL THESE INSTALLMENTS GRANTED BY HONBLE SUPREME C OURT HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS REVENUE RECEIPT FOR TAX PURPOSES DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND 2013-14. 13. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN THE AC COUNT OF M/S LITTLE & CO., THERE HAD BEEN AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,25,00,000/ - DURING THE YEAR BUT AO HAD CONSIDERED THE WHOLE OF THE ADVANCE AMOUNT, INC LUDING CARRY FORWARD BALANCE AS INTEREST FREE LOAN. LD. CIT(A) DELETED T HE ADDITION. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 14. LD. DR REFERRED TO PAGES 3 TO 7 OF THE ASSESSME NT ORDER AND POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE RELEVANT DE TAILS BEFORE THE AO. LD. CIT(A) ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND WITHOUT CALLING FOR A REMAND REPORT, ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. 9 15. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASS ESSEE IS PARTNER IN LITTLE & CO. SINCE 19-5-2006 AND THE PARTNERSHIP DEED IS C ONTAINED AT PAGE 1 OF THE PB. HE POINTED OUT THAT DISALLOWANCE HAD BEEN MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME. 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND P ERUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. IN OUR OPINION LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND HAS ONLY CONSIDERED THE ASS ESSES PLEA REGARDING INVESTMENT IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S LITTLE & CO. , MUMBAI, WHICH WAS NOT MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT HAD BEEN C ONTINUING SINCE 19-5- 2006. THE PARTNERSHIP DEED IS CONTAINED AT PAGE 1 O F THE PB, WHICH WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE OTHER DOCUMENT WHICH W AS FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WAS THE COPY OF TRANSFER PETITION (C. NO. 1 58/2012 AND TRANSFER PETITION (C. NO. 53/2012) VIDE ORDER DATED 8-2-2012 . THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FILED ONLY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE COMPENSATION REC EIVED AS PER THE ORDER OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT WAS INCLUDED IN ASSESSEES I NCOME IN AY 2012-13 AND 2013-14 AS PER THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF COMPENSAT ION. THIS PETITION ONLY FURTHER SUPPORTS ASSESSEES CONTENTION REGARDING I NVESTMENT IN M/S LITTLE & CO. 17. ADMITTEDLY, THE INVESTMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE IN M/S LITTLE & CO., MUMBAI WAS ON ACCOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL CONSIDERATION S INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED 45% SHARE IN PROFIT & LOSS AC COUNT OF THE FIRM M/S 10 LITTLE & CO., MUMBAI. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OUTSTAN DING AGAINST THE SAID FIRM COULD NOT BE TREATED AS INTEREST FREE LOAN CAL LING FOR ANY DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS. IT WAS PURE AND SI MPLE PROFESSIONAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN TWO FIRMS AND, THEREFORE, THE A MOUNT OUTSTANDING AGAINST M/S. LITTLE & CO. WAS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF CO MMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY PARTICULARLY WHEN A DISPUTE HAD CROPPED UP BETWEEN THE TWO FIRMS, WHICH GOT FINALLY SETTLED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT WITH T HE AWARD OF A SUM OF RS. 8.5 CRORES IN INSTALLMENTS AS NOTED EARLIER. THE DE CISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SA BUILDERS IS SQUARELY APPLIC ABLE TO THE PRESENT SET OF FACTS, WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INT ERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). GROUND IS DISMISSED. 18. APROPOS GROUND NO. 4, BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT ASS ESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 15,03,129/- UNDER THE HEAD LOND ON RATES & TAXES. THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF L ONDON HSBC LOAN AS TO HOW IT WAS RELATED TO PROFESSION AND HOW IT HAD BEE N WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY UTILIZED FOR PROFESSION. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT T HAT IN ORDER TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY, THE ASSESSEE HAD ES TABLISHED AN OFFICE AT 5, ARCHERY STEPS ST. GEORGES FIELD, LONDON, U.K. THER EFORE, TO MAINTAIN AND RUN THE OFFICE SMOOTHLY AT LONDON IT HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM HSBC BANK. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THESE EXPENSES HA D BEEN INCURRED FOR 11 ORGANIZING VARIOUS TYPES OF SEMINARS, MEETINGS AN D CONFERENCES BY INVITING SENIOR LAWYERS, SOLICITORS AND SPECIALIZED PERSONS , WORKING IN DIFFERENT FIELDS OF LAW TO PROMOTE THE SCOPE OF PROFESSION. T HE AO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, ADDED BACK RS. 15,03,129/- I N THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, INTER ALIA, OBSERVING AS UNDER: ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED A SINGLE DOCUMENT WH ICH CAN JUSTIFY THESE EXPENSES. EVEN COUNSEL DID NOT PROVID E THE BREAK UP OF THE EXPENSES. GENUINENESS OF THIS EXPENSE CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED. ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN ENOUGH OPPORTUNITY AND TIME AS ALREADY STATED IN PARA 4.2 BUT ASSESSEE DID NOT MAK E ANY SUBMISSION. GENUINENESS F THIS EXPENSE CANNOT BE AC CEPTED NOR IT CAN BE ACCEPTED THAT THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN IN CURRED WHOLLY & EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THIS EXPENSE OF RS. 15,03,129/- IS BEING DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME. 19. LD. CIT(A) TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE AMO UNT HAD BEEN SPENT THROUGH BANK ACCOUNT AND FURTHER TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED RELEVANT DETAILS BEFORE AO, SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF 1/10 TH OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO I.E. RS. 1,50 ,312/-. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 20. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTE D EVEN SINGLE DOCUMENT WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THESE EXPENSES. EVEN T HE BREAK UP OF EXPENSES HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED. THEREFORE, GENUINENESS OF TH ESE EXPENSES ALSO COULD NOT BE EXAMINED BY AO. HE RELIED ON AOS ORDER. 12 21. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BEF ORE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE REITERATED ITS SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO FILED NECESSARY VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES AGGREGATING TO $ 24927.03 EQUIVALE NT TO RS. 14,95,621/- INCURRED ON LONDON MEET. LD. CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AFTER CONSIDERING ALL DETAILS. HE RELIED ON THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A). 22. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND P ERUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED T HE NECESSARY VOUCHERS BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CA LLED FOR A REMAND REPORT BEFORE CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. WE, THEREF ORE, RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE DE NOVO AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VOUCHERS FILED BY ASSESSEE WHICH ARE DETAILED A T PAGES 33 TO 35 OF THE PB. 23. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30-12-2014. SD/- SD/- ( A.T. VARKEY ) ( S.V. MEHROTRA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: ____30-12-2014. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR