ACIT, Cir.8, Pune, Pune V. Bilcare Ltd., Pune

ITA 538/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85297 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B C MALAKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL PATHAK
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business expenditure; Non-deduction of tax; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.538/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 8, PUNE . APPELLANT VS. BILCARE LTD., GAT NO.1028/1, AT VILLAGE SHIROLI, TAL KHED, PUNE PAN: AABCB2242F . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.C. MALAKAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUNIL PATHAK DATE OF HEARING : 11-12-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18-12-2014 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CI T(A)-V, PUNE DATED 14.12.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1(A) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID OF RS.6,24,194/- BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE FOR WANT OF DETAILS SUCH AS ADDRESS, BILLS ETC? (B) FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT BILLS WERE PRODUCED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT REMANDING THE MATTER T O THE A.O. FOR VERIFICATION OF THE CLAIM AND WITHOUT GIV ING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE A.O, IN THIS MATTER. 2(A) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE PAYMENTS MA DE TO FOUNDATION FOR LIBERAL MANAGEMENT OF RS.7,10,000/- ITA NO.538/PN/2012 BILCARE LTD 2 WITHOUT GIVING ANY CATEGORICAL FINDING ON THE NATURE OF THE EXPENSES. (B) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE ABOVE CLAIM WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE CONTRADICTORY CLAIM OF ASSESS EE MADE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BE ING 'ADV. DESIGNING CHARGES' AND CONDUCT OF WORKSHOP FOR EMPLOYEES IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. (C) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE PAYMENTS MA DE TO MAKINSEY & CO. OF RS.2,49,33,151/- FOR OBTAINING STRATEGIC BUSINESS ADVICE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. (D) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE ABOVE CLAIM IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ITSELF SUBMIT TED THAT THE STRATEGIC BUSINESS REPORT WAS FOR FUTURE GROWTH AND EXPANSION OF BUSINESS WHICH IS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND, THEREFORE, NOT ALLOWABLE (E) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE PAYMENTS MA DE TO ELEPHANT DESIGN OF RS.9,52,681/- BY RELYING ON THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FACTUAL CORRECTNESS OF THE EXPENSES AND WITHOUT PROV IDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE? (F) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE PAYMENTS MA DE TO A.C. NEILSON OF RS.6,76,200/- BY RELYING ON THE, SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FACTUAL CORRECTNESS OF THE EXPENSES AND WITHOUT PROV IDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE? 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE ISSUE IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1(A) AND (B) RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE MADE ON AC COUNT OF COMMISSION PAID OF RS.6,24,194/-. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF PAPER TUBES, PVDC FILMS, ETC. FOR THE USE O F PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION, THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID COMMISSION OF RS.12,79,533/- FOR DOMESTIC SALES ITA NO.538/PN/2012 BILCARE LTD 3 AND RS.28,65,038/- FOR EXPORT SALES. THE DETAILS OF DOMESTIC SALES AND EXPORT SALES ARE ANNEXED IN ANNEXURE L-I AND L-II OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED FROM THE ANNEXURE L- II THAT TDS FROM PARTIES GIVEN AT SERIAL NO.1 TO 7 HAD NOT BEEN DEDUC TED. FURTHER, FULL ADDRESSES OF THE SAID PARTIES WERE ALSO NOT GIVEN. THU S, THE COMMISSION PAID TO PARTIES NOS.1 AND 2 WERE DISALLOWED FOR WANT OF DETAILS SUCH AS ADDRESSES, BILLS AND THE COMMISSION PAID TO PARTIES NOS.3 TO 7 WERE DISALLOWED FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SO URCE, IN VIEW OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.28,65,036/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE CIT(A) VIDE PARAS 13 AND 14 AT PAGES 13 AND 14 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,2 4,194/- I.E. PARTIES 1 AND 2 WHOSE ADDRESSES WERE NOT GIVEN AND EVEN THE BILL WAS NOT FILED, AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSES SEE CLAIMED TO HAVE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND EVEN THE BILLS WERE PRODUCED IN WHICH THE ADDRESSES OF TH E TWO PARTIES WERE CLEARLY MENTIONED. FURTHER, THE PAN NUMBER OF BOTH THE PARTIES WAS SUBMITTED AND EVEN THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY CHE QUES. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE PAN NUMBER OF THE TWO PARTIES, PRODUCED THE BILLS AND THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY CHEQUE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE CONDUCTED MORE ENQUIRIES AND ASKED FOR MORE DETAILS. HOWEVER, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DELETED AS THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR DIS ALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAYMENT. 6. SHRI B.C. MALAKAR APPEARED FOR REVENUE AND SHRI SUNIL P ATHAK APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE AND PUT FORWARD THEIR CONTENTIONS. ITA NO.538/PN/2012 BILCARE LTD 4 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD PAID COMMISSION TO VARIOUS PERSONS BOTH ON ACCOUNTS OF DOMESTIC SALES AN D EXPORT SALES. OUT OF THE COMMISSION PAID ON EXPORT SALES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED COMMISSION TOTALING RS.6,24,194/- W HICH COMPRISED OF COMMISSION OF RS.5,62,294/- PAID TO DR. JABEEN A ND RS.61,900/- PAID TO B.N. OVERSEAS TRADING. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ON RECORD THE COPIES OF THE BILLS ISSUED BY THE R ESPECTIVE PARTIES AND THEIR LEDGER ACCOUNTS AND ALSO HAS STATED T HAT TDS WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE OUT OF SUCH COMMISSION PAYMENTS. TH E PERUSAL OF THE BILLS ISSUED BY DR. JABEEN PLACED AT PAGES 22 TO 33 O F THE PAPER BOOK CLEARLY REFLECTS THE ADDRESS OF THE SAID PARTY. SIMILA RLY, THE BILL ISSUED BY B.N. OVERSEAS TRADING IS PLACED AT PAGE 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH, THE ADDRESS OF THE SAID PARTY AT MUMBAI IS CLEARLY MENTIONED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED SERVICE TAX AND TDS OUT OF SAID PAYMENTS AND EVEN THE PAN NUMBERS OF THE S AID PARTIES WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE TOTALIT Y OF THE ABOVE SAID EVIDENCE HAVING BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) AND WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1(A) AND (B) RAISED BY THE REVENUE, WHICH IS DISMISSED. 8. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AG AINST THE DELETION OF VARIOUS EXPENDITURES INCURRED BY ASSESSEE BOO KED UNDER THE HEAD LEGAL CHARGES. 9. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.5,84,05,611/- UNDER THE HEAD LEGA L AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND FURTHER SUM OF RS.48,03,087/- UNDE R THE HEAD PROFESSIONAL AND CONSULTANCY SERVICES. THE ASSESSE E WAS SHOW ITA NO.538/PN/2012 BILCARE LTD 5 CAUSED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY SINCE SOME OF THE SAID EXPEN SES APPARENTLY APPEARED TO BE CAPITAL IN NATURE, WHY THE S AME SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER THAT, NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE OUT OF EXPENSES IN ANY OF T HE EARLIER YEARS AND HENCE, THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED DURING THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT W AS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED THE FULL DETAILS OF THE LEGAL LUMINARIES AND ALSO WHETHER TDS WAS DEDUCTED OUT OF SUCH PAYMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD PAYMENTS TOTALING RS.3,84,52,297/- AS CAPITAL IN NATURE AS PER THE T ABULATION AT PAGE 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ONE SUCH PAYMENT WAS TO FOUND ATION FOR LIBERAL MANAGEMENT OF RS.7,10,000/-. BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SAID EXPEND ITURE WAS INCURRED AGAINST ADVOCATE DESIGNING CHARGES. HOWEVER, B EFORE THE CIT(A), THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR CONDUCTING OF WORKSHOP FOR EMPLOYEES. THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAD HELD THE SAID EXPENDITURE BEING CAPITAL IN NATURE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 22.2 AT PAGE 25 OF THE APPELLATE ORD ER HELD THAT THE SAME WAS ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE, AFTER ACC EPTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS REPRODUCED AT PAGE 20 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER IN WHICH IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID TO THEM FOR CONDUCTING WORKSHOP FOR OUR EMPLOYEES AND NO ASSET WAS CREATED. 10. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD AND EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE FIND THAT THOUGH BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THE NATURE OF SE RVICES PROVIDED BY FOUNDATION FOR LIBERAL MANAGEMENT TO BE IN TH E LINE OF ADVOCATE DESIGNING CHARGES, BUT IN FACT THE SAID PAYMENT WAS MADE ITA NO.538/PN/2012 BILCARE LTD 6 AGAINST THE CONDUCT OF WORKSHOP FOR THE EMPLOYEES WHICH IS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF BUSINESS BEING CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE . THE EXPENDITURE BEING RELATABLE TO THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IS DULY ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND CONSEQUENTL Y, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2 (A) AND (B) RAISED BY T HE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2(A) AND (B) RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 11. IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2 (C) AND (D), THE REVENUE IS AG GRIEVED BY THE ALLOWANCE OF PAYMENT MADE TO MEKINSEY & CO. AT RS.2,49,33,151/-. THE SAID PAYMENT WAS ALSO BOOKED UNDER THE HEAD LEGAL CHARGES. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE SAID PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR STRATEGIC BUSINESS SERVICE, WHICH WAS HELD AS CAPITAL IN NATURE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS ENGA GED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF PHARMA PACKAGING MATERIAL AND HAD APPOINT ED MEKINSEY & CO. TO PROVIDE STRATEGIC BUSINESS ADVICE FOR FU TURE GROWTH OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID CONCERN WAS A LEADING ADVISORY FIRM IN THE WORLD AND THEIR INPUTS AND SUGG ESTIONS WERE IMPORTANT FOR THE MANAGEMENT. THE SERVICES RENDER ED BY THE MEKINSEY & CO. WERE ADVISORY IN NATURE AND IN THE FIELD OF FINANCE TO MARKETING AND ALSO FOR IMPROVEMENT IN TECHNOLOGY AND FO CUSING ON NEW EMERGING MARKETS. THE SAID REPORT WAS PRODUCED BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT NO CAPITAL ASSET WAS CREATED BY RECEIVING THE SAID SERVICES. IN VIEW THE REOF, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS DULY ALLOWABLE AS REV ENUE EXPENDITURE VIDE PARA 22.4 AT PAGE 27 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. ITA NO.538/PN/2012 BILCARE LTD 7 12. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVE NUE POINTED OUT THAT THE ADVISORY SERVICES PART TAKE THE CHARACT ER OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AS THE SAID SERVICES PROVIDE STRATEGIC GROWTH IN FUTUR E. 13. THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FO R THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SUBMISSIONS ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED THAT THE CONSULTING EXPERT S FOR IMPROVEMENT IN BUSINESS WAS A NORMAL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND GETTING BENEFITS FROM THEM DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS CREATING ANY CAPITAL ASSET. PAYMENTS MADE TO THE CONSU LTANTS DO NOT GIVE ANY ADVANTAGE IN THE CAPITAL FIELD AND HENCE, THE SAM E IS ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD P AID SUM OF RS.2,49,33,151/- AGAINST CONSULTATION FOR DEVELOPING BUSINESS STRAT EGY IN IMPROVING ITS BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF PHARMA PACKAGING AND CLAIMS TO BE A LEADI NG ENTITY IN ITS FIELD. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS TOWARDS PROFESSIO NAL FEES PAID FOR ASSESSMENT OF IMPROVEMENT IN TECHNOLOGY, FOCUSING O N EMERGING MARKET AND ALSO ADVISORY SERVICES IN THE FIELD OF F INANCE TO MARKETING. SUCH SERVICES PROVIDED BY M/S. MEKINSEY & CO. WERE PURELY ADVISORY WHICH MAY HELP THE ASSESSEE BOTH IN P RESENT AND IN FUTURE TO BETTER CONDUCT ITS BUSINESS. THE SAID CONCERN GAVE DETAILED REPORT GIVING THE STRATEGY FOR FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOP MENT OF THE COMPANY. SUCH PAYMENTS MADE FOR OBTAINING THE ADVISORY SERVICES CANNOT IN ANY MANNER BE SAID TO HAVE CREATED A CAPITAL ASSET. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. ITA NO.538/PN/2012 BILCARE LTD 8 15. SIMILAR ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CI T VS. M/S. CARBURANDUM UNIVERSAL LTD. IN TAX CASE (APPEAL NOS.36 2 & 363 OF 2008 VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 18.06.2008), WHEREIN SIMILAR CONS ULTANCY FEE PAID WAS HELD TO BE NOT CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, WHERE TH E ASSESSEE WITH THE INTENTION OF BRINGING OUT IMPROVEMENT IN THE WAY IT DID ITS BUSINESS HAD OBTAINED REPORT OF THE CONSULTANT AND FOR S UCH PURPOSES FEES PAID TO THE CONSULTANT WERE HELD TO BE REVENUE IN NATURE. FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH CO URT AND IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL NO.2(C) AND (D) RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 16. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE VIDE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2(E) WAS AGAINST THE DELETION OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS TO ELEPHANTS DESIGN OF RS.9,52,681/-. THE S AID EXPENDITURE WAS ALSO DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLD ING IT TO BE CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR IMAGE BUILDING. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID FOR TH E PURPOSES OF DESIGNING ANNUAL REPORT, LAYOUT REPORT, IMAGE MANIPULATION, ETC. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E VIDE PARA 22.11 AS THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR DESIGNING THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMPANY AND THE EXPENDITURE ON PRINTING A ND DESIGNING WAS HELD TO BE REVENUE IN NATURE. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE BILLS RAISED BY ELEPHANT DESIGN PVT. LTD. AT PAGES 45 TO 48 OF PAPER BOOK. THE FIRST BILL AT PAGE NO.45 IS CONSULTANCY FEES PAID FOR USER EXPERIENCE DESIGN OF RS.6,00,000/- AND FURTHER PAYMENTS H AVE BEEN MADE FOR DESIGNING AND ART WORK OF THE ANNUAL REPORTS INC LUDING DESIGN FEES OF RS.60,000/-. THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID BILLS REFLEC TS THE EXPENDITURE TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED BEING RELATABLE TO THE BUSINESS ITA NO.538/PN/2012 BILCARE LTD 9 CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS IN NATURE O F THE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE WAS THAT THERE WERE NO DETAILS OR PROOF FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REFLECTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HAVE DRAWN CHART AND BIFU RCATED THE CHARGES WHICH AS PER HIM, WERE CAPITAL IN NATURE. IN VIEW OF SAME, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2(E) RAISED BY THE REVENUE . 17. THE ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2(F) ALLOWING OF PAYMENT TO A.C. NEILSON OF RS.6,76,200/- IS SIMILAR TO THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2(E) RAISED BY THE REVENUE. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASO NING, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND OF APP EAL NO.2(F) RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 18 TH DECEMBER, 2014. GCVSR COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE DEPARTMENT; 2) THE ASSESSEE; 3) THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-V, PUNE; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PUNE