Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax-V, Lucknow V. M/s District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Barabanki

ITA 55/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0720 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R R N SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: B P YADAV COST ACCOUNTANT
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 144; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.55/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 DCIT RANGE V LUCKNOW V. M/S DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. FAIZABAD ROAD BARABANKI TAN/PAN:AAAAD2777N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.68/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 M/S DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. FAIZABAD ROAD BARABANKI V. DCIT RANGE V LUCKNOW TAN/PAN:AAAAD2777N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI. R. R. N. SHUKLA, D.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. B. P. YADAV, COST ACCOUNTANT DATE OF HEARING: 14 07 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 07 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 ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, WE HEARD THESE APPEALS TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. WE, HOWEVER, PREFER TO ADJUDICATE THESE APPEALS ONE AFTER THE OTHER. :- 2 -: I.T.A. NO. 68/LKW/2014: BY THE ASSESSEE: 3. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), INTER ALIA, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-LL, LUCKNOW (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE LD. CIT-A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE PROFIT OF RS.2,86,25,894/-WAS INCLUSIVE OF REVERSAL OF NPA PROVISIONS OF RS.2,01,97,000/-INITIALLY MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN A.Y, 2004-2005 AND 2006-2007 RESPECTIVELY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE PROFIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS,2,01,97,000/- WAS ONLY THE BOOK ENTRY AND NOT THE ACTUAL PROFIT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,23,207/- OUT OF TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,46,413/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS A BANK AND ALL THE EXPENSES DEBITED TO ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ARE DULY SUPPORTED WITH PROPER BILLS/ VOUCHERS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETELY FAILED TO BRING ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS TO SUPPORT HIS ACTION. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,58,538/-OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.3,53,36,493/- MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT PROVIDING THE APPELLANT REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE ITS SAY AND TO MAKE COMPLIANCES OF THE REASONS BEING RELIED UPON BY HIM IN MAKING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. :- 3 -: 4. THROUGH GROUND NO.1, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED IN SHORT THE ACT') WAS CHALLENGED, BUT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE INCORRECTNESS IN THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. WE, HOWEVER, HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND WE FIND THAT THE REQUISITE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM, THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS APPROVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL NO DEFECT WAS POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) APPROVING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. 5. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.2, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES PROFIT WAS INCLUSIVE OF RS.1,11,71,000/- AND 90,26,000/-. THESE AMOUNTS WERE ADDED BACK TO THE PROFIT OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF REVERSAL OF NPA PROVISIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2006-07. THESE AMOUNTS WERE DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REVERSAL OF NPA PROVISIONS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2006-07. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE RECORDS OF EARLIER YEARS AND NOTICED THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 THE PROVISIONS FOR NPA AND PROVISION FOR EVOLVE INTEREST WHICH WERE SHOWN AT RS.1,10,34,000/- AND RS.3,46,10,000/- RESPECTIVELY WERE DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ADDED BACK TO HIS RETURNED LOSS (AS PER HIS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT) OF RS.47,25,78,21,082/- REDUCING THE TOTAL LOSS TO RS.16,13,821/-. IT WAS FURTHER NOTICED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADJUSTED THIS FIGURE AMOUNTING TO RS.4,56,44,000/- (1,10,34,000 + 3,46,10,000) BY FURTHER CREDITING IT TO THE :- 4 -: PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD REVERSAL OF NPA PROVISION IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS:- A.Y AS PER ASSESSEE AS PER RECORD 2007-08 42,77,000 42,77,000 2008-09 18,33,000 18,33,000 2009-10 2,83,63,000 2,83,34,000 2010-11 1,11,71,000 (A.Y. 2004-05)+90,26,000 (A.Y. 2006-07) 1,11,71,000 (A.Y 2004-05)+90,26,000 (A.Y 2006--07) TOTAL TILL 2010-11 4,56,44,000 (A.Y. 2004-05) + 90,26,000 (A.Y. 2006-07) 4,56,15,000 (A.Y.2004-05 + 90,26,000 (A.Y.2006-07) 6. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED RS.1,05,08,000/- UNDER THE HEAD REVERSAL FOR PROVISION OF OVERDUE INTEREST AND RS.1,78,26,000/- UNDER THE HEAD REVERSAL FOR PROVISION OF NPA LOAN. THE TOTAL OF THESE COME TO RS.2,83,34,000/-. THUS THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.59,000/- LESS CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THESE HEADS IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AN AMOUNT OF RS.18,33,000/- IS CREDITED UNDER THE HEAD OTHERS (REVERSAL OF EXCESS FOR PROVISION OF NPA) AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.42,77,000/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED RS.2,01,97,000/- (RS.1,49,40,000 + RS.52,57,000) UNDER THE HEAD REVERSAL OF PROVISION OF NPA (INTEREST, ETC.). THIS AMOUNT IS INCLUSIVE OF RS.1,11,71,000/- (PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) AND RS.90,26,000/- (PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07). RS.90.26 LAKHS IS PART OF RS.3,85,39,000/- WHICH WAS DISALLOWED UNDER THE HEAD PROVISION OF OVER DUES INTEREST AND PROVISION FOR NPA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 7. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENTED THAT THE NET PROFIT OF RS 2,86,25,894/- IS INCLUSIVE OF NPA REVERSAL WHICH HAS BEEN ALREADY TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE :- 5 -: ASSESSEE, WAS NEVER MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE APPLICATION U/S 154 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 27.02.2013. THE NPA REVERSAL HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE A.Y. 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 (AS PER CHART ANNEXED WITH HIS APPLICATION) AND IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS MENTIONED ABOVE THE CASE HAS BEEN ASSESSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). BUT SURPRISINGLY IN NONE OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE FACT THAT IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE PROFIT AS SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE REVERSAL OF NPA AS SUCH. 8. ON ACCOUNT OF OBJECTION RAISED BY THE AUDITOR TO SQUARE UP THE PROVISIONS SO MADE BASICALLY IN LIGHT OF DISALLOWANCES OF THE SAME BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE TOOK THESE PROVISIONS AGAIN IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND NOW THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.3,89,89,000/- WAS TAKEN INTO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. BECAUSE OF THE MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE PERSONS FILING THE RETURN, NO DEDUCTION COULD HAVE BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE LD. CIT(A), RE-EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL AND HAS FINALLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FREE TO ALLOW LOSS TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER REVISING THE ASSESSED LOSS IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2006-07 AFTER CARRYING OUT PROPER VERIFICATION FOR RELEVANT ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, INSTEAD OF GIVING A PROPER DIRECTION TO RE-COMPUTE THE INCOME KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS FOR REVERSAL ENTRIES INITIALLY MADE IN EARLIER YEARS. 10. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR EARLIER YEARS AND DURING THE COURSE OF :- 6 -: HEARING THE LD. D.R. HAS ALSO AGREED THAT LET THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION OF FACTS. 11. IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO ASSESS PROPER INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE EVENTS OF EARLIER YEARS SHOULD BE KEPT IN MIND WHILE COMPUTING THE REAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF NPA IN EARLIER YEARS, THE SAID FACTS REQUIRE A PROPER VERIFICATION. WE ACCORDINGLY MODIFY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDERS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2006-07. 12. APROPOS GROUND NO.3, IT IS NOTICED THAT FOR WANT OF PRODUCTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND VERIFICATION OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF THE EXPENSES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AD HOC ADDITION OF RS.2,46,413/- ON ACCOUNT OF POSSIBLE LEAKAGE. 13. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REDUCED THE SAME TO RS.1,23,207/-. 14. THE ASSESSEE IS STILL AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAID AD HOC ADDITION AND HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHILE MAKING THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE WHEREAS THE LD. D.R. HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PRODUCTION OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OF THESE EXPENSES WHICH WAS REDUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO 10%. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY IT AND AD HOC DISALLOWANCE DESERVES TO BE MADE. 15. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED :- 7 -: EXPENSES AT RS.12,32,067/- BUT IT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OF THE TOTAL CLAIM WHICH WAS REDUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO 10%. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENSES, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A). 16. APROPOS GROUND NO.4, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.3,55,95,031/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX ON INTEREST DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BY OBSERVING THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE HIM. 17. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AND FURNISH DETAILS AS TO HOW PROVISIONS OF TDS ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN ITS CASE. IN RESPONSE THERETO THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN REPLY DATED 24.7.2013 ON WHICH COMMENTS WERE CALLED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE HIS COMMENTS VIDE LETTER DATED 1.10.2013. THE LD. CIT(A) EXAMINED THE REPLY AND COUNTER-COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A BANKER AND THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST OF RS.3,55,95,031/- PERTAINING TO DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS/DEPOSITORS SHOULD BE VERIFIED ON THE POINT DEDUCTION OF TDS. HE ACCORDINGLY, IN ORDER TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THIS PAYMENT OF INTEREST WAS IN EXCESS OF 10,000/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAIL SHOWING PAYMENT OF INTEREST EXCEEDING RS.10,000/- AND FORM 15H RECEIVED FROM THE ACCOUNT HOLDERS. THE SAME WAS EXAMINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT DETAILS OF TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS.25,96,245/- IS IN EXCESS OF RS.10,000/- ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF TDS. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED FORM 15H AGAINST VARIOUS PAYMENT OF INTEREST OF AGGREGATING RS.23,37,702/-. THOUGH THE LD. :- 8 -: CIT(A) HAS ALSO RECORDED IN HIS ORDER THAT FORM 15H ARE PLACED ON RECORD, ON WHICH COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SOUGHT. 18. BEING AGGEED WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT OUT OF TOTAL PAYMENT OF INTEREST OF RS.3,55,95,031/-, PAYMENTS IN EXCESS OF RS.10,000/- HAVE BEEN ONLY OF RS.25,96,245/- AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED FORM 15H OF AGGREGATING RS.23,37,707/-. THUS THERE IS A PAYMENT OF INTEREST OF RS.2,58,538/- WHICH ATTRACTS THE PROVISION OF TDS. HE ACCORDINGLY RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.2,58,538/-. 19. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 20. THE LD. D.R. HAS CONTENDED THAT THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RECORDED IN HIS ORDER THAT FORM 15H ARE PLACED ON RECORD, BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD WITH REGARD TO THE FILING OF FORM 15H BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE COMMENTS SOUGHT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. D.R. HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SINCE FORM 15H FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WERE NOT VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO FORM 15H RELATING TO PAYMENT OF INTEREST OF RS.23,37,707/-. THOUGH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR BUT HE COULD NOT JUSTIFY AS TO WHY TDS IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED ON PAYMENT OF RS.2,58,538/- FOR WHICH ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 21. HAVING EXAMINED THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL, WE FIND THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,58,538/- IS PROPER FOR WANT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 22. SO FAR AS DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.23,37,707/- ON ACCOUNT OF PRODUCTION OF FORM 15H IS CONCERNED, WE RAISED A SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHEN IT WAS FILED AND WHETHER ANY :- 9 -: COMMENTS WERE CALLED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), BUT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE BENCH. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE WITH REGARD TO PRODUCTION OF FORM 15H RELATING TO RS.23,37,707/- REQUIRES FRESH ADJUDICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE PRODUCTION OF FORM 15H AND AFTER MAKING VERIFICATION, DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT MAY BE RE-COMPUTED. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION IN OTHER APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 55/LKW/2014. ACCORDINGLY THESE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF. 23. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 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:24 TH JULY, 2015 JJ:1507 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR