JASBIR SINGH CHANDOK, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 19(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5508/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83566 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 24-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JEEVANLAL LAVADIA
• Assessee Lawyers: BHAVIN B PAREKH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH J, MUMBAI !' , # $% & & & & , , $% ' BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. : 5508/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) SHRI JASBIR SINGH CHANDOK, C/O. B M PAREKH & CO, 3/203, NAVIJVAN SOCIETY, LAMINGTON ROAD, MUMBAI -400 008 %( # .: PAN: AAEPC 3233 F VS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 19(1)(3), 3 RD FLOOR, PIRMALA CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI -400 013 (+ (APPELLANT) ,-(+ (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI BHAVIN B PAREKH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JEEVANLAL LAVADIA ./0# /DATE OF HEARING : 24-07-2014 123 ./0#/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-08-2014 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 $ 5 O R D E R , . . . . . .. . PER VIVEK VARMA, J.M. : INSTANT APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A)-30, MUMBAI, DATED 24.07.2012, WHEREIN, THE F OLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS -30, MUMBAI, HE REINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FA CTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 5,08,595/- U/S 35(D) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE SAID ADDITION MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE FACTS OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADHOC EXPENSES OF 1,39,765/-. T HE SAID DISALLOWANCE IS ADHOC AND WITHOUT ANY REASONS AND W ITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. THE SA ID ADHOC DISALLOWANCE MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE FACTS OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADHOC EXPENSES OF 1,98,879/-. T HE SAID DISALLOWANCE IS ADHOC AND WITHOUT ANY REASONS AND W ITHOUT SHRI JASBIR SINGH CHANDOK ITA NO. 5508/MUM/2012 2 UNDERSTANDING THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. THE SA ID ADHOC DISALLOWANCE MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,69,992/- ON ACC OUNT OF IMPORT PROMOTION EXPENSES. THE SAID DISALLOWANCE MAY PLEAS E BE DELETED. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 49,701/- ON ACCOU NT OF DEPRECIATION. THE SAID DISALLOWANCE MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 6. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, MODIFY OR DROP THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. GROUND NO. 1 PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5,0 8,595/- BY INVOKING SECTION 35D. 3. THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL A ND PROPRIETOR OF M/S REEMAL INVESTRADE AND ONSTAGE MUSIC FACTORY. TH E ASSESSEE THROUGH ITS PROPRIETARY CONCERN IS ENGAGED IN THE B USINESS OF IMPORT AND SELLING IN WHOLE SALE, WESTERN MUSICAL INSTRUME NTS FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS. 4. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE TO OK OVER A TENANTED PREMISES AND INCURRED RS. 6,35,714/- FOR I TS REPAIRS. THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CALLED FOR EXPLANATIO N WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF EXPENSE AS REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLA INED THAT THOUGH THE EXPENSES INCURRED WERE OF ENDURING NATURE, BUT SINCE THE PREMISES DID NOT BELONG TO HIM, THE EXPENSE WAS CLAIMED AS R EVENUE. THE AO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THE SAM E TO BE DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENSE AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 35D, ALLOWED 20% OF THE EXPENSES TO BE CHARGED IN THE YEAR. 5. THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE CIT(A) AND REITERATE D THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO AND FURTHER SUBMITTE D, A) THE APPELLANT EXPLAINED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT WAS PREVIOUSLY INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS OF IMPORT OF MU SICAL INSTRUMENTS FROM OUTSIDE INDIA AND SALE OF THE SAME ON WHOLESALE BASIS TO CUSTOMERS IN INDIA. SHRI JASBIR SINGH CHANDOK ITA NO. 5508/MUM/2012 3 B) SENSING THE POTENTIONAL OF THE BUSINESS, THE APP ELLANT TOOK A BUSINESS DECISION OF OPENING A GOOD AND HIGH LEVEL OF RETAIL SHOP WHEREIN SUCH MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS MAY BE DISPLAYED A ND SOLD. YOUR HONOR SHALL APPRECIATE THAT THE TARGET CUSTOMERS FOR SUCH TRADE ARE THE YOUNG GENERATION F OR WHICH A CERTAIN LEVEL OF AMBIENCE IS REQUIRED TO ATTRACT SUCH CUSTOMERS. THIS WAS THE BUSINESS DECISION OF THE ASSESSEE BASED ON HIS PERCEPTION OF THE BUSINESS. THE ASSESS SEE INCURRED A SUM OF RS. 11,93,820/- (POINT NO. VI OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER) ON THE RENOVATION WHICH WAS CAPIT ALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE AND EXPENSES WHICH WERE TOWARDS CUR RENT REPAIRS WERE TREATED AS REVENUE AND CLAIMED AS REPA IRS IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. C) ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANT TOOK ON RENTAL BASIS A SHOP AT NOIDA IN NCR AND STARTED A SHOWROOM FOR HIS MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. D) THE REASONS FOR THE LOSS AND REASONS FOR REPAIRS WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE ATTENTION OF THE LD. A. O. VIDE L ETTER DATED 3RD DECEMBER, 2010, THE COPY OF THE SAID LETTER IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. FOR YOUR HONORS READY REFERENCE AND RECOR DS. E) YOUR HONOR, THE LD. AO HAS INVOKED THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 35D FOR AMORTIZATION OF THE SAID EXPENSES. THE LD. AO HAS NOT MENTIONED THE SECTION UNDER WHICH HE HAS DECIDE D BUT THE PARTICULARS OF HIS DECISION ARE AS PER THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 35D OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WHICH ALLOWS FOR DEFERMENT (AMORTISATION) OF EXPENSES AND CLAIMING T HE SAME EQUALLY FOR FIVE YEARS. F) YOUR HONOR THE SAID DISALLOWANCE U/ S. 35D IS ER RONEOUS AS THE SAID SECTION PRESCRIBES THE EXPENDITURE WHICH C AN BE AMORTISED UNDER THE SAID SECTION AND THE EXPENDITUR E INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE NAMELY REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE AND BUSINESS PROMOTION ARE NOT COVERED BY CLAUSE (2' OF THE SAID SECTION. G) YOUR HONOR, IT IS AN UNDISPUTABLE FACT THAT THE SAID PREMISES ARE RENTED. ALSO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCU RRED THE EXPENDITURE IS ACCEPTED BY THE OFFICER. YOUR HONOR SHALL APPRECIATE THAT SECTION 3 O (A)(II) ALLOWS THE EXPE NDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CURRENT REPAIRS OF THE SAID PREMISES. 6. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF T HE ASSESSEE, HELD, I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE A.O. IS QUITE JUSTIFIED IN AMOR TIZING THE EXPENSES UNDER S. 35(D) OF THE I.T. ACT GIVEN TH E ENDURING NATURE OF THE REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES. THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT WERE FOUND TO BE DISTINGUISHABLE. THEREFORE, THE DISALLO WANCE SO MADE BY THE AO IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. SHRI JASBIR SINGH CHANDOK ITA NO. 5508/MUM/2012 4 7. AGAINST THIS DECISION OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSE E IS BEFORE THE ITAT. 8. BEFORE US, THE AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT THE ISSUE PERTAINED TO DIS ALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES INCURRED FOR REPAIRS OF THE SHOWROOM, WHIC H WAS TENANTED PREMISES. 9. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ER RED IN INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 35D. 10. THE DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTH ORITIES. 11. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS TO SEE WHETHER THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 35D, AT ALL, COULD BE APPLICABLE ON THE ASSESSEE, W HERE THE ASSESSEE INCURS EXPENSES TO REPAIR THE PLACE OF HIS WORK. SE CTION 35D PERTAINS TO AMORTIZATION OF PRELIMINARY EXPENSES, WHERE THER E IS AN EXTENSION OF UNDERTAKING OR SETTING UP OF A NEW UNIT. 12. THE ASSESSEE, IN THE INSTANT CASE IS A WHOLESAL ER AND RETAILER OF MUSICAL GOODS, WHICH HE IMPORTS. THE ASSESSEE INCUR RED EXPENSES TO REPAIR THE PROPERTY/SHOWROOM TAKEN ON RENT. NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE IN THE EXTENSION OF HIS UN DERTAKING NOR HAS HE SET UP A NEW UNIT. WHAT WE FIND AS PER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE EXTRACTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THAT THE RENOVATION WORK UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 11,93,820/- HAD BEEN CAPITALIZED SUO MOTO . SINCE THE IMPUGNED EXPENSES ARE FOR THE PURPOSES OF REPAIRS ON RENTED PREMISES, THESE CANNOT, AT ALL BE SAID TO BE PRELIMINARY EXPENSES, ELIGIBLE FOR AMORTIZATION. 13. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE EXPENSE OF RS. 6,35,744/ -. SHRI JASBIR SINGH CHANDOK ITA NO. 5508/MUM/2012 5 14. GROUND NO. 1 IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. 15. GROUND NO. 2 PERTAINS TO AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,86,352/-, BEING 1/3 RD OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED AT RS. 5,59,058/-. 16. THE AR POINTED OUT THAT THE EXPENSE OF RS. 5,59 ,058/- UNDER THE FOLLOWING HEADS: SR.N. HEAD OF EXPENSES EXPENSES DEBITED TO P&L A/C IN RS. I. CONVEYANCE 21,595 II. JOBWORK 69,825 III. MISC. 51,606 IV. SECURITY SERVICE CHARGES 86,045 V. STAFF WELFARE 74,076 VI. TELEPHONE 2,34,241 VII. VEHICLE 21,670 TOTAL 5,59,058 WERE INCURRED AT NOIDA, WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE WAS S TATIONED AT MUMBAI. IN SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE NO DISALLOWANCE IS C ALLED FOR. THE AR POINTED OUT THAT THE AO DISALLOWED 1/3 RD OF THESE EXPENSES AND ADDED BACK RS. 1,86,352/-, WHEREAS THE CIT(A) GAVE A RELI EF OF RS. 46,588/- AND SUSTAINED RS. 1,39,765/-, AT 1/4 TH DISALLOWANCE OF ABOVE EXPENSES. 17. THE AR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT NO DISALLOWAN CE IS CALLED FOR. 18. THE DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 19. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS AND THE FACTS AS AL SO NOTED BY THE CIT(A), THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OPENED A SHOP AT NOID A, WHILE THE ASSESSEE RESIDES AT MUMBAI. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT INVO LVEMENT OF PERSONAL NATURE OF EXPENSE CANNOT BE THERE. IT IS ALSO OBVIO US THAT THE IMPUGNED EXPENSES ARE ROUTINE BUSINESS EXPENSES, WH ICH HAS NOT BEEN DENIED BY EITHER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. I N SUCH A SHRI JASBIR SINGH CHANDOK ITA NO. 5508/MUM/2012 6 CIRCUMSTANCE, THE IMPUGNED EXPENSES DESERVE TO BE A LLOWED AS WE CANNOT FIND EVEN A HINT OF PERSONAL USAGE IN ANY OF THE EXPENSES, NOTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 20. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE REVEN UE AUTHORITIES ON THE AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,86,352/- AND DIREC T THE AO TO ALLOW THE EXPENSE AS CLAIMED. 21. GROUND NO. 2 IS THEREFORE, ALLOWED. 22. GROUND NO. 3 PERTAIN TO AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,98,979/-. 23. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED MARKED INCREASE IN EXPENSES, COMPARED TO THE PRECEDING YEA R. THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES WERE IDENTIFIED: SR. NO. NATURE OF EXPENSES CURRENT YEAR (RS) PREVIOUS YEAR (RS.) 2 PUBLICITY EXPENSES 2,14,730 1,99,927 3 SALARY 4,13,911 1,10,594 4 PROFESSIONAL CHARGES 56,517 NIL 5 CONVEYANCE CHARGES 41,054 12,553 6 MISC. EXPENSES 20,903 11,155 7 STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES 26,855 7,510 8 TRAVELLING EXPENSES 21,945 8,338 24. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITI ES THAT BECAUSE OF OPENING OF SHOWROOM AT NOIDA, THE BUSINESS HAS I NCREASED MANY FOLDS AND CORRESPONDINGLY THE EXPENSES HAVE ALSO IN CREASED. THIS SUBMISSION DID NOT IMPRESS THE AO, WHO DISALLOWED 1 /3 RD OF THE ABOVE EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE CIT(A), WHO R EDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 1/4 TH OF THE EXPENSE, GIVING A MARGINAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 66,326/- AND SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF R S. 1,98,979/-. 25. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW BEFORE THE ITAT ON THE SUST AINED DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,98,979/-. SHRI JASBIR SINGH CHANDOK ITA NO. 5508/MUM/2012 7 26. BEFORE US, THE AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AN D POINTED OUT THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED TO BE BUSINESS RELATED AND THE FIGURES, AS REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A) ARE ALSO WORTH CONSIDERING. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WA S NO JUSTIFICATION OF MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE. 27. THE DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTH ORITIES AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN A FURTHER RELIEF BY THE CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, NO FURTHER RELIEF SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 28. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS AND HAVE PERUSED TH E ORDERS. THE FACT IS THAT BECAUSE OF OPENING A NEW SHOW ROOM AT NOIDA, THE BUSINESS HAS INCREASED CONSIDERABLY. ALONG WITH THE INCREASE IN BUSINESS, THE ROUTINE BUSINESS EXPENSES HAVE ALSO I NCREASED, AS COMPARED TO THE PRECEDING YEAR. IT IS APPARENT THAT THE AO DID NOT AT ALL LOOK INTO THE COMPARATIVE FIGURES AS PRODUCED B EFORE HIM. IN ANY CASE, WHEN THE BUSINESS HAS INCREASED BY 60.15%, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT CORRESPONDING EXPENSES SHALL ALSO INCREASE. 29. LOOKING INTO THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPI NION THAT NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASID E THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,98,979/-, WHICH SHALL CONSEQUENTIALLY AMOUNT TO DELETION OF E NTIRE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,65,305/-. 30. GROUND NO. 3 IS THEREFORE, ALLOWED. 31. GROUND NO. 4 PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3, 69,992/- ON ACCOUNT OF IMPORT PROMOTION EXPENSES. 32. BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED, THAT THE APPELLANT IS AN IMPORTER OF MUSICAL INS TRUMENT AND HAS NO EXPORT TURNOVER. HENCE, IT IS NORMAL TO HAVE IMPORT SHRI JASBIR SINGH CHANDOK ITA NO. 5508/MUM/2012 8 PROMOTION EXPENSES. THE SAID EXPENSES ARE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRAVELING OUT OF INDIA IN CONNECTION WIT H BUSINESS OF IMPORT AND PURCHASE OF FOREIGN CURRENCY FOR SUCH TR AVEL. IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE EXPENSES SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 33. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, HELD, I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS SEEN FROM THE COMPARATIVE TABLE OF EXPENSES INCORPORATED BY THE A .O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR NO EXPEN SES WERE CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD IMPORT PROMOTION EXPENSES. F URTHER, THE ONUS IS ON THE APPELLANT TO JUSTIFY AND PROVE THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OF T HE APPELLANT BEING IMPORT PROMOTION EXPENSES. FROM THE RECORDS, IT APPEARS THAT THIS ONUS HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE APPEL LANT. IT IS FOR THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHAT ITEMS WERE IMPO RTED FOR WHICH FOREIGN TRAVEL WAS NECESSITATED. FURTHER, WHO WERE THE PARTIES WHICH WERE CONTACTED AND WHY SUCH EXPENSES WERE NOT NEEDED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. I FIND FROM THE RECORD THAT NO SATISFACTORY ANSWER TO THESE QUERIES HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I HAVE NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. THE GROUN D OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 34. HE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED THE GROUND AS RAISED B EFORE HIM. 35. AGAINST THIS ORDER ON THE ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE I S BEFORE THE ITAT. 36. BEFORE US, THE AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AN D PLEADED THAT THE IMPORT PROMOTION EXPENSE MUST BE ALLOWED. 37. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 38. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS AND HAVE PERUSED TH E ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IT IS A FACT THAT THERE IS NO TERM AS IMPORT PROMOTION EXPENSES. APPARENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS US ED THE WRONG TERM FOR THE EXPENSES WHICH HE HAS INCURRED. IT IS SEEN FROM THE DETAILS AS FILED THAT THE EXPENSES HAD BEEN INCURRE D BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TRAVELLING ABROAD FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, LIKE BUYING TICKETS, FOREIGN CURRENCY, STAY ETC. THESE DETAILS, WE FIND HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IN SUCH A CIRC UMSTANCE, LOOKING SHRI JASBIR SINGH CHANDOK ITA NO. 5508/MUM/2012 9 INTO THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE BE SET ASIDE, WITH A DIRECTION TO THE AO, TO WHOM THE ISSUE IS RESTORED, TO EXAMINE THE EXPENSES CLAI MED ALONG WITH THE DETAILS. IN OUR OPINION, EVEN THE NOMENCLATURE OF T HE EXPENSE SHOULD ALSO BE APPROPRIATELY CHANGED. 39. GROUND NO. 4 IS, THEREFORE ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. 40. GROUND NO. 5 PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 49 ,701/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION. 41. FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AS SESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AT RS. 1,87,315/-, AGAINST WHICH, THE AO ALLOWED AT RS. 1,37,616/- AND BALANCE, THE AO DISALLOWED. THIS WAS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A), AS THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT DISALLOWANCE WA S MADE AFTER THE AO EXAMINED THE BILLS OF THE FIXED ASSETS WERE PROD UCED BEFORE HIM. THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE. 42. BEFORE US, THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE AU THORITIES DID NOT EXAMINE THE DOCUMENTS COMPREHENSIVELY AND THEREFORE DEPRECIATION WAS NOT ALLOWED ON ALL THE DEPRECIABLE ASSETS. 43. THE AR THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWAN CE, AS MADE SHOULD BE DELETED. 44. THE DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTH ORITIES. 45. AFTER HEARING THE ARGUMENTS AND EXAMINING THE M ATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE REVENUE A UTHORITIES ERRED IN NOT EXAMINING COMPLETE DETAILS. 46. WE, THEREFORE, ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE B E RESTORED TO THE AO, WHO SHALL EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION AFR ESH, CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS SET ASIDE. IT IS NEEDLESS TO SHRI JASBIR SINGH CHANDOK ITA NO. 5508/MUM/2012 10 MENTION THAT THE AO SHALL AFFORD ADEQUATE AND REASO NABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HIS CASE. 47. GROUND NO. 5 IS THEREFORE ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. 48. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL AS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH AUGUST, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( !' ) ( ) # $% $% (N.K. BILLAIYA) (VIVEK VARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 20 TH AUGUST, 2014 ,// COPY TO:- 1) (+/ THE APPELLANT. 2) ,-(+/ THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)-30, MUMBAI. 4) 6, CITY-19 , MUMBAI / THE CIT-CITY-19 , MUMBAI. 5) 89,/ , THE D.R. J BENCH, MUMBAI. 6) 9:; COPY TO GUARD FILE. $5 / BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / [