MOIL LIMITED EARLIER KNOWN AS MANGANESE ORE INDIA LTD., Nagpur V. CIT- I, Nagpur

ITA 56/NAG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3115 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Commercial expediency; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 37; 263; 28

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.56/NAG/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NO. 56/NAG/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10. MOIL LIMITED, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - I, (EARLIER KNOWN AS MANGANESE ORE VS. NAGPUR. INDIA LIMITED.), NAGPUR. PAN A AACM8952A APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.P. DEWANI. RESPONDENT : S MT. ANITA RUPAVATARAM. DATE OF HEARING : 0 2 - 12 - 2015. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. O R D E R PER MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I, NAGPUR DATED 27 - 03 - 2014 PASSED U/S 263 OF I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER AS PER THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : FOR THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER U/S 263 IS MERELY CHANGE IN OPINION. THE ORDER U/S 143(3) PASSED BY THE LD. AO DOES NOT IN ANY WAY REPRESENT ERRONEOUS ORDER. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT WAS WHOLLY UNREASONABLE, UNCALLED FOR AND BAD IN LAW. 2. AT THE OUTSET WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THIS APPEAL WAS BELATEDLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY HAS BEEN MOVED ACCORDING TO WHICH THE FINANCE MANAGER LOOKING AFTER THE TAX MATTERS WAS 2 ITA NO.56/NAG/2015 QUITE UNWELL WHICH RESULTED INTO THE DELAY IN ATTENDING THE PENDING WORK. CONSIDERING THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE CASE LAWS CITED, WE HEREBY DEEM IT PROPER TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THIS APPEAL TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 3. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER WAS THAT AN ASSES SMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 30 TH OF DECEMBER, 2011. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.542.11 LAKHS WHICH WAS TOWARDS C ORPORATE S OCIAL R ESPONSIBILITY ( CSR). AS PER LEARNED COMMISSIONER, THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. IT WAS ALSO ALLEGED THAT THE AO HAD MADE NO ENQUIRY AS REGARDS THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE. DUE TO THE SAID REASON IT WAS HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) WAS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN COMPLIANCE OF SH OW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER : 3. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXCAVATING MANGANESE ORE FROM THE MINES AND IN THE MANUFACTURE OF VALUE ADDED PROD UCTS LIKE ELECTROLYTIC MANGANESE DIOXIDE AND FERRO MANGANESE. ITS MINES ARE SITUATED IN RURAL AREAS AND THERE ARE NO FACILITIES/AMENITIES EASILY AVAILABLE IN THESE AREAS. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO DEVELOP THE AREAS IN AND AROUND THE MINES SO THAT THE BASIC AMENI TIES CAN BE PROVIDED TO THE PEOPLE RESIDING THERE. BY PROVIDING THESE FACILITIES, THE CORPORATE IMAGE OF THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY IMPROVES WHICH HELPS IN GETTING COOPERATION FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN CASE OF NEED. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO MANDATORILY INC UR SUCH EXPENDITURE AS PER GUIDELINES ON CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CENTRAL PUBLIC SECTOR ENTERPRISES ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF STEEL. THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SRI VENKATA SATYANARAYANA RICE M ILL CONTRACTORS CO. VS. CIT 223 ITR 101 (SC) IN WHICH THE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS, WELFARE FUND IN ORDER TO OBTAIN EXPORT LICENSE FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR WAS HELD TO BE ALLOWABLE U/S 37. REFERENCE WAS ALSO MADE TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF PATNAIK & CO. LTD. VS. CIT 58 CTR 92 (SC) AND IN THE CASE OF ADDL. CIT VS. KUBERSINGH BHAGANDAS 118 ITR 379 (MP) IN WHICH SIMILAR PAYMENTS MADE OR LOSS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN MAKING INVESTMENT TOWARDS THE GOVT. BONDS AT THE INSTANCE DOF THE GO VT., WAS HELD TO BE ALLOWABLE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE INCURS EXPENDITURE ON CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, IT INCREASES ITS PERFORMANCE RATING WHICH IN TURN, WOULD 3 ITA NO.56/NAG/2015 HELP THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO APPLY FOR NAVRATNA STATUS. THE PSUS WIT H NAVRATNA STATUS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR MORE BENEFITS AS COMPARED TO ANY OTHER PSU RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION DATED 28/2/2014 OF ITAT HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF NMDC LTD. VS. JCIT, ITA NO. 885/HYD/2012 IN WHICH CONTRIBUTION OF RS. 5 CR. MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ESTABLISHING A MEDICAL COLLEGE DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR) WAS HELD TO BE ALLOWABLE U/S 27 OF THE I.T. ACT. THEREFORE, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.5.42 CR. INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS CSR IS ALLOWABLE U/S 37 OF THE I.T. ACT. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 263 OF THE I.T. ACT MAY BE DROPPED. 3.1 HOWEVER, LEARNED COMMISSIONER WAS NOT CONVINCED AND HELD THAT WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND, THE AO HAS WRONGLY ALL OWED THE DEDUCTION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER WAS AS UNDER: 1. 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TILE ID. AR. AS PER SECTION 29F THE LT. ACT, THE INCOME REFERRED LO IN SEC. 28 I.E. INCORNE ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD' PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION' SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 30 TO '13D. OUT OF THESE SECTIONS, SECTIONS 30 TO SEC. 36 RELATE TO DEDUCTIONS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPUTING THE BUSINESS INCOME. THE EXPENSES RELATING TO CSR DO NOT FALL IN ANY OF THE SECTION FROM SEC. 30 TO SEC. 36. AT THE MOST, THE EXPENDITURE ON (SR CAN FALL UNDER THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED III SECTION 37 OR THE LT. ACL. 5. SECTION 37 RELATES TO THE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ND PERSONAL EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE AND IS LAI D OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY BY ASSESSEE FOR ITS BUSINESS. IHERERORE, BEFORE ALLOWLFLG THE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNL OF EXPEN SES DEBITED UNDER - THE HELD (SR, THE AO WAS REQUIRED TO SEE WHETHER THE EXPENSES SO CLAIMED FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SEC TION 37 OR NOT. HOWEVER, NO SUCH EXERCISE WAS DONE BY THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3). THE SAID EXERCISE WAS ALL THE MORE NECESSARY KEEPING IN VIEW THE NATURE OF EXPENSES DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD CSR. THE DETAILS OF SUCH EXP ENSES WERE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE IS NOT CLEAR IN RESPECT OF MANY ITEMS. FOR EXAMPLE ON 30/6/2008, UNDER THE MINOR HEAD HEALTH, AMOUNT OF RS.59,39,400/ - HAS BEEN DEBITED WITH THE DE SCRIPTION FROM PURCHASE ACCOUNT LEDGER . SIMILARLY, AN AMOUNT OF RS.14.28 LACS HAS BEEN DEBITED UNDER THE MINOR HEAD OTHES WITH DESCRIPTION DEBIT TO V/H OF A/C. FROM THIS DESCRIPTION, THE ALLOWABILITY OF THESE EXPENSES U/S 37 OF THE I.T. ACT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED. MANY PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE TO CERTAIN CONCERNS/INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT MENTIONING THE NATURE OF SUCH EXPENSES. FURTHER, PAYMENT OF RS. 1 CR. HAS BEEN MADE TO UP BADMINTON ASSOCIATION, LUCKNOW ON 1/4/2008. IT IS NOT KNOWN HO W THE SAID PAYMENT HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS. SIMILARLY, 4 ITA NO.56/NAG/2015 PAYMENT OF RS. 2 CR. HAS BEEN MADE TO BIHAR RELIEF FUND. SUCH PAYMENTS CANNOT BE ALLOWED U/S 37 OF THE I.T. ACT. CLEARLY, DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED UNDER THE HEAD CSR HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND. 6. IN THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND WOULD BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE: 1. CIT VS. EMERY STONE MANUFACTURING CO., 213 ITR 843 (RAJ.) 2. MOFUSSIL WAREHOUSE & TRADING CVO. LTD.VS. CIT 238 ITR 867. 3. ASHOK LEYLAND LD. VS CIT 260 ITR 599 4. CIT VS. BHAGWANDAS 272 ITR 367. 5. SHERAFFUDIN VS CIT 41 DTR(KER) 263 6. CIT VS ASSAM TEA HOUSE 344 ITR 507 (P&H) 7. CIT VS HIMACHAL PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPN. 186 TAXMAN 105. IN THE CASE OF MALABAR LNDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. VS CIT 243 ITR 83(SC), IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, IT WOULD BE AN ERRONEOUS ORDER. SINCE THE A.O. HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY REGARDING THE ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENSES OF RS. 542.11 LACS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD 'CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY', THE ORDER IS HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS. FURTHER, PRIMA FACIE, WRONG DEDUCTION HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF THESE EXPENSES. THEREFORE, THE ORDER IS ALSO HELD TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SET ASIDE WITH A DIRECTION TO AO TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT AFTER MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AS REGARDS THE AL LOWABILITY OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD 'CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY'. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN ITS CASE. 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE APPELLANT LEARNED A.R. MR. K.P. DE WANI APPEARED AND PLEADED THAT THE DETAILS OF CSR ACTIVITIES WERE DULY FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT COMPLETED IN A SUMMARY MANNER BUT THE CASE WAS SCRUTINIZED U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE AO HAS DULY EXAMINED THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSES SEE AND MADE CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED A.R., IT WAS WRONG ON THE PART OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER TO PRESUME THAT THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE AO. ONLY AFTER EXAMINATION T HE AO WAS SATISFIED TO ALLOW THE SAME. FOR THIS ARGUMENT HE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : 1. VODAFONE ESSAR SOUTH LTD. VS. CIT (2011) 141 TTJ 0084 (DEL). 2. GUPTA INTERNATIONAL VS. ITO (2010) 2 ITR 0428 (DEL.). 5 ITA NO.56/NAG/2015 4.1 ON THE MERI T S, LEARNED A.R. HAS PLEADED THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN PURSUANCE TO THE DIRECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A GOVERNMENT OWNED COMPANY. IT WAS MANDATORY TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE AO HAS DULY CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT ALTHOUGH NOT MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO WAS A POSSIBLE VIEW WHICH WAS NOT AN ERRONEOUS VIEW. THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION AND DIRECT HIM TO RE - EXAMINE THE CLAIM AFRESH. THE DIRECTIONS WERE NOT LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE AS HELD IN THE CASES AS UNDER : 1. CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD. 295 ITR 282 (SC). 2. CIT VS. GABRIAL INDIA LTD. 203 ITR 108 (BOM.). ONE MORE POINT HAS BEEN R AISED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER WAS NOT IN LINE WITH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 263 OF THE I.T. ACT. HENCE THE DIRECTIONS WERE ILLEGAL IN NATURE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : 1. MAXPAK INVESTMENT LTD. VS. ACI T (2006) 104 TTJ 0881 (DEL.). 2. SYNERGY ENTERPRENEUR SOLUTIONS (P) LTD. (2011) 13 ITR 0377. 3. B S SANGWAN VS. ITO (2015) 38 ITR (TRIB) 0011 (DELHI). 5. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED D.R. SMT. ANITA RUPAVATARAM APPEARED AND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE DIRECT IONS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER. SHE HAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SILENT ON THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF CSR EXPENDITURE. AS PER THE LEARNED D.R. THE CLAIM WAS ERRONEOUSLY ALLOWED BY THE AO. SHE HAS ALSO PLEADED THAT IN REPLY TO THE NOTICE U/S 263 THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDRESSED THE ALLOWABILITY OF CSR EXPENDITURE. IT WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE THAT THE PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER. LEARNED D.R. HAS ALSO PLEADED THAT THE EXPENDITUR E IN QUESTION WAS NOT CONNECTED WITH THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE , H ENCE NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 6 ITA NO.56/NAG/2015 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AT SOME LENGTH. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE CONTENTS OF THE COMPILATION FILED IN THE LIGHT OF T HE CASE LAW CITED. SECTION 263 ENABLES THE COMMISSIONER TO HAVE A LOOK AT THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IF A C ORRECTION IS REQUIRED, PARTICULARLY IF THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL, THEN HE CAN EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION PRESCRIBED U/S 263 OF I.T. ACT. SECTION 263 IS AN ENABL ING PROVISION CON F ERRING JURISDICTION ON THE COMMISSIONER TO REVISE THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES PARTICULARLY WHEN IT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL. THIS PROVISION IS INTENDED TO PLUG LEAKAGE TO THE REVENUE BY PASSING AN ERRONEOUS ORDER. AN ERRONEOUS ORDER MAY BE BY MISTAKE OR DUE TO IGNORANCE, BUT IT MAKES LITTLE DIFFERENCE FOR WHAT REASON THE ORDER IS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SO LONG AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE . THIS JURISDICTION CAN BE EXERCISED IN SUCH CASES WHEN ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED ON A WRONG ASSUMPTION OF FACTS, OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF MIND OR WITHOUT DUE APPLICATION OF MIND AND SO FORTH. THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 EMPOWER THE C OMMISSIONER, INTER ALIA TO CALL FOR THE RECORD AND IF NECESSARY TO REVISE ANY ORDER PASSED IF IN HIS CONSIDERED OPINION THE ORDER IN QUESTION IS CAUSING PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A NO TICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED RAISING QUERIES ABOUT THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THERE WAS A QUERY ABOUT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON CSR. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT WAS A QUESTIONER ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF I.T. ACT WHICH WAS VERY MUCH GENERAL IN NATURE. ALTHOUGH A QUERY WAS RAISED BUT IN COMPLIANCE OF A GENERAL NOTICE A GENERAL REPLY WAS FORWARDED TO THE AO. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE REPLY AND PARTICULARLY THE ANSWER FURNISHED IN COMPLIANCE OF THE QUERY PERTAINING TO THE EXPENDITURE ON CSR. THE SAID REPLY WAS NOT ELABORATE ENOUGH TO DECIDE WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED WAS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T. ACT. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE AO WAS EXPECTED TO RAISE CERTAIN SPECIFIC QUERIES, PARTICULARLY IN RESPECT OF CERTA IN MAJOR EXPENSES, AND THEREUPON SHOULD HAVE APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE QUESTION OF ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CSR EXPENDITURE. IN THIS 7 ITA NO.56/NAG/2015 REGARD , BEFORE US, LEARNED A.R. HAS TRIED TO ARGUE THAT BECAUSE THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS OF TH E GOVERNMENT, HENCE ALLOWABLE ON THE GROUND OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. THE CASE LAW CITED IS SRI VENKATA SATYANARAYANA RICE MILL CONTRACTORS CO. VS. CIT 223 ITR 101 (SC). 7. LEARNED D.R. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE HAS COUNTERED THAT EXACTLY THAT WAS A RE ASON THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS OPINED THAT EVEN THIS ASPECT WAS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE AO IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. 8. AS FAR AS THE QUESTION OF INVOCATION OF JURISDICTION THROUGH A NOTICE U/S 263 IS CONCERNED, WE HAVE PERUSED THE SAID NOTICE , PHOTO COPIES PLACED BEFORE US AND IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER WAS VERY MUCH CLEAR IN HIS MIND ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE, THEREFORE, HE HAD ISSUED THE SAID NOTICE PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO E XPLAIN THE LEGALITY OF THE CLAIM. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ANSWERED THIS QUERY VIDE A REPLY WITHOUT RAISING ANY DOUBT AT THAT POINT OF TIME. HENCE WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE OBJECTION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. 9. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE FINDI NGS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ACCORDING TO WHICH HE HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO MAKE NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AS REGARDS THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE THAT TOO AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS NOT THE CASE WHERE THE DIRECTIONS WERE TO DISALLOW THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION BUT THE DIRECTIONS WERE SIMPLY TO VERIFY THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CLAIM. IN SUCH SITUATION WHEN THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS NOT DIRECTED TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM, OR IN OTHER WORDS, THE DIRECTIONS WERE NOT CONCLUSIVE I N NATURE, WE HEREBY HOLD AT THIS STAGE THAT NO PREJUDICE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE. 10. AS FAR AS FEW CASE LAWS REFERRED FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CONCERNED, THOSE ARE PERTAINING TO DI F FERENT OPINION OR LACK OF ENQUIRY OR ON THE ISSUE OF SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER ETC. INDEED THERE IS A LONG LIST OF CASE 8 ITA NO.56/NAG/2015 LAWS ON THIS SUBJECT, BUT KEEPING BREVITY IN MIND WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO DISCUSS ALL THOSE CASES BEING NOT DIRECTLY APPLICABLE O N THE ISSUE AS DISCUSSED BY US IN THE FORGOING PARAGRAPHS. 10.1 WE, THEREFORE, CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS NO FALLACY IN THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER TO THE AO TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENDITU RE CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER PASSED U/S 263 DATED 27 - 03 - 2014 IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 11. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRODUCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - (SHAMIM YAHYA) (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 25 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. MOIL LIMITED, IA, KATOL ROAD, P.O. BOX NO. 34, NAGPUR - 440013. 2. A. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, NAGPUR. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - I, NAGPUR. 4. D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 5. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NAGPUR WAKODE.