DCIT CIR 15(1), MUMBAI V. HITESH S. SANGHVI, MUMBAI

ITA 5605/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 560519914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 10-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V V SHASTRI
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJIV M SHAH
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES H, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH (AM) AND SHRI S.S. GODAR A (JM) ITA NO.4485/M/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 MR. HITESH S SANGHVI, 65/173, 1 ST FLOOR, ROOM NO.1, HABIB BUILDING, 2 ND PANJARAPOLE LANE, MUMBAI 400 004. PAN: ALNPS1608Q VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, RANGE 15(1), R.NO. 104, 1 ST FLOOR, MATRU MANDIR, TARDEO RD, MUMBAI 400 034. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.5605/M/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE 15(1), R.NO. 104, 1 ST FLOOR, MATRU MANDIR, TARDEO RD, MUMBAI 400 034 VS. MR. HITESH S SANGHVI, 65/173, 1 ST FLOOR, ROOM NO.1, HABIB BUILDING, 2 ND PANJARAPOLE LANE, MUMBAI 400 004. PAN: ALNPS1608Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANJIV M. SHAH REVENUE BY : SHRI V.V. SHASTRI DATE OF HEARING: 10.4.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:2.5.2012 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, J.M: THESE CROSS APPEALS HAVE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) DATED 29.4.2010. 2. DURING THE PENDENCY OF INSTANT APPEAL, THE ASSES SEE HAS FILED APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DATED 21.2.2012. TODAY THE LEA RNED AR HAS PRESSED THE SAID APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN HAND (DOC UMENTS APPEARING AT PAGES 351 TO 384 2 ITA NO.4485 & 5605/M/2010 OF THE PAPER BOOK) IS NECESSARY TO BE ADMITTED FOR JUST AND PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE INSTANT APPEAL. PARTICULARLY GROUND NO.1 PERTAININ G TO UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 1,05,00,000/- AND INTEREST ON THE SAME DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT (HEREINAFTER TO BE REFERRED AS THE ACT). 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR HAS OPPOSED TH E APPLICATION SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOTHING BUT GROSS MISUSE OF THE PROCESS OF LAW AS A SSESSEE HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO PROVE HIS CASE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD. CIT (A). HENCE, HE PRAYED FOR REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION. 3.1. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES . WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. ON PERUSAL OF THE VOLUMINOUS RECORD RUNNING INTO 350 PAGES, WE FIND THAT REGARDING THE UNSECURED LOANS IN HAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED SUMMONS TO SOME OF THE PARTIES ONLY INSTEAD OF ALL. EVEN, ALL THE PARTIES TO WHOM SUMMONS HAD BEEN ISSUED REMAINED UN-SERVED. IN SOME OF THE CASES, NO SUMMONS HAD BEEN ISSUED. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN QUESTION COMPRISES DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE ONLY. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE THAT IT IS A FIT CASE TO EXERCISE OUR JURISDICTION UNDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1963. THERE FORE, WE TAKE ON RECORD THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBJECT TO ALL THAT EXCEPTIONS. ALLOW THIS APPLICATION. ITA NO.4485/M/2010 (AY: 2007-08) 4. GROUND NO.1:- IN THIS GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IM PUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,05,00,000/- OF UNSECURED LOANS AND RS. 4,08,188/- I.E., INTEREST ON THE SAID AMOUNT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 3 ITA NO.4485 & 5605/M/2010 5. BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO INSTANT GROUND BEFORE US ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN ON 25.10.2007. HE IS INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS OF F ERROUS AND NON-FERROUS METALS. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN HAND IS HIS FIRST YEAR OF BUSINE SS. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE CLAIMED TO HAVE SECURED LOANS FROM 31 PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICES TO ONLY 20 PARTIES. HOWEVER, ALL OF THESE 20 PARTIES WERE NOT SERVED. RATHER 10 OF THEM REMAINED UN-SERVED. 6. ON THE BASIS OF EXPLANATION OFFERED, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS IN QUESTION QUA 13 PARTIES. REGARDING 17 PARTIES, HE MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,22,29,912 ( INCLUDING INTEREST OF RS. 4,29,912/-) VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.12.2009. 7. IN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PARTLY ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS. DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE O F TWO CREDITORS NAMELY ANISH EXPORTS AND MANISH S. SANGHVI BY HOLDING THAT THEIR LOANS AS GE NUINE. REGARDING REST OF THE 15 PARTIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER HAS BEEN UPHELD. IT IS AGAINST THIS ORDER, BOTH ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE HAVE PREFERRED THE INSTANT GROUND. 8. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND, THE LEARNED AR HAS FIL ED PAPER BOOK COMPRISING PAGES FROM 1-350. AT THE OUTSET, HE HAS REFERRED TO LOAN CONF IRMATIONS BY ALL CREDITORS IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BANK STATEMENTS OF 17 PARTIES AND INCOME TAX ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF 19 PARTIES. HE HAS SUBMITTED T HAT ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED BALANCE SHEETS OF 14 PARTIES. THE LD. AR ALSO REFERRED TO T HE SAID RECORD AS WELL AS THE CHART AT PAGES 1, 2, 2A OF PAPER BOOK. HE HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY DISCHARGED HIS ONUS IN PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF T HE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION. 9. FURTHER, BY DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER O F LD. CIT (A) PARTICULARLY PAGE 7.11, THE LEARNED AR HAS ARGUED THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF ONLY TWO PARTIES (SUPRA) MERELY BASING ON LOAN CONFIRMAT IONS. BY INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 4 ITA NO.4485 & 5605/M/2010 62, 66 AND 67 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE LD. AR CONTENDE D THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IN HAND HAS BEEN REJECTED ONLY ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS. 10. IN ADDITION TO THIS, THE LEARNED AR HAS REFERRE D TO CHART PREPARED IN THE PAPER BOOK. SUBMITTED THAT SUMMONS ISSUED TO ALL THE CREDITORS IN QUESTION HAD NOT BEEN SERVED. IN THEIR ABSENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE T RANSACTIONS IN QUESTION QUA 13 CASES ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THEIR ADDRESSES, PAN DETAILS, LEDGE R ACCOUNTS AND INCOME TAX ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. IN SOME CASES LIKE THAT OF METAL IMPACTS, GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT. WHEREAS, PER LEARNED AR, IN CASE OF CREDITORS NO. 3 TO 10, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE CO MPLETE RECORD WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES; THE LOANS HAVE NOT BEEN HELD GEN UINE. 11. ON THE BASIS OF SAID RECORD, THE LEARNED AR HAS VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT A DEFINITE CRITERIA TO DECIDE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRAN SACTIONS HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED EITHER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BY THE LD. CIT (A). FURTH ER STRESSED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ON THE RECORD ALL THE RELEVANT PARTICULARS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. BUT, NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE LD. CIT (A) APPRECIAT ED THE SAME. THE LEARNED AR HAS HIGHLIGHTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ONLY ACCEPTED THE PAYMENTS OF TWO PARTIES (SUPRA) WHEREAS ALL THE OTHER PAYEES STOOD ON THE SAME OR B ETTER FOOTING, STILL, THEIR TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN REFUSED TO BE ACCEPTED. HENCE, PRAYED FO R ACCEPTANCE OF THE GROUND. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE HAS ARGUED THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT (A) HAVE CORR ECTLY MADE THE DISALLOWANCE IN QUESTION AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE H IS PLEA. HENCE, PRAYED FOR REJECTION OF THE GROUND. 13. WE MAY ALSO POINT OUT THAT IN THE REVENUES APP EAL, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) QUA ACCEPTANCE OF THE PAYMENTS IN CASE OF TWO CREDITORS NAMELY ANISH EXPORTS AND MANISH S. 5 ITA NO.4485 & 5605/M/2010 SANGHVI (SUPRA) HAS BEEN CHALLENGED. IN OUR OPINION , GROUND NO.1 & 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE VIRTUALLY THE SAME. THEREFORE, WE ARE A LSO DECIDING THE SAID GROUNDS AND ASSESSEES GROUNDS TOGETHER. 14. AFTER HEARING LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH T HE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT NEITHER AO NOR LD. CIT (A) HAS ADOPTED UNIFORM CRIT ERIA IN DECIDING THE CASES OF ALL UNSECURED LOANS IN QUESTION. PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK PROVES THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE SO FAR AS THE CASES OF TWO CREDITORS NAM ELY ANISH EXPORTS AND MANISH S. SANGHVI AND THE OTHER 15 CREDITORS ARE CONCERNED. THE ASSE SSEE HAS DULY PLACED ON RECORD ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE I.E., LOAN CONFIRMAT ION, INCOME TAX RECORD, BALANCE SHEET, LEDGER ACCOUNTS ETC. FURTHER, AS PER THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER, EACH OF THE PARTIES HAS NOT BEEN SERVED. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE ISS UE IN HAND AFTER FOLLOWING A DEFINITE CRITERIA IN CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON R ECORD, AND THEREAFTER, DECIDE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF UNSECURED LOANS AND INTEREST AC CORDINGLY KEEPING IN MIND THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE. 14.1. SINCE, GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 IN REVENUES APPEA L ARE ALSO IDENTICAL, THE SAID GROUNDS ARE ALSO REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. G ROUND NO.3 IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE. 15. GROUND NO.2:- IN THIS GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS IMPUGNED THE FIND INGS OF LD. CIT (A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,72,085/- MADE B Y AO REGARDING COMMISSION PAID TO THE BROKERS. 16. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CLA IMED THAT IT MADE PAYMENTS OF COMMISSION TO THE TUNE OF RS. 6,72,085/- TO 7 PARTI ES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER 6 ITA NO.4485 & 5605/M/2010 DECLINED THE CLAIM FOR WANT OF PROPER EXPLANATION. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE. 17. THE LEARNED AR HAS ARGUED BEFORE US IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND THAT THE SAME VERY EXPENDITURE IN THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN AC CEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. PAYMENTS IN QUESTION HAD MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQ UES NECESSARY CONFIRMATION IN SUPPORT CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE SAID PAYEES / TAX PAYERS. HENCE, HE PRAYED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE GROUND. 18. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 19. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IN CASE THE GROUND IN HAND IS REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL VERIFY THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE CLAIM OF P AYMENT IN HAND THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES MADE BY ASSESSEE AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE O PPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 20. GROUND NO.3:- IN THIS GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE OR DER OF LD. CIT (A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 90,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 21. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CLA IMED TO HAVE PAID SALARY OF RS. 2.15 LACS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1.20 LACS ON THE GROUND THAT NO EVIDENCE OF WORK DONE BY ANY EMPLOYE E HAD BEEN FURNISHED. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS. 90,000/-. 22. BEFORE US, LEARNED AR HAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD DULY PROVED BY WAY OF EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE SALARY EXPENSES THAT HE HAD ACTUALLY PAID. SO, HE PRAYED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE GROUND. 7 ITA NO.4485 & 5605/M/2010 23. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS ALREADY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE TO REASONABLE EXTE NT. HENCE, HE PRAYED FOR REJECTION OF THE GROUND. 24. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT (A) HAVE G IVEN DETAILED REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THE DISALLOWANCE IN QUESTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEE N ABLE TO PROVE THE WORK DONE IN LIEU OF ALLEGED SALARY PAID. THEREFORE, FINDING NO MERIT I N THE GROUND, WE REJECT THE SAME BY UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 25. GROUND NO.4:- IN THIS GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED ADDITI ON OF RS. 1.20 LACS OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A). 26. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DEC LINED THE CLAIM OF RS. 1.20 LACS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES ON THE GROUN D THAT NEITHER ANY ACCOUNT NOR FAMILY DETAILS HAD BEEN FURNISHED IN SUPPORT. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ESTIMATED PERSONAL EXPENSES RS. 10,000/- PER MONTH (FOODING AND LODGING ETC.,). THE SAME HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT (A). 27. THE LEARNED AR HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT LOW ER AUTHORITIES HAVE COMMITTED ILLEGALITY IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. HENC E, HE PRAYED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE GROUND. 28. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HE PRAYED FOR REJECTION OF THE GROUND. 29. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED FINDINGS. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ALREADY HAS ESTIMATED THE PERSONAL EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE AS RS. 10,000/- PER MONTH THAT TOO WITHOUT ANY ACCOUNT DETAILS ETC. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE ISSUE AND REJECTED 8 ITA NO.4485 & 5605/M/2010 THE CLAIM. IN OUR OPINION, THE SAME DOES NOT WARRA NT ANY INTERFERENCE AS THE REASONS IN SUPPORT ARE SELF SPEAKING. HENCE, WE REJECT THIS G ROUND AS WELL. 30. GROUND NO.5:- IN THIS GROUND, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,13,510/-, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNTS WRITTEN OFF PERTAINING TO WEIGHT DIFFERENCE. 31. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE RAISE D A CLAIM OF RS. 1,49,109/- OUT OF NET WEIGHT DIFFERENCE IN SUPPLY TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT NO EXPLANATION HAD BEEN SUBMITTED. FUR THER HOLD THAT THE SINCE THE APPELLANT DEALS WITH ALLOYS WHICH IS NOT AN EVAPORATIVE ITEM , THEREFORE, REJECTED THE CLAIM. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS. 1,1 3,510/- ONLY. PARTLY GRANTED RELIEF OF WEIGHT DIFFERENCE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 35,600/-. HEN CE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE INSTANT GROUND. 32. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AR HAS VEHEMENTLY CONTEN DED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS COMMITTED AN ILLEGALITY IN NOT ACCEPTING THE CLAIM IN QUESTION IN ENTIRETY ALTHOUGH ENOUGH EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, HE PRAYED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE GROUND. 33. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 34. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES AND PERUSING THE FINDINGS ON RECORD, IN OUR OPINION, THOUGH THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALREADY DELETED THE WEIGHT DIFFERENCE OF RS. 35,600/- IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AT THE SAME TI ME, WE ALSO CONCUR WITH THE REASONING THAT ALLOYS IN QUESTION DO NOT EVAPORATE. BUT THE FACT THAT ISSUE OF WEIGHT DIFFERENCE ARISES WHEN THE MATERIAL IN QUESTION IS WEIGHED AT TWO DIF FERENT POINTS, ALSO CANNOT BE IGNORED. SO, FACE WITH SUCH A SITUATION, WE ALSO DEEM IT APP ROPRIATE TO DIRECT THE AO TO REDECIDE THE ISSUE AND ALSO GRANT LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE TO LEA D EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF WITH DULY PROVED VOUCHERS (CONTAINING DEBITS, CREDITS, ETC). 9 ITA NO.4485 & 5605/M/2010 35. GROUND NO.6.:- IN THIS GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IM PUGNED ORDER CONFIRMING THE AD-HOC ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/- OU T OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 2,44,147/- CLAIMED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 36. FACTS IN BRIEF LEADING TO RAISE THE INSTANT GRO UND BEFORE US ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIM CASH EXPENSES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROU ND THAT THE SAID EXPENSES WERE NEITHER OPEN TO VERIFICATION NOT THEIR GENUINENESS HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED. 36.1. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS UPHOLD THE FIN DINGS BY OBSERVING THAT THE SAID EXPENSES HAVE BEEN CLAIMED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SEL F-CREATED VOUCHERS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,50,000/- HAVE BEEN REJECTED. 37. LEARNED AR HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THE SELF-CREATED VOUCHERS IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN WRONGLY REJECTED BY THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES. HENCE, HE PRAYED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE GROUND. 38. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 39. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE FINDINGS. ALTHOUGH QUA THE GROUND IN HAND, THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE EXCEPT SELF-CREATED VOUCHERS. IN OUR OPIN ION, SINCE THE MAIN ISSUE STANDS REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND KEEPING IN MIND THE NATURE OF EXPENSES, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE- DECIDE THE ISSUE IN HAND AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE O PPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WHO SHALL PROVE THE INSTANT GROUND IN QUESTION. 10 ITA NO.4485 & 5605/M/2010 40. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DISCUSSION, IN ITA NO.4485/M/2010 GROUND NO.1.1, 1.2, 2, 5 AND 6 ARE REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND GROUND NOS. 3 & 4 ARE REJECTED. GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF ITA NO. 5605/M/2010 ARE REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 2 ND DAY OF MAY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER DATE : 2.5.2012 AT :MUMBAI OKK COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI CONCERNED 4. THE CIT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 5. THE DR H BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI // TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI.