M/s Kempsz Trading Private Limited , Bangalore V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 561/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8247 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 19-12-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KARUPPUSAMY
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Royalty expenses; Capital expenditure; Set aside
• Section: 40A(3); 37(1); 37; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.561/BANG/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S KEMPSZ TRADING PVT. LTD., F-2, BHARGAV TOWERS, NO.20, DINNUR MAIN ROAD, R.T NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032. PAN AABCK 5927 G VS. THE DY. COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KARUPPUSAMY, ADDL. CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 19.12.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.01.2020 O R D E R PER B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 31/1/2018 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-9, BENGALURU AN D IT RELATES TO THE ASST. YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE GROUNDS URGED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE SINGLE ISSUE VIZ., DISALLOWANCE BY AO U/S 37(1) AND ALSO U/S 40A (3) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.561 /BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 12 3. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF QUARR YING, PROCESSING/SELLING EXPORTING OF A GRANITE BLOCK AND SLABS. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED FOLLOWING EXPENSES BY WAY OF CASH 1) ROYALTY AND QUARRY EXPENSES BY CASH ON DAILY BAS IS RS.11,86,318/- 2) ROYALTY EXPENSES OF RS.1,61,51,863/- 3) QUARRY EXPENSES OF RS.1,74,36,731/- AGGREGATE OF ALL THE THREE - RS.3,02,74,912/-. 4. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY T HE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ROYALTY & QUARRY EXPENSES OF RS.11,86,318/- REPRESENTS AMOUNT PAID FOR OBTAIN ING DEMAND DRAFT FOR REMITTING THE SAME TO THE GOVERNMENT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES QUARRY IS LOCATED IN REMOTE PLACE AND IT IS NOT SERVICED BY ANY BANK WITHIN 15 K.M RADIU S. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS ARE COVERE D BY EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 6DD OF THE INCOME-TA X RULES. 5. THE AO ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FU RNISHED ANY CREDIBLE MATERIAL EVIDENCING THESE PAYMENTS. ACCOR DINGLY HE TREATED THESE EXPENSES AS NOT GENUINE AND DISALLOWE D THE SAME U/S 37 OF THE ACT. THE AO ALSO INVOKED PROVISION OF SE C. 40A(3) OF THE ACT PROTECTIVELY, SINCE THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN M ADE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS U/S 37 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY H E DISALLOWED A ITA NO.561 /BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 12 SUM OF RS.3,02,74,912/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE T OTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THE ASSESEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,16,51,853/- WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE AGGREGATE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,02,74,912/- ACTUALLY REPRESENT S ADVANCE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME HAS BEEN NOT BEEN CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOU NT. THE LD CIT(A) EXAMINED THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE . ACCORDINGLY HE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,16,51,853/-. W ITH REGARD TO THE REMAINING DISALLOWANCES THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFO RE LD CIT(A) THAT IT HAS MAINTAINED VOUCHERS FOR ALL EXPENSES AN D THE AO HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT EXAMINING THOSE VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED SOME OF THE VOUCHERS BEFORE LD CIT(A), BUT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY REJECTED THE SAME BY OBSERVING THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES CANNOT BE ADMITTED AT THAT STA GE. HOWEVER, AFTER REJECTING THE EVIDENCES, THE LD CIT(A) PROCEE DED TO EXAMINE SOME OF THE VOUCHERS. HE HAS ALSO SCANNED 3 VOUCHE RS IN HIS ORDER. THE LD CIT(A) FOUND FAULT WITH THE WAY THE VOUCHERS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. SOME OF THE FAULTS NO TICED BY LD CIT(A) ARE:- A) NO THIRD PARTY VOUCHERS WAS PRESENT B) FULL DETAILS OF RECIPIENT ARE NOT AVAILABLE C) REVENUE STAMP OF RS.1 IS NOT AFFIXED. ITA NO.561 /BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 12 ACCORDINGLY HE TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS N OT ABLE TO PROVE THE EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY HE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOW ANCES OF REMAINING TWO ITEMS. 7. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE SUSTAIN ED BY THE LD CIT(A) CONSISTS OF 2 ITEMS VIZ., ROYALTY PAYMENT MA DE TO THE GOVT. AMOUNTING TO RS.11.80 LAKHS AND QUARRY EXPENSES AMO UNTING TO RS.174.36 LAKHS. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ROYA LTY AMOUNT OF RS.11.80 LAKHS HAVE NOT ACTUALLY BEEN PAID BY WAY O F CASH. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID CASH TO PURCHASE DEMAND DRAFTS FR OM THE BANKS, WHICH HAS IN TURN BEEN DEPOSITED INTO GOVERNMENT AC COUNT. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REMITTED CA SH TO THE TREASURY DIRECTLY ON TWO OCCASIONS TOWARDS PERMIT F EE. SINCE THESE PAYMENT HAVE MADE TO THE GOVERNMENT, THE SAME IS CO VERED BY THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED UNDER CLAUSE(B) OF RULE 6DD OF INCOME-TAX RULES. WITH REGARD TO REMAINING PAYMENTS, THE LD A R SUBMITTED THAT THE QUARRIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LOCATED IN A REMOTE PLACE AND THE SAID PLACE IS NOT SERVICED BY ANY BANK WITHIN 1 5 KMS RADIUS. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED A CER TIFICATE OBTAINED FROM VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER IN THI S REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, SHE SUBMITTED THAT THOSE PAYMENTS ARE COVERED BY CLAUSE (G) OF RULE 6DD OF INCOME-TAX RULES. THE LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE THE ROUTINE EXPEN SE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE QUARRY BUSINESS YEAR AFTER YEAR . IN THE PAST, ALL THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO. THE RO YALTY EXPENSES HAVE BEEN REMITTED TO GOVERNMENT. ACCORDINGLY SHE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO SUSPECT THE GENUINENESS OF TH E EXPENSES. THE ITA NO.561 /BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 12 LD A.R PLACED HER RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS RENDERE D BY HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:- ( A) CIT VS. MODERN TRANSPORT COMPANY (ITA NO.2885/20 05) (B) M/S A.K. AGROTECH P LTD VS. ACIT (ITA NO.228/ 2009) (C) SMT. SAIRA BANU VS. ACIT (ITA NO.83/2010) (D) CIT VS. M/S PANDURANGA ENTERPRISES (ITA NO.75 2/2007) 9. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ROY ALTY AMOUNT CAN BE PAID BY WAY OF CASH ONLY IF THE RULES FRAMED THERE UNDER PROVIDE FOR MAKING PAYMENT IN LEGAL TENDER. WITH RE GARD TO OTHER EXPENSES, THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FURNISHED ANY REASON AS TO WHY THE PAYMENTS COULD NOT BE MADE BY WAY OF CROSSED CHEQUE OR DEMAND DRAFT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT ALL THESE EXPENSES ARE SUPPORTED BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS ONLY AND HENCE THE GENUINENESS OF THESE EXPENSES HAVE ALSO N OT BEEN ESTABLISHED. 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE DISALLOWANCE RELATING TO RO YALTY PAYMENTS MADE TO THE GOVERNMENT. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS EX PLAINED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE CASH PAYMENTS WERE MADE ONLY TO PURCHASE DEMAND DRAFTS AND FURTHER THE AREA, WHERE THE QUARR Y IS LOCATED IS NOT SERVICED BY ANY BANK, YET THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE ROYALTY EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.11,86,318/- BY TREATING THE SAME AS NON-GENUINE EXPENSES AND ALSO BY INVOKING THE PROVI SIONS OF SEC.40A(3) OF THE ACT. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE FULL DETAILS OF ROYALTY EXPENSES IN PAGES 57 TO 59 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME WOULD SHOW THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS PAID AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.2.57 CRORES, OUT OF WHICH A SUM OF RS.2.45 ITA NO.561 /BANG/2018 PAGE 6 OF 12 CRORES WAS PAID BY WAY OF CHEQUE. OUT OF THE REMAI NING AMOUNT, A SUM OF RS.17,500/- WAS PAID BY WAY OF CASH. THE BA LANCE AMOUNT OF RS.11.86 LAKHS, WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF DISPU TE, IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY WAY OF DEMAND DRAFTS/ DEPOSIT INT O TREASURY DIRECTLY. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REMITTED AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.1,30,900/- IN CASH DIRECTLY TO THE GOV ERNMENT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED DEMAND DRAFTS IN RESPECT OF REMAINING AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ENCLOSED COPIES OF S OME OF THE BANK PAYMENT CHALLANS EVIDENCING PURCHASE OF DEMAND DRAF TS. IT IS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,30,900/- REMITTED IN TO THE TREASURY WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING PERMIT AND AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE REMITTED INTO THE TREASU RY ONLY. THE REMAINING PAYMENTS WERE MADE TOWARDS ROYALTY AND TH EY HAVE BEEN PAID BY WAY OF DEMAND DRAFT ONLY. 11. FROM THE EXPLANATIONS AND EVIDENCES FURNISHED B Y THE ASSESSEE, WE NOTICE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A( 3) ARE NOT ATTRACTED, SINCE ALL THE PAYMENTS EXCEPT TWO HAVE BEEN MADE BY WAY OF DEMAND DRAFTS ONLY AND NOT BY WAY OF CASH. T HE TWO PAYMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN STATED AS PAYMENT MADE TO T HE GOVERNMENT IN THE TREASURY, WHICH IS COVERED BY CLA USE (B) OF RULE 6DD. SINCE THESE ARE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO TH E GOVERNMENT, THE GENUINENESS OF THESE EXPENSES CANNO T BE DOUBTED WITH. THERE IS ONE MORE REASON FOR ACCEPTING THE G ENUINENESS OF EXPENSES, I.E., THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF ROYALTY EXP ENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS RS.2.58 CRORES, OUT OF WHICH THE AO IS DOUBTING GENUINENESS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.11.86 LAKHS, THAT T OO ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT THEY HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY WAY OF CASH. HOWEVER, WE ITA NO.561 /BANG/2018 PAGE 7 OF 12 HAVE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EITHER PURCHASED DE MAND DRAFTS OR REMITTED THE AMOUNT INTO TREASURY. HENCE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THESE EXPENSES CANNOT BE DOUBTED WITH. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CI T(A) ON THIS ADDITION AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.11.86 LAKHS, REFERRED ABOVE. 12. THE AO HAS ALSO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.1,74,36, 731/- OUT OF QUARRY EXPENSES U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT ON THE REASONI NG THAT THESE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY WAY OF CASH AND HENC E GENUINENESS OF THESE EXPENSES CANNOT BE PROVED. HE HAS ALSO MADE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT PROTECTIVELY. T HE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF QUARRY EXPENSES AT PAGES 2 5 TO 54 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON A PERUSAL OF THE SAME, WE NOTICE TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED A SUM OF RS.10.60 CRORES AS QUARRY EXP ENSES. THE BREAK-UP DETAILS OF THIS EXPENDITURE IS PLACED AT P AGE 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THIS EXPENDITURE, INTER ALIA, INCLUDES A SUM OF RS.1,75,05,218/- TOWARDS QUARRY EXPENSES. THE DATE -WISE BREAK- UP THIS AMOUNT IS PLACED IN PAGES 26 TO 54 OF THE P APER BOOK. WE NOTICE THAT THE BREAK-UP ON AGGREGATE BASIS IS GIVE N AS UNDER:- EXPENSES INCURRED BY WAY OF CHEQUE - RS. 23,3 9,318 EXPENSES BY CASH EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- - RS.1 ,11,32,697 EXPENSES BY CASH LESS THAN RS.20,000/- - RS . 40,33,203 ------------------- - RS.1,75,05,218 ============== ITA NO.561 /BANG/2018 PAGE 8 OF 12 IT CAN BE NOTICED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3) SHALL APPLY ONLY TO THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,11,32,697/-, SINCE THE PROVIS IONS OF SEC.40A(3) ARE ATTRACTED TO THIS AMOUNT ONLY. 13. A PERUSAL OF INDIVIDUAL BREAK-UP DETAILS WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENSES AT QUARRY AND ALSO T HROUGH ITS EMPLOYEES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED CERTIFI CATES OBTAINED FROM TWO VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS TO SUBSTAN TIATE ITS CONTENTIONS THAT THE AREAS, WHERE THE QUARRIES OF T HE ASSESSEE ARE LOCATED ARE NOT SERVICED BY ANY BANK WITHIN 15 KM R ADIUS. ACCORDINGLY IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE COVERED BY THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED UNDE R CLAUSE (G) OF RULE 6DD. WE NOTICE THAT THIS EXPLANATION OF THE A SSESSEE AND THE CERTIFICATE OF THE VAOS EXPLAINING THE FACTUAL SITU ATION HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE HA VE EARLIER NOTICED THAT THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF QUARRY EXPENSES INCURR ED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.10.60 CRORES, OUT OF WHICH A SUM OF RS.1.11 CRORES WAS PAID IN VIOLATION OF SEC.40A(3) OF THE ACT, MEA NING THEREBY, THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ALMOST 90% OF EXPENSES IN COM PLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3) OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS MERIT IN THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE EXPENSES OF RS.1.11 CRORES WERE INCURRED AT QUARRY SITE, WHERE THERE IS NO BANKING FACILITY. HENCE THEY ARE COVERED BY C LAUSE (G) OF RULE 6DD. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROV ISIONS OF SEC.40A(3) OF THE ACT SHALL NOT BE APPLIED TO THE I MPUGNED EXPENSES. ITA NO.561 /BANG/2018 PAGE 9 OF 12 14. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE ABOVE SAID EXPENS ES U/S 37 ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT THEY HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY WAY OF CASH. FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.37( 1) OF THE ACT, THE AO HAS TO SHOW THAT THE IMPUGNED EXPENSES ARE E ITHER (A) CAPITAL EXPENDITURE (OR) (B) PERSONAL EXPENSES (OR) (C) NOT LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS (OR) (D) EXPENDITURE OF NATURE SPECIFIED IN SEC. 30 TO 36 (OR) (E) EXPLANATION 1 & 2 TO SEC.37(1) ARE ATTRACTED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO HAS, PRESUMABLY, TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THESE EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN LAID OUT OR EXPENDED W HOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. ACCORDING LY, HE HAS INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 37 OF THE ACT. THER E SHOULD NOT BE ANY DOUBT THAT, MERELY BECAUSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY WAY OF CASH, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDE RED AS NOT RELATED TO THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT T HESE KINDS OF EXPENSES ARE INCURRED YEAR AFTER YEAR. WE HAVE ALS O SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED 90% OF EXPENSES BY WAY OF CHE QUE, MEANING THEREBY, IN CASE OF BUSINESS NECESSITY ONLY THE ASS ESSEE HAS BEEN INCURRING EXPENSES BY WAY OF CASH. THERE IS NO DOU BT THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY WAY OF CASH MAY NOT BE AMENABL E FOR CROSS VERIFICATION. BUT THE VOUCHERS SCANNED BY LD CIT(A ) WOULD SHOW THAT THE RECIPIENTS HAVE SIGNED THE VOUCHERS. SINC E THE VOUCHERS FORM PART OF REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED B Y THE ASSESSEE, ITA NO.561 /BANG/2018 PAGE 10 OF 12 THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENC ES. HENCE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN TREATING THEM AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. IN ANY CASE, HE HAS EXAMI NED THE SAME AND HAS ALSO SCANNED THREE VOUCHERS IN HIS ORDER, M EANING THEREBY, HE HAS ADMITTED THEM, EVEN THOUGH THE SAME DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOUND FAULT WITH ANY OF T HE VOUCHERS, NOR DID HE ATTEMPT TO EXAMINE THE RECIPIENTS OF CASH PA ID TOWARDS EXPENSES IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE VERACITY OF EXPENSE S. HENCE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES ON SURMISES ONLY. 16. HOWEVER, THERE IS MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF LD D.R THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY WAY OF CASH IS NOT AMENABLE FO R CROSS VERIFICATION. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ALSO POINTED OUT C ERTAIN DEFICIENCIES IN THE MANNER OF MAINTENANCE OF VOUCHERS. ACCORDIN GLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE MAY BE PUT TO REST BY DISA LLOWING 5% OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY WAY OF CASH EXCEEDING RS.20,00 0/-, I.E., 5% OF RS.1,11,32,697/- IN ORDER TO TAKE CARE OF DEFICIENC IES, IF ANY, IN INCURRING EXPENSES BY WAY OF CASH & MAINTENANCE OF VOUCHERS. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER PASSED B Y LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE STANDS MODIFIED. ITA NO.561 /BANG/2018 PAGE 11 OF 12 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD JANUARY, 2020. SD/ - (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (B.R BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 23 RD JANUARY, 2019. /VMS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT (S) / CROSS OBJECTOR(S) 2. RESPONDENT(S) 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE ITA NO.561 /BANG/2018 PAGE 12 OF 12 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR.P.S .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE.. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO .. 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DICTATION NOTE ENCLOSED DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 11. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER . 13. DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER. . 14. DICTATION NOTE ENCLOSED