ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Overseas Connexion Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5808/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2913 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 06-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDI CIAL MEMBER ITA NO: 5808/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YEAR 2009-10 ITO VS. OVERSEAS CONNEXION LTD. WARD-13(4), ROOM NO. 219, 28, B ASANT LOK, C.R. BUILDING VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI 110 057. PAN AAACO0317P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VED JAIN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.DAM KANUNJNA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 1.01.2016 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.8.2012 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A)-XVI, NEW DELHI. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 1,60,04 ,891/- WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.9.2009 AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 76,79,171/- AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITION S :- (1) ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CONTRACT RECEIPTS - RS. 22,01,264/- (2 ) ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION DISALLOWED - RS. 21,52,830/- (3) ON ACCOUNT OF DELA Y IN DEPOSIT OF EPF - RS. 2,50,041/- (4) ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS ON SALE OF ASSETS - RS. 10,51,916/- AND (5) ON ITA NO. 5808/DEL/2012 ITO VS. OVERSEAS CONNEXION LTD. 2 'V* ' ACCOUNT OF FINE AND PENALTIES - RS. 4,22,631/-. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED ALL ADDITIONS AND AGGRIEVED THE DEPARTMENT IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 2. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE I N STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF M/S. STERLING & WILSON PVT. LTD. TO THE TUNE OF RS. 19,1 3,559/- AND IN THE CASE OF M/S. ASSOTECH REALITY PVT. LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,87,70 5/-. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THESE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CONTRACT RECEIPTS WERE RIGHTLY MADE BY THE AO. ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SUMMONS WAS ISSUED TO M/S. SECTION XX WHICH WAS REC EIVED BACK UN-SERVED. AS REGARDS M/S. AUTO UNIVERSE, SUMMONS WERE ISSUED FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND BUT NONE APPEARED. REGARDING THE THIRD PARTY, MR. VIRAJ MOHAN AND RIA MOHAN, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH MR. VIRAJ MOHAN DID APPE AR IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS, HE COULD NOT NAME ANY OFFICIAL IN THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY TO WHOM HE HAD CONTACTED TO GET SALES ORDERS. REGARDING SHRI VIREN DER KHULLAR AND ARJUN KHULLAR, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE TO THE SUMMONS. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE COMMISSION PAID TO THESE PARTIES WAS CORRECTLY DISALLOWED BY THE AO. REGARDING OTHER DISALLOWANCES , THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE EPF DUES WERE NOT DEPOSITED WITHIN TIME, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS CORRECTLY MADE. SIMILARLY, AMOUNTS CLAIMED AS EXPENSES ON ACC OUNT OF LOSS OF SALE OF ASSET AS WELL AS AMOUNTS PAID TOWARD FINE AND PENALTIES WERE NOT DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSES AND HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE WAS LEGALLY CORRECT. HE ACCO RDINGLY PLEADED FOR THE UPHOLDING OF THE ORDER OF THE AO. 3. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT REGARDING STERLING & WILSON PVT. LTD. REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO THE PAPER BOOK PGS. 69 & 70, WHERE STATEMEN T OF ACCOUNT OF STERLING & ITA NO. 5808/DEL/2012 ITO VS. OVERSEAS CONNEXION LTD. 3 'V* ' WILSON IS GIVEN AND IT CAN BE SEEN THAT AN AMOUNT O F RS.1,00,79,000/- PERTAINED TO EARLIER YEAR'S COMMISSION, WHICH WAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THAT YEAR. AT PG 70, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT ON CREDIT SIDE IS THE TOTAL PAYMENTS R ECEIVED FROM STERLING & WILSON, WHILE ON THE DEBIT SIDE, ENTRIES CONSIST OF: (I) OPENING BALANCE 1,00 ,79,000/- (II) INTERIOR CHARGES 59,00,0 00/- (III) SERVICE TAX 18,53.464/- (IV) TDS RECEIVABLE 59 ,986/- _____________ 1,78,92.4501- _____________ THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD ADDED THE AMOU NT OF RS. 19,13,559/- CONSISTING OF LAST TWO ITEMS, I.E. SERVICE TAX AND TDS RECEIVABLE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SERVICE TAX COLLECTED IS TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE GOVT. ACCOUNT WHILE THE TDS BEING RECEIVABLE, HAS BEEN DEBITED BY THE PARTY. HE NCE, BOTH THE ACCOUNTS DID NOT PAR TAKE THE CHARACTER OF INCOME, IN ANY CASE. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT REGARDING ASSOTECH REALTY PVT. LTD. FROM THE STATEM ENT OF ACCOUNT PLACED AT PG 82, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE SALES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,98 ,02,332/- WERE MADE TO THE SAID PARTY IN THE FY 2006-07, RELEVANT FOR AY 2007-08. I T BEING A RUNNING ACCOUNT, PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AT VARIOUS TIMES. DURIN G THE RELEVANT YEAR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,87,705/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED. THE ASSESSEE F OLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING HAS ALREADY BOOKED THE SALE IN ASSESS MENT YEAR 2007-08., ONLY RECEIVING THE AMOUNT DURING THE YEAR DOES NOT AMOUN T TO SALE AND DOES NOT PAR TAKE THE CHARACTER OF INCOME. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO H AS ADDED THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 2,87,705/- RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR AS INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. HENCE THESE TWO ITA NO. 5808/DEL/2012 ITO VS. OVERSEAS CONNEXION LTD. 4 'V* ' ITEMS AMOUNTING TO RS. 22,01,264/- WERE NOT IN FACT RECEIPTS AT ALL AND HAD BEEN WRONGLY ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. REGARD ING THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THESE PERSONS WERE GIVEN COMMISSION ON ACCOUNT OF SALES MADE THROUGH THEM. HE DREW OUR ATT ENTION TO THEIR CONFIRMATION PLACED AT PAGE NO. 124 TO 127 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO COPIES OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THESE PARTI ES AS WELL AS THEIR BILLS AND SUBMITTED THAT TDS HAS ALSO BEEN DEDUCTED ON THE SA ID TRANSACTIONS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO, HAVING ACCEPTED THE SALES MA DE TO PARTIES THROUGH THESE AGENTS CANNOT DOUBT THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS. HE PLA CED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ORIS SA CORPORATION LIMITED [159 ITR 78 (SC)] AND SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THESE PARTIES HAVE DENIED OF HAVING DONE THE WORK OR PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSE E. A COMPLETE DETAIL OF THE PARTIES ALONG WITH THE AMOUNTS FOR WHICH THE COMMIS SION WAS PAID WAS SUBMITTED TO THE AO. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL AND HAS SIMPLY DISALLOWED THE COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS. 21,52,830/- MERELY ON T HE BASIS OF DOUBTS. REGARDING OTHER DISALLOWANCES, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THER E WAS NO DELAY IN DEPOSIT OF ESI DUES. HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,50,041/- HAS BEEN WRONGLY MADE. SIMILARLY, THE LOSS ON SALE OF ASSETS HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED AS AN EXPENSE AT ALL AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,51,916/- HAS BEEN WRONGLY MA DE. AGAIN, THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,22,631/- IS NOT CORRECT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT C LAIMED ANY FINE OR PENALTY AS AN EXPENSE ITEM. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING ON ALL THE ISSUES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE IM PUGNED ORDER SHOULD BE UPHELD. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE RECORDS. IT IS SEEN THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DEALT WITH ALL THE ISSUES IN A DETAILED MANNER IN THE ITA NO. 5808/DEL/2012 ITO VS. OVERSEAS CONNEXION LTD. 5 'V* ' IMPUGNED ORDER. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS. 19,13,559/- ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE TAX AND TDS IS CONCERNED, THE LD. CIT(A) HA S GIVEN A CLEAR CUT FINDING IN PARA 3.2 OF HIS ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER: 3.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUB MISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE LEDGER ACCO UNT OF M/S STERLING & WILSON PVT. LTD IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT, THE DETAILS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AS APPEARING IN FORM 26AS, BANK ACCOUNT OF T HE APPELLANT, AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE Y EAR ENDED 31.03.2008 & 31.03.2009. I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DULY RECO RDED THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE SAID PARTY IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HA S CORRECTLY OFFERED THE SAME AS ITS INCOME. I FIND THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF R S. 19,13,559/- IS ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE TAX AMOUNTING TO RS. 18,53,464/- AND RS. 59,989/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS TDS WRONGLY DEDUCTED BY THE SAID PARTY. AS B OTH THESE ITEMS I.E. THE SERVICE TAX RECEIVED AND TDS RECOVERABLE DO NOT FOR M PART OF THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ADDING THE SAID DIFFERENCE TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS BAD ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 19,13,559/-. 5. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS. 2,87,705 /- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF M/S ASSOTECH REALTY PVT. LTD. IS CON CERNED, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CLEAR CUT FINDING IN PARA 4.2 OF HIS ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER: 4.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS FI LED BY THE LD. AR ON THIS ISSUE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS ADDED THE SAID RECEIPT OF RS. 2,87,705/- TREATING THE SAME AS UNEX PLAINED. AS PER THE SUBMISSION GIVEN BY THE AR AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE S ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED, THE SAID RECEIPT IS ON ACCOUNT OF OPENING DEBIT BALANCE AS ON 01/04/2008 IN THE NAME OF THE SAID PARTY ON ACCOUNT OF SALES INVOICES RAISED IN FY 2006-07. I AM SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE AR AND THE SAME IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CES AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,87,705/- HAS ALREADY BEEN INCLU DED IN THE INCOME FOR THE YEAR 2006-07 BY THE APPELLANT AND THUS NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, I DIRECT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO DELETE THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 2,87,705/- ITA NO. 5808/DEL/2012 ITO VS. OVERSEAS CONNEXION LTD. 6 'V* ' 6. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSI ON ON SALES TO VARIOUS AGENTS TOTALLING TO RS. 21,52,830/- IS CONCERNED, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED AND ALLOWED THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IN PARA 5.2 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER: 5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT O RDER, SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON RECORD. I F IND THAT THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE PAYMENTS TO VARIOUS PARTIES IS N OT IN DISPUTE. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT ALL PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN ROUTED THROUGH PRO PER BANKING CHANNEL AFTER DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE SAME. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAS PROVIDED THE NAMES AN D ADDRESSES OF ALL THE PARTIES AND FEW OF THEM APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION OF HAVING RECEIVED COMMISSION FROM THE APPELLANT. THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED HERE IS WHETHER THE SAID EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS OF APPELLANT OR NOT. IN THIS CASE APPELLAN T HAS DEPICTED THAT THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID FOR SALES MADE THROUGH THE SE PARTIES. I NOTICE THAT THESE SALES/SERVICES HAVE BEEN DULY RECORDED AS INC OME BY THE APPELLANT. THUS THE FACT THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLL Y AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT STANDS JUSTIFIED. THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT EITHER SOME OF THE PARTIES DID NOT APPEAR OR S OME DID NOT RESPOND TO SUMMONS ISSUED BY HIM. IN THIS CASE IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PROVIDED THE ADDRESSES OF ALL THE PARTIES. HAVING D ONE SO AND HAVING FILED VARIOUS DETAILS LIKE BANK ACCOUNT, LEDGER ACCOUNT, NAMES AND ADDRESS OF PARTIES, TDS DETAILS, SALES LEDGER ETC., THE APPELL ANT DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS DONE BY IT. TWO PARTIES APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS. ONE P ARTY FILED ITS DOCUMENTS THROUGH POST BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE MERE FACT THAT ONE PARTY DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT PR OVE THAT THE COMMISSION PAID BY APPELLANT TO FETCH BUSINESS FROM THESE PART IES IS NOT RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS NOT BROUGHT FORWARD ANYTHING WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THE COMMISSION PAID WAS NOT RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT OR THE SAME WAS NEVER PAID. THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS ALSO COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. 159 ITR 78. THUS COMMISSION P AID BY THE APPELLANT IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT OFFERED ANY EXPLANATION WITH RESPECT TO EXPENSES OF RS.21/- PAI D TO MR. VIRENDRA KHULLAR AND RS.172/- PAID TO MR. ARJUN KHULLAR. THE APPELLA NT HAS FAILED TO FILE ANY EXPLANATION WITH RESPECT TO THE SAID EXPENSES BEFOR E ME AS WELL AND THEREFORE THE SAME ARE DISALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS I DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID BY THE APPELLANT TO T HE TUNE OF RS.21 ,52,637/-. AN AMOUNT OF RS.193/- BEING STILL UNEXPL AINED IS DISALLOWED. ITA NO. 5808/DEL/2012 ITO VS. OVERSEAS CONNEXION LTD. 7 'V* ' 7. THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBU TION TO EPF AND ESI AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,50,041/- HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 6.2 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER: 6.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION FIL ED BY THE ID. AR ON THIS ABOVE ISSUE. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK, I FIN D THAT THE EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION HAS BEEN DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY INTERP RETED THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IN THIS REGARD. THE CASE LAWS RELIED BY THE APP ELLANT ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,50,041/- AS THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THE JUDICI AL PRONOUNCEMENTS. 8. THE GROUND RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS ON SALE OF ASSETS OF RS. 10,51,916/- HAS ALSO BEEN ADJUDICATED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE RELEVANT PARA IS 7.2 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER AND IT READS AS UNDER: 7.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THE SAID DISALLO WANCE OF RS. 10,51,916/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON AD-HOC BASIS WITHOUT OBS ERVING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY ADDED BACK THE SAME IN ITS CO MPUTATION OF INCOME (COPY OF WHICH WAS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK BEFORE M E). IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY HIM WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY I DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELET E THIS DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 10,51,916/-. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE ALL OWED. 9. THE LAST ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WAS THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,22,631/- BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF FINES AND PENALT IES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. CIT (A) HAS DEC IDED THIS ISSUE ALSO IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE RELEVANT PARA IS 8.2 OF HIS OR DER WHICH READS AS UNDER: 8.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, SUBMISSIONS AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE APPELLANT. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ITA NO. 5808/DEL/2012 ITO VS. OVERSEAS CONNEXION LTD. 8 'V* ' PLACED ON THE PAPER BOOK, IT IS NOTED THAT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,22,631/- ON ACCOUNT OF FINES AND PENALTIES HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDED BACK BY THE APPELLANT WHILE COMPUTING THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME F OR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN OTHER WORDS, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4, 22,631/- HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED AS A BUSINESS EXPENSE BY THE APPELLANT. SIN CE, THERE IS NO CLAIM BY THE APPELLANT; THE QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE DOES NO T ARISE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAID DI SALLOWANCE OF RS. 4,22,631/-. AS A RESULT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 10. THUS IT IS SEEN THAT ALL THE GROUNDS RAISE D BY THE REVENUE HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN DEALT WITH IN DETAIL BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN THE IMPU GNED ORDER. HE HAS GIVEN A CONCRETE AND CATEGORICAL FINDING ON ALL THE ISSUES AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT/NEGATE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A). HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE AND UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01. 01.2016. SD/- SD/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (SUD HANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: THE 1 ST JANUARY, 2016 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR