Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 5 (1), Indore V. M/s Steel Tubes of India Ltd., Dewas

ITA 614/Ind/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1179 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S S SOLANKI
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 43B; 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.614/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 DC IT - 5( 1 ), INDORE / VS. M/S. STEEL TUBES OF INDIA LTD. STEEL TUBE ROAD, DEWAS, ( REVENUE ) ( RESPONDENT ) P.A. AAECS 3347P REVENUE BY SMT. ASHIMA GUPTA, CIT - DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI S.S. SOLANKI, CA DATE OF HEARING: 17.10.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13.11.2018 / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2002-03 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX(APPEALS)-II, INDORE, (IN SHORT CIT(A)), DATED 0 6.06.2017 WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) FRAMED ON 28.03.2005 BY JCIT-R-3, INDORE. STE EL TUBES OF INDIA LTD. 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECO RDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING OF STEEL TUBES AND COLD ROLLED STEEL STRIPS. LOSS OF RS.13,79,07,010/- DECL ARED IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN FILED ON 25.10.2002. NOTICE U /S 143(2) OF THE ACT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. AFTER GO ING THROUGH THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. AO FRAM ED THE ASSESSMENT MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS OF RS.4,87,62,900/- THEREBY ASSESSING THE LOSS AT RS.8,91,44,110/-. 3. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A) AND PARTLY SUCCEEDED AS LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION ON VARIOUS GROUNDS AT RS.1,25,31,230/- THERE BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,62,31,670/-. AGGRIEVE D THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RAISING VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL DEALT BY US IN SERIATIM. GROUND NO.1 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE A DDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES VIZ. TRAVELLING EXPENSES, CONVEYANCE EXPENSES, VEHICLE RUNNING, REP AIR & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES, COMMUNICATION EXPENSES, OTHER CHARGES ETC. OF RS.17,39,703/- WHILE THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPENSES WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES AND PROVED THAT THEY WERE INCIDENTAL TO BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE. STE EL TUBES OF INDIA LTD. 3 4. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS GROUND STANDS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2001- 02 IN ITANO.360/IND/05 ORDER DATED 23 RD MAY, 2008 WHEREIN THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES WERE DELETED BY TH E HON'BLE BENCH. 5. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED WITH THE ADDITION OF RS.17,39,703/- RELATING TO VARIOUS EXPENSES MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER PERTAINING TO TRAVELLING CONVEYANCE, VEHICLE RUNNING, REPAIR & MAINTENANCE, COMMUNICATION AND OTHER CHARGES. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THESE ADDITIONS BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS O F THE EXPENDITURE WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES AND MEREL Y GAVE A GENERAL REPLY THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED ARE WHOLLY F OR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 7. WE FIND THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE ASSESSEE S OWN CASE ADJUDICATED SIMILAR ISSUE RELATING TO AD HOC DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENSES FOR A.Y. 2000-01 AND THE STE EL TUBES OF INDIA LTD. 4 REVENUES GROUND WERE DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL HOLD ING AS FOLLOWS: 14. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS ON THESE ISSUES. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECT IN ANY OF T HE VOUCHERS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE OR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED PROPER VOUCHER S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT AS TO WHI CH OF THE VOUCHERS WAS NOT PREPARED OR THAT WHICH OF THE AMOUNT WAS DISALLOWABLE IN NATURE. IT THEREFORE, APPEARS TO BE AD HOC ADDITION WHICH IS NOT WARRANTE D IN LAW. IT IS CASE OF COMPANY AND ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE ALL THE ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED ALONG WITH VOUCHERS WHICH ARE AUDITED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE POINTE D OUT SPECIFICALLY AS TO WHICH OF THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY VOUCHERS OR THAT WHICH OF THE EXPENDIT URE IS INADMISSIBLE IN NATURE. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON REC ORD CORRECTLY DELETED THE ADDITION ON THESE ISSUES. WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) AND DISMISS THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL O F THE REVENUE BECAUSE THE EXPENDITURE EXPLAINED BY TH E ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SPENT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 8. NOW EXAMINING THE FACTS RELIED IN ABOVE JUDGMENT, W E FIND THAT APART FROM OTHER TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS.10,83,703/- WHICH WERE TOTALLY DISALLOWED BY THE L D. STE EL TUBES OF INDIA LTD. 5 ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ALL THE REMAINING EXPENDITURE M INOR DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE LOOKING TO THE PERSONAL ELEMENT OF EXPENDITURE EMBEDDED UNDER THE FOLLOWING HEADS OF EXPENDITURE. S.NO. ELEMENTS EXPENSES INCURRED DISALLOWANCE S ANY OTHER 1 TRAVELLING EXPENSES BY DIRECTOR & EMPLOYEES 35,29,589/ - 1,00,000 2 CONVEYANCE EXPENSES 24,97,218/ - 2,00,000 3 VEHICLE RUNNING & AND REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 13,91,792/ - 1,00,000 4 COMMUNICATION 19 , 37 , 293 / - 1,00,000 5 OTHER CHARGES 22,76,767 / - 1,50,000 9. FROM PERUSAL OF ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE OTHER TRAVE LLING EXPENSES OF RS.10,89,703/- WAS TOTALLY DISALLOWED BECAU SE THEY WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF CONSULTANTS, AUDITORS, BANK OFFICIALS AND OTHERS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS BUT IT FAILED TO SATISFY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. SAME WAS THE SITUATION FOR OTHER HEAD OF EXPE NSES FOR WHICH MINOR DISALLOWANCE HAVE BEEN MADE WHICH IN PERCENTAGE TERM IS APPROXIMATE 5% OF THE TOTAL EXPEND ITURE CLAIMED UNDER THE RESPECTIVE HEADS. STE EL TUBES OF INDIA LTD. 6 10. IT IS TRUE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DUTY BOU ND TO PIN POINT SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS B UT FROM PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT SEEMS THAT NECESSARY DETAILS WERE CALLED FOR BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT TO DISCHARGE ITS ON US THAT THE ALLEGED EXPENSES ARE INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. THERE SEEMS TO BE GENERAL REPLY FROM THE ASS ESSEE THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PUR POSE ONLY. EVEN ON THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US THERE IS NO SUCH DETAILS OF EACH EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THO UGH THE ISSUE ADJUDICATED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH WAS SIMI LAR TO THAT FOR A.Y. 2000-01 BUT IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT EAC H ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND IN THE INSTANT APPEAL THE ACTUAL FACTS ARE NOT EMANATING OUT OF THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. 11. WE, THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND BEI NG FAIR TO BOTH THE PARTIES ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE @ 20% OF THE ALLEGED DISALLOWED EXPENSES O F RS.17,89,703/- WILL MEET THE END OF JUSTICE. WE ACCO RDINGLY ORDER SO AND SUSTAIN THE ADDITION AT RS.3,47,941/- AGAINS T TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.17,39,703/- DELETED BY THE L D. CIT(A). IN THE RESULT GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. STE EL TUBES OF INDIA LTD. 7 GROUND NO.2 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE A DDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PF & ESI AT RS.94,28,126/- WHICH WAS PAID AFTER THE DUE DATES MENTIONED UNDER THE SA ID ACTS. 12. AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT THE ALLEGED AMOUNT OF PF & ESI PAYMENT OF RS.94,28,126/- STANDS DULY DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME AND COORDINATE BENCH IN T HE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2000-01 IN ITANO.360/IND /05 HAS ALLOWED THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE THEREB Y DELETING THE ADDITION. 13. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BU T COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FACT THAT THE ALLEGED AMOUNT OF PF H AS BEEN DEPOSITED WITH THE GOVERNMENT TREASURY BEFORE D UE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED WIT H THE DELETION OF ADDITION FOR DELAYED PAYMENT OF PF & ESI AT RS. 94,28,126/-. WE FIND THAT THE RESPECTIVE MONTHLY AMOU NT OF PF & ESI RELATING TO EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE ARE PAID BY CHEQUE AT THE END OF EACH MONTH BUT THE ACTUAL DATE OF CLEARANCE OF THE CHEQUE WAS AFTER THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED STE EL TUBES OF INDIA LTD. 8 UNDER THE SAID ACT GOVERNING PF & ESI. FOR THIS REASON LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE TOTAL OF SUCH AMOUNT PAID AFTER THE DUE DATE. WE, HOWEVER, FIND THAT COORDINATE B ENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE DEALING WITH THE SIMILAR ISSUE F OR DELAYED PAYMENT OF PF & ESI FOR A.Y. 2000-01 ALLOWED CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING T HE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. VINAY CEMENT LIMITED (231 CTR 268) OBSERVING AS FOLL OWS: ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADD ITION IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT HAV E BEEN MENTIONED IN PARA 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH CLEARLY PROVED THAT THE PAYMENTS ON THIS ISSUE HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE FILING OF THE RETU RN I.E. PRIOR TO 30.11.2000. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VINAY CEMENT LIMITED (SUPRA) HELD IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE LAW AS IT S TOOD PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 43B. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM T HE BENEFIT IN SECTION 43B FOR THAT PERIOD PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT HE HAS CONTRIBUTED TO PROVIDE NT FUND BEFORE THE FILING OF THE RETURN. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE. THE ADDITION IS DELETED AND THIS GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 15. SIMILARLY HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD. (2017) 250 TAXMANN.COM 0016 DISMISSED THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION STE EL TUBES OF INDIA LTD. 9 FILED BY THE REVENUE UPHOLDING THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN HOLDING THAT NO PART OF PF CONTRIBUTION/ESI, IF PAYMENT WAS REMITTED BEYOND TH E DUE DATE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE RELEVANT RULES BUT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME COULD BE DISALLO WED U/S 43B OR U/S 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT, WHETHER IT WAS EMP LOYEES CONTRIBUTION OR EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT AND IN THE GIVEN FACTS WHEREIN THE ALLEGED AMOUNT OF PF/ESI HAS BEEN DEPOSITED TO GOVERNMENT TREASURY BEFO RE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN U/S 139( 1) OF THE ACT, FIND NO CONSISTENCY IN THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 94,28,126/- PERTAINING T O DELAYED PAYMENT OF PF & ESI AFTER THE DUE DATE MENTIO NED IN THE SAID ACT. THUS GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES AP PEAL IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO.3 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.13,63,401/- ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENS ES. 16. THE ADDITION FOR RS. 13,63,401/- WAS MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSE S WHICH WERE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. B UT FOR STE EL TUBES OF INDIA LTD. 10 PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE THE CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN MADE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THIS AD DITION BY FOLLOWING THE FINDING OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2000-01. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 17. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITTE D THAT NO SUCH DETAILS OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES HAVE BEE N FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO PROVE THAT THE LIABILITY OF THE ALLEGED PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES CRYSTAL LIZED DURING THE YEAR. 18. PER CONTRA LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE. 19. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED WIT H THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.13,63,401/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES . 20. LD. CIT(A) MERELY MENTIONED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE SIMILAR ADDITION IN A.Y. 2000-01 AND FOLLO WING THE SAME DECISION ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES GROUND. HOWEV ER, FROM PERUSAL OF THE FINDING OF THE COORDINATE BENCH I N THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2000-01 OF RS.13,63,401/-. IT IS STE EL TUBES OF INDIA LTD. 11 SURPRISING TO NOTE THAT THE CROSS OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ADDITION OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AT RS.4,75,072/- WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVIN G AS FOLLOWS: ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE MATTER. IT IS UND ISPUTED FACT THAT THE EXPENSES OF RS.4,75,072/- DID NOT PER TAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF A ACCOUNTING AND THEREFORE, SHOULD HAVE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE IN THE YEAR TO WHICH THEY BELONGED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE US T O SHOW AS TO HOW THESE EXPENDITURE CRYSTALIZED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. NO MATERIAL IS PRODUC ED BEFORE US IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION RAISED BY TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. ONLY A LIST OF EXPENDITURE IS FILED AT PAGE 46 WITHOUT EXPLAINING AS TO HOW THESE HAVE BEEN CRYSTALIZED DURING THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION. THERE IS THUS NO INFIRMITY IN THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE CONFIRM THEIR ORDERS AND DISMISSING THIS GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 21. THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL CLEARLY REVEALS T HAT THE ASSESSEES GROUND WAS REJECTED AND DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES WAS CONFIRMED. HOWEVER, IT SEE MS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF T RIBUNAL THEREBY WRONGLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES GROUND. IN TH E STE EL TUBES OF INDIA LTD. 12 INSTANT APPEAL ALSO ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY DETAILS OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS.13,63,401/- B EFORE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS BEFORE US. IT S EEMS THAT ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO PROV E THAT THE LIABILITY TO INCUR EXPENSES OF RS.13,63,401/ - CRYSTALIZED DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE , ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY E RRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION WITHOUT EXAMINING THE FACTS AND DETAILS AND THUS THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE. WE, ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.13,63,401/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PER IOD EXPENSES AND ALLOW THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVEN UE. 22. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 .11 .2018. SD/- (KUL BHARAT) SD/- (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER INDORE; DATED : 13/11/2018 CTX? P.S/. . . COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUAR D FILE. STE EL TUBES OF INDIA LTD. 13 BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR