ACIT, Patiala V. M/s H.K. Associates, Patiala

ITA 642/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9934 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Assessment record
• Section: 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 642/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 THE ACIT, VS M/S H.K. ASSOCIATES, CIRCLE, 1-KANDHARI VILLA, PATIALA. BHUPINDER ROAD, PATIALA. PAN NO. AACHF3275N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 25.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.06.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) PATIALA DATED 21.03.2 013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING ON 10.03.2016, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 25.05.2016 ON THE REQUEST OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE 2 ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THER EFORE, APPEAL IS DECIDED EX-PARTE. 3. ON GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3, REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 29,27,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT RECEIVED IN THIS YEAR. THE ISSUE BEFORE LD . CIT(APPEALS) WAS ADDITION OF RS. 29,27,580/- RECEIV ED AS ADVANCE TOWARDS COMMISSION. THE FACTS OF THE CA SE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT AS A COMMISSION AGENT WITH KBPL. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENTS ADVANCE COMMISSION IN THE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOW EVER, DID NOT ACCEPT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS QUESTIONED AS TO WHERE THE TOTAL AMOUN T OF RS. 29,27,580/- HAD BEEN CREDITED. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT CHEQUES AMOUN TING TO RS. 9,48,750/- WERE CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE AND BALANCE RS. 18,20,250/- WAS CREDITED T O THE ACCOUNT OF MAMTA SHROFF. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SHE IS REPRESENTING THE ASSESSEE FIR M ON ITS BEHALF BEFORE THE PRINCIPLE COMPANY AS A REGULA R AND PERMANENT STAFF MEMBER AND HAS BEEN RECEIVING PAYMENTS ON ITS BEHALF FROM TIME TO TIME. IT IS NO TED THAT WHILE TDS CERTIFICATES ARE IN THE NAME OF ASSE SSEE FIRM, CHEQUES HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE NAME OF MAMTA SHROFF WHO HAS ALSO NOT SHOWN IT AS HER INCOME. TH E ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT SAME ARE CREDITED TO HER ACCOUNT BECAUSE SHE POSSIBLE HAS SPEND ON BEHALF OF THE 3 ASSESSEE FIRM AND BOOKED THE EXPENDITURE, AS PER A. O. WAS ALSO NOT MAINTAINABLE SINCE DURING THE YEAR, NO ACTIVE WORK AS COMMISSION AGENT TO THE PRINCIPLE HA S BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND THERE IS NO REASON AS TO WHY ACTUAL RECEIPT OF INCOME DURING THE YEAR SHOULD NOT BE BRO UGHT TO TAX DURING THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS RECEIVED. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 29,27,600/- WAS TREATED AS INCOME OF THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR. 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSE SSEE BRIEFLY EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JU STIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE COMMISSION RECEIVED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSE E HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE TO THE TUNE OF R S. 1,50,580/- AGAINST WHICH NO INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN I N THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT N O WORK COULD BE PROCURED FROM THE PRINCIPLE DUE TO SERIOUS CONTROVERSY REGARDING PESTICIDES IN THE COC O COLA AND ALSO FAMILY CONSTRAINTS. THE MATTER WAS RESOLVED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. FOR THIS REAS ON, NO BUSINESS WAS DONE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEA L I.E. 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE DID THE WORK IN SUBSEQU ENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE DENIED RECEIPT OF ANY COMMISSIO N OR ACCRUAL OF COMMISSION IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. 4 HOWEVER, CHEQUES AGGREGATING RS. 29,27,580/- WERE RECEIVED WHICH WERE DULY CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNTS. THE AGGREGATE CREDIT BALANCE WAS AT THE CLOSE WAS RS. 95,93,080/-. THIS WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST COMMISS ION RECEIVED IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AT RS. 3.91 CR. ALTHOUGH NO COMMISSION WAS EARNED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURC E TREATING THE SAME AS ADVANCE COMMISSION. SINCE TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, IT WAS CLAIMED IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME. 4(I) THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE VERIFICATION FROM THE PRINCIPLE WHO HAVE CONFIRMED THAT NO INCOME HAS BEE N PASSED ON TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7 BEING THE PART OF INCOME ACCRUED FROM SOURCE OF RS. 3.91 CR. IT WAS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT WAS ADVANCE RECEIVED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. PART AMOUNT WAS CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF SMT. MAMTA SHROFF AND OTHER IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FIR M. AS REGARDS THE CHEQUES COLLECTED BY REGULAR EMPLOYEE A ND FAMILY MEMBER SMT. MAMTA SHROFF, THESE HAVE BEEN DU LY DEBITED TO HER ACCOUNT AND RECOVERY WAS MADE LATER ON. COPY OF HER ACCOUNT WAS ALSO FILED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT UNDERSTOOD THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN E ARNED AND ACCRUED. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON CERTAIN DECI SIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION. THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE 5 ASSESSING OFFICER CONFIRMED THAT RS. 29,27,580/- HA S BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADVANCE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND SAME AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN AS PART OF ASSESSABLE INCOME IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON WHICH TAX HAS BEEN DULY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME WAS CORROBORATED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FROM ASSESSMENT RECORD AS WELL. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERING EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DELET ED THE ENTIRE ADDITION. HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 4.4 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 4-4 1 HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE. ENTRIE S MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE DISTURBED WITHOUT ANY COGENT REASON. THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THE AMOUNT AS ADVANCE IN A.Y. 2005-06 AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THIS FACT. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO AD MITTED THAT THE SAME AMOUNT IS SHOWN AS INCOME IN THE A.Y. 2006-07 WHICH HAS BEEN DULY ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY T HE PAYER THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENTS ADVANCE PAYMENT. A LL THESE FACTS ARE NOT REBUTTED. DETAILED REASONS WERE GIVEN IN SUPPORT OF THE ADVANCE RECEIVED. THE APPEL LANT HAS PAID THE TAX ON THE INCOME IN A.Y.2006-07 WHERE IN THE INCOME HAS ACCRUED AS PER DETAILED SUBMISSION MADE. THE TAXATION OF INCOME UNDER THE I.T. ACT IS ENVISAGED ON YEARLY BASIS AND EACH YEAR IS A SEPARA TE UNIT. THE CONFUSION HAS ARISEN BECAUSE OF CONSIDERI NG THE YEAR OF WITHHOLDING OF TAX ON BASIS FOR TAXABILITY OF INCOME. HOWEVER, THE TAXABILITY OF INCOME IS NOT BASED ON Y EAR OF TDS RATHER IT IS GOVERNED BY THE ACCRUAL OF INCOME IN THE 6 HANDS OF RECIPIENT. THE INCOME FALLS IN THE HANDS O F THE RECIPIENT IN THE YEAR THE TRANSACTION IS COMPLETED. IN THAT CASE, AS PER RECORD AND ADMITTED FACTS, THE TRANSAC TION IS COMPLETED IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT IN NEXT YEA R. THEREFORE, WITHHOLDING OF TAX IS OBLIGATORY ON DEDU CTOR BUT PAYMENT OF TAX IS DUE ON THE PERSON WHO RECEIVE S THE INCOME IN THE PARTICULAR YEAR WHEN TRANSACTION IS COMPLETED I.E. NEXT YEAR. THE APPELLANT HAS DULY FI LED THE RETURN FOR NEXT YEAR AND PAID TAX ON THE AMOUNT. SO , THE ACCRUAL OF INCOME IN THAT YEAR IS ALSO NOT UNDER CONTROVERSY. UNDER THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THERE IS NOT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE ON THE CONTRARY. THE TRANSACTI ONS IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT AND PAYER CONFIRM THIS. THEREFORE, ACCEPTING THE FACT AS THEY ARE, THERE IS NO RATIONAL BASIS TO BRING TO TAX THE AMOUNT IN THIS Y EAR. LOOKING INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THEREFORE, IN M Y OPINION, THE ADDITION CAN'T BE SUSTAINED. IN THE RE SULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT WORK DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE PRINCIPLE DUE TO CERTAI N DIFFERENCES/CONTROVERSIES. HOWEVER, ADVANCE OF RS. 29,27,580/- WAS RECEIVED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS COMMISSION WHICH WAS PART OF THE COMMISSION RECEIVED FOR SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AT RS. 3.91 CR. PRINCIPLE PARTY ALSO ADMITT ED THAT NO INCOME PASSED ON TO ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UN DER APPEAL. THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN TH E ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE FIRM AND OF SMT. MAMTA SHROFF H AVE BEEN EXPLAINED. THEREFORE, IT IS ESTABLISHED FACT THAT THE ADVANCE RECEIVED WAS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR 7 SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH FACT HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON WHICH TAX HAS ALSO BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THEREFORE, LD. CIT(APPEALS), ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD CORRECTLY DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 6(I) THE LD. DR ALSO CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED CREDIT FOR TDS OF RS. 1,50,580/- IN THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION DESPITE ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM T HAT NO COMMISSION INCOME HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, DIRECTION MAY BE I SSUED IN THIS REGARD THAT NO TDS BENEFIT WILL ACCRUE TO T HE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON UNREPORTED DECISI ON OF HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SR I Y. RATHIESH VS CIT DATED 06.08.2010 IN ITA NO. 52/2002 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD, ONCE HE INTENDS TO TREAT THE AMOUNT DEDUCTED AS TDS AS A COMPONENT OF TAX PAID, CORRESPONDING TO THE TDS, MUST FORM PART OF THE RET URN AND THE ASSESSMENT . IT WAS FURTHER HELD, WHENEVER AN AMOUNT DEDUCTED AS TAX AT SOURCE BECOMES INCAPAB LE OF BEING ADJUSTED OR COUNTED TOWARDS TAX PAYABLE, I T ACQUIRES THE CHARACTER OF INCOME. THE LD. DR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT EITHER NO TDS BENEFIT SHOULD BE GIVE N TO THE ASSESSEE OR IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF TDS CLAIMED. THIS POINT HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN HIS FINDINGS AND IS INDEPENDENT ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS . 8 FURTHER, THE RECORD REVEALED THAT EVEN ON EARLIER OCCASION, THE MATTER HAS TRAVELED TO THE TRIBUNAL. SINCE THIS POINT IS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME AND IS ARIS ING FROM RECORD ITSELF, THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) TO LOOK INTO THIS ASPECT AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THESE DIRECTIONS WILL NOT AFFECT OUR FINDI NG THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) CORRECTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,27,600/-. THEREFORE, GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL ARE DISMISSED, AS DIRECTED ABOV E. 7. ON GROUND NOS. 4 AND 5, REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 26,41,100/- ON ACCOUNT OF INADMISSIBLE EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT. 7(I) BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED AND CLAIMED CERTAIN EXPENSES. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER NOTED THAT DURING THE YEAR, NO ACTUAL WORK HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN WITH REFERENCE TO ACTIVE BUSINESS O F COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE KBPL AND THEREFORE, ASSESSEE DID NOT NEED TO INCUR THE EXPENDITURE WHIC H HAVE BEEN BOOKED IN THIS YEAR. FURTHER, LARGE NUMB ER OF VOUCHERS ARE MADE ON FIRMS OWN VOUCHERS BOOK AND D ID NOT CARRY REVENUE STAMP AND THERE ARE NO SUPPORTING EXPENSES BILL. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS, ACCORDINGLY, MADE. 8. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS 9 REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSE SSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION AND SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOW ANCE WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED DISCREPANCY IN VOUCHERS, INTEREST ON LOAN WHICH REMAINED UNEXPLAIN ED AND THAT EXPENSES ARE NOT RELEVANT FOR EARNING INCO ME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES WHICH ARE BANK INTEREST, FIXED CONVEYA NCE TO STAFF, DEPRECIATION AND INSURANCE. IT WAS EXPLA INED THAT FOR THESE EXPENSES, THERE IS NO NEED TO MAKE VOUCHERS. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF OFFICE REQUIRING VOU CHERS WERE IN A SUM OF RS. 1,03,055/- ONLY. THEREFORE, ADDITION OF RS. 26,41,000/- IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL EXPENSES ARE EXPLAINED AND HAVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONDUCTED BUSINESS IN NEXT YEAR MORE THAN RS. 3 CRORE. IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER CLOSED DOWN. IT WAS BECAUSE OF DIFFERENCES WITH PRINCIPLE, BUSINESS COULD NOT BE CONDUCTED IN THIS YEAR AND THERE WAS ONLY A TEMPORARY LULL. THE BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER DISSOLVED A ND ACTIVITIES WERE TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED UNDER APPREHENSION OF INCURRING CRIMINAL LIABILITY. IT W AS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATIO N TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE. 9. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), CONSIDERING EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOUND THAT ADDITION SHOULD BE RESTRICT ED TO RS. 1,03,055/- ONLY AND DELETED THE PART ADDITION. THE 10 FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN PARA 5.4 OF THE APP ELLATE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 5.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE EXPENSES CONSISTS OF BANK INTERES T TO THE TUNE OF RS. 19,87,746/-. THE A.O. HAS NOT DOUBTED THE BANK INTEREST PAID TO THE BANK AND THERE CANNOT BE A NY QUESTION OF SELF-MADE VOUCHERS IN THIS CASE. THE OT HER EXPENSE IS RS.3,75,805/- WHICH IS ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION AND, THEREFORE, THIS ALSO CAN'T BE DISALLO WED AS NO MATERIAL IS ON RECORD WHICH SHOWS THAT DEPRECIATION CLAIMED IS BOGUS. THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLA INED THAT THERE IS TEMPORARY LULL IN THE BUSINESS OF EARNIN G COMMISSION INCOME DUE TO THE FACTS MENTIONED AND THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO CLOSE DOWN BUSINESS. THE APPELLANT HAS DULY EARNED COMMISSION INCOME IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WHICH HAS BEEN ASSESSED TO TAX. THE AMOUNT PAID ON INSURANCES IS RS.62,694/- WH ICH ALSO CAN'T BE DOUBTED AS IT IS PAID ON ACCOUNT OF I NSURANCE AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT THIS CLAIM I S BOGUS. THE BALANCE EXPENSE IS RS.2,14,855/- AND OUT OF THIS TH E APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED FIXED CONVEYANCE TO STAFF AT RS.1,11,800/-. THE APPELLANT FURTHER CLAIMED THAT THEREFORE, THE EXPENSES WHICH REQUIRE VOUCHERS ARE O NLY RS.1,03,055/-. IN MY OPINION, THEREFORE, LOOKING INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ONLY EXPENSE WHICH CAN DISALL OWED IN THIS CASE IS RS.I,O3,OOG/- AS THE OTHER EXPENSES ARE T O BE NECESSARILY INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED IN THE GROUND NO. 6 THAT SOME EXPENSE IS VOLUNTARILY DISALLOWED AND, THEREFORE, ANY SUCH DISALLOWANCE MADE VOLUNTARILY ALSO NEEDS TO BE DISALLOWED BESIDES RS. 103,055/-. IN THE RESULT, THIS GR OUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 11 10. AFTER CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS A TEMPORARY LUL L IN THE BUSINESS OF EARNING COMMISSION DUE TO CERTAIN DISPUTES BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE PRINCIPLE. I N THE NEXT YEAR, ASSESSEE CONDUCTED BUSINESS AND EARNED H UGE COMMISSION. IT WOULD SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO INTENT ION TO CLOSE DOWN THE BUSINESS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THERE WAS, THUS, TEMPORARY LULL IN THE BUS INESS OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS SHALL HAVE TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. THE MAJOR EXPENSES CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE WERE ON ACCOUNT OF BANK INTEREST, DEPRECIATION, INSURANCE AND CONVEYANCE TO THE STAFF ON WHICH THER E IS NO NEED TO MAINTAIN VOUCHERS. THESE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE EXPENSES WHICH REQUIRE VOUCHERS, ARE ONLY TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,03,055/- WHICH HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AS WELL. THEREF ORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL O F THE REVENUE. SAME ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 11. ON GROUND NO. 6, REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELETIO N OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,92,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLO WANCE OF SALARY PAID TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF EXCESS SALAR Y PAID TO MAMTA SHROFF AND HARPREET KAUR. THE ASSESS EE 12 SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CONFIRMED THIS FACT THAT THI S ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ACCORDINGLY, DELETED THE ADDITION. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. SINCE THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE BY EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFOR E, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SA INI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13 TH JUNE,2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD