ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI V. SURESH RATHI SECURITIES P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6501/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8255 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 25-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V KRISHNAMOORTHY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 37(1); 37

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E MUMBAI . , / BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT /AND !'# , !$ %& SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.TA. NO. 6501/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ACIT-2(3), R.NO. 555, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI 400 020. VS. M/S. SURESH RATHI SECURITIES PVT. LTD., 9, PAREKH VORA CHAMBERS, 66, N.M. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 023 PAN: AABCS 5554 M ( '( / APPELLANT ) ( )*'( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : SHRI V. KRISHNAMOORTHY ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR PARIDA + ,$ / DATE OF HEARING : 25-10-2012 -. + ,$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16-11-2012 %!/ / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, A.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DT .07.06.2010 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-6, MUMBAI. FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO): ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXT ENT IMPUGNED IN THE GROUNDS ENUMERATED BELOW: THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FAC TS OF THE CASE. 2(A). ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,08,000/- AS FO REIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO F URNISH ANY DOCUMENTS PROVING THE INCURRING OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. 2(B) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,08,000/- AS FO REIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSIN ESS. I.TA. NO. 6501/MUM/2010 M/S. SURESH RATHI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. 2 3(A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RS.8,56,255/- AS EXPENSES ON REPA IRS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT IT IS THE EXPENDITURE ON CURRENT REPAIRS ONLY WHICH ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AS EXPENDITURE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.31 OF THE I .T. ACT. 3(B) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON A CCOUNT OF REPAIRS WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE. 3(C) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY HO NBLE SUPREME COURT ON THE ISSUE IN THE CASES OF SARVANA SPINNING MILLS 293 ITR 201, SHREE MANGAYAR KARASI MILLS 315 ITR 114 AND TRAVANCORE COCHIN CHEMICALS 106 ITR 900. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,73,652/- IS ALLO WABLE AS LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF ERROR AND OMISSION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF SUCH LOSSES. 5. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. ASSESSEE-COMPANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARES AND STOCK BROKING, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.11.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.56.73 LAKHS. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, U/S.14 3(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961(ACT), ON 08.12.2008 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCO ME AT RS. 73.91 LAKHS. 2. GROUND NO.1 IS ABOUT FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3.08 LAKHS IS TOWARDS, FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES. AFTER CONSIDE RING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HE HELD THAT NO DETAILS OR PROOF OF ANY KI ND IN THIS REGARD WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THAT IN ABSENCE OF DETAILS OF FOREIGN VISITS BOARDING PASSES, COPIES OF TICKETS AND OTHER EXPENSES INCURRED OUTSIDE INDIA, ALONG WITH PROPER SUPPORTING EVIDENCES, CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOW ABLE U/S. 37(1) OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER HELD THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR CL AIMING FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES FOR A COMPANY CARRYING OUT BUSINESS IN INDIA. 2.1. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA). AFTER CONSIDERING THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HE HELD THAT BUSINESS EXPE DIENCY WAS THE PREROGATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT WHETHER THE TRIP WAS FRUITFUL OR NOT COULD NOT BE A RELEVANT FACTOR IN DECIDING THE ALLOWANCE/DISALLOWANCE OF AN EXPENDITU RE, THAT APPELLANT HAD GIVEN THE LIST OF PERSONS VISITED DURING THE TRIP, THAT IT WO ULD BE IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO ALLOW HALF OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPO SES. HE FURTHER HELD THAT NO EVIDENCE REGARDING THE INCURRING OF THIS EXPENDITUR E HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 2.2. BEFORE US, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED THAT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED NECESSARY DETAILS OF FOREIGN TRAVEL W ITH THE AO, THAT DETAILS OF FOREIGN VISIT WAS ALSO FURNISHED TO THE FAA, THAT FOREIGN T RAVEL WAS UNDERTAKEN TO FIND NEW CLIENTS IN BRITAIN, THAT FOREIGN EXCHANGE WAS WITHD RAWN FOR THIS PURPOSE, THAT FAA HAD NOT INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE I NCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITTED THAT THA T NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED BY I.TA. NO. 6501/MUM/2010 M/S. SURESH RATHI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. 3 THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO OR THE FAA, THAT BOTH HA VE RECORDED THE FINDING THAT EVIDENCES ABOUT FOREIGN TRAVEL WERE NOT FURNISHED B Y THE ASSESSEE. 2.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON FILE. THOUGH IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD SUBMITTED NECESSARY DETAILS BEFORE THE AO AND THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, YET ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE FAA CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT REQUISITE INFO RMATION WAS NOT FURNISHED. BEFORE US ALSO ASSESSEE-COMPANY DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDEN CE IN THIS REGARD. WE FIND THAT CONSIDERING THE PURCHASE OF TICKETS IN FOREIGN EXCH ANGE FAA HAS ALREADY ALLOWED 50% OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , WE ARE OF THE OPINION, THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDE R OF THE FAA. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD NOT RAISED ANY ISSUE OF ACCEPTING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE FAA. THEREFORE, IF AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO HIM, HE HAS HELD THAT HALF OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS ALLOWABLE, THEN IN OUR OPINION, THE RE SHOULD NOT BE ANY GRIEVANCE BY THE AO. GROUND NO.1 IS DECIDED AGAINST THE AO. 3. GROUND NO.2 IS ABOUT EXPENSES ON REPAIRS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED CERTAIN AMOUNT AS EXPENSES TOWARDS REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE. AFTER SCRUTINISING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, IN THIS REGARD, HE HELD THAT PAYMENT WAS MADE TO 5 PARTIES, THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OF CAPITAL NATURE, THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 8.56 LAKHS WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, HE ALLOW DEPRECI ATION AT THE RATE OF 5%, AMOUNTING TO RS. 42, 813/-TO THE ASSESSEE AND DISALLOW THE BA LANCE AMOUNT I.E. RS. 8.13 LAKHS. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEAL AUTHORITY (FAA). AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HE HELD THAT EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, FOR REPLA CEMENT OF BATTERIES FOR THE USP AND FOR REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE WORK FOR THE VARIOUS OFF ICES, WAS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. BEFORE HIM ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THA T IN THE AY 2005-06 HIS PREDECESSOR HAD DELETED THE SIMILAR ADDITION MADE B Y THE AO. 3.1. BEFORE US, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED THE SAID EXPENDITURE FOR REPAIRING THE OFF ICES LOCATED AT VARIOUS PLACES OF THE COUNTRY, THAT ASSESSEE HAD REPLACED BATTERIES FOR T HE USP FOR UNINTERRUPTED ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, THAT BILLS OF THE EXPENDITURE WERE SUBMITTE D BEFORE THE AO AND THE FAA. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED ANY DETAIL OF THE EXPENDITURE BEFORE THE AO, THAT PROOF OF PURCHASING OF BATTERIES WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE A LSO RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DELIVERED FOR THE AY 2005-06 IN THIS REGAR D. 3.2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL. WE FIND THAT IN THE AY 2005-06 SIMILAR ISSUE WAS AGITA TED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. E BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 15.06.2011 HAS RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. ONE OF US WAS PARTY TO THAT ORDER. PARA GRAPH NO.8 OF THE ORDER, RELEVANT FOR THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION, READS AS UNDER : WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOT H THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE. OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.9,84, 358/-,WE FIND THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PAPER BO OK HAS FILED THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,58,280/- PAID TO SHIVAM FURNITUR ES VIDE BILL DATED 10.10.2004. A PERUSAL I.TA. NO. 6501/MUM/2010 M/S. SURESH RATHI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. 4 OF THE ABOVE BILL SHOWS THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PA ID TOWARDS REPAIR OF VARIOUS ITEMS. THEREFORE, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,58,280/- PAID TOWARDS REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF BHAYANDER OFFICE CAN BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. SO FA R AS THE BALANCE AMOUNT IS CONCERNED, WE FIND NO BILLS AND VOUCHERS ARE FILED IN THE PAPER B OOK. EVEN THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE EXPEND ITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED AT JODHPUR OFFICE AND THE DETAILS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. THEREFORE WE ARE UNABLE TO ASCERTAIN THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE I.E. WHETHER THE SAME IS REVENUE OR CAP ITAL IN NATURE. WE FIND THE LD.CIT(A) MERELY ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSE E. IF THE BILLS OF JODHPUR OFFICE WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM FOR EXAMINATION, NOTHING PREVE NTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE SAME EITHER BEFORE THE A.O. OR BEFORE US. THEREFORE, TH E EXPENDITURE INCURRED AT JODHPUR OFFICE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS REVENUE IN NATURE WITHOUT P ROPER VERIFICATION ESPECIALLY WHEN HUGE AMOUNT HAS BEEN INCURRED TOWARDS REPAIRS AND MAINTE NANCE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, OUT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9, 84,358/- BY THE A.O., AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,58,280/- PAID TO SHIVAM FURNITURE IS HELD AS REVENUE IN NATURE. FOR THE REMAINING AMOUNT, THE MATTER IS BEING RESTORED TO THE FILE OF A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLA IM WITH EVIDENCE TO HIS SATISFACTION REGARDING THE REVENUE CHARACTER OF THE SAME. THE A. O. SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENU E IS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 3.3. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER TAKEN THE ISSUE OF REPLACEMENT OF BATTERIES IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BEFORE THE FAA.AO H AS CLEARLY STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED EVIDENCES WITH REGARD TO REPAIRS AND MAIN TENANCE. BEFORE US, ALSO THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WHO LLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS. IN THESE CIR CUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. HE IS DIRECTED TO AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.2 IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE AO F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. NEXT GROUND IS ABOUT LOSS SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ERROR AND OMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS.3.73 LAKHS. DURING THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED A LOSS ON ACCOUNT FOR OMI SSION AND ERROR (VANDA LOSS). HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAIL S OF SUCH LOSS, THAT IT HAD ONLY SUBMITTED THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS, THAT PROOF TO SUBSTA NTIATE THE CLAIM WAS MISSING, THAT IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO DISALLOWANCES WERE MA DE. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FAA. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HE HELD T HAT AO HAD WRONGLY CONSIDERED THE FIGURE OF RS.3.73 LAKHS FOR DISALLOWANCE, THAT CORRECT FIGURE WAS RS.7.01 LAKHS, THAT THE LIST OF OMISSION AND ERROR INCLUDED PROFIT OF RS.72,338/-,THAT HUMAN ERROR CONSTITUTED ONLY .36% OF THE BROKERAGE EARNED, THAT CLAIM WAS NOT EXORBITANT OR UNREASONABLE, THAT WRONG PUNCHING WAS NORMAL PRACTI CE IN SHARE BROKING BUSINESS, THAT IN EARLIER AY HIS PREDECESSOR HAD DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THE SAME ISSUE. 4.1. BEFORE US, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITT ED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED DETAILS OF LOSS BEFORE THE AO AND FAA, THAT DIFFERE NCE WAS DUE TO MISTAKES COMMITTED BY THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE IN PUNCHING ORDER S, THAT CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS A MINISCULE OF THE INCOME OFFERED BY IT, THAT I N EARLIER YEARS ALSO ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AUTHORISED REPR ESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD, THAT IN THE EARLIER AY MATTER WAS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO BY THE TRIBUNAL . I.TA. NO. 6501/MUM/2010 M/S. SURESH RATHI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. 5 4.2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL. WE FIND THAT, IN THE STATEMENTS OF FACTS AND IN THE GR OUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE FAA, ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTIO N WAS RS.7.01 LAKHS AND NOT RS.3.73 LAKHS. WE HAVE ALSO FOUND THAT THE FAA HA D NOT CALLED FOR ANY REMAND REPORT IN THIS REGARD FROM THE AO ABOUT THE SAID CL AIM BEFORE ALLOWING THE SUM OF RS.7.01 LAKHS. IN OUR OPINION FOR ALLOWING AN EXPE NDITURE BASIC CONDITION IS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE B USINESS. EXORBITANTNESS OR OTHERWISE OF AN EXPENDITURE DOES NOT MAKE IT ALLOWA BLE OR DISALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. FOR CLAIMING AN EXPENDITURE ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESS EE TO PROVE THAT SAME WAS INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE UN DER CONSIDERATION AMOUNT ITSELF IS IN DISPUTE. WE FIND THAT TRIBUNAL HAD DISCUSSED TH E SIMILAR ISSUE FOR THE EARLIER AY AND HAS HELD AS UNDER : AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY HAS NOT FILED THE REQUISITE DETAILS BEFORE THE A.O. AND HAD MADE ONLY GENERAL S UBMISSIONS. WE FIND THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ACCEPTED THE GENERAL SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSE E WITHOUT VERIFYING THE REQUISITE DETAILS OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE NEVER FURNISHED BEF ORE THE A.O. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT J USTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARID IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH A DI RECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM TO HIS SATISFACT ION WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSE. IN OUR OPINION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE MATTER SH OULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER AFF ORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. HE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO RE SOLVE THE CONTROVERSY WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE FIGURE I.E. RS.3.73 LAKHS OR RS.7. 01 LAKHS. GROUND NO. 3 IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE AO FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. AS A RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS PARTLY AL LOWED IN HIS FAVOUR FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( . / D. MANMOHAN) ( !'# / RAJENDRA) / VICE PRESIDENT !$ %& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, 0% DATE: 16 TH NOVEMBER , 2012 TNMM I.TA. NO. 6501/MUM/2010 M/S. SURESH RATHI SECURITIES PVT. LTD. 6 %!/ %!/ %!/ %!/ + ++ + ),1 ),1 ),1 ),1 2!1., 2!1., 2!1., 2!1., / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR E BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE *1, ), //TRUE COPY// %!/ %!/ %!/ %!/ / BY ORDER, / DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI