M/s Bhola Food Products(P) Ltd., Allahabad V. Jt. CIT,(OSD), Allahabad

ITA 66/ALLD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1835 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 11 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEBASHISH CHANDA
• Keywords: Gift; Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Search and seizure; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Block assessment; Tax effect; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 133A; 153A; 37(1); 13; 153; 145(3); 132; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD ( THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 66 & 153 /ALLD/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 05 - 06 & 2009 - 10 M/S BHOLA FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LTD. SAHSON, ALLAHABAD ,U.P. V. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OS D ), CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD ,U.P. PAN: AA CCB 2409D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: MR. PRAVEEN GODBOLE, CA RESPONDENT BY: MR. DEBASHISH CHANDA , CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING: 06 . 01 .202 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09 . 03 . 2021 O R D E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , BEING ITA NOS. 66 & 153 /ALLD/201 3 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS(AYS) : 2005 - 06 AND 2009 - 10 RESPECTIVELY ARE D IRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE APPELLATE ORDER S , FIRSTLY APPELLATE ORDER DATED 21 . 11 .201 2 IN A PPEAL N O. 499/JCIT/CC/ALLD/11 - 12 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS), ALLAHABAD , U.P. (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE CIT(A)) FOR AY: 20 05 - 06 AND SECONDLY APPELLATE ORDER DATED 29 .0 1 .201 3 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IN APPEAL NUMBER 503 /JCIT/CC/ALLD/11 - 12 FOR AY: 2009 - 1 0 . THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAD ARISEN BEFORE LD. CIT(A) FROM SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORDERS BOTH DATED 28 . 1 2.201 1 FOR AY: 20 05 - 06 AND 20 09 - 1 0 RESPECTIVELY, BOTH PASSED U/S. 1 5 3 A ( B ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED 'THE ACT') BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER(HEREINAFTER CALLED ITA NO. 66 & 153/ALLD/2013 BHOLA FOODS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED AY - 2005 - 06 & 2009 - 10 2 THE AO) . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SE APPEALS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING MODE T HROUGH VIRTUAL COURT. BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OFF THROUGH THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN MEMO OF APPEALS FILED WITH INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE TRIBUNAL) FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR(S), READS AS UNDER: - ITA NO. 66/ALLD/2013 - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 1. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 153A(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND BY SUCH ORDER THE INCOME DET ERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HIGHLY OBJECTIONABLE AND INCORRECT AND HER ACTION AS PARTLY CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) IS UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. 2. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER THE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT IN CONSEQUENCE TO WHICH THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH THE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS MADE DETERMINING THE INCOME AT RS . 1,13,46,700/ - AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 12,44,150/ - IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT HENCE SUCH ORDER PASSED IS NULLIFY. 3. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER DISALLOWANCES OF THE EXPENSES OF RS. 14,77,400/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED AS THE EXPENDITURE IS SUPPORTED BY THE VOUCHERS AND RECORDED IN BOOKS IN REGULAR COURSE, HENCE THE ALLEGATION OF THE TWO LOWER AUTHORITIES WITH R EGARD TO NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED AS THE EXPENDITURE WAS EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES ONLY, HENCE THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS INCORRECT AND UNWARRAN TED. 4. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER OBSERVATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) IN PARA 9.2 OF HIS ORDER ARE TOTALLY INCORRECT AND CONTRARY TO THE ACTUAL FACTS OF THE ISSUE HENCE THE ADDITION MAINTAINED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEAL) IS INCORRECT AND UNWARRANTED. 5. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER WHILE PASSING THE ORDER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TOTALLY FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACTS OF THE CASE, PAPER BOOK FILED AND ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND THE TOTAL RELIEF P RAYED FOR HAS BEEN NEGATIVED AND A VERY SMALL RELIEF HAS BEEN CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED BY IGNORING THE JUDICIAL NORMS WHICH IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED AND INCORRECT. ITA NO. 66 & 153/ALLD/2013 BHOLA FOODS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED AY - 2005 - 06 & 2009 - 10 3 6. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER THE INTEREST CHARGED UNDER PROVISIONS OF VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER THE APPELLANT RESERVES HIS RIGHT TO TAKE ANY FURTHER GROUND BEFORE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. ITA NO. 153/ALLD/2013 - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 1. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.201 1 PASSED U/S 153A(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND VIDE WHICH INCOME AS DETERMINED AT RS. 3,15,17,675.00 IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED AND INCORRECT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE ENTIRE OBSERVATIONS, FINDINGS AND ALLEGATION IN THE ORDER FOR MAKING THE ADDITIONS ARE TOTALLY FALSE AND INCORRECT. 2. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER FACTS OF THE ANNEXURE A - 5 FOUND AND SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS NO T PROPERLY CONSIDERED AN D EVEN RECONCILIATION FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNTS IN JUDICIOUS MAN NER HENCE THE ADDITION MADE IS UNJUSTIFIED AND UNWARRANTED AND THE FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING THE ADDITIONS ARE ABSOLUTELY INCOR RECT AND CONTRARY TO THE ACTUAL FACTS OF THE CASE, 3. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER UNDUE / UNNECESSARY WEIGHTAGE HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE SEIZED ANNEXURE A - 5 BASED ON WHICH A PROFIT OF RS.3,15,17,675.00 AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND A PART OF THE SAME I.E. RS. 1,79, 15,749.00 AS MAINTAINED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED AND THE REASONS RECORDED FOR MAINTAINING THE PART OF THE ADDITION ARE INCORRECT AND CONTRARY TO THE ACTUAL FACTS OF THE CASE HENCE THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 4. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER ALLEGATION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT THE APPELLANT UNDERSTATED THE CLOSING STOCK TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,79,15,749.00 IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED AND INCORRECT BECAUSE THE APPE LLANT IS MAINTAINING COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND PROVISO TO SECTION 145(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS NOT INVOKED HENCE THE MAINTENANCE OF A PART OF THE ADDITION BY - THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. 5. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,15,17,675.00 HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER BASED ON HER OWN WISHES AND PRESUMPTIONS AND THIS FACT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO IN HIS ORDER BUT IN HIS OBSERVATION T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO MAINTAINED A PART OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,79,15,749.00 BASED ON IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATION O F THE FACT WHICH IS UNJUSTIFIED AND WRONG AND HENCE THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 6. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF TH E MATTER INTEREST AS CHARGED UNDER DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. ITA NO. 66 & 153/ALLD/2013 BHOLA FOODS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED AY - 2005 - 06 & 2009 - 10 4 7. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER THE APPELLANT RESERVES HIS RIGHT TO TAKE ANY FRESH GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE HEARING OF THE A PPEAL. 3 . FIRST , WE SHALL TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY: 2005 - 06. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING , PRODUCING AND PROCESSING OF MASALAS (SPICES) AND OTHER FOOD PRODUCTS. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS CARRIED ON BY REVENUE U/S. 132 OF THE ACT ON 27.08.2009 IN THE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE GROUP CASES OF KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR, SAHSON, ALLAHABAD AND ITS PA RTNERS AND DIRECTORS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A SISTER CONCERN OF M/S KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR . THE NOTICES U/S. 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY AO TO ASSESSEE ON 07.07.2010 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED ON THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY ON 11.02.2010. THE ASSESSEE IN C OMPLIANCE THEREOF TO AFORESAID NOTICE, FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 18.10.2020 DISCLOSING INCOME OF RS. 12,44,150/ - . THEREAFTER, N OTICES U/S. 143 (2) OF THE 1961 ACT WAS ISSUED BY AO TO THE ASSESSEE ON 19.10.2010 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED ON THE A SSESSEE. NOTIC ES U/S. 142(1) WERE ALSO ISSUED BY AO TO ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME. THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ITS COUNSEL APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION S DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS CONDUCTED BY REVENUE U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT, NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE FOUND. HOWEVER, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , WHICH WERE PE RUSED AND EXAMINED BY THE AO . 3.2 IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US , THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY AO AGAINST THE ASSESSEE U/S 153A OF THE 1961 ACT, AS IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIONS CONDUCTED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON 27.08.2009 U/S 132(1) OF THE 1961 ACT , BUT HOWEVER, BEFORE US NO CONTENTION WERE RAISED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY AND ILLEGALITY OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED PURSUANT TO SEARCH ON ITA NO. 66 & 153/ALLD/2013 BHOLA FOODS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED AY - 2005 - 06 & 2009 - 10 5 THE GROUND THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION S . WE HAVE OBSERVED FROM ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED B Y AO THAT SEVERAL ADDITIONS WERE MADE BASED ON MATERIAL /DOCUMENTS SEIZED BY REVENUE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS CONDUCTED BY REVENUE , U/S 132(1) OF THE 1961 ACT ON 27.08.2009. THUS , WE DISMISS GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 RAISED BY ASSES SEE IN MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 4 . THE ASSESSEE HAS VIDE GROUND NUMBER 3 , 4 AND 5 RAISED THE CONTENTION ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE WHICH IS A SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US, IN WHICH CLAIM IS MADE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A PROVISION FOR RS.14,77,400/ - WHICH WAS DEBITED TO THE P ROFIT & L OSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR CONSIDERATION TOWARDS THE PROVISION FOR EXPENSES TOWARDS SCHEME FOR SALE PROMOTION CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BE FORE THE BENCH THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE REJECTED THE CONTENTION S OF THE ASSESSEE ALTHOUGH THE LIABILITY FOR THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED @ 6% ON TOTAL SALES AS PER SALE PROMOTION SCHEME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, AND ACCORD INGLY PROVISION FOR SALE PROMOTION EXPENSES WERE MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR LIABILITY FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN THIS YEAR ITSELF (VIZ. AY: 2005 - 06) , ALTHOUGH PAYMENTS FOR SALE PROMOTION SCHEME OF SALES WERE MADE IN THE NEXT YEAR . THE LEDGER ACCOUNT FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WAS PRODUCED BEFORE US SHOWING THAT PAYMENTS TOWARDS PURCHASING GIFTS AS PER SALE PROMOTION SCHEME WAS MADE IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR, WHICH LEDGER IS PLACED IN PB AT PAGES 32 TO 39. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THE AO TREATED THESE EXPENSES AS BOGUS EXPENSES , WHILE LD. CIT(A) HAS TREATED THE SAME AS CONTINGENT AND PROVISIONS NOT MADE PROPERLY AS PER THE SALES PROMOTION SCHEME . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE DISCLOSED IN THE AUDITED FI NANCIAL STATEMENTS , WHICH ARE ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY ASSESSEE AT PAGE 40 - 56. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PAGE 49/PB WHEREIN PROVISION FOR SCHEME EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.14,77,400/ - ARE REFLECTED. FURTHER , OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PAGE 54 /PB , WHICH IS SCHEDULE OF ITA NO. 66 & 153/ALLD/2013 BHOLA FOODS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED AY - 2005 - 06 & 2009 - 10 6 INDIRECT EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , WHEREIN THE SCHEME EXPENSES OF RS. 14,77,400/ - ARE REFLECTED. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT DETAILS OF SCHEME WERE FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) , BUT THE SAME IS NOT BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5 . THE LD. CIT - DR SUBMITTED THAT THESE ARE CONTINGENT LIABILITIES/ EXPENSES AND THERE WAS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE FOR MAKING THE PROVISION @ 6% OF THE TOTAL SALES , AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION DURING THE YEAR AND CONSEQUENTLY THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT VERIFIED IN THE NEXT YEAR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SALES PROMOTION SCHEME PROVIDED FOR SALES TARGET TO BE ACHIEVED AND THE GIFTS ARE PAYABLE ONLY O N ACHIEVEMENT OF SALES TARGETS AND ESTIMATION OF SALE PROMOTION EXPENSES AT THE FLAT RATE OF 6% IS NOT CORRECT , WHICH IS NOT AS PER SCHEME AND PRAYERS WERE MADE TO UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE . IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. CIT - DR BEFORE THE BENCH THAT IN CASE IF THE DISALLOWANCE OF THESE PROVISION FOR SCHEME EXPENSES ARE NOT UPHELD BY TRIBUNAL, THEN IN THAT CASE THESE PROVISION FOR SCHEME EXPENSES CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE REQUIRES VERIFICATION BY THE AO AND THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE O F THE AO FOR VERIFICATION AND FRESH ADJUDICATION . 6 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING , PRODUCING AND PROCESSING OF MASALAS (SPICES) AND OTHER FOOD PRODUCTS. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS CARRIED ON BY REVENUE U/S. 132 (1) OF THE 1961 ACT ON 27.08.2009 IN THE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE GROUP CASES OF KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR, SAHSON, ALLAHABAD AN D ITS PARTNERS AND DIRECTORS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A SISTER CONCERN OF M/S KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS CONDUCTED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON 27.08.2009 U/S 132(1) OF THE 1961 ACT, THE REVENUE , INTE R - ALIA, SEIZED ANNEXURE LP - 2, IN WHICH AT PAGE NUMBER 12 IS A TRIAL BALANCE ENDING ON 31.03.2005, AND THERE WAS NO ENTRY OF SCHEME PROMOTION EXPENSES OF RS. 14,77,400 / - IN THE SAID TRIAL BALANCE , WHILE AS PER ITA NO. 66 & 153/ALLD/2013 BHOLA FOODS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED AY - 2005 - 06 & 2009 - 10 7 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2005, THE ASS ESSEE HAS CLAIMED SCHEME EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 14,77,400/ - UNDER THE HEAD INDIRECT EXPENSES IN THE AUDITED P&L ACCOUNT PREPARED BY IT. THE ASSESSEE HAD TERMED THE SAID SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS DUMB/ROUGH DOCUMENT. THE ASSESSEE DID NO T PRODUCE ANY DETAILS AND VOUCHERS BEFORE THE AO AND THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS TREATED BY AO AS NOT HAVING BEEN INCURRED AND BOGUS EXPENSES BEING CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND IT WAS CLAIMED BY ASSESS EE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THAT THESE PROVISIONS FOR SALE PROMOTION SCHEME ARE MADE TOWARDS LIABILITY FOR EXPENSES WHICH WAS ESTIMATED @6% OF SALES TO COVER THE LIABILITY INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF SALES PROMOTION SCHEME RUN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE COPY OF SCHEME FOR LUCK Y DRAW AND TARGET INCENTIVE WAS FURNISHED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) . THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE PROVISION FOR EXPENDITURE BY PASSING ACCOUNTING ENTRY ON 31.03.2005 IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2004 - 05 AND IT IS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID IN SU BSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR. THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS ESTIMATED AS PER ASSESSEES VERSION. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT SALE PROMOTIO N SCHEME PROVIDED THAT GIFTS WERE PAYABLE ONLY IF TARGETS WERE ACHIEVED AND THERE WAS A LUCK Y DRAW FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE PAYEES OF THE GIFTS. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE SCHEME INCLUDED PROVIDING OF VARIOUS GIFTS CONTINGENT UPON ATTAINING DEFIN ITE TARGETS. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE SCHEME, THE GIFTS ARE NOT PAYABLE TO EVERY BUYER OF THE PRODUCT OF THE COMPANY. FURTHER, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE SCHEME PROVIDED GIVING OF VARIOUS GIFTS , THE PRICES OF WHICH MAY VARY. THE LD. CIT(A) OB SERVED THAT ESTIMATION OF INCENTIVE AT THE FLAT RATE OF 6% OF TOTAL SALES IS NO WHERE IN CONSONANCE WITH THE SCHEME. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO EXAMINE VARIOUS CLAIMS OF THE BUYERS WHO WILL BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR GIFTS OWING TO ATTAINMEN T OF TARGETS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PROVISION FOR EXPENSES @ 6% OF SALE S TOWARDS THE SALE PROMOTION SCHEME CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE , WHICH AS PER LD. CIT(A) REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SURE ABOUT LIABILITY . THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT ITA NO. 66 & 153/ALLD/2013 BHOLA FOODS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED AY - 2005 - 06 & 2009 - 10 8 THE LIABILITY CREATED BY ASSESSEE @6% OF SALES TOWARDS SALE PROMOTION EXPENSES IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE AT ALL . THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THE SAID LIABILITY IS PAID IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR WHICH IS NOT EXAMINED BY AO. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE SAID LIABILITY IS CONTINGEN T IN NATURE AND NOT ALLOWABLE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE 1961 ACT. THE LD. CIT( A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE LIABILITY CREATED WAS PAYABLE DURING THE YEAR IN TERMS OF PRINCIPLES OF MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS AS WE RE MADE BY THE AO. THE COPY OF SCHEME STATED TO HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) , HAS NOT BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PROVISIONS TOWARDS SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 14,77,400/ - IN ITS AUDITED BOO KS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004 - 05 BASED ON THE CONTENTIONS THAT THESE ARE CRYSTALIZED LIABILITY TOWARDS SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES BASED ON SALES PROMOTION SCHEME CONDUCTED BY ASSESSEE. THE SAID EXPENSES DID NOT FOUND MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED TRI AL BALANCE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDED 31.03.2005, WHICH WAS FOUND AND SEIZED BY REVENUE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIONS CONDUCTED BY REVENUE U/S 132(1) OF THE 1961 ACT ON 27.08.2009. THE AMOUNT WAS PAID/SPENT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND THE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED BY WAY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. WE HAVE OBSERVED FROM THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SALES FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2004 WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS.10,31,363 .50 WHICH HAD INCREASED SUBSTANTI ALLY TO RS.2,47,27,380 .01 DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . THERE WAS NO SALES PROMOTION SCHEME CONDUCTED DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR , AS IS EMERGING FROM P&L ACCOUNT AND IT IS THE FIRST YEAR WHEN SUCH A SALE PROMOTION SCHEME WAS CONDUCTED BY ASSESSEE . THE SALE HAS INCREASED MANIFOLD IN THIS YEAR VIS - - VIS PRECEDING YEAR, AND IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A SALE S PROMOTION SCHEME FOR WHICH PROVISION WAS MADE TO THE TUNE @ 6% OF TOTAL SALES AND IT IS CLAIMED THAT THESE ARE ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THE YEAR FOR WHICH LIABILITY GOT CRYSTALIZED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ALTHOUGH PAYMENT OF THESE SALES PROMOTION SCHEME EXPENSES BY ITA NO. 66 & 153/ALLD/2013 BHOLA FOODS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED AY - 2005 - 06 & 2009 - 10 9 WAY OF GIFT WAS PAID IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND, AND PROVISION IS MADE ON ESTIMATE D BASIS. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE DISBELIEVED CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES . IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IT IS FOR THE BUSINESSMAN TO ARRANGE THEIR AFFAIRS AND NOT FOR TAX AUTHORITIES TO DECIDE THE MANNER IN WHI CH BUSINESSES ARE RUN , UNLESS MALICE IS AT WRIT LARGE ON THE PART OF THE TAX - PAYER TO DEFRAUD REVENUE WITH AN INTENT TO EVADE TAXES . THUS, THE EXPENSES WHICH ARE GENUINE AND BONAFIDE EXPENSES INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINES S OF THE TAX - PAYER ARE TO BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX , K EEPING IN VIEW MANDATE OF PROVISION OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT . THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT VERIFIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO THE GENUINENESS AND BONAFIDE OF THE CLAIM OF SALE PROMOTION EXPENSES AS THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAME ON THE GROUNDS THAT THESE ARE BOGUS EXPENSES WHILE LD. CIT(A) HELD THE SAME TO BE CONTINGENT AND ALSO THAT THE PROVISION IS NOT PROPERLY MADE IN TERMS OF SCHEME OF SALES P ROMOTION OF THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD WORKING OF SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES PAYABLE TO VARIOUS BUYERS , MEETING OF TARGETS BY BUYERS AND LIABILITY CRYSTALIZED AS PER SCHEME RUN BY ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECO RD SALES PROMOTION SCHEME CONDUCTED BY IT BEFORE THE AO, NOR LD. CIT(A) REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR SEEKING REMAND REPORT FROM AO AS THE SALE PROMOTION SCHEME WAS FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW KEEPING IN VIEW TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY , THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RESTOR ED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH /DENOVO CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE ON MERIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW . THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE SE EXPENSES IN ITS BOOK OF ACCOUNT S AS BUSINESS EXPENSES , AND DEDUCTION OF THESE SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES FROM THE INCOME IS CLAIMED AND HENCE PRIMARY ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE GEN UINE AND BONAFIDE EXPENSES WHICH ARE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE , THUS SATISFYING THE MANDATE OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE 1961 ACT . THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO SUBMIT ALL ITA NO. 66 & 153/ALLD/2013 BHOLA FOODS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED AY - 2005 - 06 & 2009 - 10 10 RELEVANT DETAILS/DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF DENOVO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO FOR DETERMINATION OF THIS ISSUE. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE AO SHALL PROVIDE PROPER AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE AO SHALL ADMIT EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS DEFENSE IN SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS AND THE SAME SHALL BE ADJUDICATED BY AO ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW . ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 153/ALLD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 7 . THE SOLITARY ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNTS REFLECTED IN THE MATERIAL SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION CARRIED OUT BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE U/S 132(1) OF THE 1961 ACT ON 27.08.2009, WITH THAT OF THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDED 31.03.2009. THERE WAS ALSO A SIMULTANEOUS SURVEY OPERATION CARRIED ON BY REVENUE AGAINST CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, SHRI SANJAY GUPTA U/S 133A OF THE 1961 ACT ON 27.08.2009 . THESE SEIZED MATERIAL A RE THE EXTRACT OF TALLY ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE SEIZED FROM ITS UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE AT KANPUR AND THE AMOUNTS REFLECTED THEREI N WERE TALLIED WITH THE AMOUNTS REFLECTED IN THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDED 31.03.2009 AND THE PROFIT AS WAS REFLECTED IN THE SEIZED ACCOUNTS WERE ADOPTED BY THE AO WHILE LD. CIT(A) WAS PLEASED TO CONFIRM ADDITIONS FOR DIFFE RENTIAL IN THE CLOSING STOCK , THUS THE LD. CIT(A) WAS PLEASE D TO GRANT PART RELIEF AND CONFIRM THE ADDITION TO TUNE OF RS. 1,79,15,749/ - OWING TO DIFFERENCES IN CLOSING STOCK . THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE WITH TRIBUNAL WAS DISMISSED TO LOW TAX EFFECT AND HENCE WE ARE SEIZED OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND THE AMOUNT CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF RECONCILIATION SUBMITTED BY IT BEFORE LD. CIT(A). FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE ITA NO. 66 & 153/ALLD/2013 BHOLA FOODS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED AY - 2005 - 06 & 2009 - 10 11 CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TALLY SOFTWARE WRONGLY PICKED THE ENTRIES. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ENTRIES FOR RAW MATERIAL, CONSUMABLE , PACKING MATERIAL ETC. WERE NOT POSTED IN THE BOOKS OF KANPUR BRANCH. TH E LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE STOCK REGISTER TO DEMONSTRATE THE CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIALS , CONSUMABLES, PACKING MATERIAL ETC. BUT NOT BOOKED IN THE BALANCE SHEET, AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUP PORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS. THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED ON BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE U/S 132(1) OF THE 1961 ACT ON 27.08.2009 , WHILE AUDITED ACCOUNTS WERE PREPARED ON 05.09.2009. IT IS NOT UNCOMMON THAT WHILE FINALIZING THE AUDITED FIN ANCIAL STATEMENTS, YEAR END AD JUSTMENT ENTRIES ARE PROCESSED TO REFLECT THE TRUE AND FAIR VIEW OF THE ACCOUNTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, INCOME - TAX ACT AND OTHER APPLICABLE SATUTES, SUCH AS MAKING YEAR END ENTRIES FOR DEPRECIATION , INCOME TAX, OR TO ADJUST FOR RECONCILIATION OF BANK ACCOUNTS, CONSOLIDATION OF VARIOUS UNITS/BRANCHES AND ELIMINATING OF INTER - UNIT/OFFICES CONTRA ENTRIES . IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS C LAIMED THAT THE CONSUMPTION ENT R I ES WERE NOT POSTED IN TH E TALLY ACCOUNTS AT THE TIME WHEN SEARCH OPERATIONS TOOK PLACE WHICH LED TO THE DIFFERENCES IN THE BALANCES OF THE STOCK . IT IS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNITS/OFFICES /BRANCHES AT KANPUR AND /OR ALLAHABAD AND THIS TRIAL BALANCE WHICH IS EXTRACTED IS ONLY OF KANPUR UNIT AND LATER ON COMPILATION WERE MADE AND CONSUMPTION ENTRIES WERE POSTED. THUS, ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS HEAD OFFICE, BRANCHES AND UNITS AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, THE ASSESSEES AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SHALL BE PREPARED IN CONSOLIDATED FORM AFTER TAKING INTO FINANCIALS OF ALL THE UNITS AND OFFICES, AND IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR AO TO SOLELY DEPEND UPON KANPUR BRANCH ACCOUNT TO ASCERTAIN INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX , UNLESS IT IS PROVEN THAT EITHER NO EXPENSES WERE INCURRED AT OTHER LOCATIONS OR NO INCOME WERE EARNED AT OTHER LOCATION , OR THEY CONSISTED BOGUS ENTRIES TO DEFRAUD REVENUE. THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS WERE INCURRED WHO LLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THEY SATISFY THE MANDATE OF ITA NO. 66 & 153/ALLD/2013 BHOLA FOODS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED AY - 2005 - 06 & 2009 - 10 12 SECTION 37(1) OF THE 1961 ACT AND , ON THE OTHER HAND THE ONUS IS ON THE AO TO PROVE THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED WITH MALICE TO DEFRAUD THE REVEN UE . SAME IS THE CASE WITH INCOME. HOWEVER, WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED STOCK REGISTER BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THE EXPENSES WHILE COMPUTING INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AND THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THESE ARE GENUINE AND BONA FIDE EXPENSES INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REGISTERED WITH CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND IS ALSO COVERED UNDER VAT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW KEEPING IN VIEW TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH/DENOVO CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE ON MERIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THESE EXPENSES TOWARDS RAW MATERIAL, CONSUMABLES , PACKING MATERIAL ETC. IN ITS BOOK OF ACCOUNTS AS BUSINESS EXPENSES , AND DEDUCTION OF THESE EXPENSES FROM THE INCOME IS CLAIMED AND HENCE PRIMARY ONUS I S ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE GENUINE AND BONAFIDE EXPENSES WHICH ARE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, THUS SATISFYING THE MANDATE OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE 1961 ACT , AND THE CLOSING STOCK TRULY REFLECTE D THE STOCK ACTUALLY HELD BY ASSESSEE AT THE YEAR END . THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO SUBMIT ALL RELEVANT DETAILS/DOCUMENTS INCLUDING UNIT WISE ACCOUNTS AND ALSO CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNTS TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENTIAL S , STOCK RECORDS , EXCISE RECORDS, VAT RECOR DS ETC. BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF DENOVO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR DETERMINATION OF THIS ISSUE ON MERIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND FOR COMPUTING INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE 1961 ACT . THUS, WE ARE REMITTING THIS MATTER BACK TO FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE RELEVANT RECORDS INCLUDING UNIT WISE ACCOUNTS RECONCILING WITH CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNTS, STOCK RECORD S , EXCISE RECORDS , VAT RECORDS ETC. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEY ARE BONA FIDE AND GENUINE EXPENSES ITA NO. 66 & 153/ALLD/2013 BHOLA FOODS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED AY - 2005 - 06 & 2009 - 10 13 INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE STOCK TRULY REFLECTED TH E STOCK HELD BY ASSESSEE AT A GIVEN POINT OF TIME . THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PROVE CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL , PACKING MATERIAL, CONSUMABLES ETC. VIZ . - A - VIZ . PRODUCTION/MANUFACTURING AND ALSO KEEPING IN VIEW ITS PAST TRACK RECORD IN THE EARLIER YEAR OF CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL VIZ. - A - VIZ. PRODUCTION/ MANUFACTURING CARRIED ON BY IT IN THE EARLIER YEARS. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE AO SHALL PROVIDE PROPER AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTI CE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE AO SHALL ADMIT EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS DEFENSE IN SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS AND THE SAME SHALL BE ADJUDICATED BY AO ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 8 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE FOR AY: 2005 - 06 AND 2009 - 10 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER TO BE PR ONOUNCED ON 09 / 03 /2021 IN OPEN COURT AT ALLAHABAD . SD/ - SD/ - [ VIJAY PAL RAO ] [ RAMIT KOCHAR ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 09 / 03 /2021 AKS/ - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT BHOLA FOODS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED 2. RESPONDENT JCIT(OSD),ALLAHABAD, U.P. 3. CIT(A) ALLAHABAD, U.P. 4. CIT 5. DR - BY ORDER ITA NO. 66 & 153/ALLD/2013 BHOLA FOODS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED AY - 2005 - 06 & 2009 - 10 14