ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Himalaya International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6755/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6786 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 31-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJEEV BINDAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 6755/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) APPELLANT BY : SH. S. S. RANA, CIT-(DR) RESPONDENT BY : SH. SANJEEV BINDAL, CA DATE OF HEARING : 31.01.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08.02.2017 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: 1. THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY REVENUE AGAIN ST ORDER DATED 17.10.2013 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-IX FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2008-09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS WRONG AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF LAW WHICH IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,05,59,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT USA EXPENSES. IT O WARD 12(4) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS. HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL LTD. 192, SUKHDEV VIHAR NEW DELHI GIR/PAN : AAACH0158H (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 6755/DEL/2013 (AY 2012-13) PAGE 2 OF 11 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT VARIOUS EXPENSES. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,90,055/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LATE PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION OF ESIC OF RS. 87,305/- AND P F OF RS. 6,02,750/-. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,01,50,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 43 B OF THE IT ACT. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, MODIFY, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN CULTIVATION AND EXPORT OF MU SHROOM ETC. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL IN COME ON 30.09.2008. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) AND CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. LD. AO COMPLETED AS SESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT BY MAKING THE FOLLO WING ADDITIONS: 1 DISALLOWANCE OF USA EXPENSES: RS. 12,05, 59,000/- 2. DISALLOWANCE OF EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION TO ESIC & PF: RS. 6,90,055/- 3. DISALLOWANCE U/S43B: RS. 1,04,50,000/- 4. DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OUT OF ADMINISTRATIVE & SELLING EXPENSES IN INDIA: RS. 2,00,00 0/- ITA NO. 6755/DEL/2013 (AY 2012-13) PAGE 3 OF 11 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFER RED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A). LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (A) THE R EVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 5. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NOS. 1 AND 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE THEREFORE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 6. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO. 2 IS COVERED BY DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. HE REFERRED TO THE ORDER D ATED 16.10.2014 PASSED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 1 TO 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND 2007-08, LD. CIT(A) ALL OWED THESE ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE, FOLLOWING DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, AGAINST WHICH TH E REVENUE HAS NOT PREFERRED ANY APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT SO FAR AS THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE CONCERNED , ISSUES RAISED BY REVENUE IN GROUND NO. 2 AND 4 HAS ATTAINED FINAL ITY. 7. LD. DR HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO ABOVE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. AR. 8. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH T HE PARTIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE U S AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY LD. AR. 9. ON PERUSAL OF ORDER PASSED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT I N ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, IT IS OBSERVED THAT HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD THE FACTUAL FIND INGS OF THIS ITA NO. 6755/DEL/2013 (AY 2012-13) PAGE 4 OF 11 TRIBUNAL WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. ON PE RUSAL OF IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BEFORE US, THE LD. CIT (A) HA S OBSERVED AS UNDER: 12.5. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE, I FIND THAT T HE RESERVATION OF THE AO IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENSES IN CURRED BY M/S GLOBAL RELIANCE INC. IS ON FEEBLE GROUNDS. IT IS A MATTER ON RECORD THAT ALL BILLS/VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF US EXPENSES WERE PROVIDED TO THE AO BY THIS OFFICE BY FORWARDING THE 1 ST REJOINDER TO THE APPELLANT ON THE FIRST REMAND REPORT. 12.6. THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED ALL BILLS/VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF US EXPENS ES, AND THE AO WAS NOT ABLE TO PINPOINT ANY ADVERSE FINDING IN RESPECT OF THE SAME. REGARDING THE SECOND OBJECTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED BY THE APPELLANT, T HE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED THAT M/S GLOBAL RELIANCE INC . IS A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF MR. SANJEEV KAKKAR, WHO IS A NON- RESIDENT BASED IN USA AND THE SERVICES RENDERED BY M/S GLOBAL RELIANCE, WHICH WAS CLEARLY IN THE NATURE OF CONSIGNMENT SALE FOR THE APPELLANT IN USA, WERE CERT AINLY NOT RENDERED IN INDIA. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE APPELLANT HAD ARGUED THAT NO TDS WAS TO BE DEDUCTED ON SUCH PAYMENT TO M/S GLOBAL RELIANCE. THE APPELLANT ALSO ARGUED T HAT SINCE MR. SANJEEV KAKKAR WAS MERELY AFFECTING THE S ALES FOR THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, THE SERVICES WERE NOT IN THE NATURE OF 'TECHNICAL SERVICES' AS EXPLAINED IN EXPL ANATION 2 TO SECTION 9(VI) OF THE ACT. I FIND THAT THE PAYMEN T TO M/S ITA NO. 6755/DEL/2013 (AY 2012-13) PAGE 5 OF 11 GLOBAL RELIANCE WAS MAINLY IN THE NATURE OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE LATTER AND ALSO INCLUDES COMMISSION PAYMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FA CT THAT THE PROPRIETOR OF THE CONCERN, MR. SANJEEV KAK KAR WAS A NONRESIDENT AND HAD RENDERED SALES RELATED SERVICES IN USA. TDS WAS NOT TO BE DEDUCTED ON THE COMMISSION INCOME. FURTHER THE BALANCE PAYMENT WAS FACTUALLY H ELD AS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSE, ON WHICH TOS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED. THEREFORE, THE OBJECTION OF THE A O IS NOT ON SOUND LEGAL GROUNDS. THE 3RD OBJECTION OF THE AO THAT THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES WAS SELF SERVING IN NATURE IS VAGUE AND NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. FURTHER, IT IS A MATTER OF COMMON SENSE TH AT WITHOUT INCURRING ANY SELLING AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXP ENSES, SALES OF THIS MAGNITUDE COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN THE USA. ONCE THE FACTUM OF SALES MADE TO US IS PROVED, TH E COMMENSURATE EXPENSES ARE ALSO TO BE ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 37(1), BASED ON THE VERIFICATION OF THE RELEV ANT BILLS/VOUCHERS. AS I HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT M/S GLOBA L RELIANCE INC. WAS A CONSIGNMENT AGENT OF THE APPELL ANT AND THE AO HAS NOT FOUND ANY FAULT IN RESPECT OF THE BILLS/VOUCHERS SUBMITTED BY IT IN RESPECT OF THE EXP ENSES INCURRED BY M/S GLOBAL RELIANCE INC. IN USA, THE ADDIT ION MADE ON THIS GROUND IS DELETED. 10. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT HE HAS EXAMINED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD A ND REFERRED TO REMAND REPORT BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THERE IS A CATE GORICAL FINDING BY LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AT PARA 12.3 REGARDING C LAUSE 3 OF THE ITA NO. 6755/DEL/2013 (AY 2012-13) PAGE 6 OF 11 ORIGINAL MOUS DATED 19.09.2002 WHEREIN ASSESSEE IS TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO GRI TOWARDS COMMISSION, IN RESPECT OF S ALES AFFECTED THROUGH AND IN ADDITION ALLOWS REIMBURSEMENT IN RES PECT OF THE COST AND OTHER EXPENSES RELATING TO IMPORT AND SALE OF PRODUCTS, CUSTOMS DUTIES, OCEAN FRIGHT, INLAND FRIGHT, WAREHO USING AND ANY BROKERAGE ETC ORIGINAL AGREEMENTS DATED 19.09.2002. HE THUS, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE BEING ADMINISTRAT IVE EXPENSES WERE CLEARLY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ASSESSEE, WHICH WERE TO BE REIMBURSED TO THE CONSIGNMENT AGENT. HE FURTHER OBS ERVED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF ENTIRE EXPENSES BY ASSESSING OF FICER BY HOLDING THAT M/S GLOBAL RELIANCE WAS A BUYER OF THE PRODUCT OF ASSESSEE AND NOT CONSIGNMENT AGENT, WAS NOT SUPPORT ED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. 11. THERE WAS A SIMILAR FACTUAL OBSERVATION BY LD. CIT (A) WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THIS TRIBUNAL, WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRM ED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE PAYMENTS IN DISPUTE ARE MADE UNDER SAME AGREEMENT WHICH IS S UPPORTED BY RELEVANT BILLS/VOUCHERS, AS OBSERVED BY LD. CIT(A) IN THE PARAGRAPHS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. WE, THEREFORE, R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A) AND THE SAME I S UPHELD. GROUND NO. 3 12. THIS GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED BY REVENUE AGAINST THA T THE ADDITION THAT HAS BEEN DELETED AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,0 0,000/-, OUT OF SELLING AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE ON AD HOC BASIS, OUT OF SELLING AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, FOR NON -VERIFICATION OF ITA NO. 6755/DEL/2013 (AY 2012-13) PAGE 7 OF 11 EXPENSES/BILLS. LD. AR PLACED HIS RELIANCE UPON THE RATIONAL FOLLOWED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 VIDE ORDER DATED 14.03.2014. 13 . ON THE CONTRARY LD. AR PLACES RELIANCE UPON THE O RDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH T HE PARTIES IN THE LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. I T IS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED RS. 3,07,96,000/- TOWARDS ADM INISTRATIVE AND SELLING EXPENSES ON ITS BUSINESS OPERATIONS IN INDIA. ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED CERTAIN DETAILS AT THE TIME OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS BEING BILLS/VOUCHERS. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,00,000/- FOR WANT OF VERIFIC ATION OF EXPENSES LD. CIT (A) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 14.1 THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIO NS ARE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. THE AO'S OBSERVATION THAT CERTAIN BILLS/VOUCHERS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM WAS FOUND TO BE A FALLACY SINCE IT COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED WHICH WERE THESE 'CERTAIN BILLS/VOUCHERS', WHICH THE AO FOUND M ISSING. THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED ALL THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BILLS/VOUCHERS BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, SUCH DISAL LOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS PURELY A GUESS WORK AND HENCE NOT LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE. THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2 LAC IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 15. IT IS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT THER E BEING ANY BASIS HAS MADE AN AD HOC DISALLOWANCE WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WI THOUT ITA NO. 6755/DEL/2013 (AY 2012-13) PAGE 8 OF 11 VERIFYING THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE MADE TH E ADDITION. AS THERE IS NO ADVERSE OBSERVATION MADE BY ASSESSING O FFICER, MERELY BECAUSE IT COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED WHICH WERE THES E BILLS/VOUCHERS WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND TO HAV E BEEN MISSING, DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE UPHELD. WE, THEREFO RE, DO NOT WISH TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE STAND S DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 4 16. THIS GROUND IS IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION THAT HAS BEEN DELETED AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,90,055/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LATE PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION OF ESIC AMOUNTING TO RS. 87,305/- AND PF AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,02,750/-. 17. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE ST ANDS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AIMIL LTD (2007) 229 CTR 418 . WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THE ACTUAL PAYMENT OF ESIC AN D PF, HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN UN DER SECTION 139 (1) OF THE ACT THE EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE. ON THE C ONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 18. ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DESERVES ARE THAT A SSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN MAKING THE PAYMENT. HERE IS A CASE WHERE PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION AND PROVIDENT FUND ARE MADE LATE AND P AYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE THE RETURN IS FILED. WE ARE, THERE FORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELH I HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 6755/DEL/2013 (AY 2012-13) PAGE 9 OF 11 THE CASE OF CIT VS. AIMIL LTD. , UPHOLD THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A). IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED GROUND NO. 5 19. THIS GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ADDITION BEING DELETED AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,01,50,000 /-UNDER SECTION 43B THE ACT. 20. LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY AS SESSING OFFICER AND LD. AR HAS PLACED HIS RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A). 21. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). IT IS OBSERVED FROM THEREIN THAT ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED VA RIOUS TYPES OF LOANS FROM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA (ID BI) AND SASF BETWEEN 1994 TO 1998, FOR SETTING UP ITS MANUFACTUR ING UNIT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE INITIAL PR ODUCTION FROM THE SAID UNIT COMMENCED IN AUGUST 1996, AND FURTHER EXPANSION TOOK PLACE TILL THE YEAR 1998. FURTHER, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO A SUDDEN WEAKENING OF US ECONOMIC, ASSESSEE SUFFERED HUGE SETBACK, DUE TO WHICH IT SUFFERED FUND CRUNCH, RESULTING IN LOAN REPAYMENT DEFAULTS. SUBSEQUENTLY DURING THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE PART OF THE INTEREST AND PRINCIPA L WAS WAIVED OFF. THIS WRITTEN BACK SOME WAS DECLARED AS INCOME BY TH E ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SUBSEQU ENTLY IDBI WAS REALLY COMPENSATED BY RESTORATION OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST WAIVED OFF BY IT EARLIER THROUGH A ONE-TIME SETTLEMENT MAD E IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06, VIDE LETTER DATED 08.08.2013 PLACED A T PAGE 126 OF PAPER BOOK, HAS CERTIFIED THAT THE VALUE OF SHARES AMOUNTING TO ITA NO. 6755/DEL/2013 (AY 2012-13) PAGE 10 OF 11 RS. 7 LAKHS ALLOTTED BY THE COMPANY WAS ADJUSTED AG AINST THE OUTSTANDING PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF SASF UNDER NEGOTIAT ED SETTLEMENT OF DUES. LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED AS UNDER: 24.2. IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST PLEA, THE APPELLANT H AS SUBMITTED THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE COMPANY GOING FO R IDBI LOAN AND AFTER CONTINUOUS DEFAULT GOING FOR ONE TIME SETTLEMENT OF DUES WITH SASF. IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS C OURTS' DECISIONS, RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS UPHELD THAT NOMENCLATURE OF A TRANSACTION IS IMMATERIAL. WHAT I S MATERIAL IS THE ACTUAL TREATMENT OF THE TRANSACTION. IN RESP ECT OF THE TRANSACTION OF RS. 1,01,50,000/- THE CONTROVERSY HA S BEEN SETTLED BY THE SASF VIDE ITS LETTER DT. 08.08.2013 WH EREIN IT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED THAT THE VALUE OF 7 LAC SHARES AL LOTTED BY THE COMPANY WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE OUTSTANDING PRI NCIPAL AMOUNT OF SASF UNDER NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT OF DUES. IT IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MATTER THAT THE SASF HAS TAKEN THE FACE VALUE OF SHARES (@ 710/- PER SHARE) WHILE THE APPEL LANT HAS RECORDED THE TRANSACTION IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TAK ING THE VALUE OF EACH SHARE AT RS. 14.50 WHICH INCLUDES PREM IUM OF RS. 4.50 SHARES AS CERTIFIED BY THE SEBI. THE FACT RE MAINS THAT THE ADJUSTMENT WAS NOT OF THE INTEREST AMOUNT ON IDBI/SASF LOAN BUT OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF LOAN W HICH WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF 7 LAC EQUITY SH ARES OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY OF SASF. AS SUCH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT ARE NOT ATTRACTED AND QUESTIO N OF DISALLOWANCE DOES NOT ARISE. ITA NO. 6755/DEL/2013 (AY 2012-13) PAGE 11 OF 11 22. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH FEBRUARY, 2017. SD/- SD/- (N. K. SAINI) (BEENA A. PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 08.02.2017 @M!T COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI)