M/s T.L. Verma & Co. P. Ltd., Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 678/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81035 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 678/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S T.L.VERMA & CO.P.LTD., VS. THE D.C.I.T., SCO 2-A, SECTOR 7-C, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AABCT2399D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NEERAJ JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.S.NAGAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.11.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.11.2014 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-, CHANDIGARH DATED 18.4.2013 FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008-09. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRE SS GROUND NO.1 AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSE D AND NOT ARGUED. 2 4. ON GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED ADDITION OF RS.3,96,698/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANC E UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSE SSEE IS A COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF GLASS, PLYWOOD AND WINE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN INTEREST BEARING LOANS TO TH E TUNE OF RS.4,31,75,065/- ON WHICH INTEREST CHARGES TO TH E TUNE OF RS.48,73,557/- HAD BEEN PAID. ON THE OTHER HAN D, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS TO THE TUNE OF RS.89,27,054/-, INCOME FROM WHICH IS/SHALL BE EXEMP T. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE FIRM M/S T.L.VE RMA & CO.P.LTD., FROM WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED PRO FITS. IT HAS BEEN DONE FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THE AS SESSEE FOR UTILIZING ITS SURPLUS FUNDS IN THE BEST POSSIBL E WAY TO RECEIVE MAXIMUM PROFITS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, H OWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAU SE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AND THEIR UTILIZATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND DISALLOWED THE INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.3,96,981/-. 5. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE CONFIR MED THE ADDITION. 3 6. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REFERRED TO THE PAPER BOOK-III TO SHOW THAT THE INV ESTMENT WAS MADE AS CAPITAL IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S T.L.VERMA & CO.P.LTD. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON AND IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ENDING OF 31.3.2 007, THE INVESTMENT WAS RS.59,76,893/-. HE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT IF THE PROFIT IS ADDED, THERE WOULD BE NO INVE STMENT IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT IDENT ICAL ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE I.T.A.T. CHANDIGARH BEN CH IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.418/CHANDI/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN T HE MATTER OF ACIT VS. M/S T.L.VERMA & CO. PVT. LTD. AN D VIDE ORDER DATED 29.9.2010 THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. THE FINDINGS IN PARAS 11 TO 17 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFU LLY. SECTION 14A OF THE ACT PRESCRIBES THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF C OMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF AN EX PENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO AN INCOME W HICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT. IN TH IS CASE, AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS AS A PARTNER IN A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND THE SHARE OF PROFIT EARNED AS PARTNER FROM SUCH FIRM IS EXEMPT FROM TAX IN TERMS OF SECTION 10(2A) O F THE ACT. SIMILARLY, ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE INVESTED IN SHA RES AND THE DIVIDEND YIELD THEREOF, IF ANY, WOULD BE EXEMPT U/S 10(3 4) OF THE 4 ACT. FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOUND IT EXPEDIENT TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A O F THE ACT AS ACCORDING TO HIM, THE AFORESAID TWO INCOMES WERE EXE MPT FROM TAX, THOUGH HE HAS NOT REFUTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN ACTUALITY, NO SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THER E SHOULD BE A POSITIVE EXEMPT INCOME IN ORDER TO INVOKE THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. ON THIS ASPECT, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS UPHELD THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT EXISTENCE OF EXEMPT INCO ME IS NECESSARY TO INVOKE SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, FOLLOWING THE DECISI ONS OF THE TRIBUNAL NOTED BY HER IN PARA 14 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 12. IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, THE JU DGEMENTS OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND HERO CYCLES LTD. (SUPRA) ARE QUITE RELEVANT. IN THE CASE OF WINSOME TEXTILE IND. LTD. (SUPR A), ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF COTTON YARN A ND IT MADE INVESTMENT IN SHARES USING ITS OWN FUNDS IN AN EARL IER YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED A PORTION OF INTEREST EX PENDITURE ON THE GROUND THAT THE DIVIDEND INCOME WAS EXEMPT FROM TAX BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE ADDITI ON WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) ON THE GROUND THAT NO INTEREST EX PENDITURE WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED WITH RESPECT TO THE INVE STMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH COULD BE D ISALLOWED U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE DELETION BY THE CIT(APPEALS) WA S CONFIRMED THEREAFTER BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, U NDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT HAD NO APPLICATION IN THE YEAR BEFORE IT. 5 13. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF HERO CYCLES LTD. (SUPRA), A SSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE OF CYCLES AND PARTS OF TW O-WHEELERS IN MULTIPLE UNITS. IT EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME WHICH WAS EX EMPT U/S 10(34) AND 10(35) OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL HAD FOUND THA T THERE WAS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND THE E XEMPT INCOME GENERATED AND THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DELETED. AS PER HON'BLE HIGH COURT, INCU RRING OF AN EXPENDITURE WAS A SINE-QUA-NON TO INVOKE THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT APPROVED THE OB SERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT UNLESS THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SHOW T HAT INTEREST BEARING FUNDS HAD BEEN INVESTED IN THE INVESTMENTS WHICH HAD GENERATED TAX EXEMPT INCOME, NO EXPENDITURE CAN BE D ISALLOWED U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT ARE WORTHY OF NOTICE : WHETHER, IN A GIVEN SITUATION, ANY EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WHICH WAS TO BE DISALLOWED, IS A QUESTION OF FACT. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT DIRECTLY O R INDIRECTLY SOME EXPENDITURE IS ALWAYS INCURRED WHIC H MUST BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 14A AND THE IMPACT OF EXPENDITURE SO INCURRED CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE SET O FF AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME WHICH MAY NULLIFY THE MANDATE OF SECTION 14A, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A REQUIRES FINDING OF INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE WHERE IT IS FOUND THAT FOR EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED, DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A CANNOT STAND. 14. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND, WE MAY NOW EXAMINE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FIRSTLY, IN PARA 3.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPR ODUCED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH INTER-ALIA INCLUDE THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY EXPENSES FOR EA RNING THE 6 SHARE INCOME FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THE ASSES SING OFFICER, AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAS NOT REFUTED THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BUT HAS JUSTIFIED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE HYPOTHESIS THAT ONE CAN EARN EXEMPT INCO ME WITHOUT INCURRING ANY EXPENSES WHATSOEVER INCLUDING MANAGEMEN T OR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. SECONDLY, IN PARA 3.6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JUSTIFIED THE DISALLOWAN CE ON THE GROUND THAT HAD THE FUNDS INVESTED IN PARTNERSHIP F IRM/SHARES WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQ UIRED TO RAISE LOANS TO THAT EXTENT AND INCUR EXPENDITURE ON INTEREST ON SUCH LOANS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGE MENT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) TO OBSERVE THAT THE ONUS IN THIS REGARD WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE NEXUS AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO ESTIMATE SUCH NEXUS. 15. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, BOTH THE PLEAS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DO NOT SURVIVE IN VIEW OF PRONOUN CEMENTS OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF WIN SOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) AND HERO CYCLES LTD. (SUPRA). FIRSTLY, ACCORDING TO THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, THE INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO THE EXEMPT INCOME IS A NECESSITY FOR IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AND SECONDLY, TH E BURDEN IS ON THE REVENUE TO ESTABLISH SUCH NEXUS. IN THIS CASE, TH E ASSESSEE CLEARLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO THE EARNING OF SHARE INCOME FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND THERE IS NOTHING TO E STABLISH THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN REFUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON T HE BASIS OF ANY FACTUAL APPRECIATION. INFACT, THE SAID POSITION HAS B EEN NEGATED BY 7 THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY ON PRESUMPTION AND CON JECTURES. CLEARLY, PRESUMPTION CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF A FACTU AL FINDING, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO FIND OUT IF ANY EXPENDITURE WA S INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THE EXEMPT INCOME. IN THE C ASE OF WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS UP HELD THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAS GOT TO BE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT ONLY IF ANY EXPENDITURE RELATING TO T HE EARNING OF INCOME WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX, HAS BEEN DEBIT ED TO THE ACCOUNTS BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE LED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT ANY EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE EXEMPT INCOME, THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECT ION 14A OF THE ACT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. 16. FURTHER, THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) RELAT ES TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT AND SECTIO N 14A OF THE ACT, WHICH HAS BEEN INVOKED IN THIS CASE STANDS ON A TOT ALLY DIFFERENT FOOTING. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF WINS OME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THE INAPPL ICABILITY OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUP RA) IN A CASE WHERE SECTION 14A OF THE ACT HAS BEEN INVOKED. 17. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY EVIDENCE LED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT A NY EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED IN THE INVESTMENTS WHICH GENERATE TAX EXEMPT INCOME, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS NOT MERITED, FOLLOWING THE PARITY OF REASONING LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT IN WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD.(SUPRA) AND HE RO CYCLES LTD. (SUPRA). HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE 8 CIT(APPEALS) IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION, ALBEIT ON A DIFFERENT GROUND. ACCORDINGLY, REVENUE FAILS ON THIS GROUND. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVEN UE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIF ICALLY PLEADED THAT THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE FI RM M/S T.L.VERMA & CO. P. LTD. FROM WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED THE PROFITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DIS-APPROVE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THROUGH ANY EVIDENCE OR MATER IAL ON RECORD. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPORT ED BY DETAILS NOTED IN THE SCHEDULE FORMING PART OF ACCOU NTS AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS, AS ARGUED BY THE ASSESSEE, I T IS CLEAR THAT THERE WOULD HAVE NO INVESTMENT IN THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IS CONSID ERED BY THE I.T.A.T. CHANDIGARH BENCH FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 006- 07 AND HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO SUST AIN THE ABOVE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ACCORDING LY, SET ASIDE THE SAME AND ADDITION IS DELETED. THUS GROU ND NOS.2 AND 3 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 8. ON GROUND NO.4, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDI TION OF RS.6,41,122/- ON ACCOUNT OF ENHANCEMENT IN THE PROFIT RATE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSE SSEE TO FURNISH SEPARATE TRADING ACCOUNT FOR THE WINE AND G LASS 9 BUSINESS. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, IT REVEALED THA T THERE IS A SHARP DECLINE IN NET PROFIT RATIO IN GLASS DIV ISION. THE NET PROFIT RATIO WAS 1.18% LAST YEAR, WHICH HAS DECLINED TO 0.15%. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUST IFY FOR THE SHARP DECLINE IN NET PROFIT RATIO. THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECLINE IN NET PROFIT RATIO IS D UE TO DECLINE IN GRINDING AND CUTTING CHARGES RECEIPTS. THIS YEAR THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ONLY RS.5,70,747/- AS COMPARED TO RS.13,72,933/- LAST YEAR ON THIS ACCOUN T. MOREOVER, THE DEPRECIATION HAS INCREASED FROM RS.5,91,054/- TO RS.9,93,062/- THIS YEAR AS COMPARE D TO THE LAST YEAR. THERE WAS FLUCTUATION IN THE PURCH ASE COST AND SALE PRICE DURING THE YEAR. COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED ALONGWITH RELATED BILLS/VOUCH ERS. THEREFORE, THESE FACTS ITSELF SPEAK THE DIFFERENCE IN NET PROFIT RATIO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FULLY RECONCILE ITS PURCHASES, SALES VIS--VIS ITS CLOSING STOCK AND ACCORDINGLY, APPLIED THE FLAT NET PROFIT RATIO OF 0 .665% AND MADE ADDITION. THE CIT (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE AD DITION. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION. T HE ASSESSEE PRODUCED COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND FURNISHED DETAILS AND INFORMATION TIME TO TIME BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SAME WERE TEST CHECKED IN W HICH NO SPECIFIC DEFECTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE 10 ONLY REASON FOR APPLYING HIGHER PROFIT RATE WAS THA T THERE WAS DECLINE IN THE NET PROFIT RATIO. THIS ITSELF IS NO GROUND TO MAKE THE ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT REJECT THE BOOK RESULTS O F THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION T O APPLY HIGHER PROFIT RATE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NO T ALWAYS NECESSARY THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE THE PROFIT R ATIO STATIC OR INCREASING TREND EVERY YEAR. THE ASSESS EE HAS GIVEN REASONS FOR DECLINE IN PROFIT RATIO BECAUSE O F THE LESSER GRINDING AND CUTTING CHARGES RECEIPTS RECEIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE AS COMPARED TO EARLIER YEAR, WHICH HAV E NOT BEEN ADVERSELY COMMENTED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICAT ION TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDI TION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 *RATI* 11 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH