THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG CO. LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT (HQ) 2, MUMBAI

ITA 7329/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4233 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 26-10-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGHESH A THAR
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 14A; 115JB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUM BAI .. , , BEFORE SHRI R. C. SHARMA, AM AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH , JM ./ I.T.A. NOS. 7329 & 7330/MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 & 2005-06 THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. NEVILLE HOUSE, J. N. HEREDIA MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400 001 / VS. DY. CIT (H.Q.)-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACT 2328 K ( # /APPELLANT ) : ( $% # / RESPONDENT ) # & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI YOGHESH A. THAR & SHRI FENIL BHATT $% #& / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJEEV JAIN ( ) *&+ , / DATE OF HEARING : 28.03.2016 -./0 &+ , / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.04.2016 / O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: THIS IS A SET OF TWO APPEALS BY ASSESSEE ARE ARISIN G OUT OF SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-IV, MUMBAI IN APPEAL NOS. CIT(A)4/DC(HQ)- 2/IT-26/06-07 AND CIT(A)4/ADDL.CIT-2(1)/IT-293/08-09 BOTH DATED 28.09 .2010. ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED SEPARATELY BY DCIT, (HQ)-2, MUMBAI FOR AY 20 04-05 AND ADDL. CIT, RANGE-2(1), MUMBAI FOR AY 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY U/S . 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VI DE HIS ORDERS DATED 29.12.2006 AND 31.12.2008. 2 ITA NOS. 7329 & 7330/M/10 (A.YS. 04-05 & 05-06) THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DY. CIT (H.Q. ) 2. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE IN BOTH THE YEARS, I.E., A.YS. 2004-05 AND 2005-06 IS AS REGARDS TO DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR EXPE NSES AMOUNTING TO RS.51,78,904/- AND RS.36,69,434/-. THIS ISSUE IS RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN AY 2004-05 VIDE GROUNDS 1 TO 3, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE PROVIS IONS MADE IN DMT DIVISION OF RS.8,42,477/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT GIVEN DETAILS AND THESE EXPENSES PERTAINS TO EARLIER YEARS OR SUBSEQUENT YE ARS. HE HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYS TEM OF ACCOUNTING AND HAS MADE THE PROVISIONS ON ACCRUAL BASIS AND ALSO THE PROVISION MADE AT THE END OF THE YEAR GETS REVERSED IN NEXT YEAR. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE PROVIS IONS MADE FOR WATER BILLS OF RS.15,13,564/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIMS. HE HAS NOT APPR ECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE PAYMENT VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF IT S CLAIM OF RS.2,53,924/- AND BALANCE PROVISIONS WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE BMC. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE PROVISI ONS FOR VARIOUS EXPENSES OF RS.28,22,863/- ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORTS OF ITS CLAIM. HE HAS NOT APPR ECIATED THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND HA S MADE THE PROVISIONS ON ACCRUAL BASIS AND ALSO THE PROVISION MADE AT THE END OF THE YEAR GETS REVERSED IN NEXT YEAR. AND IN AY 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWIN G GROUND NO. 2: 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE PROVIS IONS FOR VARIOUS EXPENSES OF RS.36,69,434/- ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORTS OF ITS CLAIM. HE HAS NOT APPRECIATED T HE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND HAS MADE THE PR OVISIONS ON ACCRUAL BASIS AND ALSO THE PROVISIONS MADE AT THE END OF THE YEAR GOT REVERSED IN NEXT YEAR. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNALS ORDE R IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2003-04 IN ITA NOS. 2250 AND 3193/MUM/2010 DAT ED 11.6.2015, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARAS 6 AND 7 HAS DISMISSED THE G ROUNDS OF ASSESSEE AS UNDER: 6. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO A DISALLOWANCE IN THE SU M OF RS. 31,26,703/-, BEING THE PROVISION FOR VARIOUS EXPENSES, EFFECTED BY THE AO FOR THE REASON THAT THEY WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCES. IN APPEAL , THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO IN VIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES/MATERIALS SOUGHT TO BE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, GRANTING DELETIO N WHERE FOUND EVIDENCED AND/OR SUPPORTED. THE BALANCE DISALLOWANCE, BEING CONFIRME D, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL. 3 ITA NOS. 7329 & 7330/M/10 (A.YS. 04-05 & 05-06) THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DY. CIT (H.Q. ) 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. DURING THE HEARING, THE LD. AR, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, CO NCEDED TO THE ASSESSEE HAVING NO FURTHER DETAILS/MATERIAL TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM, R ELYING ON ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, AND TOWARDS WHICH REF ERENCE WAS MADE TO PAGES 18 AND 19 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER-BOOK. UNDER THE CIRC UMSTANCES, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. WE MAY, HOWEVER, ELABORATE FURTHER. THAT AN EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWABLE, WHERE ME RCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, IS ADOPTED, EVEN THOUGH NO PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE, WHICH IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN DURING THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, IS UNDISPUTED AND NOT IN ISSUE. REFERENCE, THEREFORE, TO THE DECISION BY THE APEX COURT IN CIT VS. U.P.STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [1997] 225 ITR 7 03 (SC) WOULD BE OF NO MOMENT. THE QUESTION IS OF THE BASIS ON WHICH IT CO ULD BE SAID OR CONCLUDED THAT EXPENDITURE TO THAT EXTENT HAD IN FACT ACCRUED, AND WHICH WE FIND AS WANTING. THE BURDEN TO PROVE ITS RETURN, AS WELL AS CLAIMS PREFE RRED THEREBY, IS ONLY ON THE ASSESSEE, AND WHICH WE FIND AS NOT DISCHARGED TO TH AT EXTENT. IT MAY ALSO BE CLARIFIED HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN EXTENDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS CASE. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE ASSESSEE IS A LIBERTY TO MAKE A FRESH CLAIM FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR/S, EVEN AS IT SHALL HAVE TO BE SHOWN BY IT THAT EXPENDITURE AS CLAIMED HAD ARISEN FOR THOSE YEARS, I.E., OF PAY MENT, EACH YEAR BEING INDEPENDENT. WE MAY THOUGH CLARIFY THAT WE ARE NOT MAKING ANY OBSERVATION WITH REGARD TO THE DEDUCTION OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE FOR THOSE YEARS/S. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES THIRD GROUND . 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONCEDED THAT T HIS ISSUE NOW STANDS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMI SS THIS ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEES APPEALS IN BOTH THE YEARS. 5. THE NEXT COMMON ISSUE IN THESE TWO APPEALS OF TH E ASSESSEE, IS AS REGARDS TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWA NCE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT. 6. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE A.YS. 2004-05 AND 2005-06 AND R ULE 8D IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. V. DY. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (BOM). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT PRIOR TO THE APPLICABILITY OF RULE 8D OF THE RULES, THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE RE STRICTED TO A REASONABLE EXTENT, I.E., 1% TO 2% IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF I TAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. GODREJ AGROVET LTD (IN ITA NO. 934 OF 2011, DATED 8.1.2013). ON QUERY FORM THE BENCH, THE LD. SR. (DR) ALSO CONCEDE D THAT OF REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE ON THIS ISSUE CAN BE MADE AND REQUESTE D FOR ESTIMATION OF 4 ITA NOS. 7329 & 7330/M/10 (A.YS. 04-05 & 05-06) THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DY. CIT (H.Q. ) DISALLOWANCE OF 2%. ON THIS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VERY FAIRLY AGREED FOR THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONCESSION GIVEN BY BOTH THE PARTIES, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO RECOMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE BY ESTIMATIN G AT 2% OF THE EXEMPT INCOME. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE IN ITA NO. 7329/MUM/2010 IS AS RE GARDS TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S . 80-HHC OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO. 4: 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IN CASE THERE IS NEGATIVE PROFIT AS PER COMPUTATION UNDER CLAUSE (A), (B) AND (C) OF SUB SE CTION (3) OF SECTION 80HHC, THE APPELLANT WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION AS PER PROVISO OF THE SECTION. 8. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY TRIBUNALS ORDER IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2003-04 IN ITA NOS. 2250 AND 3193/MUM/2010, VI DE PARA 8 AS UNDER: 8. GROUND 4 CONCERNS THE COMPUTATION OF THE DEDUCT ION U/S. 80HHC, AND WHICH WAS, AT THE VERY OUTSET, AGAIN, ADMITTED BY T HE LD. AR TO BE SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF IPCA LABORATORIES LTD. V. DY. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 521 (SC ). WE, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECT FOR COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC IN TERMS OF THE SAID DECISION BY THE SAID HONBLE APEX COURT. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONCESSION GIVEN BY THE ASSESS EE, WE DISMISS THIS ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. HOWEVER, WE WANT TO CLARIFY IN RESPECT TO A.Y. 2004-05, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTH ER CONCEDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.7 LACS, WHICH SHOULD BE RESTRICTED AT THE SAME AMOUNT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT ONCE CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED OF DISALLOWANCE AT RS.7 LACS, THE SAME S HOULD BE TAKEN. HENCE, WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 9. THE NEXT COMMON ISSUE IN THESE TWO APPEALS OF TH E ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXP ENSES FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME U/S. 14A WHILE COMPUTING INCOME U/S. 115JB O F THE ACT. FOR THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NOS. 6 AND 7 I N A.Y. 2004-05 AND GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 IN A.Y. 2005-06. 5 ITA NOS. 7329 & 7330/M/10 (A.YS. 04-05 & 05-06) THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DY. CIT (H.Q. ) AY : 2004-05: 6. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.79,6 0,000/- U/S. 14A WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE FACT THAT HE HIMSELF HAS GIVEN THE RELIEF UNDER NORMAL AND RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7,00,000/- BUT HE ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF UNDER MAT. 7. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING NOTIONAL EXPENDI TURE U/S. 14A WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB. AY: 2005-06: 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.44,0 4,750/- U/S. 14A WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE FACT THAT HE HIMSELF HAS CONSIDERED THE RE ASONABLENESS AND RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 1% OF EXEMPT INCOME I N EARLIER YEAR ON REASONABLE BASIS. 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING NOTIONAL EXPENDI TURE U/S. 14A WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB. 10. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ADDITIONS TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE AMOUNT DISALLOWED U/S. 14A OF THE ACT BY CIT(A) IN THE NORMAL PROVISIONS BECAUSE THE RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES WILL NOT APPLY IN THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE EXTENT AMO UNT ALREADY DISALLOWED U/S. 14A OF THE ACT AND NOT EXCEEDING THE SAME. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 11. THE NEXT ISSUE IN ITA NO. 7329/MUM/2010 FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05 IS AS REGARDS TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE DISAL LOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF ELIGIBLE PROFITS U/S. 80-HHC OF THE ACT WHILE COMPU TING INCOME U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GR OUND NO. 8: 8. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC. AS A RESULT, THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC SHOUL D NOT BE REDUCED WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 12. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO TRIBUNALS ORDER IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y . 2003-04 AND IN ITA NO. 2250 AND 3193/MUM/2010, VIDE PARA 9, WHEREIN THE IS SUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 9. THE FIFTH AND LAST GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APP EAL CONCERNS THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT IN ASMUCH AS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC TO BE REDUCED IN COMPU TING THE BOOK PROFIT THERE- 6 ITA NOS. 7329 & 7330/M/10 (A.YS. 04-05 & 05-06) THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DY. CIT (H.Q. ) UNDER. THE MATTER IN OUR VIEW STANDS SQUARELY COVER ED BY THE DECISION BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AJANTA PHARMA LTD . [2010] 327 ITR 305 (SC). WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET-ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE AO FOR WORKING THE BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB IN TERMS OF THE SAID DECISIO N. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE STATED THAT THE ISSUE HERE ALSO NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED AT THE LEVEL OF T HE A.O. ON QUERY FROM THE BENCH, THE LD. SR. DR HAS NOT OBJECTED TO SETTING A SIDE OF THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE RESTORE THIS ISSU E TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. IN TERM OF THE TRIBUNALS DECISION IN A.Y. 2003-04. THIS IS SUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 13. THE NEXT COMMON ISSUE IN THESE TWO APPEALS OF T HE ASSESSEE IS RAISED BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND IN BOTH THE YEARS REGARDIN G DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION OF EXPENSES IN EARLIER YEARS, BUT NOW REVERSED SHOU LD NOT BE TAXED AMOUNTING TO RS.31,26,703/- IN A.Y. 2004-05 AND PROVISION OF EXP ENSES FOR DMT AMOUNTING TO RS.8,42,477/-, PROVISION FOR WATER BILL AMOUNTIN G TO RS.15,13,564/- AND PROVISION FOR VARIOUS EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.28,2 2,863/- IN A.Y. 2005-06. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE ALREADY TAXED AS PROVISION FOR EXPENSES AND NOW THESE ARE REVERSED I T SHOULD NOT BE TAXED. ON QUERY FROM THE BENCH, THE LD. SR. DR STATED THAT TH E ISSUE CAN BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR VERIFICATION OF THE FACT, WHETHER THE PROVISION FOR EXPENSES HAVE BEEN TAXED IN EARLIER YEAR OR NOT. LET THE ASS ESSEE PRODUCE THESE EVIDENCES, WHETHER THESE PROVISIONS FOR EXPENSES HAVE BEEN TAX ED IN EARLIER YEAR OR NOT. ON THIS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY CONCE DED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR VERIFICATION PURPOSE. IN TERMS OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONCE THE DISA LLOWANCE OF PROVISION OF EXPENSES IS MADE IN EARLIER YEAR, THE SAME NOW REVE RSED SHOULD NOT BE TAXED. THE LD. COUNSEL TO SHOWED HIS BONA FIDE AND DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 6 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER FOR A.Y. 2003-04 IN ITA NO. 2250/M UM/2010, WHEREIN GROUND 7 ITA NOS. 7329 & 7330/M/10 (A.YS. 04-05 & 05-06) THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DY. CIT (H.Q. ) NO. 3 RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISIONS FOR VA RIOUS EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.31,26,703/- HAVE BEEN TAXED BY FILING FINDINGS A GAINST PARA 6: 6. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO A DISALLOWANCE IN THE SU M OF RS. 31,26,703/-, BEING THE PROVISION FOR VARIOUS EXPENSES, EFFECTED BY THE AO FOR THE REASON THAT THEY WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCES. IN APPEAL , THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO IN VIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES/MATERIALS SOUGHT TO BE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, GRANTING DELETIO N WHERE FOUND EVIDENCED AND/OR SUPPORTED. THE BALANCE DISALLOWANCE, BEING CONFIRME D, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL. IN SUCH SITUATION, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO VERIFY T HE FACT OF TAXATION OF THIS PROVISION OF EXPENSES IN EARLIER YEAR. IN CASE THES E PROVISIONS IN EXPENSES HAVE TAXED IN EARLIER YEARS, THE SAME WHEN REVERSED SHOU LD NOT BE TAXED. WE DIRECT THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE PARTL Y ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON APRIL 07TH, 2 016 SD/- SD/- (R. C. SHARMA) (MAHAVIR SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( * MUMBAI; 1) DATED : 07.04.2016 .)../ ROSHANI , SR. PS !'#$%&' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. # / THE APPELLANT 2. $% # / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( 2+ ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. ( 2+ / CIT CONCERNED 5. 56 7$+)89 , ,890 , ( * / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 7 : ; * / GUARD FILE ! / BY ORDER,