Sigma Research & Consulting Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 23(4), New Delhi

ITA 7332/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9629 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Keywords: Commercial expediency; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 37(1); 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.7332/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SIGMA RESEARCH & CONSULTING PVT. LTD., C-23, FIRST FLOOR, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAMCS3537P VS. ITO, WARD-23(4), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.V.S. GUPTA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI S.L. ANURAGI, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 05.08.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.09.2019 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 OF THE CIT(A)-8, NEW DELHI, RELATING TO ASSESS MENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS U NDER:- THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTI ON OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE SUM OF RS.75,449/- BEING THE INT EREST PAID ON LATE DEPOSIT OF TDS, IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, UNWARRANTED, UNCALLED F OR AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING FULL-FLEDGED RESEARCH SERVICE S IN THE SOCIAL AND DEVELOPMENT SECTOR AND ALL INDIA DATA COLLECTION/FIELD AND TABU LATION SERVICES ACROSS ALL SECTORS. IT ITA NO.7332/DEL/2018 2 FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 6 TH OCTOBER, 2014 DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.9,25,090/- UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS AND RS.5, 50,105/- UNDER MAT PROVISIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.75,449 /- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON TDS. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE AN OPPORT UNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THIS AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS P ER SECTION 37 OF THE IT ACT, NO REPLY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE TO EX PLAIN AS TO WHY THE SAME IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THER EFORE, MADE ADDITION OF RS.75,449/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. I N APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT INTEREST ON LATE PAYMENT OF DEPOSIT OF TDS IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT AS IT WAS IN THE NATURE OF PENAL INTEREST. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REFERRING TO V ARIOUS DECISIONS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK, SUBMITTED THAT ANY DELAY IN THE PAYMENT OF TD S BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE LINKED TO THE INCOME-TAX OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQ UENTLY THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT COMMERCE INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT, 230 ITR 733 CANNOT BE APPLIED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CALCUTTA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S SAI PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, VIDE ITA NO.18 87/KOL/2016, ORDER DATED 6 TH APRIL, 2018 , HAS HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT ITA NO.7332/DEL/2018 3 OF INTEREST ON LATE DEPOSIT OF TDS WHICH HAS BEEN C ONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT. ACCORDINGLY, THEY HAVE DIRECTED SUCH ADDI TION TO BE DELETED. RELYING ON VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK, HE SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNA L. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIO NS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THEM AND THEY HAVE SIMPLY SUSTAINED THE ADDITION. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE CIT(A), AS THE CASE MAY BE. 6. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE INTER EST ON LATE DEPOSIT OF TDS IS PENAL IN NATURE AND, THEREFORE, IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE DEDUC TION. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REPLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO JUS TIFY THE ALLOWABILITY OF SUCH CLAIM. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) BE UPHELD ON THIS ISSUE. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I HAVE ALSO CONSID ERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. I FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.75,449/- DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE P&L ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF INTER EST ON LATE DEPOSIT OF TDS ON THE GROUND THAT DESPITE BEING ASKED BY HIM, THE ASSESSE E DID NOT FILE ANY REPLY TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM. I FIND THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOW ANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT INTEREST ON LATE PAYMENT OF TDS IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE U/S 37(1) OF THE IT ACT AS IT WAS IN THE NATURE OF PENA L INTEREST. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ITA NO.7332/DEL/2018 4 LD. COUNSEL THAT IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS DECISIONS O F THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS VERY ISSUE, SUCH DISALLOWANCE IS U NCALLED FOR. IT IS ALSO HIS ALTERNATE SUBMISSION THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NO T BEEN CONSIDERED. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTERE ST OF JUSTICE, I DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLA IM OF ALLOWABILITY OF INTEREST PAID ON LATE DEPOSIT OF TDS. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. GROUND NO.2 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTI ON OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE SUM OF RS.37,654/- BEING THE AMO UNT OF DEMURRAGE CHARGES DEDUCTED BY THE CUSTOMERS FOR NOT COMPLETING THE PR OJECT IN TIME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, UNWARRANTED, UNCALLED FOR AND AGAINST TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 9. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY HAS DEBITED RS.37,654/- ON ACCOUNT OF PENALTY CHARGES. ON BEING ASKED BY HIM, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS AMOUNT IS IN THE NATURE OF DEMURRAGE CHARGES FOR NO T COMPLETING THE PROJECT IN TIME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE ABOVE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ACTUAL EXPENSES RELATE D TO THE CORRESPONDING EARNING HAS INCREASED AND IT IS A LOSS TO THE COMPANY. HE ACCOR DINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.37,654/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE RE ITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AS ITA NO.7332/DEL/2018 5 MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THA T THE SAID AMOUNT WAS IN THE NATURE OF DEMURRAGE CHARGES FOR NOT COMPLETING THE PROJECT IN TIME. REFERRING TO THE DICTIONARY MEANING OF DEMURRAGE CHARGES, IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT THE SAME BEING COMPENSATORY IN NATURE FOR SUCH DETENTION THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE A RGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HELD THAT CHARGES FOR NOT COMPLETING A PROJECT IN TIME WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF DEMURRAGE CHARGES AND, HENCE, THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN MAKING THE ABOVE MEN TIONED DISALLOWANCE IS NOT TENABLE. HE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE AS SESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REFERRING TO PAGE 83 OF THE PAPER BOOK, DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE DESCRIPTION OF TH E JOB TO BE UNDERTAKEN FOR NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (NIELIT), GANGTOK. REFERRING TO CLAUSE 2 OF THE SAME, HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN THEREIN ACCORDING TO WHICH IN THE CASE OF NON-COMPL ETION OF JOB IN TIME, PENALTY @ 0.10% OF THE QUOTED RATE PER DAY WILL BE RECOVERED FOR THE EXTRA DAYS REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF THE JOB. REFERRING TO THE DECISION O F THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITO VS. SHANTI COMMODITIES, 156 ITD 34 , HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT PENALTIES PAID FOR VIOLATION S OF RULES LAID DOWN BY THE FORWARD MARKET COMMISSION BEING IN THE NATURE OF CIVIL LIAB ILITY SIMILAR TO COMPOUNDING FEES ITA NO.7332/DEL/2018 6 AND NOT FOR ANY SERIOUS VIOLATION OF LAW WAS TO BE ALLOWED U/S 37(1). HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE PENALTY SO PAID WAS NOT FOR VIOLATIO N OR INFRACTION OF ANY LAW AND THE SAME WAS PAID FOR NON-COMPLETION OF THE JOB ON TIME , THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS COMPENSATORY IN NATURE AND, THEREFORE, HAS TO BE AL LOWED AS A DEDUCTION. 12. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED O N THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). 13. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I HAVE ALSO CONSI DERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE ME. I FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE IN STANT CASE, DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.37,654/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF P ENALTY CHARGES ON THE GROUND THAT DEMURRAGE CHARGES FOR NOT COMPLETING THE PROJECT IN TIME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. I FIND THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTIO N OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME IS NOT FOR VIOLATION OR INFRACTION OF ANY STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND THE SAME IS COMPENSATORY IN NATURE FOR NOT COMPLETING THE PROJECT IN TIME. I FIND MERIT IN TH E ABOVE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL. A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK PAGE 83 SHOWS THAT AS P ER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR UNDERTAKING THE WORK AWARDED BY NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, GANGTOK, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY PENALTY @ 0.10% OF THE QUOTED RATE PER DAY FOR NON-COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT WITHIN SI X WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE WORK ORDER. THE SAME, IN MY OPINION, IS NOT FO R VIOLATION OF ANY STATUTORY LAW, BUT, WILL AMOUNT TO COMPENSATORY IN NATURE. I FIND THE P UNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ITA NO.7332/DEL/2018 7 CASE OF SHANTI COMMODITIES (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT PENALTIES PAID FOR VIOLATION OF RULE S LAID BY FORWARD MARKET COMMISSION BEING IN THE NATU RE OF CIVIL LIABILITY SIMILAR TO COMPOUNDING FEES AND NOT FEE FOR ANY SERIOUS VIOLAT ION OF PROVISIONS OF LAW WAS TO BE ALLOWED U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUST AINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS.37,654/-. ACCORD INGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS SET ASIDE AND THE GROUND RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 14. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RE ADS AS UNDER:- THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTI ON OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE SUM OF RS.69,741/- BEING THE AMO UNT OF POOJA EXPENSES IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, UNWARRANTED, UNCALLED FOR AND A GAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 15. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COM PANY HAS CLAIMED POOJA EXPENSES OF RS.69,741/- WHICH ARE RELATED WITH THE BUSINESS AND CANNOT BE SAID TO BE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS. RELYING O N VARIOUS DECISIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.69,741/- AND ADD ED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 16. BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AB OVE MENTIONED EXPENSES BROUGHT HARMONY IN THE BUSINESS AND WAS INCURRED ON DAY-TO-DAY POOJA IN THE OFFICE, EXPENSES OF POOJA ON 5 TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE COMPANY AND POOJA PERFORMED IN THE TEMPLES FOR THE GROWTH OF THE COMPANY. THE DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DALMIA ITA NO.7332/DEL/2018 8 CEMENT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT(A) WHER EIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ALLOWED SUCH EXPENSES. 17. THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ARGUME NTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT IN THE CASE OF DALMIA CEMENT (SUPR A), THE POOJA WAS HELD AT THE TEMPLE NEAR TO THE FACTORY PREMISES AND WAS FREQUEN TED BY THE WORKERS WHO LIVED NEAR THE TEMPLE AND WORKED IN THE FACTORY. HOWEVER, NO SUCH FACT WAS BROUGHT OUT IN THE INSTANT CASE EITHER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BY THE ASSESSEE. HE, THEREFORE, REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE GR OUNDS RAISED BEFORE HIM. 18. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE AS SESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 19. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SA BUILDERS REPORTED IN 288 ITR 1 , SUBMITTED THAT THIS EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF COMMERC IAL EXPEDIENCY. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF COMMERCIAL AHMEDABAD MILLS CO. LTD. VS. CIT, 204 ITR 505, HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF POOJA EXPENSES. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALL OWED. 20. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED O N THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). ITA NO.7332/DEL/2018 9 21. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I FIND THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN THE INSTANT CASE, DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.69,741/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF POOJA EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS NOT A WELFARE MEA SURE AND IN NO WAY CONNECTED WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. I FIND THE LD.CI T(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT SUCH EXPENSES BRING HARMONY BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT AND THE EMPLOYEES AN D ARE FOR COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS A D EDUCTION. IT IS ALSO HIS SUBMISSION THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMERCIAL AHMEDABAD MILLS CO. LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEE N HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BEING NEITHER PERSONAL NOR PURELY RELIGIOU S IN NATURE AND THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN THE INTEREST OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSE E, THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE G UJRAT HIGH COURT SHOWS THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD TH AT IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO DECIDE AS TO WHAT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE BUSINESS AND, THE REFORE, IF THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE AND BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE OR WELFARE OF A CLASS OF ITS WORKERS IS ESTABLISHED, THEN, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE EXPEN DITURE INCURRED BY IT IS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE NEXUS. WHILE THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON THE OCCASION OF ITS FIFTH ANNIVERSARY DAY IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE, HOWEVER, THE DAY-TO-DAY POOJ A EXPENSES IN THE OFFICE OF THE COMPANY, IN MY OPINION, CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS AN ALL OWABLE EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, ITA NO.7332/DEL/2018 10 THE NATURE OF BIFURCATION IS NOT AVAILABLE. CONSIDE RING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I DEEM IT PROP ER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE AN OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE A BIFURCATION AND THE PUJA EXPENSES INCURRED ON THE F IFTH ANNIVERSARY DAY OF THE COMPANY MAY BE ALLOWED AS AN EXPENDITURE WHEREAS THE DAY-TO -DAY POOJA EXPENSES CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS AN EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER S HALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER FACT AND LAW, AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D TO THE ASSESSEE. I HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 22. THE OTHER GROUNDS IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEIN G GENERAL IN NATURE, ARE BEING DISMISSED. 23. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 6.09.2019. SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED: 26 TH SEPTEMBER, 2019 DK COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI