UTTAM POLYRUBS INDIA P LTD., Jaipur V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Alwar

ITA 859/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2103 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RUNN SINGH CIT DHK
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 32; 154

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KN O] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SIN GH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 859 & 860/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 & 2013-14. M/S UTTAM POLYRUBS INDIA PVT. LTD., G-1060, PHASE III, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, ALWAR. CUKE VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AAACU 4543 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RUNN SINGH (ADDL CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20.02.2018. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/02/2018. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BENCH: THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-22, ALWAR, DATED 22.09.2017 FOR THE A.Y. 201 0-11 AND 2013-14 RESPECTIVELY. IN ITA NO. 859/JP/2017 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2010-11, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE SOLITARY GROUND OF APPEAL W HICH READS AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 859/JP/2017 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CO NFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,25,123/- CLAIMED ON ELECT RICAL EQUIPMENT UNDER INSTALLATION, RS. 3,82,784/- CLAIMED ON BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND RS. 5,47,739/- CLAIMED ON P & M UNDER INSTALLATION, AGGREGATING TO RS. 10,55,646/- BY INCORRECTLY HOLDING THAT THESE ASSET S WERE NOT USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS NOR THEY WERE READY FOR USE.' 2 ITA NOS 859 & 860/JP/2017. M/S UTTAM POLYRUBS INDIA PVT. LTD.,ALWAR. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 8.3.2013. THEREA FTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT DEPRECIATION ON ELECTRICAL EQ UIPMENT UNDER INSTALLATION, BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND PLANT AND MACHINERY UNDER INSTALLATION WAS WRONGLY ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS THESE AS SETS WERE UNDER INSTALLATION OR CONSTRUCTION. THEREAFTER, A NOTICE U/S 154 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS NEVER CHARGED DEPRECIATION ON FIXED ASSETS NOT CAPITALIZED OR PUT TO USE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT DURING THE INSTALLATION/CONSTRUCTION, ASSET IS KEPT IN SEPARAT E ACCOUNT AND AT THE TIME OF CAPITALIZATION, THE SAME IS TRANSFERRED TO RESPECTI VE ASSETS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO THE COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, PLANT & MACHINERY AS WELL AS BUILDING AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED VARIOUS AMOUNT UNDER THE HEAD ELECTRICAL E QUIPMENT UNDER INSTALLATION, PLANT AND MACHINERY UNDER INSTALLAT ION AND BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND CREDITED AMOUNT OF RS. 1,25,123/- RS. 5,47,739/- & RS. 3,82,784/- RESPECTIVELY ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY HELD BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION O F RS. 10,55,646/- ON ASSETS WHICH WERE NOT PUT TO USE DURING THE FINANCI AL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWED THE DEP RECIATION BEING MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD BY PASSING AN ORDER UNDER SECT ION 154 OF THE ACT. 3 ITA NOS 859 & 860/JP/2017. M/S UTTAM POLYRUBS INDIA PVT. LTD.,ALWAR. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE . AS PER THE LD. CIT(A), THE APPELLANT COMPANY ITSELF HAS DECLARED THE ASSET S IN QUESTION AS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND UNDER INSTALLATION AND THEREFORE, IT IS LEGITIMATE ON THE PART OF THE AO TO CONCLUDE THAT SUCH ASSETS HAVE NOT BEE N USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS NOT THEY ARE EVEN READY FOR USE. BEING AG GRIEVED WITH THE SAID FINDINGS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR TOOK US THROUGH THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF BUILDING, ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT AND PLAN T AND MACHINERY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ACCOUNTS REFLECT THE ADDITI ON TO THE RESPECTIVE BLOCK OF ASSETS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE SEPARATE ACCOUNTS WHICH ARE MAINTAINED WHEN THE RES PECTIVE ASSETS ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION/INSTALLATION AND WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION /INSTALLATION IS COMPLETED, THE AMOUNTS ARE TRANSFERRED FROM THE SAID WORK-IN-P ROGRESS ACCOUNTS TO THE ASSETS ACCOUNTS. OUR REFERENCE WAS DRAWN TO THE BU ILDING ACCOUNT AND THE JOURNAL ENTRY PASSED ON 30.9.2009 WHEREIN THE BUILD ING ACCOUNT HAS BEEN DEBITED AND THE BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION ACCOU NT HAS BEEN CREDITED BY AMOUNT OF RS. 72,17,127/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E SAID JOURNAL ENTRY DEMONSTRATED THE FACT THAT THE BUILDING HAS SINCE B EEN CONSTRUCTED AND ALL THE EXPENDITURES WHICH WERE LYING UNDER BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT 4 ITA NOS 859 & 860/JP/2017. M/S UTTAM POLYRUBS INDIA PVT. LTD.,ALWAR. HAS SINCE BEEN TRANSFERRED AND CAPITALIZED IN THE B UILDING ACCOUNT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID JOURNAL ENTRY HAS BEEN WRON GLY UNDERSTOOD BY THE AO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SAME. IT WAS FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT THE DEPRECIATION OF RS. 3,82,783/- WHICH HAS BEEN CREDITED TO THE BU ILDING ACCOUNT IS IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING WHICH HAS BEEN FULLY CONSTRUCTED AN D PUT TO USE DURING THE YEAR AND NOT IN RESPECT OF BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCT ION. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE SIMILAR POSITION EXIST IN RESPEC T OF OTHER TWO CAPITAL ASSETS IN THE NATURE OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT AND PLANT AND MACHINERY. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HA VE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE NATURE OF THE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES AND IT HAS RESULTE D IN DISALLOWANCE OF THE BOOK DEPRECIATION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED ON FIR ST PLACE. FURTHER, DRAWING OUR REFERENCE TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AS WELL AS THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE WH OLE OF THE BOOK DEPRECIATION DEBITED IN THE PROFIT/LOSS ACCOUNT INC LUDING THE DEPRECIATION SO DISALLOWED BY THE AO HAS ALREADY BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS 28,53,408 AND WHAT HAS BEEN CLAIMED IS THE DEPRECIATION COMPUTED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 OF THE IT ACT AMOUNTING TO RS 39,33,133. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D/R WHO HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5 ITA NOS 859 & 860/JP/2017. M/S UTTAM POLYRUBS INDIA PVT. LTD.,ALWAR. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF COMPUTATION OF I NCOME AS WELL AS LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF BUILDING, ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENTS AND PLA NT & MACHINERY, WE FIND THAT DURING THE YEAR, THERE IS CAPITALIZATION OF EX PENDITURE IN THESE RESPECTIVE ASSET ACCOUNTS AND THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITUR E WHICH WAS KEPT IN THE SEPARATE CONSTRUCTION/INSTALLATION ACCOUNTS HAVE BE EN TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSET ACCOUNTS AND WHICH HAS BEEN CAPITALIZED DURING THE YEAR. FURTHER, THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION WHICH HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AO IS THE BOOK DEPRECIATION ON THESE ASSETS WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DISALLOWED I N THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE ACCORDINGLY FIND THE CONTENTIONS SO RAISED BY THE L D AR TO BE FACTUALLY CORRECT. IN THE RESULT, WE DONOT FIND ANY BASIS FOR DISALLOW ING THE BOOK DEPRECIATION AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT (A). THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE IS HEREBY DELETED. THE SOLE GROUND OF ASSE SSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ITA NO.860/JP/2017 8. NOW, WE TAKE UP APPEAL IN ITA NO. 860/JP/2017 PE RTAINING TO A.Y. 2013-14 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 6 ITA NOS 859 & 860/JP/2017. M/S UTTAM POLYRUBS INDIA PVT. LTD.,ALWAR. 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15,57,583/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTER EST ON UNSECURED LOANS PAID IN EXCESS OF 18% TO THE PERSONS SPECIFIED U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE IT ACT. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 75,000/- OUT OF BUSINESS PROMOT ION EXPENSES. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 50,000/- OUT OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES. 9. REGARDING GROUND NO. 1, AT THE OUTSET, THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE C O-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 760/JP/2015 DATED 28 .07.2016 AND THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH ARE REPR ODUCED AS UNDER:- THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT T HE AMOUNT WAS BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS CL AIMED PAYMENT OF INTEREST @ 24% PER ANNUM. HOWEVER, THE AO CONSIDERING THE SA ME AS UNREASONABLE AND EXCESSIVE, RESTRICTED @ 18%. THE REVENUE HAS N OT PLACED ANY MATERIAL UNDER THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT TH E FAIR MARKET RATE OF INTEREST IS LOWER THAN WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIME D. AS PER SECTION 40A(2)(B), THE AO HAS TO GIVE A FINDING HAVING REGA RD TO THE FAIR MARKET RATE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO SUCH FINDING IS GIVEN. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE TWO DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BEN CH OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RAM AVTAR GARG VS. ITO IN I TA NO. 58/JP/2010 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2005-06 AND IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE IN ITA NO. 570/JP/2015 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2010-11 WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCHES HAVE ALLOWED THE INTEREST @ 24% BEING FAIR MARKET RATE. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD SUGGESTING THAT THE RATE SO CLAIMED BY THE A SSESSEE IS EXCESSIVE OF THE FAIR MARKET RATE AS PREVALENT DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 6,92,942/- MADE ON 7 ITA NOS 859 & 860/JP/2017. M/S UTTAM POLYRUBS INDIA PVT. LTD.,ALWAR. ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON FAIR MARKET RATE PAID IN EXC ESS OF 18% TO THE PERSONS SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 40A(2)( B) OF THE ACT. 10. UNDISPUTEDLY, THERE ARE NO CHANGES IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FACT, THE AO HAS FOLLOWED THE EARLIER YEARS OR DER AND HAS MADE THE SUBJECT ADDITION. THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE EARL IER YEAR HAS EXAMINED THE MATTER AT LENGTH AND HAS DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, THE ADDITION SO MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS HEREBY DELETED. 11. REGARDING GROUND NO. 2 AND 3, THE LD. AR SUBMIT TED THAT THESE ARE PURE ADHOC ADDITIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT PO INTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR THE SPECIFIC EX PENDITURE WHICH CALLS FOR THE DISALLOWANCE. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT TH E ADDITIONS SO MADE SHOULD BE DELETED. IN SUPPORT OF THIS, THE LD. AR HAS REL IED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. ACIT VS. GANPATI ENTERPRISES LTD. (2013) 142 ITD 118 (DELHI) (TRIB.) 2. CIT VS. ORACLE INDIA (P) LTD. 199 TAXMAN 181 (DE L)(HC)(MAG.) 3. ARTHUR & ANDERSON & CO. VS. ACIT 2010-TIOL- 416- ITAT-MUM 4. SEASON CATERING SERVICES (P) LTD. VS. DCIT 43 DT R 397 (DEL) (TRIB) 8 ITA NOS 859 & 860/JP/2017. M/S UTTAM POLYRUBS INDIA PVT. LTD.,ALWAR. 12. THE LD. D/R IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE ORDE RS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS BEEN MORE THAN REASONABLE IN DISALLOWING THE SUBJECT EXPENSES IN ABSENCE OF NECE SSARY DOCUMENTATION FOR VERIFICATION. 13. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE CONTENTIONS SO RAISE D BY THE LD. AR, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO REFER TO THE FINDING OF THE AO WHICH ARE CONTAINED AT PARA 4 & 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UND ER:- 4. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE CO MPANY HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD OF BUSINESS PROMOTION OF RS. 31,04,309/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.R . OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE COMPLETE VOUCHER OF EXPENSES C LAIMED IN P & L ACCOUNT FOR VERIFICATION. ON EXAMINATION OF BOOKS I T WAS FOUND THAT ABOVE EXPENSES WERE NOT FULLY VOUCHED AND SOME OF T HE VOUCHERS WERE SELF MADE AND WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE BILLS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH COMPLETE BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF EXPENSES. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS LAID UPON IT. IN A BSENCE OF THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS THE EXPENSES ARE NOT VERIFIABLE AS THERE A RE NO SOURCE DOCUMENTS FOR SOME OF THE EXPENSES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION I FIND IT QUITE JUSTIFIED TO DISALLOW AN AMOUNT OF RS . 75,000/- OUT OF THE EXPENSES IN ABSENCE OF PROPER VERIFICATION. 5. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE COM PANY HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSU LTANCY CHARGES OF RS. 18,15,500/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE COMPLETE VOUCH ER OF EXPENSES 9 ITA NOS 859 & 860/JP/2017. M/S UTTAM POLYRUBS INDIA PVT. LTD.,ALWAR. CLAIMED IN P & L ACCOUNT FOR VERIFICATION. ON EXAMI NATION OF BOOKS IT WAS FOUND THAT ABOVE EXPENSES WERE NOT FULLY VOUCHE D AND SOME OF THE VOUCHERS WERE SELF MADE AND WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY T HE BILLS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH COMPLETE BILLS AND V OUCHERS OF EXPENSES. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONU S LAID UPON IT. IN ABSENCE OF THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS THE EXPENSES ARE NOT VERIFIABLE AS THERE ARE NO SOURCE DOCUMENTS FOR SOME OF THE EXPEN SES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION I FIND IT QUITE JUSTIFIED TO D ISALLOW AN AMOUNT OF RS. 50,000/- OUT OF THE EXPENSES IN ABSENCE OF PROPER V ERIFICATION. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED RS 75,000 OUT OF RS 31,04,309 OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES AND RS 50,000 OUT OF RS 18,15,50 0 OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSULTANCY EXPENSES. THE REASONING OF THE AO IN B OTH THESE CASES HAVE BEEN THAT THERE ARE NO SOURCE DOCUMENTS FOR SOME OF THE EXPENSES AND HENCE, IN ABSENCE OF PROPER VERIFICATION, THE EXPEN SES CANNOT BE ALLOWED. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT CLEARLY EMERGING FROM THE ASSESS MENT ORDER AS TO WHAT ARE THOSE SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE WHOSE SOURCE DOCUMENTS A RE NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR VERIFICATION. THE LD DR ALSO COULDNT EXPLAIN ANY LINKAGE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE BY THE AO AN D WHETHER THESE ARE THE EXPENDITURE WHOSE SOURCE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT AVAILABL E FOR VERIFICATION. IT IS THEREFORE A CASE OF ADHOC DISALLOWANCE AMOUNT OF TH E TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED UNDER THE ABOVE MENTIONED TWO HEADS OF EXPE NDITURE. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THERE IS NO 10 ITA NOS 859 & 860/JP/2017. M/S UTTAM POLYRUBS INDIA PVT. LTD.,ALWAR. FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURE ARE BOGUS OR NOT INC URRED FOR PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, GIVEN TH AT THESE ARE PURELY ADHOC ADDITIONS, THE SAME CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND ARE HER EBY DELETED. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/02/2018. SD/- SD/- ( JH FOT; IKY JKO ) ( FOE FLAG ;KNO ( VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL; / JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL; /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 22/02/2018. POOJA/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- M/S UTTAM POLYRUBS INDIA PVT. LTD ., ALWAR. 2. THE RESPONDENT ACIT, CIRCLE-2, ALWAR. 3. THE CIT. 4. THE CIT (4), 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 859 & 860/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 11 ITA NOS 859 & 860/JP/2017. M/S UTTAM POLYRUBS INDIA PVT. LTD.,ALWAR.