ITO 21(1)(1), MUMBAI V. ALKA UDYA SHETH, MUMBAI

ITA 8616/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93127 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY C GOSALIA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 133(6); 32; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.8616/M/2010 (AY:2007 - 2008 ) ITO - 21(1)(1), C - 10, R.NO.603, PRATYAKSH KAR BHAVAN, BANDRA, MUMBAI - 51. / VS. MS. ALKA UDAY SHETH, 2 ND FLR., HARMY ADAM BLADG., RAM MANDIR ROAD, VILE PARLE (E), MUMBAI 400 064. ./ PAN : ABVPS5583J ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI JEEVAN LAL LAVIDIYA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AJAY. C. GOSALIA / DATE OF HEARING : 08.06.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :30 .06.2015 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 10.12.2010 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 32, MUMBAI DATED 21.9.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008. IN THIS APPEAL, REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE AD - HOC OF RS. 10,22,333/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT FOR WANT OF VERIFICATION AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE COMPLETE DETAILS OF NAMES AND ADDRESS AND PA N OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. BY DOING SO, THE CIT (A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BASIC ONUS OF SUBMITTING PROPER ADDRESSES F THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT IN POSITION TO VERI FY THE GENUINENESS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,51,892/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SHORTAGE OF STOCK REPORTED BY THE ASSES SEE. IN DOING SO, THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER ANY EXPLANATION IN RESPONSE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS QUERY VIDE HIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 12.11.2009. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,43,977/ - , RS. 1.62 LAKHS AND RS. 14,36,847/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES, RENT AND OTHER EXPENSES INCURRED BY ADMITTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC ES, WHICH WERE NOT SUBMITTED / PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREBY VIOLATING THE PROVISION LAID DOWN UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADERS IN CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,22,380/ - . ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3 ) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 37,78,000/ - . IN THE ASSESSMENT, AO MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS NAMELY; (I) CESSATION OF LIABILITY U/S 41(1) AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,22,333/ - ; (II) SHORTAGE IN STOCK OF RS.2,51,892/ - ; (III) ADDITION ON ACCO UNT OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,43,977/ - ; (IV) RENT PAID OF RS. 1,62,000/ - AND (V) OTHER EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 14,36, 847/ - . AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ON APPEAL, AFTER CONSIDERING THE S UBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CIT (A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAID DECISION OF THE CIT (A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS. 3. GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,22,333/ - MADE ON ACC OUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS, TREATING THE SAME AS CESSATION OF LIABILITY U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. BRIEF FACTS IN THIS REGARD ARE THAT IN THE RETURNED INCOME, AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RS. 51,11,665/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. IN THIS REGARD, ASS ESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF THE SAID CREDITORS SO AS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM. IN THE ABSENCE OF BASIC DETAILS, AO CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED THE GENUINENESS OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AND THE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THEM. ACCORDINGLY, AO DISALLOWED 20% OF THE SAID SUNDRY CREDITORS ON AD - HOC BASIS AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 10,22,333/ - U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BANNET COLEMAN CO. LTD (201 ITR 1021) (BOM.) IN SUPPORT OF HIS DECISION OF INVOKING THE SAID SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 4. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AFTER CONSID ERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CIT (A) DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AT LENGTH AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. PARA NO. 4.3 AND 4.4 OF THE CIT (A)S ARE RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. AGGRIEVED WITH SAID D ECISION OF THE CIT (A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL VIDE GROUND NO.1 OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. 3 5. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. ON OTHER HAND, LD DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUPPORTED THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE AO. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PL ACED BEFORE US. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER IN GENERAL AND THE PARAS 4.3 AND 4.4 OF HIS ORDER IN PARTICULAR, WE FIND THE SAME ARE RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. CONSIDERING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SAID PARAS AND FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS OF THIS ORDER, WE FIND IT RELEVANT TO EXTRACT THE SAME WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: 4.3. I HAVE CO NSIDERED T HE A R G UM E NTS OF T HE L D. A R AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF T H E AO O N TH E IS S U E. T H E CL A IM O F T H E AO T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBM I TTE D TH E DET A ILS CAL L ED F O R O R EVE N T H E AD D R ESS OF THE PARTES WE R E NOT SUBMITTED TO V E R I F Y T HE SAME B Y CALLING INFORMATION U/S.133(6) IS F A CTUALL Y I NCORRECT . AS EVI D ENT FROM TH E REP LY DATE D 22.10.2009 OF THE ASSESSEE FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED NAMES, ADDRESSES & PAN OF ALL THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE PURCHASES ABOVE RS.1 LAC WAS MADE. NORMALLY THE SUNDRY CREDITORS LIST WOULD ALSO CONTAIN THE NAME S OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES HAVE MADE, THEREFORE, IF THE AO WANTED TO ISSUE 133(6) FOR VERIFICATION OF SUNDRY CREDITORS, AT LEAST HE COULD HAVE ISSUE THE LETTERS TO SOME OF CREDITORS ON BASIS OF ADDRESSES ALREADY FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHA SES ABOVE RS.1 LAC, BUT HE DID NOT DO SO. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED THE AO TO SPECIFY TH E PARTIES WHOSE ADDRESSEE ARE FURTHER REQUIRED BUT HE DID NOT SPECIFY ANY NAMES THEREAFTER. PERUSAL OF THE REPLY DATED 22.10.2009 SUGGEST THAT TH E AO HAD ISSUED A GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE CALLING F OR PLETHORA OF INFORMATION WITHOUT REALLY APPLYING HIS MIND AS TO WHAT INFORMATION IN A SPECIFIC H E WANTED. TIME AND AGAIN THERE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS FROM CBDT NOT TO ISSUE GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE . NONETHELESS EVEN IF GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE IS ISSUED, IT IS IMPRACTICAL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE ALL THIRD PARTY CONFIRMATIONS FOR ALL CREDITORS OTHER THAN THE DETAILS ALREADY AVAILABLE WITH HIM AS PER HIS BOOKS. IF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS ALRE ADY AVAILABLE WITH HIM AS PER THE BOOKS, THEN IT IS FOR THE 1.0 TO FURTHER ASK THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE THIRD PARTY DETAILS/ CONFIRMATION IN THE SPECIFIC CASES WHICH HE MAY DEEM FIT. THE AO WITHOU T BOTHERING HIMS E LF TO LOOK INTO WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN FU RNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE, IS MAKING GENERAL STATEMENT THAT NO DETAILS WERE FILED AND NO ADDRESSES WERE FILED WHEREAS THE FACT IS THE ALL DETAILS WERE FILED. IF THE AO WANTED TO MAKE ANY VERIFICATION BY CALLING INFOR MATION U/ S 133(6) AS HE MENTIONS IN THE ASSTT ORDER, HE COULD HAVE DONE SO FROM THE ADDRESSES OF PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES RS.1 LAC WAS MADE WHICH WERE ALREADY AVAILABLE WITH HIM AND THESE PARTIES WERE ALSO APPEARING IN THE LIST OF CREDITORS. A PERUSAL OF THE LIST OF SUNDRY CREDIT LIABILITIES OF RS 51,11,665 AS PER THE SCHEDULES OF BALANCE SHEET WOULD HAVE REVEALED THAT OUT OF TOTAL LIABILITY OF RS 51,1L,665, A SUM OF RS 14,92,491 AND RS 90,876 WERE O N ACCO U NT OF LO A N L I A BILI TIES W H ICH I N AN Y C ASE CA N NOT B E 4 ADD ED U / S 41( 1 ). TH E R E FOR E , TH E VI E W OF TH E AO M ENT I ONED IN THE A SSTT OR D ER T HA T NO A D DR E S S WE R E GI V E N A N D H E N CE IT W A S N OT P OSSIBLE TO CA LL IN FORMA T I ON U/S 1 3 3( 6 ) W AS O NL Y A N A LI BI T O M AKE A DDI T IO N BASED O N M E R E PRE SUM P TI O N. 4 . 4 E VE N O N ME R I TS T H E P RO VI SIONS 4 1 ( 1) C A N NO T BE IN V OKE D '. I T IS A F A CT TH A T TH E ASSESS EE H AS S H OWN T H E AMO U NT IN THE B A L A N C E SHE ET A S P AY A BL E A ND TH E R E B Y T H E AS S ESSE E H AS ACKNOW L E DGE D T H E L IA B ILI TY A S S TI LL PAYABLE AND THERE I S NO INT E NTION O F ASSE SS E E NOT TO HONOU R I T S L IA BILITY. THE AMOUNT IS ALSO NOT UNILAT E R A L LY W R I TT E N OF F I N TH E B O O KS OF A CCOUNT. HENCE THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR IN VOK IN G S ECT ION 41(1) ARE N O S A T I SFIED AND IN ABSENCE OF AN Y T A NGIBLE PROO F OF SUPPLIER HAVING GIV EN UP ITS CLAIM, THE AO WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING LIABILITY APPEARING I N BALANCE SHEET AND MAKING OUT A CASE FOR CESSATION OF LIABILITY MER E LY BECAUSE THESE ARE OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF YE A R IGNORING THAT THERE W E R E TRANSACTIONS OR PA Y MENTS MADE TO THE CR E DIT O R S I N NE X T YEAR . THIS V I EW I S S UPPORTED IN THE DEC IS IONS R E P O RT E D IN CA S E OF JEHANGIR GULLABHAI 2 1 SOT 603(MUM), DSA ENGINEERS 30 S O T 31 ( M U M), NIRMALA OVERS EAS 37 D T R 321(DEL)(TRI B ), 99 T T J . 718(P EL), NEW COMMERCIAL MILLS 175 TA X MAN 179(AHD), A LL IED LEATHER 32 S0 T 549 ( LK O). LIMI TA TION OF TIM E I S NOT A D E TERMININ G F AC TOR IN MATTERS R E L A T ING T O REMIS~ION OR C E SS ATI ON O F LI A BILITI E S M E RELY BEC A USE THE OUTST A N D IN G S UNDRY CREDITOR BAL ANC ES A PP E ARING IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSE E FOR A PERIOD LONGER THAN THR EE YE A RS A S HELD IN DSA ENGINEERS 30 SOT 31( M UM), 40 SOT 253(ALLD). EVEN IN THE CASE WHERE THE LIABILITIES HAD BEEN OUTSTANDING FOR PAS T SEVERAL YEARS AND ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH POSTAL ADDRESSES O F CONCERNED PARTIES AND FAILED TO PROVE EXISTENCE OF THOSE LIABILITIES, T HE ITAT IN NEW COMMERCIAL MILLS 175 TAXMAN 179(AHD), ALLIED LEATHER 32 SOT 549(LKO) HAS HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT REASONS A ND MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF FINDING THAT LIABILITIES HAD CEASED IN YEAR ALSO THE CAL CULATION OF THE SHORTAGE BY THE AVERAGE PRICE METHOD, DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 8. CONSIDERING THE SAME, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE CIT (A) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO .1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,51,892/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SHORTAGE IN STOCK. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED 50,66,771 QUANTITY OF GOODS WORTH RS. 1,59,85,03 2/ - I.E., RS. 3.16/ - PER UNIT. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE SHOWN STOCK LOSS OF 79,712.81 UNITS. IN THIS REGARD, AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF SHORTAGE OF STOCK SHOWN IN ROFT / SUNANDA CHEMICALS, COUPLERS & OTHERS. CONSIDER ING THE NON - FURNISHING OF THE DETAILS, AO WORKED OUT THE SHORTAGE OF STOCK AT RS. 2,51,892/ - AND THE SAME WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIE THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 10. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CIT (A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND 5 DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 11. DU RING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN GENERAL AND PARA 5.2 IN PARTICULAR, WE FIND THE S AME IS RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. CONSIDERING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SAID PARA FOR THE SAKE COMPLETENESS OF THIS ORDER, THE SAME IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 5.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD AR AND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ONCE THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF THE SHORTAGES, IT WAS FOR THE AO TO HAVE SPELT OUT AS TO WHAT FURTHER DETAILS/ EVIDENCE HE NEEDED FOR JUSTIFICATION OF THE SHORTAGES. THE AUDIT REPORT SUGGESTS THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS THE STOCK REGISTER AND THE REFORE, IF HE WAS SUSPICIOUS ABOUT THE SHORTAGE OF STOCK CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. ONE THE OTHER HAND, HE ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY REASON AS TO WHY THERE CANNOT BE ANY SHORTAGE IN THE LINE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN ON MERITS I FIND THAT THE SHORTAG ES IN THIS YEAR HAS REDUCED FROM THE PREVIOUS 2 YEARS AND THE GP SHOWN AT 26.11% THIS YEAR HAS INCREASED AS COMPARED TO 19.78% IN AY 2005 - 06 AND 23.31% IN AY 2006 - 07 AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE ON SHORTAGES OF STOCK CAN BE DRAWN. THEREFORE, ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, BEING WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND MERELY ON PRESUMPTION, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. HENCE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,51,892/ - ON ACCOUNT OF STOCK IS DELETED. 14. CONSIDERING THE SAME, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN ABOVE DECISION OF THE CIT (A). IN OUR OPINION, THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN THE REGARD IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 15. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,43,977/ - ; RS. 1.62 LAKHS AND RS. 14,36,8 47/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES, RENT AND OTHER EXPENSES RESPECTIVELY. BRIEF FACTS IN THIS REGARD ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,43,977/ - ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES; RS. 1.62 LAKHS CLAIMED AS RENT FOR GODOW N AND RS. 14,36,847/ - CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER EXPENSES IN THE P & L ACCOUNT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE AFORESAID CLAIMS. CONSIDERING THE ABSENCE OF ANY RELEVANT DETAILS, AO DISALLOWED THE A FOREMENTIONED CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 6 16. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CIT (A) GRANTE D RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY DELETING THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAID DECISION OF THE CIT (A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUND NO.3. 17. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 18. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CI T (A) NEED TO BE REMANDED FOR VERIFICATION OF THE AO TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAME BEFORE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE SAID DETAILS. IN THIS REGARD, THE CIT (A)S IS NOT FAIR IN ALLOWING THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE. THEREFOR E, HE REQUESTED THAT CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THE EXPENSES INVOLVED IN THE GROUND, THE SAME NEED MAY BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR VERIFYING THE GENUINENESS AND ALLOWABILITY OF THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT (A). 19. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT (A), WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE. C ONSIDERING THE SAME AS WELL AS CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THE EXPENSES INVOLVED, WE FIND IT RELEVANT TO REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR VERIFYING THE GENUINENESS AND ALLOWABILITY OF THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT (A) AFTER AFFORDING A REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THUS, GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 20. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED I N THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JUNE, 2015. SD/ - SD/ - (I.P. BANSAL) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 30 .6 .2015 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS 7 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI