RASIKLAL KANTILAL & CO, MUMBAI V. ITO 15(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 8712/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6669 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPAK SATARIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: M V SUBRAMANIAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Bad and doubtful debts; Commercial expediency; Onus to prove
• Section: 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RA O, JM ./ I.T.A. NO. 8712/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) RASIKLAL KANTILAL & CO. 145, KIKA STREET, 1 ST FLOOR, MUMBAI-400 004 / VS. ITO-15(1)(4), MATRU MANDIR, MUMBAI ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AABFR 2493 K ( ! /APPELLANT ) : ( '#! / RESPONDENT ) ! $ % / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. V. SUBRAMANIAN '#! $ % / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DEEPAK SATARIYA & ' ( $ ) * / DATE OF HEARING : 06.02.2014 +,- $ ) * / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.04.2014 . / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-26, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SH ORT) DATED 01.11.2011, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSES SMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR (A.Y.) 2007-08 VIDE ORDER DATED 24.11.2009. 2. THE APPEAL RAISES THREE ISSUES, PER ITS SOLE, EF FECTIVE GROUND, WHICH WE SHALL TAKE UP IN SERIATIM. THE FIRST RELATES TO THE DISALLOWAN CE OF A CLAIM FOR LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES AT RS.2,56,000/-. THE BACKGROUND FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT CRIMINAL PROCEEDING HAD 2 ITA NO. 8712/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) RASIKLAL KANTILAL & CO. VS. CIT BEEN LODGED BY CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA (THROUGH ITS N ULL BAZAAR, MUMBAI BRANCH) AGAINST THE ASSEESEE FOR PRESENTING FAKE/FORGED DOCUMENTS ( BILL OF EXCHANGE PAYABLE AT SIGHT, ALONG WITH MOTOR TRANSPORT RECEIPT/MTR), AND THEREB Y DEFRAUDING IT FOR RS.1,68,776/-, WHICH CAME TO SURFACE ON PRESENTATION THROUGH THE B ANK (GRINDLAYS BANK, FORT, MUMBAI), I.E., ON THAT GROUND. THE DATE ON THE MTRS HAD BEEN ALLEGED ALTERED, SO THAT THE GOODS HAD ALREADY BEEN DELIVERED BY THE TRANSPORTER ISSUING T HE MTR, WHICH THEREFORE COULD NOT BE RE-BOOKED. THE RECOURSE TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THE G OODS WAS THUS ALSO NOT AVAILABLE TO THE BANK. THE ASSEESEE HAD APPARENTLY LOST THE CIVIL SU IT (OR AT LEAST AT THE TRIAL STAGE), ALSO FILED, WHEREIN ITS DEFENSE WAS ONE OF TOTAL DENIAL. THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, BEING QUA OFFENSES UNDER SECTIONS 120, 420, 468 & 471 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC), ARE, AS STATED, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT IN CRIMINAL REVIEW PETITION; THE ASSEESEE HAVING LOST AT THE TRIAL AND THE FIRST APPELLATE STAGE. IN THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.), THE EXPENSES CLAIMED COUL D NOT BE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SAID TO BE FOR DEFENDING THE APPELLANT FOR ANY LAWFUL AC TS OF ITS BUSINESS. THE SAME WERE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED. IN APPEAL, THE LD.CIT (A) F OUND THAT NO DETAILS HAD IN FACT BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH, MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSEESEES CLAIM FOR SUCH EXPENSES HAD BEEN ALLOWED IN THE PAST (AY 2001-02), IT COULD NOT BE A GROUND FOR ALLOWING IT FOR THE CURRENT YEAR. IN THE FACTS FOR THAT YEAR, THE CLAIM ALSO INCLUDED EXPENSES IN RELATION TO A DISPUTE QUA THE GODOWN OF THE ASSEESEE, WHILE EVEN THE PRIMARY DETAILS WERE NOT FORTHCOMING FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, WHICH WA S THUS NOT MAINTAINABLE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSEESEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PURSUED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 3.1 THE ASSEESEES ENTIRE CASE, EVEN AS PRESENTED B EFORE US, IS BASED ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF ITS CLAIM FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR, I.E., AY 2001- 02. HOW WOULD THAT WE WONDER BE OF MOMENT WHEN EVEN THE PRIMARY DETAILS HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED AT ANY STAGE, INCLUDING BEFORE US. THE LEGAL POSITION IS NOT AMBIVALENT. IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AND TOWARD WHICH AN ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS LEADING TO TH E INITIATION OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPELLANT OR ITS PARTNERS IS EXTREMELY RELEVANT/IMPORTANT. BREACH OF LAW, MUCH 3 ITA NO. 8712/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) RASIKLAL KANTILAL & CO. VS. CIT LESS AN ACT WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY OR CONSTITUTES A N OFFENCE UNDER LAW, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN INCIDENT OF THE TRADE. ON THE OTHE R HAND, ANY EXPENSE THAT BEFALLS ON THE ASSEESEE IN HIS CAPACITY AS A TRADER IS AN EXPENSE OF HIS BUSINESS. THIS IS AS ONLY IN THAT CASE THE EXPENSE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED TOWARD PROTECTING BUSINESS INTEREST. REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD IS MADE TO DECISIONS BY TH E HIGHER COURTS, AS IN THE CASE OF DALMIA JAIN AND CO. LTD. VS. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 754 (SC); CIT VS. H. HIRJEE [1953] 23 ITR 427 (SC); CIT VS. NATIONAL RAYON CORPN. LTD. [1985] 155 ITR 413 (BOM); STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. C.H. SIMPSON [1992] 197 ITR 237 ( MAD .) ; MODI INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 855 (ALL.); AND CIT VS. CHAMAN LAL AND BROS [1970] 77 ITR 283 (DEL). 3.2 COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO SUC H ANALYSIS BY THE FIRST APPELLANT AUTHORITY FOR AY 2001-02, WHOSE ORDER, CONCLUDING T HE MATTER FOR THAT YEAR, IS ON RECORD (PB PAGES 5-9), AND CAREFULLY PERUSED BY AS. NO FUR THER FACTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD; THE REVENUE RATHER STATING THAT EVEN THE PR IMARY FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN CLARIFIED. THE ASSEESEES CASE OR ITS STATUS, EVEN IN THE CIVIL PR OCEEDINGS, HAS NOT BEEN CLARIFIED. THE BONA FIDES OF ASSEESEES CASE, QUA EACH OF THE CRIMINAL CHARGES PRESSED AGAINST IT (O R ITS PARTNERS) IS, AS AFORE-STATED, VERY IMPORTANT, FORM ING THE BUILDING BLOCK OF THE ASSEESEES CASE OF THE EXPENSES HAVING BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AN D EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE/S OF ITS BUSINESS. NO SUCH CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT, WITH RATH ER THE FACT THAT THE RECOVERY BEING PERUSED WAS FOR RS.78.58 LACS (AND NOT AT RS.1.69 L ACS, AS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER) STANDS ALSO CLARIFIED FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE, ACCORDINGLY, HAVE NO HESITATION IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE; THE ASSEESEE HAVING AB YSMALLY FAILED IN DISCHARGING THE ONUS CAST ON IT U/S. 37(1) IN ANY MANNER. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. THE SECOND ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL PERTAINS TO THE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF. THE SAME, AT RS.12, 81,646/-, COMPRISES BALANC ES DUE FROM THREE PARTIES, AS UNDER: A) KOTHARI ENTERPRISES: RS.3,50,271/- B) VOLTAS LTD: RS.2,28,321/- C) VASANT R. SHAH: RS.7,07,808/- 4 ITA NO. 8712/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) RASIKLAL KANTILAL & CO. VS. CIT THE ACCOUNTS WERE OBSERVED TO BE RUNNING ACCOUNTS, LESS THAN THREE YEARS OLD. NO DETAILS OF ANY DISPUTE/S, IF ANY, WERE FURNISHED. N O DETAILS OF ANY ACTION TAKEN FOR RECOVERY BEFORE THE WRITE OFF, WHICH IS ONLY EXPECT ED, WERE FURNISHED. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE WRITE OFF ITSELF WAS CONSIDERED AS NOT GENUINE. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WAS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. THE SAME FOUND FAVOUR IN APPEAL FOR THE SAME REASONS. TO EXHIBIT, AT LEAST PRIMA FACIE , THAT THE DEBT IS BAD, SO THAT THE WRITE OFF IS GUID ED BY COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY, IS NECESSARY. IF NOT SO CONS IDERED, THE WRITE OFF OF A DEBT WOULD BECOME A TOOL FOR REDUCING TAX LIABILITY. THE DISAL LOWANCE WAS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSEESEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PURSUED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 5.1 THAT THE WRITE OFF OF A DEBT AS BAD FOR RECOVER Y IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE CLAIM IN ITS RESPECT IS THE UNDI SPUTED POSITION OF LAW. THE REVENUES STAND THAT THE WRITE OFF ITSELF MUST THOUGH BE GENU INE IS AXIOMATIC AND BASIC TO ANY CLAIM, SO THAT THE CONDITION/S OF ITS GRANT BEING OTHERWIS E MET, AS ITS WRITE OFF IN ACCOUNTS FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR, AND THE DEBT HAVING FORMED PART OF A SSEESEES INCOME PRIOR TO ITS WRITE OFF (SECTION 36(2)(I)), WOULD YET DISQUALIFY IT FOR DED UCTION WHERE THE GENUINENESS IS SUSPECT OR IN DOUBT. THIS IS AS GENUINENESS IMPINGES ON THE VERY REALITY OF THE CLAIM, ON ITS VERY NATURE AND CHARACTER, SO THAT A CLAIMS WHICH IS NOT GENUINE IS NOT REAL BUT ONLY FALSE OR MAKE-BELIEVE. REFERENCE IN THIS CONTEXT MAY BE MADE TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT VS. OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK SAOG [2009] 313 ITR 128 (BOM). THE WRITE OFF OF AN ACCOUNT, IT IS TO BE APPRECIATED, IS ONLY OF THE SA ME AS IRRECOVERABLE. THE ONUS, HOWEVER, TO PROVE THAT THE APPARENT IS NOT REAL IS ON THE ON E WHO SO ALLEGES, SO THAT THE BURDEN TO PROVE THAT THE WRITE OFF IS NOT GENUINE IS ONLY ON THE REVENUE. THE QUESTION, THUS, ESSENTIALLY BOILS DOWN TO WHETHER THE REVENUE HAS D ISCHARGED THE SAID ONUS. IN THIS REGARD, WE SHALL PROCEED ACCOUNT-WISE, AS FOLLOWS. 5.2 A) KOTHARI ENTERPRISES (PB PGS.20-23): THE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A RUNNING ACCOUNT ; THE LAST SALES TRANSACTION BEING IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2005, I.E., TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE WRITE OFF. HOWEVER, THE 5 ITA NO. 8712/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) RASIKLAL KANTILAL & CO. VS. CIT CUSTOMER HAS A CREDIT BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2004 (AT RS.1,60,000/-) AND THEN AGAIN ON 04.06.2004. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENT ON B EHALF OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AT RS.6,00,278/-, TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE SA ID CUSTOMER ON 01.04.2004. AGAIN, THIS IS ITSELF SURPRISING THAT A CUSTOMER WHO ENJOYS SUC H CREDIBILITY WITH THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO MAKE A PAYMENT/S ON HIS BEHALF TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 6 LACS SHOULD DEFAULT ON THE PAYMENT, AND THAT TOO WITHOUT ANY INKLING OF ANY DISPUTE OR, IN ANY CASE, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE FINANCIAL/S OF THE SAID CONCERN. HOWEVER, THE EXHIB ITION OF THE WRITE OFF BY THE ASSESSEE AS GENUINE IS TO BE ONLY PRIMA FACIE . IN-AS-MUCH AS WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THERE HAS BEE N NO SALE TO THE SAID PARTY AFTER 07.03.2005, THE SAID A CCOUNT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE THE REGULAR AND THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO CAN ONLY BE INFER RED AS STRAINED. ACCORDINGLY, IN OUR VIEW, NO CASE FOR DISALLOWANCE IS MADE OUT. B) VOLTAS LTD. (PB PGS. 24-27): THE ACCOUNT IS STAGNANT, WITH THE IMPUGNED DEBT BEI NG OUTSTANDING SINCE PRIOR TO 01.04.2003. IT IS FURTHER NOT CLEAR IF THE DEBT AS OUTSTANDING IS ON ACCOUNT OF SALES OR OTHERWISE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING THE ASSES SEES INCOME FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, I.E., UPTO THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE NON-RECO VERY OF THE DEBT FOR AT LEAST FOUR YEARS IS BY ITSELF INDICATIVE OF THE CUSTOMER BEING RECALCIT RANT OR THE DEBT AS BEING PRIMA FACIE NOT RECOVERABLE. NO DOUBT, A REPUTED COMPANY AS THE DEB TOR UNDER REFERENCE CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO DEFAULT AND NO MATERIAL FOR ARRIVING AT A FINDING OF DISPUTE EXISTING BETWEEN THE TWO HAS BEEN LED BY THE ASSESSEE. SO HOWEVER, A S AFORE-STATED, THE ONUS TO EXHIBIT THE WRITE OFF AS NOT GENUINE IS ON THE REVENUE AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. THE VERY FACT THAT NO SALES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE SAID CUSTOMER FOR AT LE AST FOUR YEARS PRIOR TO THE WRITE OFF NOR ANY RECOVERY EFFECTED IN ACCOUNT FOR THE SAID PERIO D IS, IN OUR VIEW, PRIMA FACIE INDICATIVE OF THE WRITE OFF OF DEBT AS IRRECOVERABLE AS GENUIN E. THE SAME CAN BE QUESTIONED BY THE REVENUE ONLY BY BRINGING MATERIALS SUGGESTING TO TH E CONTRARY OR LEADING TO AN ADVERSE INFERENCE ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, SUBJECT TO THE AS CERTAINMENT OF THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE AS SATISFYING THE CONDITION OF SECTION 36(2), THE O NUS FOR WHICH IS ON THE ASSESSEE, IN OUR VIEW, NO CASE FOR DISALLOWANCE IS MADE OUT. 6 ITA NO. 8712/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) RASIKLAL KANTILAL & CO. VS. CIT C) VASANT R. SHAH (PB PGS. 28-31): THE ACCOUNT IS STAGNANT, WITH THE IMPUGNED DEBT OUT STANDING SINCE PRIOR TO 01.04.2003, WHEREAT THE ACCOUNT BALANCE WAS AT RS.9 ,80,000/-. IT IS FURTHER NOT CLEAR IF THE DEBT AS OUTSTANDING IS ON ACCOUNT OF SALES OR OTHER WISE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING THE ASSESSEES INCOME FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, I.E., UPTO THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. NO RECOVERY THOUGH HAS BEEN MADE; THE ASSESSEE RETAINI NG A BALANCE OF RS.2,72,192/- IN ACCOUNT BY WRITING OFF THE BALANCE IMPUGNED SUM OF RS.7,07,808/- ON 31.03.2007. THE WRITE OFF THEREFORE, AS IT WOULD APPEAR, FOLLOWS A RECONCILIATION OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHERWISE SOME CONCILIATION ARRIVED AT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. H OWEVER, NO MATERIAL TOWARD THE SAME OR EVEN CONTENTION TO THAT EFFECT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, SO THAT THE WRITE OFF, TO THE EXTENT DONE, CAN BE SAID TO BE NOT EXPLAINED. O NE COULD ALSO QUESTION THE GENUINENESS OF THE WRITE OFF IN-AS-MUCH AS THE SAME CONDITION/S OR INCIDENT/S THAT ATTENDS THE AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF ALSO DOES THE AMOUNT NOT WRITTEN OFF AN D RETAINED IN ACCOUNT. SO, HOWEVER, WE ARE ONLY SEIZED OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM, WHICH IS L IMITED TO AND ONLY QUA THE AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF. ADMITTEDLY, THE AMOUNT NOT WRITTEN OFF CANNOT BE CLAIMED U/S.36(1)(VII), SO THAT EVEN IF IRRECOVERABLE, A CLAIM IN ITS RESPECT WOULD HAVE TO NECESSARILY FOLLOW ONLY ITS ACTUAL WRITE OFF AS SO IN ACCOUNTS, WITH THE CLAIM IN ITS RESPECT BEING EXIGIBLE ONLY THEREUPON AND FOR THAT YEAR. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED THAT A WRITE OFF CAN BE FOR THE WHOLE OR A PART OF A DEBT. AS SUCH, EVEN THOUGH WE AGREE IN PR INCIPLE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE WRITE OFF CANNOT BE USED AS A TOOL BY THE ASSESSEE TO MANIPULATE HIS TAX LIABILITY, THE SAME WOULD NOT, PER FORCE OF LAW, APPLY WHERE THIS IS PU RSUED BY ARTIFICIALLY RESTRICTING THE WRITE OFF, AS WHERE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IS IRRECOVERA BLE, AS IS PRIMA FACIE THE CASE, TO A LESSER AMOUNT, DEFERRING THE WRITE OFF OF THE BALAN CE TO A LATER YEAR. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREFORE, SUBJECT TO THE SATISFACTI ON OF THE CONDITION OF SECTION 36(2), WE DIRECT ITS ALLOWANCE. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 6. THE THIRD AND THE LAST ISSUE ARISING FOR OUR CON SIDERATION IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS QUA A DISALLOWANCE TOWARD PERSONAL OR NON-BUSINESS EXPE NSES CLAIMED UNDER VARIOUS HEADS. THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE INCURRED AND CLAIMED THE EXPENSES ON STAFF 7 ITA NO. 8712/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) RASIKLAL KANTILAL & CO. VS. CIT WELFARE, TRAVEL, VEHICLE (CAR) REPAIR AND MAINTENAN CE AS WELL AS DEPRECIATION, ETC., TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3.77 LACS, OF WHICH ONLY A PART, I.E., RS.69,326/-, WERE CONSIDERED AS BEARING EXPENDITURE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE EMPLOYEES AND, C ONSEQUENTLY, SUBJECT TO FRINGE BENEFIT TAX (FBT), PAID AT RS.13,865/-. IN THE VIEW OF THE A.O., THE PERSONAL ELEMENT COULD NOT BE DENIED IN THE BALANCE EXPENDITURE OF RS.3,07,246/-, 20% (1/5 TH ) WHEREOF WAS, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED AS SO AND, ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWED AS HA VING NOT BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE A.O. IN PRINCIPLE, THOUGH RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 15 % OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD TELEPHONE AND VEHICLE EXPENSES ONLY. THIS WAS DONE BY HIM PARTICULARLY IN THE ABSENCE OF MAINTENANCE OF ANY CALL BOOK OR LOG BOOK IN RESPECT THEREOF, SO THAT PERSONAL USER OF THE SAID ASSETS/FACILITIES COULD NOT BE DEN IED. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PURSUED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. NO INFIRMITY WHATSOEVER STANDS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE NOR WE OBSE RVE ANY. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS GROUND, UPHOLDING THE DI SALLOWANCE AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY A LLOWED. /- )0 '1 2/) $ 3. 4 ) $ ) 56 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON APRIL 04, 201 4 SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & 7( MUMBAI; 8' DATED : 04 .04.2014 .'../ ROSHANI , SR. PS 8 ITA NO. 8712/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) RASIKLAL KANTILAL & CO. VS. CIT !' # $%&' (!'% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '#! / THE RESPONDENT 3. & 9) ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. & 9) / CIT - CONCERNED 5. < = ')'>1 , * >1- , & 7( / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. = ?2 @ ( / GUARD FILE !' ) / BY ORDER, */)+ , (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , & 7( / ITAT, MUMBAI