M/s Fujitsu Optel Ltd., Mandideep V. ITO ,2(1), Bhopal

ITA 93/Ind/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0499 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-12-2019
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PUNEET KUMAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; Corroborative evidences; Set aside
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 13

Judgement Text

[ITA NO.93/IND/2018] [FUJITSU OPTEL PVT. LTD. MANDIDEEP] , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.93/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 FUJITSU OPTEL PVT. LTD D-6, INDUSTRIAL AREA MANDIDEEP, DIST. RAISEN M.P. / VS. ITO - 2(1) BHOPAL ( APPELLANT ) ( REVENUE ) P.A. NO. AAACF2334B APPELLANT BY SHRI HITESH CHIMNANI , A.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI PUNEET KUMAR, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 11.12.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26.12.2019 / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ORDER OF THE CIT(A), BHOPAL DATED 29.12.2017 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: [ITA NO.93/IND/2018] [FUJITSU OPTEL PVT. LTD. MANDIDEEP 2 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE A PPELLANTS CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PRIO R PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS.3,00,000/- MADE BY THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE A PPELLANTS CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 ,36,795/- OUT OF ELECTRICITY EXPENSES MADE BY THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE A PPELLANTS CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3 ,07,636/- OUT OF RATES AND TAXES EXPENSES MADE BY THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE A PPELLANTS CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF TRAV ELLING EXPENSES OF RS.9,77,444/- MADE BY THE LD. A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLE D AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 23.3.2016. WHI LE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE A.O. ASSESSED INCOME AT RS.46,77,270/- AGAINST THE RETURNED LOSS OF RS.6,64,3 46/-, THEREBY THE A.O. MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF DISALLOW ANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF AMOUNT UNDER VRS SCHEME AMOUNT PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. DISALLOWANCE OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT OF RS.10,74,150/- PRIO R PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS.3 LAKHS. THE A.O. OBSERVED T HAT A SUM OF RS.10,03,629/- HAS BEEN CREDITED IN THE PROF IT & [ITA NO.93/IND/2018] [FUJITSU OPTEL PVT. LTD. MANDIDEEP 3 LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD OTHER INCOME. DETAILS OF SALES TAX REFUND ALONG WITH SALES TAX ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE CALLED. AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 16.1.2 012, THE AMOUNT OF REFUND IS RS.11,20,563, HENCE DIFFEREN CE AMOUNT OF RS.1,26,934/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD RENTED OUT BUILDING TO NETLINK SOFTWARE PVT. LTD. FROM OCTOBER, 2012 WITH MONTHLY RENT OF RS.13,15,000/- AN D RENT OF RS.81 LAKHS HAS BEEN CREDITED IN PROFIT & LOS S ACCOUNT. THE ELECTRICITY EXPENSES OF THE PREMISES G IVEN ON RENT ARE BEING PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND CLAIMED UNDER POWER AND FUEL EXPENSES, HENCE, THIS EXPENDITURE WAS DISALLOWED AMOUNTING TO RS.1,36,795/-. THE A.O. ALSO DISALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE MUNICIPAL TAXES CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE OF RS.5 LAKHS. FURTHER DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE OUT OF RATE AND TAX EXPENSES OF RS.4,79,113/-. THE A .O. ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.11,76,420/- ON ACCOUNT OF [ITA NO.93/IND/2018] [FUJITSU OPTEL PVT. LTD. MANDIDEEP 4 DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION AND RS.9,77,444/- ON ACCOUN T OF DISALLOWANCE OF TRAVEL EXPENSES. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO AFTE R CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. THEREBY, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF AN AM OUNT OF RS.5,70,760/- IN RESPECT OF VRS. DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 43B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT WAS ALSO DELETED. THE LD. CIT FURTHER CONFIRMED THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.3 LAKHS RELATED TO PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. THE L D. CIT ALLOWED THE GROUND RELATED TO DISALLOWANCE OF SALES TAX AND REFUND. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ELECTRICITY BILLS OF RS.1,36,795/-. IN R ESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. REGARDING DEDUCTION U/S 2 4 OF THE ACT WAS ALSO ALLOWED SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.4,79,113/- REGARDING RATE AN D TAXES CLAIM OF PROPERTY TAX TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,71 ,477/- WAS ALLOWED. REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF [ITA NO.93/IND/2018] [FUJITSU OPTEL PVT. LTD. MANDIDEEP 5 RS.11,76,420/- THE LD. CIT ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE CLAIM OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES W AS DISALLOWED. AGAINST THIS ASSESSEE IS IN PRESENT APPEAL. 3. GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS .3 LAKHS CLAIMED TO BE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES CRYSTALISED IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 4. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS S TATED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENDI TURE WAS INCURRED IN RESPECT OF FURNISHING AND FURNITURE U NDER PERQUISITE AS SALARY TO ITS DIRECTORS. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT IS ALLOWABLE. IT IS FURTHER POINTED OUT T HAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD DULY DEDUCTED TAX BUT THE APPROVAL OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS RECEIVED IN THE NEXT YEAR. THEREFORE, AS PER ASSESSEE, EXPENDITURE WAS CRYSTALISED IN THE YEAR WHEN BOARD APPROVED SUCH EXPENDITURE. [ITA NO.93/IND/2018] [FUJITSU OPTEL PVT. LTD. MANDIDEEP 6 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. D.R. OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY. IT IS NOT POINTED OUT WHETHER THERE WAS ANY DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE APPROVAL OF SUCH EXPENDITUR E. MERELY BECAUSE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED WOULD NOT SUFFIC IENT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS CRYSTALISED IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN I TS FINDING IN PARA 7.2 AS UNDER: 7.2 THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT T HE BOARD MEETING APPROVING THESE EXPENDITURE HAS TAKEN PLACE ON 21.3.2012 AND THEREFORE, THE LIABILITY FOR THE EXPENDITURE HA S CRYSTALISED IN THE F.Y. 2012-13 ONLY. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS NOTED THAT THE SAID FURNISHINGS AND FURNITURE HAVE BEEN PUT UP IN THE R ESIDENCE OF THE MD. THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED DURING THE E ARLIER PERIOD. THE APPROVAL OF THE EXPENDITURE IN THE BOARD MEETIN G WAS ONLY A FORMALITY THAT TOO IN THE CASE OF A CLOSELY HELD PR IVATE LIMITED COMPANY. WHEN THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR THE RESIDENCE OF THE MD, THE LIABILITY FOR EXPENDITURE HAD CRYSTALIS ED IN THE SAME YEAR. THE CLAIM THAT IT HAD CRYSTALISED ONLY ON AP PROVAL IN THE BOARD MEETING IS LEGALLY NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE EXPEN DITURE WAS CLEARLY IN THE NATURE OF A PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE AND HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. THE CAES LAWS RELIED U PON BY THE APPELLANT ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN THE FAC TS AND [ITA NO.93/IND/2018] [FUJITSU OPTEL PVT. LTD. MANDIDEEP 7 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS CONFIRMED. 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY OTHER MATERIAL OTHER THAN SUBMITTING THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS APPROVED BY TH E BOARD SUBSEQUENTLY, THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE CRYSTAL ISED IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE CLAIMED SUCH EXPENDITURE IN THE YEAR WHEN THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED. UNDISPUTEDLY , THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TAX ON SUCH EXPENDITURE. MOREOVER, THE REVENUE HAS NOT DOUBTED ABOUT GENUINENE SS OF THE EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT MERE APPROVAL B Y THE BOARD IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO HO LD THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS CRYSTALISED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN FACT, THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE QUANTUM OF EXPENDITURE NOR ANY DISPUTE WAS PENDING. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE [ITA NO.93/IND/2018] [FUJITSU OPTEL PVT. LTD. MANDIDEEP 8 SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW S UCH EXPENDITURE WHEN THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED AS THE TAX HAS ALREADY BEEN DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE. I THEREFORE , DIRECT THE A.O. TO ALLOW EXPENDITURE IN THE YEAR WHE N SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED, IF LAW SO PERMITS AT THIS B ELATED STAGE. GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF IN THE TERMS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. 8. GROUND NO.2 IS IN RESPECT OF SUSTAINING DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.36,795/- OUT OF ELECTRICITY EXPENSES. 9. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). LD. COU NSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ELECTRICITY EXPENSES WERE INCURRE D BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE DISALLOWED TH E EXPENDITURE ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROPERTY HAD ALREADY BEEN GIVEN ON RENT. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS OCCUPIED BY THE TEN ANT AFTER 2 MONTHS AND THE PROPERTY REMAINED VACANT. DURING [ITA NO.93/IND/2018] [FUJITSU OPTEL PVT. LTD. MANDIDEEP 9 THE VACANCY PERIOD, THE ELECTRICITY EXPENDITURE WAS PAI D BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS FOR THE BUSINES S PURPOSES, THIS EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWABLE. 10. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. D.R. OPPOSED THESE SUBMISSIONS AND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (A). 11. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY WAS GIVEN ON RENT FROM OCTO BER, 2012 AT A MONTHLY RENT OF RS.13,15,000/- AND A RENT OF RS.81 LAKHS HAS BEEN CREDITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IT IS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING OCCUPATION OF THE PROPERTY IN DECEMBER, 2012. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED LY RECEIVED RENT FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD. THEREFORE, I T CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS USED WHO LLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. HENCE, IN MY VIEW, [ITA NO.93/IND/2018] [FUJITSU OPTEL PVT. LTD. MANDIDEEP 10 THE EXPENDITURE HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DISALLOWED. THIS GR OUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 12. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST SUSTAINING OF ADDITION OF RS.3,07,636/-. 13. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT IS CON TENDED THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IS ALLOWABLE EXPENSES. HE FURTHER TOOK US THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHEREIN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,90,285/- PERTAINS TO LEASE RENT AND MAINTENANCE CHARGES PAID TO MPAKVN ON THE PREMISES LET OUT TO NETLINK SOFTWARE P VT. LTD. HE CONTENDED THAT THE EXPENDITURE BEING REGULAR BUSINESS EXPENDITURE DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. 14. LD. D.R. OPPOSED THESE SUBMISSIONS AND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. [ITA NO.93/IND/2018] [FUJITSU OPTEL PVT. LTD. MANDIDEEP 11 15. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISALLOW ED THE EXPENDITURE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 11.2 THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN EXA MINED. IT IS SEEN THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,71,477/- BEING PROPE RTY TAX HAS ALREADY BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS COM PUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME. THEREFORE, THIS AMOUNT IS PRIMA FACIE WRON GLY ADDED BY THE A.O. SO FAR THE REMAINING AMOUNT IS CONCERNED; IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE SAME WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS THE APPELLANT HAD ALR EADY CLAIMED 30% DEDUCTION U/S 24(A) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,79,113/-. HOWEVER, AS ALREADY MENTIONED EARLIER, THE CLAIM OF PROPERTY TAX OF RS.1,71,477/- WILL BE ALLOWED BY THE A.O. AFTER PROPER VERIFICATION THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE COMPUTATION OF I NCOME. 16. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED RENTAL INCOME AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 24 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, SIN CE THE EXPENDITURE IS RELATED TO THE PROPERTY, WHICH HAS BEE N LET OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, THIS EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE TREAT ED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. I DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY INTO THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 17. GROUND NO.4 IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS.9,77,444/-. [ITA NO.93/IND/2018] [FUJITSU OPTEL PVT. LTD. MANDIDEEP 12 18. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISAL LOWING THE CLAIM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES ALONG WITH LEDGER ACCOUNT WERE FILED. DETAIL S OF BILLS, VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. FOR VERIFICATION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITU RE WAS INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES. LD. COUNSEL SU BMITTED THAT FROM THE EXPENSES AS INCURRED, IT IS CLEAR THAT T HOSE WERE FOR THE OFFICIAL PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE HAS VISI TED JAPAN. SINCE THE JAPANESE COMPANY FUJITSU IS THE MAJOR SHARE HOLDER, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO ATTEND MEETIN GS IN JAPAN. 19. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. D.R. OPPOSED THESE SUBMISSIONS AND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW. [ITA NO.93/IND/2018] [FUJITSU OPTEL PVT. LTD. MANDIDEEP 13 20. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDE D THIS ISSUE IN PARA 13.2 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER: 13.2 I HAVE EXAMINED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLA NT. NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT OF HOLDING THE BOARD MEETING IN JAPAN. THE NATURE OF BUSINESS BEI NG CARRIED OUT IN THE RELEVANT YEAR DID NOT WARRANT ANY BOARD MEETING , AS CLAIMED, TO BE HELD IN JAPAN. NO AGENDA PAPERS OR MINUTES OF T HE BOARD MEETING HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. THERE IS NO DETAILS AVAILABLE AS TO THE PARTICIPANTS, PURPOSE, DISCUSSI ON OR DECISIONS TAKEN DURING THE CLAIMED BOARD MEETING. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS OR EVIDENCE, THE EXPENDITURE COULD NOT BE PROVED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. THE DISA LLOWANCE OF RS.9,77,444/- IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD. 21. I HAVE HEARD THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE JAPANESE COMPANY IS A MAJOR SHAREHOLDER FOR THE PURPOSE BUSINESS. IT IS STATED T HAT DIRECTOR AND THE STAFF OF THE COMPANY REQUIRED TRAVELING AT JAPAN. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM O N THE BASIS THAT NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE REGARDING TRAVELL ING BEING FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE HAS BEEN GIVEN. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SUBSIDIARY OF [ITA NO.93/IND/2018] [FUJITSU OPTEL PVT. LTD. MANDIDEEP 14 JAPANESE COMPANY. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS TH AT THE JOURNEY WAS UNDERTAKEN BY THE DIRECTOR AND THE ST AFF OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES. IT IS FURTH ER STATED THAT NO SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED REGARDING PURPOSE, AGENDA AND MINUTES OF MEETING BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THEREFORE, SUCH EVIDENCES COULD NOT BE FILED. I FI ND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE GROUND PURELY ON THE BAS IS THAT NO EVIDENCE RELATED TO CONVENING OF MEETING, PUR POSE OF MEETING AND MINUTES OF MEETING WAS FURNISHED. AFT ER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , I THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORE T HE ISSUE TO THE A.O. FOR VERIFICATION OF PURPOSE AND MIN UTES OF MEETING. THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO FURNISH THE MINUTES OF MEETING HELD AT JAPAN WITH THE PARENT COMPANY. IF SUCH MINUTES ARE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATING THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF JOURNEY TO JAPAN , [ITA NO.93/IND/2018] [FUJITSU OPTEL PVT. LTD. MANDIDEEP 15 THE A.O. WOULD DELETE THE ADDITION. GROUND OF THE AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 22. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I N ITA NO.93/IND/2018 FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 IS PARTLY ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 . 12.2019. SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER INDORE; DATED : 26/12/2019 VG/SPS COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUAR D FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INDORE