M/S Pradhan Engineering Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Dewas V. THE ACIT 1(1), Ujjain

ITA 934/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4938 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINEET A D UB E
• Assessee Lawyers: ARPIT GOUR CAS
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 142(1); 115JB; 37(1)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.933 & 934/IND/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 & 2012-13 M/S PRADHAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. 36/37 UJJAIN ROAD, DEWAS / VS. ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN ( APPELLANT ) ( RE VENUE ) PAN: AAACP9729J APPELLANT BY SHRI ANIL KAMAL GARG & ARPIT GOUR CA S RE VENUE BY SMT. VINEETA DUBE SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 25.07.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.08.2019 / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: THESE TWO APPEALS AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE PERTA INING TO A.Y. 2008-09 & 2012-13 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), UJJAIN, (IN SH ORT CIT(A)), EVENLY DATED 25.07.2010 WHICH ARE ARISING OUT OF T HE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(HEREINAFTER CALL ED AS THE ACT) FRAMED ON 22.12.2010 & 27.03.2015 BY ACIT-1(1) & DC IT-1(1), UJJAIN, RESPECTIVELY. PRADHAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ITANOS.933 &934/IND/2016 2 2. AS BOTH THE APPEALS RELATES TO THE SAME ASSESSEE , THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CO MMON ORDER. 3. WE WILL TAKE FIRST ITANO.933/IND/2016 PERTAINING FOR A.Y. 2008- 09. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.2706697/- BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT OF DEBTORS WAS NOT WRITTEN OFF AS BAD DEBTS, BUT ON LY PART OF DEBTORS WAS WRITTEN OFF. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE POSIT ION OF THE DEBTOR OF WHOSE PART AMOUNT IS WRITTEN OFF IS GOOD ON THE BASIS OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE DEBTOR COMPANY. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) AS WELL AS ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED APPRECIATE SUBMISS ION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND MADE ADDITION. 05. THAT ADDITION MADE IS NOT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 6. THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTE R, AND/OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL 4. BRIEF FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE OF M OTORS AND JOB WORK. LOSS OF RS.99,35,724/- DECLARED IN THE E-RETU RN OF INCOME FILED ON 30.09.2008. CASE SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THR OUGH CASS FOLLOWED BY SERVING NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT. WHILE EXAMINING THE RECORDS LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (IN SHORT LD. AO) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BAD DEBTS OF RS.27,06,697/- IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE PRADHAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ITANOS.933 &934/IND/2016 3 THAT THE BAD DEBTS RELATED TO THE OUTSTANDING AMOUN T TO BE RECEIVED FROM M/S PARAG CEILING & FANS LTD. THE ASSESSEE ALS O SUBMITTED THAT AS THERE WAS NO HOPE FOR RECOVERY EXCEPT FOR A N AMOUNT OF RS.4,84,183/- THE REMAINING AMOUNT HAS BEEN CHARGED AS EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD OF BAD DEBTS. HOWEVER, L D. AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO ADD BACK THE PRO VISIONS OF BAD DEBTS IN THE COMPUTATION INCOME TO ARRIVE AT THE AC TUAL LOSS/PROFIT. LD. AO ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE BAD DEBTS CLAIMED AT RS.27,06,697/- AND ASSESSED THE LOSS AT RS.72,29,02 7/-. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE FINDING OF LD. AO ASSESSEE PREF ERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT FAILED TO SUCCEED. AS LD . CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: GROUND NO.1, 2, 3, 4 & 5:- THROUGH THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.27,06,6 971- ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS. THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING TOTA L OUTSTANDING BALANCE IN THE NAME OF M/S PARAG COOLIN G AND FANS LTD., DEWAS AMOUNTING TO RS.31,90,880/-. OUT O F THE ABOVE AMOUNT THE APPELLANT ONLY MADE THE PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS.27,06,697/- ONLY. REGARDING T HE AMOUNT OF RSA,84,183/- THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT HE IS HAVING THE HOPE FOR RECOVERY. THIS STATEMENT OF APPELLANT ITSE LF IS CONTRADICTORY THAT HOW HE CAN TREAT PART AMOUNT AS BAD DEBTS AND HAVING THE HOPE FOR RECOVERY OF PART AMOUNT. M/ S PARAG COOLING & FANS LTD., DEWAS IS A RUNNING CONCERN AND DISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.26,63,698/- BEFORE SET OFF OF LOSSES. THE COMPANY HAD ALSO DISCLOSED PROFIT U/S 115JB AT RSA8,51,995/ - IN THE A.Y.2012-13. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THERE IS NO HOPE OF RECOVERY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THEREFORE, T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO RS.27,06,697/- IS CONFI RMED. THE APPEAL ON THESE GROUNDS IS DISMISSED. PRADHAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ITANOS.933 &934/IND/2016 4 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L RAISING SIX GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT THE SOLE GRIEVANCE RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.27,06,697/- MADE BY THE LD. AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VE HEMENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 13.06.2 019 & 25.07.2019 AND SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE PERIOD 01. 04.2005 TO 31.03.2008 THE APPELLANT-ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO TRANSACTIONS WITH PARAG FANS & COOLING SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. (IN SHO RT PFCSPL). ON SOME OCCASIONS, IT SUPPLIED GOODS TO PFCSPL AND ON SOME OCCASIONS, IT PURCHASED GOODS FROM PFCSPL. HOWEVER, FOR ALL TYPES OF TRANSACTIONS, ONE COMMON ACCOUNT WAS MAINTAINED WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE NO.21 TO 25 OF OUR PAPER BOOK. HE FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT AFTER VARIOUS REMINDERS AND COMMUNICATIONS WIT H PFCSPL FOR RECOVERY OF ITS OUTSTANDING BALANCE FINALLY ON 25.0 2.2008, THE PFCSPL CONFIRMED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF RS.31,90,879/- IT WILL PAY ONLY OF RS.4,84,130/-. F OR THIS REASON BAD DEBTS OF RS.27,06,697/- IS BOOKED AS EXPENSES I N THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REFERRING T O THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT ASSESSEE IS FULLY ELI GIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF B Y IT:- I) CIT VS. MYSORE SUGAR CO LTD. (1962) 46 ITR 649 (HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT) II) MINDA HUF LTD. VS. JCIT (2006) 25 CCH 0179 (DEL TRI B) PRADHAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ITANOS.933 &934/IND/2016 5 III) ITO VS. BOMBAY FILM LAB. PVT. LTD. (1982) 01 CCH 33 02 (MUM TRIB) 8. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE THE AMOUNT IS RECOVERED, THE SAME SHALL BE OFFERED TO T AX IN THE YEAR WHEN THIS EVENT HAPPENS. 9. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) VEHEMENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO AND THE F INDING OF LD. CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELAT ES TO CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS U/S 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT AT RS.27.06,697/- WHICH IS CLAIMED TOWARDS THE ALLEGED NON-RECOVERABLE OUTSTANDING BA LANCE FROM THE CONCERN NAMELY PARAG FANS & COOLING SYSTEMS PVT. LT D. (IN SHORT PFCSPL). FROM PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK PAGES 21 TO 25 WHEREIN LEDGER ACCOUNT OF PFCSPL IS PLACED VARIOUS TRANSACT IONS WERE ENTERED DURING THE F.Y. 2005-06 TO F.Y. 2007-08. WE FIND THAT THE REGULAR TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT WITH PFC SPL SINCE APRIL 2005. TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO ARE IN THE NATURE O F SALES, INFLOW AND OUTFLOW OF FUNDS, TRADE DISCOUNT AND OTHER JOUR NAL ENTRIES. AS ON 31.03.2008 THERE IS AN OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF RS .31,90,879/-. CERTAIN DOCUMENTS ARE ALSO PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK SHOWING COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND PFCSPL FOR T HE PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING DUES. A LETTER DATED 25.02.2008 WAS ISSUED BY PFCSPL, STATING THAT AGAINST THE OUTSTANDING BALANC E OF RS.31,90,879/- ITS ONLY LIABLE TO PAY RS.4,84,130/- . REFERENCE WAS PRADHAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ITANOS.933 &934/IND/2016 6 ALSO GIVEN TO DEBIT NOTES FOR LATE DELIVERY AND LET TER DATED 23.08.2005 ISSUED IN CONNECTION THEREOF. 11. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THERE IS NO DISPUT E TO THE FACT THAT THERE WERE REGULAR TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN ASSESSEE AN D PFCSPL. THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALES WERE ALSO ENTERED BUT ALONG W ITH THAT THERE WERE VARIOUS OTHER TRANSACTIONS APPEARING IN THE LE DGER ACCOUNT. THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE MAY BE PURELY ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OR ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER TRANSACTIONS, IS STILL NOT DISCERN ABLE FROM THE RECORDS. 12. HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD. VS. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC) DATED 09.02.2010 AND HELD THAT BAD DEBTS NEED NOT B E PROVEN TO BE IRRECOVERABLE U/S 36(1)(VII). IT IS SU FFICIENT IF THEY ARE WRITTEN OFF. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAD TO CONSIDER WHETHER A FTER THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 36 (1) (VII) W.E.F. 1.4.1989, AN ASSESSEE HAD TO ESTABLISH, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THAT THE DEBT ADVAN CED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD, IN FACT, BECOME IRRECOVERABLE OR WHET HER WRITING OFF THE DEBT AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS WAS SUFFICIEN T. HON'BLE COURT HELD THAT:- (I) THE POSITION IN LAW IS WELL-SETTLED. AFTER 1.4. 1989, IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DE BT, IN FACT, HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE. IT IS ENOUGH IF THE BAD DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN A BAD DEBT OCCURS, THE BAD DEBT ACCOUNT IS DEBITED AND THE CUS TOMERS ACCOUNT IS PRADHAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ITANOS.933 &934/IND/2016 7 CREDITED, THUS, CLOSING THE ACCOUNT OF THE CUSTOMER . IN THE CASE OF COMPANIES, THE PROVISION IS DEDUCTED FROM SUNDRY DE BTORS. (II) AS THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED WHETHER THE DEBT HA S, IN FACT, BEEN WRITTEN OFF IN ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE AO FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ASPECT ONLY AND THAT TOO ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE WRITE OFF. 13. EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT APPEAL IN TH E LIGHT OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT WE FIND THAT THOUGH IT WAS NOT NECES SARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBTS, IN FACT, HAVE BECOME IRRECOVERABLE. STILL THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED NECESS ARY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE OUTSTANDING DEBTS WERE NOT IRRECOVERABLE. HOWEVER, THE FACT NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED AS TO WHETHE R THE ALLEGED AMOUNT WAS OFFERED AS REVENUE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR S AND ALSO WHETHER THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN WRITTEN OFF IN THE ACCO UNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 25 THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN OUTSTANDING DEBTS OF RS.31,9 0,879/- AND NO ENTRY SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN PASSED FOR CREDITING TH E AMOUNT WITH THE BAD DEBTS CLAIMED. 14. WE, THEREFORE, DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR CARRYING OUT NECESSARY VERIF ICATION WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE RELATED DOCUM ENTS IN ORDER TO SATISFY THAT THE ALLEGED AMOUNT WAS SHOWN AS REVENU E IN THE PRECEDING YEARS AND THE LEDGER ACCOUNT HAS BEEN ACT UALLY WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE BY WAY OF CREDI TING THE DEBTORS PRADHAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ITANOS.933 &934/IND/2016 8 ACCOUNTS AND DEBITING THE BAD DEBTS ACCOUNTS. NEEDL ESS TO MENTION THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BE PROVID ED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 1 TO 4 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, OTHER GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, WHICH NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 15. ACCORDINGLY APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 200 8-09 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 16. NOW WE TAKE UP ITANO.934/IND/2016 PERTAINING TO A.Y.2012-13 ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING OF FICER OF RS.19,55,702/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY PAYABLE FO R EARLIER YEARS. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) AS WELL AS ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE EXCISE DUTY OF RS.19,55,702/- BECAME PAYABLE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY ASSESSEMENT AND ORDER OF THE SAME WAS SERVED U PON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON 08.04.2011 I.E. DURING THE FINA NCIAL YEAR 2011-12 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RIGHTLY CLAIMED IT DURING THE RELE VANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.13,59,256/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF PROVIS IONS OF WARRANTY. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) AS WELL AS ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO APPRECIATE SUBM ISSION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND MADE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE. 5. THAT ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE MADE IS NOT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 17. BRIEF FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE O F PUMPS, FOOT VALVE, ELECTRIC MOTORS AND JOB WORK. THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING PRADHAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ITANOS.933 &934/IND/2016 9 TOTAL INCOME OF RS.60,41,950/-. AS THE CASE SELECTE D FOR SCRUTINY, NECESSARY NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT S ERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (IN SHORT LD. A O) COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT, ASSESSING INCOME AT RS. 98,75,113/- AFT ER MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS TOTALING TO RS.38,33,163/-. 18. AGAINST THIS ADDITION THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND PARTLY SUCCEEDED. 19. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL RAISING TWO GROUNDS, FIRSTLY RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXCISE DUTY PAYABLE AT RS.19,55,702/- AND SECONDLY FOR DISALLOWANCE OF PRO VISIONS OF WARRANTY OF RS.13,59,256/-. 20. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.1 & GROUND NO.2 RELATING T O DISALLOWANCE OF EXCISE DUTY PAYABLE AT RS.19,55,702/-. LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT VIDE ORDER OF ADDL. COMMISS IONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX DATED 31.03.2 011 DEMANDS TOWARDS EXCISE DUTY AND EDUCATION CESS, FOR F.Y. 20 05-06 AND F.Y. 2006-07 WAS RAISED AT RS.19,55,702/- AND A PENALTY OF THE SAME AMOUNT WAS ALSO IMPOSED. AGAINST THIS DEMAND ASSESS EE PREFERRED BEFORE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CUSTOMS: CENTRAL EXCI SE & SERVICE TAX BUT FAILED TO SUCCEED. THE ORDER RAISING DEMAND DATED 31.03.2011 WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ON 08.04.2 011 I.E DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT-ASSESSEE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CLAIMED A SUM O F PRADHAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ITANOS.933 &934/IND/2016 10 RS.19,55,702/- AS EXCISE DUTY PAYABLE FOR EARLIER YEARS AS THE LIABILITY CRYSTALIZED DURING THE YEAR. 21. AGAINST THIS DEMAND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY AD JUSTED RS.5,44,680/- FROM ITS EXCISE DUTY DEPOSIT ACCOUNT IN RG-23 REGISTER DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 14,11,022/- HAS BEEN SHOWN AS PAYABLE UNDER THE SHORT TERM PROVISIONS IN THE BALANCE SHEET DATED 31.03.2 012. THIS AMOUNT WAS PAID BY THE APPELLANT ON 24.08.2012. IN OTHER WORDS, ENTIRE DEMAND OF RS.19,55,702/- WAS PAID BY THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE THE DUE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2012-13 . HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE APPEAL BEFORE TH E CUSTOM, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESS EES APPEAL WAS ALLOWED VIDE ORDER DATED 03.02.2012 DELETING THE EN TIRE DEMAND RAISED BY CUSTOM, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TR IBUNAL, INDORE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE LIABLE TO PAY THE AMOUNT OF THE EXCISE DUTY DEMAND CRYSTALIZED DURING THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION IT WAS CLAIMED AN EXPENSES U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. EV EN THE PROVISO OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT WILL NOT APPLY ON THE INSTAN T ISSUE FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT THE EXPENDITURE TOWARDS EXCISE DUT Y IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE F.Y. 2011-12 AND THE PAYABLE AMOUNT WAS DULY PAID BEFORE THE DUE DAT E OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: I. TUPPERWARE INDIA LTD. VS. CIT 2015 (6) TMI 180 ( DEL HC) HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI PRADHAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ITANOS.933 &934/IND/2016 11 II. SAURASHTRA CEMENT & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS . CIT (1995) 213 ITR 523 (GUJ) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT III. CIT VS. NATHMAL TOLARAM (1973) 88 ITR 234 HON' BLE GUWAHATI HIGH COURT (GUA) IV. CIT VS. BHARAT CARBON AND RIBBON MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. (199) 239 ITR 505 (HON'BLE SUPREME COURT) V. CIT VS. GANGA GALSS WORKS (P) LTD. (2005) 276 IT R 394 (ALL) VI. STANDARD MILLS CO. LTD. VS. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 366 (BOM) VII. CIT VS. B& A PLANTATIONS AND INDUSTRIES LTD. ( 2002) 257 ITR 694 (GUA) VIII. CIT VS. KR. GANESH (2003) 259 ITR 174 (MAD.) IX. CIT VS. KISHOR CHAND SHRICHARAN LAL (2004) 266 ITR 37 (ALL) 22. PER CONTRA LD. DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF BOTH LOWER AUTHORITIES AND PRAYED FOR SUSTAINING TH E DISALLOWANCE. 23. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT REFERR ED AND RELIED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 24. APROPOS GROUND NO.1 & 2 RELATING TO EXCISE DUTY PAYABLE OF RS.19,55,702/-. WE OBSERVE THAT THE ALLEGED AMOUNT WAS RAISED AS A DEMAND BY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CUSTOM AND CE NTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, INDORE VIDE ORDER DATED 31 .03.2011 WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 08.04.2011. ON THE BA SIS OF THIS ORDER ASSESSEE BOOKED THE EXPENDITURE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS PRADHAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ITANOS.933 &934/IND/2016 12 ACCOUNT. THIS DEMAND WAS PAID IN TWO PARTS; FIRSTLY RS.5,44,680/- WAS ADJUSTED FROM THE EXCISE DUTY DEPOSIT ACCOUNT D URING THE F.Y. 2011-12 ITSELF, AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.14,1 1,022/- WAS ALSO PAID ON 24.08.2012 I.E. BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. SO AS FAR AS THE ALLEGED DEMAND IS CONCE RNED THE SAME WAS ADJUSTED AND PAID BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. NOW THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS THAT WHETHER THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS: CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX FOR THE EARLIER YEARS CAN BE CLAIMED AS AN EXPENDIT URE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE LIABILITY TO PAY SUCH DEMAND IS CRYSTALLIZED. VARIOUS JUDGMENTS HAVE BEEN RELIED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE. IN ONE OF THE JUDGMENT HON'BLE APE X COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BHARAT CARBON AND RIBBON MANUFACTUR ING CO. LTD. (199) 239 ITR 505 (SC), REJECTED THE APPLICATION FI LED BY THE REVENUE AND CONFIRMED THE VIEW OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OBSERV ING AS FOLLOWS: '7. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LIABILITY ACCRUED OVER THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD BECAUSE OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED B Y THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT. THE SAID DEMAND NOTICE WAS ISSUE D AFTER THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE AND ON THE BASIS OF THE TRADE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS IN OCTOBER, 1979, PROVIDING THAT COATED PAPER WOULD BE LIABLE TO BE CLASSIFIED UNDER TARIFF ITEM 17(2). THE OBLIGATION UNDER THE LAW TO PAY THE EXCISE DUTY AROSE AT THAT STAGE. RAISING OF THE DISPUTE BY THE ASSESSEE BY FILING WRIT PETITION FOR QUASHING OR DEDUCTION OF T HE SAID LIABILITY WOULD NOT BE A GROUNDFOR HOLDING THAT LIABILITY TO PAY THE EXCISE DUTY AS PER THE DEMAND NOTICE WAS NOT INCURR ED 25. SIMILAR VIEW ALSO ADOPTED BY THE HON'BLE ALLAHA BAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GANGA GALSS WORKS (P) LTD. ( 2005) 276 ITR PRADHAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ITANOS.933 &934/IND/2016 13 394 (ALL) HOLDING THAT LIABILITY FOR SALES TAX RELA TING TO EARLIER YEARS CREATED BY VIRTUE OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN A SUBSEQU ENT YEARS, WOULD BE ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTION IN SUCH SUBSEQUEN T YEAR. 26. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT WE CAN SAFEL Y CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY BOOKED EXPENDITURE OF EXCI SE DUTY PAYABLE AT RS.19,55,702/- WHICH CRYSTALIZED DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. BEFORE PARTING OF WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION ONE MORE FACT WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE SUCCE EDED IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CESTAT AND TOTAL DEMAND OF RS.19, 55,7022/- WAS DELETED. THE ASSESSEE GOT REFUND OF RS.14,11,02 2/- WHICH WAS PAID BY IT AND THE SAME HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2018-19 AND FOR THE REMAINING AMOUN T THE CLAIM WAS REVERSED IN THE EXCISE RECORDS. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE DURING THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2012-13 HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX F.Y. 2018-19. WE, T HEREFORE, IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE OF CO NSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED THE EXCISE DU TY PAYABLE AT RS.19,55,702/- AS EXPENDITURE WHICH IS RAISED ON AC COUNT OF DEMAND PERTAINING TO EARLIER YEARS. IN THE RESULT G ROUND NO.1 & 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 27. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.3 RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 13,59,256/- MADE BY THE LD. AO ON ACCOUNT OF PROVIS IONS OF WARRANTY, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSION PLACED BEFORE US: PRADHAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ITANOS.933 &934/IND/2016 14 1.01 THAT, THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALES OF PUMPS, FOOT VALVES, ELEC TRIC MOTORS AND JOB WORK THEREOF. 1.02 THAT, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10, THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD STARTED ITS PUMPS MANUFACTURING FACILIT Y AT KARAD. THE APPELLANT HAD ENTERED INTO A MANUFACTURI NG CONTRACT WITH ONE COMPANY NAMELY MIS. KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LTD . (KBL). THE PUMPS SO MANUFACTURED WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SOLD BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY TO KBL UNDER THE 'KBL' BRANDING A ND LOGO. 1.03 THAT, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, IT WAS DECIDED BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE WHOLE PROCESS OF MANUF ACTURING AND FURTHER SERVICING SHALL BE DONE BY THE APPELLAN T FOR ALL THESE PUMPS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE KBL HAS A POL ICY TO PROVIDE WARRANTY OF A FIXED PERIOD DURING WHICH ANY SERVICING WOULD BE DONE FREE OF COST TO THE CUSTOMERS. THE CO NCEPT OF GRANTING WARRANTY IS QUITE POPULAR IN PUMP INDUSTRY AND ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANT WAS OBLIGED TO PROVIDE F REE SERVICING UNDER THE WARRANTY CONTRACT. THOUGH IT APPEARED TO BE A FOE SERVICE FOR THE CUSTOMER, THE PRICING FROM THE KBL WAS FINALIZED CONSIDERING THE COMPONENT OF WARRANTY CLAIM INVOLVE D IN IT. 1.04 VERY YEAR, THE MANAGEMENT USED TO MAKE AN ASS ESSMENT OF THE PUMPS THAT COME BACK FOR REPAIRING OR SERVIC ING BASED ON THE HISTORIC DATA AND PAST EXPERIENCE. THE MANAGEME NT NORMALLY KEPT IT AT 3-4% OF THE PUMPS MANUFACTURED G THE FINANCIAL YEAR, ANY EXPENSES INCURRED ON THE SERVI CING UNDER WARRANTY WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE PROVISION S O CREATED AND ANY AMOUNT LEFT WAS CREDITED BACK COME. IF IN C ASE, THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF EXPENSES EXCEEDED THE WARRANTY PRO VIDED FOR SUCH EXCESS AMOUNT USED TO BE CHARGED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS' ACCOUNT AS SHORT PROVISIONING ON ACCOUNT OF WARRANT Y CLAIMS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE RELEVANT E 'PREVIOUS Y EAR, FOLLOWING THE SAME POLICY, THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED AN ADDIT IONAL ACCOUNT OF RS.99,704/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT PROVISIO N OF WARRANTY CLAIM FOR EARLIER EARS [KINDLY REFER PB PA GE NO.30]. SUCH FINDING HAS ALSO BEEN GIVEN BY THE LEARNED O A T PARA 6.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 1.05 THAT, DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE APPELLANT HAS MADE A PROVISION OF RS.12,60,252/- ON ACCOUNT OF WA RRANTY CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF PUMPS MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY IT. A PRADHAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ITANOS.933 &934/IND/2016 15 DETAILED WORKING IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID PROVIS ION OF RS.12,60,252/- HAS BEEN GIVEN AT PAGE NO. 67 OF OUR PAPER BOOK. ON A PERUSAL OF THE WORKING OF THE PROVISION, IT SHALL BE APPRECIATED BY YOUR HONOURS THAT SUCH WORKING IS QU ITE SCIENTIFIC AND IS BASED UPON THE ACTUAL QUANTITIES OF PUMPS SOLD DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR AND AS ALSO ON THE FAIR ES TIMATION OF THE LIABILITY FOR WARRANTY, BASED UPON THE PAST EXP ERIENCE OF THE TECHNOCRATS. 1.06 YOUR HONOURS, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF THE AFORESAID PROVISION OF RS.12,60,252/-, THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS ACTUALLY ALSO INCURRED A SUM OF RS.9,04,3091- DURIN G THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. F.Y. 2012-13 RELEVAN T TO A.Y. 2013-14 AND THE REMAINING EXCESS PROVISION OF RS.3, 55,943/- HAS BEEN WRITTEN BACK AND RECOGNIZED AS INCOME BY T HE APPELLANT COMPANY IN SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 IT SELF. 2.00 YOUR HONOURS, ON A PERUSAL OF THE SCHEDULE-B OF THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE APPELLANT COMPA NY, AT PAGE NO.30 OF PB, IT SHALL BE OBSERVED THAT AS AGAINST T HE PROVISION FOR WARRANTY OF RS.12,60,252/- FOR THE PREVIOUS YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CLAIMED THE S IMILAR WARRANTY EXPENSES IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING PREV IOUS YEAR I.E. FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 AT RS.8,34,1291-. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SUCH PROVISION OFRS.8,34,1291- IS FORMING PART OF THE SHORT TERM PROVISIONS FOR RS.23,37,035/- SHOWN IN THE PRE VIOUS YEAR COLUMN OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE APPELLANT AT PAGE 22 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT SHALL THUS BE APPRECIATED THA T THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED AO TO THE EFFECT THAT SUCH -WARRANTY CLAIM WAS NOT MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY IN THE EARLIER YE ARS IS PATENTLY INCORRECT. 3.00 HONOURS, AS REGARD THE WARRANTY EXPENSES OF R S.99,704/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT VISIONING CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, IT - SUBMIT TED THAT THE AFORESAID EXPENSES REPRESENT THE ACTUAL EXPENSES IN CURRED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR IN RESPECT OF WHICH A PROVISION WAS MADE IN THE PRECED ING PREVIOUS YEAR AND WHICH FELL SHORT WHILE ASKING THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE BY THE APPELLANT. 3.01 YOUR HONOURS, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENS ES ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR , WARRANTY CLAIMS AS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT PRADHAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ITANOS.933 &934/IND/2016 16 COMPANY IN ITS AUDITED PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF A REASONABLE AND LOGICAL ESTIMATE W HICH, INTER ALIA, IS BASED UPON THE SALES MADE BY THE APPELLANT . THUS, THE PROVISIONS SO MADE BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE TERME D AS 'CONTINGENT LIABILITIES' BUT ONLY AS ASCERTAINED LI ABILITIES WHOLLY ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S.37 (1) OF THE ACT. 4.00 YOUR HONOURS, THE PROVISIONS FOR WARRANTY EXP ENSES CLAIMED BY AN ASSESSEE ON SCIENTIFIC BASIS, WHICH H AVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN ACTUALLY INCURRED, ARE WHOLLY ALL OWABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 37 OF THE ACT. THE HON'B LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ROTORK CONTROLS INDIA PVT. LTD . VS. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 0062 (SC) HAS HELD THAT IF THE HISTO RICAL TRENDS INDICATE THAT LARGE NUMBER OF SOPHISTICATED GOODS W ERE MANUFACTURED IN THE PAST AND IN THE PAST IF THE FAC TS ESTABLISHED SHOW THAT DEFECTS EXISTED IN SOME OF TH E ITEMS MANUFACTURED AND SOLD THEN THE PROVISIONS MADE FOR WARRANTY ARE ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IS BEING SUBMITTED HEREWITH OR KIND PERUSAL AND RECORD OF YO UR HONOURS AS EXHIBIT P/9. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION OFRS.13,59,956/- SO MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE D ELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY. AT LAST, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE APPEL LANT MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED FULLY AND OBLIGE. 28. PER CONTRA LD. DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF BOTH LOWER AUTHORITIES AND PRAYED FOR SUSTAINING TH E DISALLOWANCE. 29. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.3 RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISIONS OF WARRANTY AT RS.13,59,256/-, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASS ESSEE ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH M/S. KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LTD. ( KBL). THE PUMPS SO MANUFACTURED WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SOLD BY THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY TO KBL UNDER THE KBL BRANDING AND LOGO. O N THE BASIS OF PRADHAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ITANOS.933 &934/IND/2016 17 THE HISTORIC DATA AND PAST EXPERIENCE IT WAS ANTICI PATED THAT 3 TO 4% OF THE PUMPS MANUFACTURED DURING THE FINANCIAL Y EAR, COMES BACK FOR REPAIRING OR SERVICING. IN ORDER TO MEET S UCH EXPENSES PROVISIONS IS CREATED UNDER THE HEAD WARRANTY IN E ACH YEAR AND THE ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THE YEAR ARE AD JUSTED AGAINST THE PROVISION . ANY AMOUNT LEFT IS CREDITED BACK AS INCOME. DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON EXAMINING THE RECORDS OBSERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR AGAINST THE P ROVISIONS OF WARRANTY OF RS.13,59,956/-, NO ACTUAL EXPENSE WAS I NCURRED OR PAID DURING THE YEAR. IN VIEW OF THIS THE LD. AO CONSID ERED THE NATURE OF THE WARRANTY AS CONTINGENT LIABILITY. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO UNABLE TO PROVE WITH DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE BASIS OF SUCH PRO VISION IN ABSENCE OF THE INFORMATION FOR THE EXACT NO. OF PUM PS MANUFACTURED DURING THE YEAR FOR WHICH WARRANTY IS MADE. 30. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS SUBSTANTIAL AMOU NT HAS BEEN INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRING AND SERVICING OF T HE PUMPS. HOWEVER, THIS FACT NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED WITH THE NE CESSARY RECORDS. BOTH THE PARTIES I.E. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND LD. DR RAISED NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF PROVIS ION OF WARRANTY EXPENSES OF RS.13,59,956/- IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR AFRESH ADJUDICATION. 31. WE, THEREFORE, TO BE FAIR TO BOTH THE PARTIES D EEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE LIMITED ISSUE OF EXAMINING THE PROVISION OF PRADHAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ITANOS.933 &934/IND/2016 18 WARRANTY EXPENSES TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR AFR ESH ADJUDICATION ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF LAW A FTER GIVING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESS EE. WE ALSO DIRECT THAT THE LD. AO SHALL EXAMINE THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM OF PROVISION OF WARRANTY EXPENSES AS PER SCIENTIFIC P ROCESS FOLLOWED BY IT AND SHOULD ALSO EXAMINE WHETHER THE ACTUAL EXPEN SES HAVE BEEN INCURRED YEAR TO YEAR ON THE SERVICING AND REPAIRIN G OF THE PUMPS. WE, ACCORDINGLY, ALLOW GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 32. GROUND NO.4 & 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, WHICH NE EDS NO ADJUDICATION, THUS, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2012-13 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 33. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A .Y.2008-09 VIDE ITANO.933/IND/2016 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES AND FOR A.Y. 2012-13 VIDE ITANO.934/IND/2016 IS PARTLY ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 .08. 2019. SD/- (KUL BHARAT) SD/- (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER INDORE; DATED : 14/08/2019 CTX? P.S/. . . PRADHAN ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ITANOS.933 &934/IND/2016 19 COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUAR D FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR