ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1(1), RAIPUR (CG) V. RAMESH STELL INDUSTRIES, RAIPUR (CG)

ITA 95/BIL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85405 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMESH SINGHANIA; VIJAY MOHAN SHARMA
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,BENCH -RAIPUR . .. . . .. . , ,, , ! ! ! !, ,, , . .. . . .. . BEFORE S/SH.H.L.KARWA,PRESIDENT AN D RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.95/BLPR/2011- # # # # / // / ASSESSMENT YEAR -2007-08 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 1(1), RAIPUR. V/S. RAMESH STEEL INDUSTRIES, AGRAWAL COMPLEX, SAMTA COLONY,RAIPUR PAN:AAKFR 1146G ( ) / // / APPELLANT ) ( *+) / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : SH.D.K. JAIN, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SH.RAMESH SINGHANIA & VIJAY MOHAN SHARMA, CA - /DATE OF HEARING : 23-12-2014 - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-12-2014 # # # # , 1961 1961 1961 1961- - - - 254 254254 254( (( (1 11 1) )) ) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,AM < << < = = = =, ,, , ! ! ! ! : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT.11.02.2011 OF THE CIT(A),R AIPUR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,27,874/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED SALES. 2. WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,55,999/- MADE BY THE AO U/S. 40A(2 )(B) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 3. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH IN LA W AND ON FACTS. ASSESSEE,ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING & COMMISSION BUSINESS OF RE-ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS AND M.S.INGOTS,FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.10.2007 DECLARING NIL INCOME.THE AO FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.14(3)OF THE ACT,ON 29. 12.2009. 2. FIRST GROUND DEALS WITH ADDITION OF RS.7,27,874/- M ADE BY THE AO PRESUMING THE SAME TO BE GP ON THE SUPPRESSED SALES.ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE AS SESSEES TURNOVER DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR WAS RS.36.52 CRORES AND FOR ACHIEVING THAT IT HAD SOLD 17721.075 TONS OF MS INGOTS AND 13858.335 TONS OF RE-ROLLED PRODUCTS. IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION OF 1448.28 TONNS OF MS INGOTS ON THE BAS IS OF VARIATION IN POWER CONSUMPTION.WHEN CONFRONTED BY THE AO TO EXPLAIN JUSTIFICATION,IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT THE RATIO PROPORTION OF SCRAP, SPONGE IRON AND CARBON ADDITIVES VERIED,THAT IT DEP ENDED ON MARKET AVAILABILITY,THAT OPERATION OF AN INDUCTION FURNACE OF SMALLER SIZE BASED ON THE S PONGE IRON MELTING WAS MAINLY OPERATED ON HUMAN SKILL,WORKERSEXPERIENCE AND WORKERS OPERATIO NAL EFFICIENCY,THAT IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET CONSISTENT AND RELIABLE QUALITY OF RAW MATERIAL FOR VARIOUS REASONS WHICH ARE ALSO NOT WITHIN THE CONTROL OF MANY SPONGE IRON MANUFACTURERS,THAT SPON GE IRON QUALITY WAS NOT SPECIFIC,THAT IT VARIED FROM TRUCK AND PLANT,THAT LOWER MENTALLIZATION WOUL D CAUSE HIGHER SLAG GENERATION AND DEMANDING MORE POWER,THAT RECOVERY PERCENTAGE ALSO VARY,THAT ALL THESE FACTS AFFECTED THE POWER CONSUMPTION,THAT IN SUMMER SEASON SUPPLY OF POWER W AS VERY POOR IN SUCH DURATION AND DURING PEAK HOUR DEMAND POWER CUT THROUGH CSEB OCCURRED RE GULARLY.AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE,THE AO REVISED THE CALC ULATION OF POWER CONSUMPTION FOR PRODUCTION OF INDUCTION FURNACE.HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD USED 1380.32 UNITS PER TON FOR PRODUCTION OF MS INGOTS WHILE SUCH CONSUMPTION IN LAST YEAR AND Y EAR BEFORE LAST, WAS 1121.95 UNITS PER TON AND 1139 UNITS PER TON RESPECTIVELY AND EVEN IF ASSESSE ES REPLY WAS CONSIDERED AND 8 TO 10% VARIATION IN THE POWER CONSUMPTION WAS ACCEPTED AS NORMAL, TH EN ALSO, THE AO NOTED VARIATION OF AROUND 2 ITA NO.95/BLPR/2011-RAMESH STEEL IND. 18.13%.THE VARIATION WAS TREATED AS SUPPRESSION OF PRODUCTION AND THIS RESULTED IN ADDITION OF RS.7,27,874/-. 2.1. AGAINST THE ABOVE,IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA),THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO, AS ENUMERATED ABOVE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AUDITED BOOK RESULTS HAVING NOT BEEN REJECTED THE I MPUGNED PRESUMPTIVE ADDITION WERE MADE ON HYPOTHETICAL CALCULATIONS AND WERE UNSUBSTANTIATED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE FAA HELD THAT THE PRODUCT MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECT TO EXCISE DUTY AND THE ASSESSEE HAD MAI NTAINED REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DAY TO DAY STOCK RECORDS WHICH WERE SUBJECTED TO TIMELY CH ECKS BY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT,THAT THOSE AUTHORITIES W ERE MORE CONCERNED WITH THE CORRECTNESS AND ACCURACY OF THE QUANTUM OF PRODUCTION,THAT THEY HAD NOT DETECTED ANY SUPPRESSION IN PRODUCTION, THAT NO SUPPRESSION IN SALES NOR INFLATION IN PURCH ASES WAS DETECTED,THAT THE AO HAD NOT REJECTED THE AUDITED BOOK RESULTS AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 WERE NOT INVOKED,THAT THE ASSESSEE MANUFAC -TURED MS INGOTS, RE-ROLLED STEEL SECTION,THAT THE ELECTRIC METER RECORDING THE CONSUMPTION FOR ALL THE ITEMS WAS COMMON, THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE AN D IMPRACTICABLE TO ASCERTAIN AS TO HOW MUCH ELECTRICITY WAS CONSUMED IN THE PRODUCTION OF PARTI CULAR TYPES OF GOODS SEPARATELY,THAT IN SUCH A SITUATION IT WAS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO HOW THE AO CO NCLUDED THAT THERE WAS VARIATION IN CONSUMP - TION OF ELECTRICITY, THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD ARE ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT AND BASELESS. THE FAA RELIED UPON THE CASE OF AC STEELS PVT.LTD.( ITA NO. 344 /NAG,/2008-AY 2003-04-ORDER DT.14.09.2009) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ADDITI ON CANNOT BE MADE ON THE GROUND OF VARIATION IN CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY.FINALLY,HE HELD THAT NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE THE IMPUGNED ADHOC ADDITION, THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WERE MADE WITHOUT BRINGING CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD A ND WERE UNSUSTAINABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW.HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 2.2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND STATED THAT AS PER TWO EARLIER YEARS, THERE WAS VARIATION IN CONSUMPTION OF POWER, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EXPLAINED THE REAS ON BEHIND THE HIGHER POWER CONSUMPTION AND LOWER PRODUCTION NOTICED BY THE AO IN THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) STATED THAT THE PRODUCTION OF F INISHED GOODS DEPENDED ON VARIOUS FACTORS, THAT NO UNIVERSAL FORMULA COULD BE ADOPTED FOR PRODUCTIO N, THAT THE FINISHED GOODS WERE SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY OF CENTRAL EXCISE AUTHORITIES. THE AR RELI ED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASES : (I). RUTVI STEEL & ALLOYS P. LTD. VS. ITO(ITAT AHM EDABAD) (II). M/S. PRIYANKA POLYSTER VS. ACIT, SURAT (III). ACIT VS. PARAS AGRO PRODUCTS, PALANPUR (IV). N. RAJU PULLAIAH, 73 ITR 224 (AP) (V). MITTAL STEEL & CASTINGS VS. CIT (184 CTR 259) (VI). PONDY METAL AND ROLLING MILLS VS. DCIT 2.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION AS HE NOTED THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSUMED MORE UNITS OF POWER AS COMPARED TO THE LAST TWO ASSESSME NT YEARS. IN OUR OPINION, THE FINDING OF HIGHER CONSUMPTION OF POWER WAS GOOD STARTING POINT FOR IN VESTIGATION, BUT IN ITSELF IT WAS NOT AN EVIDENCE TO PROVE OR DISPROVE THE PRODUCTION OF FIN ISHED GOODS.WE FIND THAT IN THE CASES OF ST. TERESSAS OIL MILL(76ITR365)AND SULABH MARBLES(P) L TD.,(205CTR464),DECIDED BY THE HONBLE KERALA AND RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IT HAS BEEN VERY CL EARLY HELD THAT DISPARITY IN ELECTRICAL CONSUMP -TION CANNOT BE THE CRITERIA FOR REJECTION OF ACCOU NTS AND FOR MAKING ADHOC ADDITIONS.IT IS A FACT THAT THE GOODS MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE UND ER SUPERVISION OF CENTRAL EXCISE AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE,UNTIL AND UNLESS SOME POSITIVE EVIDENCES SHOWING ADDITIONAL PRODUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE IS BROUGHT ON RECORD, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE. TH E ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE AO HAD NOT COME ACROSS ANY UNACCOUN TED PURCHASE OR SUPPRESSED SALES. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ONLY ON THE BASIS OF POWER CONSUMPTI ON, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE OR SUSTAINED.IT 3 ITA NO.95/BLPR/2011-RAMESH STEEL IND. IS A KNOWN FACT THAT SEVERAL FACTORS AFFECT THE CON SUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY-LIKE LOSS OF HEAT,POOR QUALITY OF RAW MATERIAL INPUTS,POOR WORKMANSHIP/SUP ERVISORY SKILLS,PRESENCE OF MOISTURE, CONTENTS AND FLUCTUATION IN THE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.MOST OF T HE ABOVE FACTORS ARE BEYOND MANAGEMENTS CONTROL AND EXPLANATION CANNOT BE PINPOINTED TO ANY SINGLE REASON.IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MANUFACTURING ONE ITEM.THEREFORE, ARITHMETI CAL FORMULA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION.IN OUR OPINION, THE FAA WA S FULLY JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE VARIATION IN POWER CONSUMPTION CI TING COGENT REASONS. THE CASES REFERRED BY THE AR ALSO SUPPORT THE VIEWS TAKEN BY US. IN THESE CIR CUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL INF IRMITY.UPHOLDING HIS ORDER, WE DECIDE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE AO. 3. NEXT GROUND IS ABOUT DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,55,999/- MADE BY THE AO U/S.40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED GOODS F ROM SISTER CONCERN VIZ. M/S G.R. SPONGE & POWER LTD. AT HIGHER PRICE THAN THE AVERAGE MARKET PRICE. WHEN CONFRONTED BY THE AO TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE PRICE PAID TO THE SISTER CONCERN, OVE R AND ABOVE THE AVERAGE MARKET RATE, SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S.40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT, IT SUBMITTE D THAT IN STEEL TRADE THE RATE OF VARIOUS PRODUCTS LIKE SPONGE IRON, INGOT, BILLET, ROLLED PRODUCTS VA RIED ON DAY TO DAY BASIS AND MANY TIMES IT VARIED SUBSTANTIALLY ON SAME DAY ALSO,THAT THE RATE VARIED DUE TO VARIOUS FACTORS PREVAILING IN THE MARKET,THAT RATES ALSO VARIED DUE TO QUALITY OF PRO DUCTS, PAYMENT TERMS, STRENGTH (CREDIBILITY) OF THE PARTY, RATES PREVAILING ON COMMODITY STOCK EXCH ANGE,THAT THE OVERALL PURCHASE OF MATERIAL I.E. SPONGE IRON FROM GR.SPONGE & POWER LTD. WAS CHEAPER BY RS.45/- PER TON DURING THE YEAR UNDER REVIEW WHICH PROVED THAT THE MATERIAL HAD BEEN PURC HASED AT PREVAILING MARK RATE.THE AO NOTED THAT THE SALES MADE BY THE SISTER CONCERN TO THE AS SESSEE IN APRIL, MAY AND JUNE 2006 WERE AT HIGHER PRICE AS COMPARED TO AVERAGE SALE PRICE.INVO KING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT,HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.3.55 LAKHS. 3.1. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD PURCHASED THE ENTIRE RAW MATERIAL FROM ITS SISTER CONCERN,THAT THE SISTER CO NCERN WAS ONLY THE SUPPLY OF THE RAW MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSEE.THAT PURCHASES FROM THE SISTER CONCERN WERE MADE ON CREDIT,THAT THE CASH SALES WERE CERTAINLY AT CHEAPER RATE THAN THE CREDIT SALES AND THE CREDIT SALES MADE TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE SISTE R CONCERN WERE AT THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE OF CREDI T SALES AND SINCE THE QUESTIONED TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) HAD N O APPLICATION TO THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE NOT PROVED AS BOGUS AND WERE NOT PROVED AS ACCOMMOD ATION ENTRIES.AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE FAA HELD THAT THE SUPPLIER OF RAW MATE RIAL TO THE ASSESSEE FOR INDUCTION DIVISION, WAS ONLY THE SISTER CONCERN FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE MADE CREDIT PURCHASES AND THE RATE WHICH WERE AT PAR WITH THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE OF CREDIT PURCH ASES,THAT THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SISTER CONCERNED, WERE NOT PROVED AS BOGUS,THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAME WAS NOT DISPROVED BY THE AO BY BRINGING REBUTTAL EVIDEN CE ON RECORD,THAT THE FLUCTUATION IN MARKETS RATES WAS VERY HIGH,THAT THE RATE OF MATERIAL DEPEN DED UPON THE QUALITY, QUANTITY, TERMS OF PAYMENT, FINANCIAL AND THE BUSINESS STRENGTH OF THE PARTIES ETC. BASED ON WHICH THE DECISION FOR PURCHASES/SALES WERE TAKEN THAT THE SISTER CONCERN HAD SOLD GOODS TO OTHERS @ RS.L0,207/- PER TON WHILE THE SALES TO THE ASSESSEE WERE @ RS.10,162/- PER TON,IT PROVED THAT THE PURCHASES FROM THE SISTER CONCERN WERE NOT AT HIGHER RATES THAN THE RA TES AT WHICH THE SALES EFFECTED BY THE SISTER CONCERN TO OTHERS,THAT THE AO HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY E VIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS MADE TO THE SISTER CONCERN, WERE NEITHER G ENUINE NOR WERE FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES, THAT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE MADE ON PRESUMPTIONS AND NOTIONAL BASIS WAS UNSUSTAINABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 3.2. BEFORE US, THE DR STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURC HASED GOODS FROM SISTER CONCERN AT HIGHER PRICES THAN AVERAGE MARKET PRICE, THAT THE AO HAS R IGHTLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A (2)(B) OF THE ACT. THE AR REFERRED TO PAGE NO. 103 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CREDIT PURCHASE FROM THE SISTER CONCERN, THAT T HE CREDIT PURCHASES WERE ALWAYS COSTLIER THAN THE CASH PURCHASES, THAT THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE RATE FOR ALL THE 12 MONTHS, THAT THERE WAS 4 ITA NO.95/BLPR/2011-RAMESH STEEL IND. FLUCTUATION IN THE MARKET RATE THAT IN THE STEEL MA RKET, RATE OF MATERIAL DEPEND ON QUANTITY, QUALITY, PAYMENT TERMS ETC., THAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE GOODS FROM SISTER CONCERN AT LOWER RATE AS COMPARED TO OUTSIDE PARTIES DURING SOME OF THE MONT HS OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE RELIED UPON FOLLOWING CASES : (I). CIT VS. JAIN CABLES (P) LTD. (168 CTR (RAJ. ) 471 (II). CIT VS. PADMINI PACKAGING (P) LTD.,(155 TAXM AN 268(DEL). (III). CIT VS. NORTHERN INDIA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD . (179 ITR 599) (IV). CIT VS. T.T. KRISHNAMACHARY & CO. (256 ITR 8 2) (V). UPPER INDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE (P) LTD. VS. CIT (117 ITR 569) 3.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED RAW MATERIAL FROM ITS SISTER CONCERN AMOUNTING TO RS.60.59 CRORES, WHICH IS NEAR ABOUT 50% OF THE TOTAL RAW MATERIAL PURCHAS ED,THAT WHILE MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A(2) (B),THE AO HAD TAKEN THE INSTANCES OF A FEW MONTHS OF THE YEAR. IN OUR OPINION, A SELECTIVE STUDY OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE YEAR CONCERNED IS NOT AP PROPRIATE FOR ARRIVING AT A DEFINITE CONCLUSION. HE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE AVERAGE PRICE FOR THE WHOLE YEAR BEFORE MAKING THE DISALLOW - ANCE.THE FAA HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING OF FAC T THAT IN CERTAIN MONTHS, THE AVERAGE PRICES OF GOODS/MATERIAL PURCHASED FROM THE SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE WAS LESS OR EQUAL TO THE MARKET RATE. WE HAVE ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE GOODS ON CREDIT FROM ITS SISTER CONCERN.THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD COMPARABLE CASES TO JUSTIFY THE DISALLOWANCE. IN OUR OPINION, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) CAN BE INVOKED IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE CONSIDERING THE MARKET RATE OF GOODS/SERVICES,THE A O ARRIVES AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE PRICE CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AT VARIANCE TO THE MARKET RATE. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY FACTS WHICH PROVE THAT HE HAD UNDERTAKEN SUCH AN EXERCISE.IN THE PRESENT CASE NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO TO PROVE THAT THE JUSTIFICATION ASSIGNED FOR MAKING PAYMENT TO THE SISTER CONCERN WAS FALSE AND THE SAME WAS NOT PROVED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FOR EXTRA COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS.FOR ALL THE REA SONS MENTIONED ABOVE,THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWA -NCE,MADE ON MERE HYPOTHETICAL ESTIMATIONS,CANNOT B E ENDORSED.GROUND NO.2 IS DECIDED AGAINST THE AO. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE AO STA NDS DISMISSED. > #>< @ A - ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH DECEMBER,2014. - E 24 F ,2014 - . SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA/ . .. . . .. . ) ( ! ! ! ! / RAJENDRA) PRESIDENT/ = = = = /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /RAIPUR. F DATE: 24.12.2014 - -- - *#GH *#GH *#GH *#GH IH IH IH IH / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / ) 2. RESPONDENT / *+) 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ J K , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / J K 5. DR ITAT,RAIPUR BENCH/ H *## , . . . , 6. GUARD FILE/ . +H *# //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, RAIPUR