SANTOSH JAWA, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

MA 29/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5793 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 07-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Gift; Business expenditure
• Section: 37(1); 37

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM M.A. NO. 29/JP/2017 ARISING OUT IF ITA NO. 708/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12. SMT. SANTOSH JAWA, 548, UDAI MARG, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ACIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. ABXPJ 6662 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA( ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 07.07.2017. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/08/2017. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESS EE SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 27.12.2016 PASSED IN ITA NO. 708/JP/2016. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY URGED THA T THERE IS MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, WHICH NEEDS RECTIFICATION. LD. COUNSE L REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE S OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT, WHAT THE LD. COUNSEL IS SEEKING THROUGH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 254 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE ON THE RECORD. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS AFFIRMED VIEW OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT EXTENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS 2 MA NO. 29/JP/2017. SMT. SANTOSH JAWA, JAIPUR. TRYING TO GET THIS VIEW OF THIS TRIBUNAL REVIEWED U NDER THE GARB OF THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, FOR SEEKING RECTIFICATIO N OF MISTAKE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL AT IN PARA 3.2 DECIDED THE IS SUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE RELATED TO SALE AND PROMOTION EXPENDITURE CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 3.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. AS PER SECTION 37(1), ANY EXPENDITURE NOT BEING EXPENDITURE OF THE NATURE DESCRIBED IN SECTION 30 TO 36 AND NOT BEING IN THE NATURE OF CAP ITAL EXPENDITURE OR PERSONAL EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE LAID OUT OR EXPEN DED WHOLLY OR EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. HOWEVER, EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) READS AS UNDER:- EXPLANATION FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HER BY DECLARED THAT ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY AN ASSESSEE FOR ANY PURPOSE WHICH IS AN OFFENCE OR WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY LAW HALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HA VE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND NO DEDUCTION OR ALLOWANCE SHALL BE MADE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. THE FIRST REQUIREMENT FOR ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDIT URE WOULD BE THAT IT IS EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PU RPOSES. THE AO HAS ENUMERATED AT PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE EX PENSES INCURRED FOR REIMBURSING THE EXPENDITURE OF THE DOCTORS. WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND THAT HOW THESE EXPENDITURES ARE RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW IS THAT THE EXPENDITURE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD SUGGESTING THAT BY I NCURRING THESE 3 MA NO. 29/JP/2017. SMT. SANTOSH JAWA, JAIPUR. EXPENDITURES THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS BENEFI TED OR THERE IS ANY RELATION WITH THE EXPENDITURE AS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOTICED THAT EITHER THE PURCHASES A RE MADE BY THE VARIOUS DOCTORS FOR THEIR PERSONAL USAGE OR PAYMENT TOWARDS SUCH GADGETS ARE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS O F WHOLESALE TRADING IN MEDICINE UNDER THE NAME AND STYLED AS M/S. JAWA LAB ORATORIES. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THESE EXP ENDITURES ARE MADE FOR THE PROMOTION OF BUSINESS OR OTHERWISE RELATED TO B USINESS. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH MATERIAL, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, SUCH EXPENSE S CANNOT BE ALLOWED. WE FIND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IS MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF CIRCULAR NO . 5 OF 2012 OF CBDT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KAP SCAN AND DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE P. LTD., 344 ITR 476 (P&H). IN TH AT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO THE PRIVATE DOCTORS F OR REFERRING BUSINESS FOR DIAGNOSIS. IN THE CASE IN HAND THERE IS NO MATERIAL SUGGESTING THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TOWARDS COMMISSION FOR REFERRING BUSINESS TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS DECISION WOULD NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE. ANOTHER DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADES H IS ALSO DISTINGUISHABLE WITH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS IN THAT CASE THERE WAS A RELATION BETWEEN THE PAYMENT OF MONEY AND THE BUSINESS PURPO SES. IN THE CASE OF DR. T.A. QUERESHI VS. CIT, 287 ITR 547 (SC) RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HERE ALSO THERE WAS A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEE N THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL PLACED RELIANCE ON THE D ECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NOS. 6429 & 6428/MUM/2012. IN THAT CA SE ALSO THE GIFT RELATED TO THE LOGO OF THE COMPANY. IN THE PRESENT CASE TH E ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE THE EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO BUSIN ESS. SO FAR THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO THAT THE EXPENDITURES WERE PROHIBIT ED BY LAW, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECIS ION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW THE ISSUE REQUIRES F RESH CONSIDERATION BY THE 4 MA NO. 29/JP/2017. SMT. SANTOSH JAWA, JAIPUR. AO. WE THUS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DECISION AFRESH. 4. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS STATED IN PAR A 2 TO 4 OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR THE SAK E OF CLARITY. 2. THE GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 OF THIS APPEAL WAS AGAINST T HE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 6,87,8 33/- OUT OF SALES & PROMOTION AND ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS PROHIBITED BY THE INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL AT, 1956 A ND THUS DISALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION TO SEC. 37 AND CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5/2012 DATED 01.08.2012. 3. IN COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO A DECISION OF MUMBAI ITAT IN CASE OF MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. IN ITA NOS. 7404 & 7405/2014 FOR AY 2011-11 & 2011-12 ORDER DAT ED 31.09.2016 WHERE UNDER THE SIMILAR FACTS THE HONBLE ITAT CONS IDERING ITS EARLIER DECISION IN CASE OF SYNCOM FORMULATIONS HELD THAT O NCE THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENSES IS NOT DOUBTED AND THERE IS NO ALLEGATION TO THE EFFECT THAT EXPENSES WERE NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THE MI GUIDELINES AND THE CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 01.08 .2012 BY APPLYING EXPLANATION TO SEC. 37 IS NOT CORRECT AS THE CIRCUL AR IS EFFECTIVE FROM AY 2013-14. CONSIDERING THIS THE HONBLE BENCH IN COU RSE OF HEARING PRONOUNCED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE SAID DECISION OF MUMBAI ITAT. 4. HOWEVER, IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE ITAT IT WAS HELD THAT, THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO THAT THE EXPENDITURES WER E PROHIBITED BY LAW IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH BUT AT THE SAME TIME THE MATTER WAS SET ASIDE TO THE AO FOR FRESH C ONSIDERATION. IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AO THE HONBLE BENCH MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS WHICH EITHER ARE NOT BORNE OUT FROM TH E ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OR ARE INCORRECT: (I) AT PAGE 3, PARA 3.2 IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD SUGGESTING THAT BY I NCURRING THESE 5 MA NO. 29/JP/2017. SMT. SANTOSH JAWA, JAIPUR. EXPENDITURES THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS BENEFI TED OR THERE IS ANY RELATION WITH THE EXPENDITURE AS INCURRED BY THE AS SESSEE AND THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN MAKING THIS OBSERVATI ON, IT MISSED THE ATTENTION OF THE HONBLE BENCH THAT THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES HAVE NOT DISPUTED THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED IS NOT FOR THE P URPOSE OF BUSINESS BUT THE SAME IS DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS PROHIBITED BY THE INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL (PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, ETIQU ETTE AND ETHICS) REGULATION,2002 WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF E XPLANATION OF SEC. 37(1) READ WITH CBDT CIRCULAR WHICH IS ONLY CLARIFI CATORY IN NATURE. THUS, THE INCURRING OF THE EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURP OSE OF BUSINESS IS ALREADY ACCEPTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. (II) AT PAGE 4, MIDDLE PARA OF THE ORDER, IT S OBSE RVED THAT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN CAS E OF CIT VS. KAP SCAN AND DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE PVT. LTD. 344 ITR 476 WH ICH IS ON PAYMENT TO COMMISSION TO PRIVATE DOCTORS FOR REFERR ING THE BUSINESS FOR DIAGNOSIS WHEREAS IN THE CASE IN HAND THERE IS NO MATERIAL SUGGESTING THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TOWARDS CO MMISSIONER FOR REFERRING BUSINESS TOWARDS THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE , THIS DECISION WOULD NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE. IN MAKING THIS OBSERV ATION IT IS IGNORED THAT THIS CASE IS RELIED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE 12 OF ITS ORDER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND NOT RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION AT PAGE 4, P ARA 8 HAS DISTINGUISHED THIS DECISION AS THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE IS NOT TOWARDS PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO THE DOCTORS BUT FOR SPONSO RING THE DOCTORS FOR CONFERENCE, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES OF DOCTOR S, ETC. (III) AT PAGE 4 LAST 2 LINES, THE DECISION RELIED B Y THE LD. AR IN ITA NOS. 6429 & 6248/MUM/2016 IN CASE OF SYNCOM FORMULA TIONS INDIA LTD. HAS BEEN REFERRED BY THE HONBLE BENCH AND DIS TINGUISHED ON THE GROUND THAT IN THIS CASE GIFTS RELATED TO THE LOGO OF THE COMPANY BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEMONS TRATE THE EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO THE BUSINESS. IT IS SUB MITTED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF GI FS BEARING COMPANY LOGO TO DOCTORS BUT ALSO TOWARDS SPONSORING DOCTORS FOR 6 MA NO. 29/JP/2017. SMT. SANTOSH JAWA, JAIPUR. CONFERENCES AND EXTENDING HOSPITALITY AS EVIDENT FR OM PARA 5 OF THIS ORDER (PB 19). THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INCURRED EXPE NDITURE TOWARDS SPONSORING CONFERENCES FOR DOCTORS AND FOR EXTENDIN G THE HOSPITALITY AS EVIDENT FROM PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. TH US, THIS CASE IS DIRECTLY APPLICATION TO THE ASSESSEW WHERE SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS DELETED BY THE HONBLE BENCH. 5. THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ORDER WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED HAD RESTORED THE MATTER TO AO FOR THE PURPOSE OF VERIFYING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINES S. SINCE THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NOS. 6429 & 6248/MUM/2016 ALLOWED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT GIFTS GIVEN TO THE DOCTORS WERE BEARING LOGO OF THE COMPANY AND THAT TANTAMOUNT TO ADVERTISEMENTS AND PROMOTIONS OF THE COMPANY, IS A BUSINESS AND EXPENDITURE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO SUCH MATERIAL THAT GOES TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE EXPENDITURE AS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOR BUS INESS PURPOSE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAGE 4 & 5 OF HIS ORDER HAS REPRODUCED S OME OF THE EXPENDITURES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY SAME IS ALSO REPRODUCED HER EIN BELOW. S.NO. NATURE AMOUNT REIMBURSED BY JAWA PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. EXPENSES INCURRED BY JAWA LABORATORIES. 1. SPNSORSHIP OF DOCTORS 260159/ - 198954/ - 61205/ - 2. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES OF DOCTORS 1572619/ - 1202643/ - 369976/ - 3. CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FEE OF DOCTORS 466075/ - 356426/ - 109649/ - 4. CME OF DOCTORS 181000/ - 138418/ - 42582/ - 5. OTHER EXPENSES 437478/ - 334557/ - 102921/ - 7 MA NO. 29/JP/2017. SMT. SANTOSH JAWA, JAIPUR. OF DOCTORS TOTAL 2917331/ - 2230998/ - 686333/ - SOME EXAMPLES OF EXPENSES DEBITED UNDER THE ABOVE 5 HEADS ARE AS FOLLOWS:- 1. 13/04/2010 BEING CHEQUE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF DR. R AMESH M. PATEL, GANDHINAGAR FOR REGISTRATION CHARGE FOR DOC CONFERE NCE 16 TO 18 APRIL RS. 2500/- 2. 16/04/2010 BEING CHEQUE ISSUED TO DR. RAJAN AGARW AL, NEW DELHI TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT OF BOOK PURCHASE RS. 5800/- 3. 16/04/2010 BEING CHEQUE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF DR. L T. COL. S.K. MISHRA FOR REGISTRATION CHARGE FOR DOC CONFERENCE 16 TO 18 APR IL RS. 1300/- 4. 13/05/2010 BEING CHEQUE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF SUNWA Y LUGGAGE TOWARDS THE PAYMENTS OF PURCHASE FOR DR. CHETAN GAJJAR, BHA VNAGAR RS. 5670/- 5. 14/05/2010 BEING CASH PAID FOR GIFT ITEMS RS. 1 310/- 6. 01/06/2010 BEING CHEQUE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF DR. B RAJESH CHAUDHARY, JABALPUR TOWARDS PAYMENT OF TV PURCHASE RS. 10,00 0 7. 01/07/2010 BEING CHEQUE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF DR. V .N. RAI, BULANDASHAHAR TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT PURCHASING OF S ONY PLAYER RS. 2500 8. 19/08/2010 BEING CHEQUE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF DR. P .S. GIRDHAR, THANJAVUR TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT OF HOTEL CHARGE RS. 1080 9. 01/09/2010 BEING CHEQUE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF DR. S HASHI BHUSHAN KUMAR, NEW DELHI TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT OF PURCHASE MOBILE PHONE RS. 8500 10. 01/09/2010 - BEING CHEQUE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF DR. B.D. KHARE, BARELI TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT OF PURCHASING PRINTER HP 1458 0 INK JET RS. 4950 11. 01/10/2010 BEING CHEQUE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF DR. DHEERAN GUPTA, GURGAON, TOWARDS REGISTRATION CHARGES AIOC 2011 R S. 4750 12. 30/10/2010 BEING HOTEL EXPENSES PAID FOR DR. KAR TIKEYA SANGAL, AS PER BILL AMOUNT RS. 11873/- LESS PAYMENT MADE BY US RS. 9445/- AND BALANCE AMOUNT PAID BY DOCTOR 8 MA NO. 29/JP/2017. SMT. SANTOSH JAWA, JAIPUR. 13. 26/11/2010 BEING CHEQUE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF DR. SATYAJIT PAL, NORTH TRIPURA TOWARDS FLIGHT FARE FOR ATTENDING AIOC 2011 RS. 12,000 14. 16/12/2010 BEING AMOUNT PAID FOR DOCTOR LUNCH R S. 5100/- 15. 29/12/2010 BEING AMOUNT PAID FOR DOCTOR GIFTS R S. 2300/- 16. 16/01/2011 BEING CHEQUE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF DR. R AJESH MALPANI, TONK TOWARDS PURCHASING OF FURNITURE 5000/- 17. 21/01/2011 BEING CHEQUE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF DR. DUSHYANT BANSAL, HAPUR TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT OF PURCHASING ONE MICRO WAVE RS. 5000/- 18. 21/02/2011 BEING CHEQUE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF DR. AJAY PAWAR, NEW DELHI TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT OF HARD DISK PURCHASE RS. 4 800/- 19. 31/03/2011 BEING CHEQUE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF DR. A SHOK KUMAR DUBEY, SIDHI TOWARDS PURCHASING OF REFRIGERATOR RS. 7000 B. ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE FOLLOWING THREE EXPENSES AR E IN THE NATURE OF GIFTS/FREEBIES TO DOCTORS:- 1. DR. S.C. MISHRA RS. 8000/- 2. DR. SUNIL KUMAR - RS. 5000/- 3. DR. MALAY SARKAR RS. 2000/- 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THESE EXPENDIT URES AND ALSO HAS NOT STATED AS TO HOW THIS EXPENDITURE WAS FOR THE BUSIN ESS PURPOSE. UNDER THESE FACTS, THE ISSUE WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR VERIFYING THE CLAIM WHETHER THIS EXPENDITURE WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW, MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PHARMACE UTICALS AND PAYMENTS MADE TO THE DOCTORS IN VARIOUS FORMS IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO T REAT SUCH EXPENDITURE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRA TE NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE AND ITS PURPOSE IN THE BUSINESS. THE A SSESSEE IS ALSO REQUIRED TO 9 MA NO. 29/JP/2017. SMT. SANTOSH JAWA, JAIPUR. DEMONSTRATE THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE IS PURELY FOR BUS INESS PURPOSES. THEREFORE, WHAT THE ASSESSING IS SEEKING THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, IN OUR VIEW, WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 27/12/2016 WHICH IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254. HENCE, THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 04 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017. SD/- SD/- ( HKKXPUN ( DQY HKKJR ) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 04/08/2017. POOJA/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SMT. SANTOSH JAWA, 548, UDAI MAR G, JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (MA NO. 29/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR