Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Dr. Suryakant Nanalal Gandhi ... vs Assessee
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मंब ु ई यायपीठ 'ई' मंब ु ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E " BENCH, MUMBAI सवर् ी जी.ई.वीरभद्र पा, अ यक्ष,एवं ी अिमत शक् ु ला, या.स. के समक्ष ।
BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, HON'BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.4978/Mum/2008.
(िनधार्रण वषर् / Assessment Year: 2004-2005) Dr. Suryakant Nanalal Gandhi ITO Ward 11(3)(3), Mumbai (Individual), 61, Udadi Tarang, Near Hotel Marriot, Juhu Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 049.
थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN No. AAFPG 7589 K (अपीलाथीर् /Appellant) : (प्र यथीर् / Respondent) िनधार्िरती की ओर से / Assessee by : Dr. Suryakant N. Gandhi (in person) राज व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Mr. M. Murali सन ु वाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 29 t h May 2012 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 10 t h August, 2012 आदे श / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M.) :
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 2-6-2008, passed by the CIT(A), Central-VII, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2004-2005.
2. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has taken mainly three grounds which have various sub grounds and are mostly in the form of arguments. The main issue arising out of the said grounds of appeal are that :-
2 ITA No : 4978/08
i) Disallowance of `.3,33,591/- on account of gifts and commission;
ii) Disallowance of `.12,73,550/- on account of foreign travelling expenses; and
iii) Disallowance of `.49,73,450/- in respect of provision for reimbursement of expenses.
3. The facts in brief for adjudication of the issues involved are that the assessee is an Architect, Consulting Engineer and Valuer by profession and is carrying his profession in the name and style of 'M/s Designers India'. During the year the assessee has shown professional receipts of `.2,81,99,770/- in addition to interest on delayed fees of `.36,15,750/-. The net profit of `.2,07,08,353/- was shown besides interest and dividend income. Finally the return of income was filed at an income of `.2,12,65,981/- on 28-10-2004. On perusal of the profit loss account, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has debited besides other, following expenses :-
i) `.3,33,591/- under the head Gifts/Commission
ii) `.12,73,550/- under the head reimbursement of expenses incurred abroad for MHADA claim(Remitted).
iii) `.49,73,450/- under the head reimbursement of expenses incurred abroad for MHADA claim(Provision).
The Assessing Officer required the assessee to justify the nature of these expenses and how they are allowable as expenses wholly and exclusively for business purposes.
3 ITA No : 4978/08 3.1 Regarding expenses incurred under head commission and gift, the assessee submitted that he had to engage services of some persons, who assisted him in the realisation of the claim from MHADA and also advising him and convincing MHADA not to go in further appeal on the quantum of fees determined by the arbitral award. The Assessing Officer noted that what are the names and nature of services rendered by these persons, who assisted in realization of his claim from MHADA are not known as the assessee has already incurred legal expenses for realization of claim from MHADA, which has been separately debited to the income expenditure account under the head legal fees for MHADA. The nexus of gift and commission has not been proved, hence, the same was added.
3.2 Regarding reimbursement of expenses incurred abroad for MHADA claim, the Assessing Officer required to give details of the expenses along with bank statement, like which payments have been made through Cheque and to whom, date, name of the bank, branch from where cheques have been issued. The assessee did not file any of these details, instead stated that he has undertaken foreign travelling in the relevant year with the possibility of exploring and developing his profession in USA. The Assessing Officer observed that no separate documents, such as travelling tickets, bank statements etc. were submitted to remotely suggest as what kind of professional exploration was done in USA. It was also not shown that 4 ITA No : 4978/08 any professional income has been received in the subsequent year against such business/profession, which has been sought to be explored abroad. Accordingly, he disallowed the expenses. 3.3 Regarding claim of sum of `.49,73,450/- under the head 'Reimbursement of expenses incurred" abroad for MHADA claim, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was following cash system of accounting and for this year, he has changed to mercantile system of accounting only to accommodate the provision of these expenses. He, therefore, required the assessee to furnish all the details with regard to these expenses. In reply, the assessee submitted that he has made the provision for payment to his relatives, who are his four daughters, who have assisted him in project consultancy management and in preparation of his claim between MHADA and the arbitrator from time to time. The assessee submitted the details of such provision of reimbursement of foreign travelling expenses and other expenses incurred in USA for preparation of various data and files and technical advise relating to mass housing project of claim against MHADA. These payments were to be reimbursed to his four daughters, which aggregated to `.49,73,450/-. The assessee has given some kind of analysis of foreign travelling i.e. coming from USA to India and back by his four daughters based on their xerox copies of passports and some details of further expenses in USA. He has also tried to explain the purpose of visits by his 5 ITA No : 4978/08 daughters to India, which was mainly for preparation of claim before the MHADA, arbitration and for necessary assistance for the case at High Court. He has further tried to submit that he has to take assistance of his daughters as he was hospitalized and was under
treatment.
3.4 The Assessing Officer rejected the said contention on the ground that all the explanation given by the assessee is without any supporting evidence/material and no documentary evidence has been brought on the record in the form of travel tickets and other files.
Copies of passports as furnished by the assessee are not sufficient to prove the expenses claimed for the travelling purpose of MHADA claim, especially when the assessee has already incurred legal expenses of `.5,58,500/- paid to solicitor, which has been debited separately. The assessee has not even produced any agreement with his four daughters with whom he has claimed to received services with regard to MHADA project as technical assistant nor has paid any professional fees to these persons, earlier to show that they were really assisted to him. He further held that it is difficult to establish nexus of visits to India from USA by these four persons, who are his daughters, to MHADA arbitration work and MHADA project work. Mere stating that the purpose of visit is official, these visits cannot be accepted as for business purpose. He further observed that 2 to 3 visits in a year, appears to be routine visits to meet their parents and family functions. Besides this, other expenses incurred of sums 6 ITA No : 4978/08 amounting to `.8,39,382/- as out of pocket expenses, there are no supporting documents such as bills/vouchers. The Assessing Officer has also recorded the statement of assessee under section 131, as to why the method of accounting was changed in this year. In reply, the assessee has submitted that he was following the cash system of accounting for earlier years but after receipt of Arbitrator's Award, he had to make reimbursement of expenses in foreign exchange. He had no time to make application before RBI to seek approval for making payment beyond $5000 per person, that is why he has changed his method of accounting. In view of all these facts, the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation of the assessee and disallowed the sum of `.49,70,450/-.
4. In the first appeal, regarding 1st issue of gift and commission, the assessee submitted that gift and commission were made to the persons, who have helped them in getting award from the arbitrator and were his well-wishers, who had assisted him in realization of claim and explaining the MHDA not to go for further appeal against the order of the High Court and because of them amicable settlement was made. Due to these prudent services of his well-wishers, he has given them gift and commission mostly through cheques.
5. Learned CIT(A) rejected the said explanation of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus under Section 37(1) by not coming forth with even primary details for 7 ITA No : 4978/08 claiming the deduction on account of the said expenditure. He held that there is no merit in the contention of the appellant that the gifts items were purchased by cheque as the information regarding recipients which was more relevant, has not been furnished. The assessee had even failed to bring on record necessary evidence to show that gifts had any business expediency and was given wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. Accordingly, he held that these expenses have been rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer and is also disallowable in view of "Explanation" to Section 37(1).
6. Regarding second issue, the assessee contended that he has undertaken foreign tour to extend his consultancy services to USA and his intention was to offer professional services to achieve higher position in the global market. He submitted that most of the expenses were incurred for travelling and visiting major cities, towns and places in USA to meet prospective clients to assess the recent development relating to profession with a view expand the same in USA. He gave the details of travellers cheques of US$ worth of `.12,73,550/-. He further gave some details of his certain expenses in USA, though without any evidence.
7. Learned CIT(A) rejected all his contentions primarily on the ground that the assessee has not been able to prove that foreign travelling expenses was incurred wholly and exclusively for the 8 ITA No : 4978/08 purpose of business and not a single evidence was adduced in support of the claim. He further held that nothing has been brought on the record to show that tour was made in connection with profession and all the reply are too general, which cannot be accepted for one main reason that all his four daughters have settled in USA and, therefore, such a travelling was mainly for personal purposes, rather than for professional requirements. Thus, in absence of any specific evidence, he upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.
8. On the last issue of disallowance of `.49,73,450/-, which comprises of provision for foreign travelling of his daughters of `.41,34,068/- and other expenses incurred by his daughters in USA for sums aggregating `.8,39,382/-, before the CIT(A), the assessee made detail submissions, which has been incorporated from pages 9 to 20 of the appellate order. The sum and substance of the assessee's contention on this issue are as under :-
i) That the assessee had undertaken a project i.e. Mass Housing Project at Chandivali-Powai by MHADA and had rendered services from January 1990 to November 2003.
The said project comprised of construction of more than 35 buildings with necessary infrastructures in three different phases, which was not possible to employ/engage outsiders as technically qualified persons as required to manage such Mass Housing Project and 9 ITA No : 4978/08 further to maintain establishment. Therefore, his four daughters, who gradually settled in USA, were qualified and actively involved with said project from USA. They had offered their honorary services for completion of MHADA project and MHADA Arbitration work. The assessee has formulated his own question for decision and has answered the same in his own manner, which has been discussed by the CIT(A) in para 9.1 to 9.11, giving details of nature of work, which was involved in MHADA project, arbitration proceedings and the kind of services, which his daughters had rendered.
ii) He has also given details of foreign expenses and other expenses incurred by each of his daughters. The justification of several visit to India by his daughters was that, from the year 1995-96, the assessee had a huge work relating to housing project upto 1998-99. Thereafter in wake of dispute with MHADA, claims were prepared before Chief Officer of MHADA for arbitration in the year 2002, various papers relevant to work and for discussion regarding the MHADA project were undertaken in the month of October-November, 2003 and then the appeal was preferred by the MHADA against the arbitrator.
iii) On the issue of other expenses, he submitted that his daughters have undertaken local travelling for doing 10 ITA No : 4978/08 conference among themselves and have incurred internet charges, typing, printing and computer work for this purpose, which aggregated to `.8,39,382/-.
iv) The assessee further submitted that he was immobilised due to paralytic stroke and was hospitalized for treatment of TIA/stroke in the year 2000, therefore, he could not follow the project work. It was under these circumstances, that his four daughters offered their honorary services. Various description of the work which were carried on during the period of arbitration has also been mentioned by the assessee, which has been incorporated from para 9.11 to 9.12 of the appellate order.
v) Regarding change in method of accounting he submitted that due to non-receipts of substantial professional fees over the years and the matter was pending for arbitration, he could not pay or provide any major expenses during the earlier years and once the assessee received the payment of `.2.82 crores plus interest of more than `.36 lakhs, he provided for these expenses to reimburse to his daughters for rendering the services.
vi) In support of his case, the assessee has relied upon the following cases laws :-
a) CIT Vs. Standard Radiators Pvt. Ltd. [2006] 286 ITR 207 (Guj.);
11 ITA No : 4978/08
b) CIT Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. [1992] 193 ITR 349 (Bom); and
c) Jiwandas Vs. CIT [2005] 279 ITR 512.
vii) Lastly, the assessee submitted the details of income and expenditure and computation of income of his daughters right from assessment year 1999-2000 to 2003-2004.
9. Learned CIT(A) after carefully considering the submissions, rejected the said contentions of the assessee on the following grounds and reasoning:-
"20. I have carefully considered the above facts. The contention of the appellant is rejected on following grounds:
i) It is undisputed fact that the appellant was maintaining cash system of accounting upto AY 2003-04 and has switched over to mercantile system during the year. lt is stated by the appellant that on account of receipt of arbitration award, reimbursement of certain expenses were to be made abroad without obtaining permission of RBI, since no permission was required to for remittances below $ 5000 per person.
Accordingly, provision was made in the accounts. Such contention was made by the appellant in response to query made by the Assessing Officer while recording his statement dated 18.12.2006.lt may be stated here that the appellant received Award of Rs 2.82 cr. on the basis of certain bills raised in the past which were under certain dispute before Arbitrator. The provision is stated to have been made during the year for reimbursement of expenses which had already been incurred by the persons concerned in the past and did not pertain to the relevant year. However, it may be stated here that as per the audited accounts, the auditors have pointed out that the change was made on account of settlement of old bills which were finalized during the year. Certain expenses which could not be disbursed earlier were provided to the extent of Rs 50.90 lakh. lt is also stated that as professional work relating to MHADA was discontinued during the year, it became necessary to include provision for unpaid expenses for this source. Thus, there is no similarity in the contention of the appellant and the observations of the auditors.
ii) Moreover from the above, it is also evident that entire exercise has been undertaken by the appellant so as to 12 ITA No : 4978/08 reduce his tax liability in view of the receipt of arbitration award during the year. Had the appellant not changed the method of accounting, he would have been liable to be taxed on the entire receipts received during the year and only actual payments would have been allowed as deduction as per cash system of accounting followed by him. As a result of such change, he is able to reduce the tax liability by debiting huge amount under the garb of reimbursement of expenses as provision.
iii) The intention of the appellant to reduce the tax liability is evident from the fact that though his concern has made certain payments to the daughters in. the past for rendering certain services to him, none of them raised any bill for payment of any other dues in any of the earlier/relevant years. It is noteworthy to mention here that they have raised certain bills during the year itself pertaining to traveling and some other incidental expenses though the fact remains that such expenses were incurred by them long back. Thus, raising of so-called bills is nothing but an afterthought with the sole intention reducing the tax incidence of the appellant.
iv) The appellant has tried hard to establish that his daughters were qualified enough to render services to him for which they were entitled to such payment. Though, some contribution from the daughters cannot be disputed altogether considering their academic background, making of such a huge provision to the extent of Rs 50 lakja4approx) cannot be correlated to the extent of trips were essentially personal trips of the daughters which is being given a nexus to the business requirements of the appellant.
v) The intention of the appellant is also obvious from the fact that nothing prevented him from switching over to mercantile system of accounting in the past, so as to duly account for various claims, It is surprising to note that the appellant has chosen to make provision in respect of certain expenses which have already been incurred by the concerned persons, who preferred not make any claim on the appellant though the said expenses are stated to be pertaining to the period 1990- to 2003.
vi) The claim of deduction is otherwise also not entertainable as it is merely a provision and not an ascertained liability.
vii) The appellant has claimed that the change in accounting was bonafide and in support of such a contention relied on certain case laws. However, from the facts stated in the preceding paras, it can be concluded that the act of the appellant in changing the system of accounting is not bonafide and is exclusively aimed at reducing the tax burden by debiting a artificial provision.
13 ITA No : 4978/08
viii) Although it is a settled law that the assessee is entitled to change the method of accounting, it is equally true that such a change should be bonafide which is not the case here. This observation finds support from decisions of various courts of law. In the case of CIT vs British Paints India Ltd 188 ITR 44(SC)it was held that if the assessee adopts a system which does not disclose the true state of affairs for determination of tax, it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to adopt any such computation as he deems appropriate for the purposes of determining true income of the assessee. The Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs Jetu J.T.Lalwani(2007) 15 SOT 322(Mum) has likewise held that the method of accounting adopted by the assessee which would result in deferment of taxability of its income, cannot be accepted. In the case of Saral Enterprise vs ACIT(2004) 86 TTJ 239(Mum),it was held that the choice of method of accounting lies with the assessee but it must show that it has followed the method regularly for its own purposes. If the true income cannot be ascertained on the basis of such method of accounting, the income must be computed upon such basis and such manner as the Assessing Officer may determine. In yet another case of Overseas Sanmar Financial Ltd. Vs. JCIT (2004) 87 TTJ 556 (Chen), it was held that the change resorted to for tax purposes only and it is not the case of the assessee that true income cannot be deduced, the claim of such change was not found tenable. In the case of Sarupchand vs CIT(1936) 4 ITR 420(Bom),likewise it was held that there is nothing in the Act to change the method of accounting for the assessee but it has to be demonstrated that while doing so in good faith, the revenue is not likely to e defrauded.
20.1 In the light of above discussion, it is held that the Assessing Officer was justified in holding that the appellant resorted to change in method of accounting with deliberate intention of reducing the tax liability. As such the deduction claimed was rightly disallowed. The addition made is, therefore, upheld.
21. In the ground no.4, charging of interest u/s 234C has been disputed. It is stated that the Assessing Officer has not considered the fact that claim from MHADA was received on or about 22-12-2003, i.e. after due date for payment of 2 instalment of advance tax. The A.O. has erred in computation of interest of Rs.113169/- u/s 234C. Tie fact is that the claim was received after 16-12-2003, interest of Rs.21,648/- is leviable for instalment due on 15-03-2004 and balance of Rs.1,13,169/- should be condoned and not charged as interest u/s 2340.
22. Since the matter basically involves factual verification, the Assessing Officer is directed to consider the contention of the appellant and act as per law."
14 ITA No : 4978/08
10. Before us, the assessee appeared in person and reiterated his elaborate submissions, which was made before the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. He also took us to various details as have been furnished in the paper book. The sum and substance of his arguments are exactly the same as was made before the CIT(A), which has been discussed by us in the foregoing paragraphs. On the other hand, learned Senior DR has relied upon the findings given by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A).
11. We have carefully considered the rival submission and perused the material on record. The assessee, who is an architect, had undertaken a mass housing project given by MHADA for which the assessee has rendered services from the year 1990 to 2003. There seems to have arisen some dispute with MHADA regarding payment and the matter was referred to the arbitrator by the Hon'ble High Court. As per the arbitral award, the assessee had received sum of `.2.82 crores plus interest on delayed fees of `.36,15,750/-. After receiving this amount during the year, the assessee has claimed various expenses specifically those, which are in dispute before us here in this appeal. For claiming expenses under Section 37(1), following conditions for allowability of the expenses are essential :-
i) it has to be an expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure);
15 ITA No : 4978/08
ii) the expenditure should have been incurred during the year;
iii) the existence of the business (pre-commencement) and post discontinuation);
iv) expenditure must be laid down or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession;
v) should not be covered by Sections 30 to 36;
vi) should not be personal expenditure;
vii) expenditure should not be for the purpose, which is an offence or which is prohibited by law.
11.1 For making a claim of expenditure under Section 37(1), the onus is entirely on the assessee to prove that expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Though the 'purpose of business' has a very wide connotation, but one has to examine in light of the evidences filed by the assessee that the expenditure has been incurred only for the business purpose and not for the personal expenses. The onus lies heavily upon the assessee to prove the same. Now, coming to the first issue, which are the expenses relating to gift and commission, the assessee has explained that he has given the gifts and commission to his well-wishers, who have not only morally supported him but also helped him in realization of the claim from MHADA and in convincing MHADA not to got in further appeal against arbitral award. However, the assessee has not given the details of the persons as to what was the nature of services rendered by them, so as to justify the gifts and payment of commission. Such kind of expenses are generally incurred for the 16 ITA No : 4978/08 promotion of the business and not for obliging the people, who have given moral support or helped the assessee in some kind of liaison work. The assessee has miserably failed to discharge his onus by providing necessary details to prove the genuineness of the gifts and commission. Merely making of payment of gift articles by cheque, will not make the claim of expense, genuine. The reasons given by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A) for rejecting the claim of expenses under this head is legally and factually correct and we do not find any reason to deviate from such a finding in absence of any material on record or evidences. Therefore ground No.1 relating to disallowance of sum of `.3,39,591/-, in respect of gift and commission, is hereby dismissed.
12. As regards, disallowance of sum of `.12,79,550/-, being foreign travel expenses incurred for the profession, again nothing has been brought on the record by the assessee in the form of any evidence as to what was the purpose of his visit to USA and how it has helped him professionally. Simply stating that he has went to explore the possibility of getting some professional assignment will not make the expenses for the purpose of business, unless the assessee produces some iota of evidence or material as to what were the places where he has visited, whom he met, any correspondence or letter in the form of accepting his professional proposition or rejecting his proposition or how this visit has helped him professionally. The claim of these 17 ITA No : 4978/08 expenses for the purpose of business become very doubtful in wake of the fact that the assessee's own daughters are residing in USA. The apprehension that these expenses can be of personal visit cannot be ruled out. Despite categorical finding by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), the assessee has failed to rebut the said reasoning by pointing out any documents or evidences in support of his claim. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the contention of the assessee, and therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), stands confirmed. In the result, ground No.2 is dismissed.
13. Now, coming to the main issue of disallowance of `.49,73,450/-, on account of provision made for reimbursement of expenses incurred abroad from MHADA claim. The assessee had submitted that his daughters were connected with the assessee's profession, specifically in connection with MHADA project. He has given various details as to how his daughters have tried to help him not only at the time of implementation of MHADA project but also at the time of arbitration proceedings, who used to regularly visit to India to assist the assessee. He has also given the details of travelling tickets of his daughters through entries in the passports. After considering the entire gamut of assessee's explanation and the facts and circumstances mentioned by the assessee, we are unable to 18 ITA No : 4978/08 persuade ourselves to accept the contention of the assessee on the following grounds :-
Firstly, once the assessee is claiming that the assessee is making payment to his relatives and that to his own children, the onus is heavily upon the assessee to show that these payments were wholly and exclusively connected with the assessee's business. The onus can be discharged only by giving evidences like :-
(i) whether there was any agreement between the assessee and his daughters for rendering any services for the assessee;
(ii) whether the assessee has appointed his daughters and specified the nature of job to be done by them in connection with the arbitration proceedings, specifically, when the proceedings are being done in India and the daughters are settled in USA;
(iii) whether the bills have been raised by his daughters from time to time specifying the nature of expenditure, the date and purpose of visit and details of travelling and;
(iv) what was the exact nature of work which has been performed by his daughters.
In absence of all these evidences, the explanation of the assessee is merely self certifying statement, which cannot be held to be sufficient to allow such claim of expenses.
19 ITA No : 4978/08 Secondly, from the perusal of the details of 'other expenses' aggregating `.8,39,382/- as incorporated in para 9.8 of the appellate order, it is seen that major expenses relates to local travelling for conference by his daughters among themselves, internet charges, etc.. It is not understood how these expenses are connected with the assessee specifically in relation to MHADA project. Similarly other expenses also, it is not proved by any evidence that they are directly or indirectly related to the assessee's business in India. Simply stating that these expenses have been incurred without any bills or evidence for the nature of the work, same cannot be allowed. Thirdly, the assessee has changed the system of accounting from cash, which was followed upto assessment year 2003- 2004, to mercantile simply to accommodate these expenses in this year. Such a change of accounting system does not seem to be based on any bonafide reason, as the assessee has tried to book all the expenses of last several years, in this year, just to reduce the tax liability on the income which was on wake of arbitral award.
Fourthly, the assessee has not been able to establish the year of expenses and to which period these expenses pertain. There is no reason as to how these expenses can be claimed in this year, without any evidence.
20 ITA No : 4978/08 Lastly, the reasoning given by the CIT(A) in para 20 of the appellate order, has not been rebutted by the assessee with proper evidence, except for the self serving explanation of works performed by his daughters from time to time. Such an explanation, per se, cannot entitle the assessee to claim expenses as the explanation has to be corroborated by proper evidence, which are admissible in law for proving that they were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business. We though agree with the contention of the assessee that a particular expenditure is for the business purpose is upon the assessee to decide, however, the onus is on the assessee to prove that such an expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. This has not been discharged by the assessee in the instant case.
14. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, that there is no proper evidence or material on record to substantiate the claim of expenses, we, therefore, uphold the reasoning given by the CIT(A). In the result, grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed.
15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
पिरणामतः िनधार्िरती की अपील खािरज की जाती है Order pronounced in the open court on 10th August, 2012 .
21 ITA No : 4978/08 आदे श की धोषणा खुले यायालय म िदनांकः 10th August, 2012 को की गई ।
Sd/- Sd/-
( जी.ई.वीरभद्र पा ) ( अिमत शक्
ु ला )
( G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA) (AMIT SHUKLA)
अ यक्ष / PRESIDENT याियक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
मंब
ु ई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated 10th / August /2012
प्र.कु.िम/pkm.िन.स./PS
आदे श की प्रितिलिप अग्रेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथीर् / The Appellant
2. प्र यथीर् / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयक्त ु (अपील) / The CIT(A)-
4. आयकर आयक्त ु / CIT
5. िवभागीय प्रितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मंब ु ई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाडर् फाईल / Guard file.
स यािपत प्रित //True Copy// आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मंब ु ई / ITAT, Mumbai