FOOD PHARMA INDIA P.LTD, NAVI MUMBAI v. ITO 6(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1804/MUM/2014 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 180419914 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AAACF4694A
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 1804/MUM/2014
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant FOOD PHARMA INDIA P.LTD, NAVI MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 6(2)(3), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 07-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 25-05-2016
Next Hearing Date 25-05-2016
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 14-03-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSA IN JM ./ I.T.A. NO. 1804/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) M/S. FOOD PHARMA INDIA PVT. LTD. A- 200 1 ST FLOOR TTC INDUSTRIAL AREA MIDC KHAIRNE NAVI MUMBAI-400 705. / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 6 (2) (3) MUMBAI. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACF 4694A ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RADHA KATYAL NARANG / DATE OF HEARING : 03/10/2016 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/10/2016 $% / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 12 DATED 22 .01.2014 ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL MENTIONED HEREIN BELOW. 2 ITA NO. 1804/MUM/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/S. FOOD PHARMA INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. I TO 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHO LDING DISALLOWANCE OF BELOW MENTIONED EXPENSES OF RS. 4 95 185/ - U/ S 40 (A) ( IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 BEING ALLEGED EXPENSES ON WHICH TDS WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED IGNORING THE SUBMISSION AND EXPLANATIONS MADE BY ASSESSEE. I. RENT EXPENSES OF RS.3 00 000/-. II. ACCOUNTING CHARGES OF RS.65 000/- PAID TO TWO E MPLOYEES BY ALLEGEDLY TERMING THEM AS PROFESSIONAL FEES. III. SALARY PAID OF RS.45 000/- BY ALLEGEDLY TERMIN G THEM AS LEGAL EXPENSES. IV. ACCOUNTING CHARGES OF RS.55 185/-. V. TRANSPORT CHARGES OF RS.30 000/- 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHO LDING DISALLOWANCE OF BELOW MENTIONED EXPENSES OF RS. 8 51 774/- U/S 37 (1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 BEING ALLEGED EXPENSES NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRE D FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE IGNORING THE SUBMISSION AND EXPLANATIONS MADE BY AS SESSEE. I. WATER CHARGES OF RS.79 078/-. II. WAREHOUSING EXPENSES OF RS.60 000/-. III. TRANSPORT CHARGES OF RS.1 79 100/-. IV. REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES OF RS.88 466/- V. PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES OF RS.29 750/-. VI. PROCESSING EXPENSES OF RS.3 67 406/- VII. PACKAGING EXPENSES OF RS.31 170/- VIII. MOTOR CAR CHARGES OF RS.14 118/- IX. BROKERAGE /COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS.32 436/- 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHO LDING DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR CHARGES OF RS. 4 93 570/- U/S 37 (1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 BEING ALLEGED EXPENSES NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUS INESS INCURRED PURPOSE IGNORING THE SUBMISSION AND EXPLANATIONS MADE BY AS SESSEE. 4. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPH OLDING DISALLOWANCE OF UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.7 72 001/- U/S 68 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT 1961 BY CONSIDERING SUCH LOANS AS ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED LOANS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION AND EXPLANATIONS MADE BY ASSESSEE. 5 . THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AMEND MODI FY ALTER OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3 ITA NO. 1804/MUM/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/S. FOOD PHARMA INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. I TO 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE CO MPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING AND PROCESSING OF FOOD GRAINS SPICES NATU RAL GUMS ETC. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DEVELOPED A PROPERTY AT NEW MUMBAI. THE RETURN OF I NCOME FOR A.Y. 2008-09 WAS FILED ON 02.10.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. N IL. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) AND THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. AFTE R SERVING STATUTORY NOTICES AND SEEKING REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO PASSED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 30.12.2010 THEREBY MAKING ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES U/S 40(IA) OF RS.4 95 185/- U/S 37(1) OF RS.8 51 774/- CASH PAYMENT U/S 37(1) OF RS.4 93 57 0/- AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.7 72 001/-. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 22-01-2014. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE F ILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE. 5. AT THE VERY OUTSET IT IS NOTICED THAT EVEN IN S PITE OF SEVERAL NOTICES NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND ON THE PERUSAL O F ORDER SHEET WE HAVE NOTICED THAT NOBODY WAS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. OR DATES WERE BEING SOUGHT BY MOVING APPLICATIONS. EVEN TODAY THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T PREFERRED TO APPEAR AND EVEN NO APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED. ON THE OT HER HAND LD. DR IS PRESENT IN THE COURT AND IS READY WITH ARGUMENTS. THEREFORE WE HAVE DECIDED TO PROCEED WITH 4 ITA NO. 1804/MUM/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/S. FOOD PHARMA INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. I TO THE HEARING OF THE CASE EX-PARTE WITH THE ASSISTANC E OF THE LD. DR AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. GROUND NO.1 6. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED TH E MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. BEFORE WE DECIDE THE MERITS OF THE CASE IT IS NECESSARY TO EVALUATE THE ORDERS PASSED BY CIT(A) WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE THE OPERATIVE PARA IS REPROD UCED BELOW: 3.2 FINDINGS & DECISION THEREON- FROM GROUND NO.1 IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) IN RESPECT OF RENT PROF ESSIONAL CHARGES AND LEGAL CHARGES. THUS IN ITS 1ST GROUND OF APPEAL THE APP ELLANT HAS NOT AGITATED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ACCOUNTING CHARGES OF RS.55 185/- AND TRANSPORT CHARGES OF RS.30 000/- W HICH ARE ALSO A PART OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED IN COMPLEX MANNE R WHICH ARE IN THE FORM OF GENERAL AVERMENTS THE APPELLANT HAS STATED IN A GENERAL MANNER THAT THE A.G. HAD ERRED IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCES OF THE E XPENSES U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE LEAR NED A.R. HAS NET BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO REBUT THE FINDINGS OF THE LE ARNED A.O. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT IN SPITE OF TWO OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED BY THE LEARNED A.O. AS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE APPELLANT DID NOT CARE TO EXPLAIN THE QUERIES RAISED BY THE A.O. EVEN DURING THE APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS THE LEARNED A.R. FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. IN HIS PAPER BOOK THE LEARNED A.R. FURNISHED NO DEDUCTION CERTIFICATE IN THE NAME OF SOME OTHER ASSESSEE AND PLEADED THAT THE RENT OF RS.3 00 000/- PAID TO KALYANJI WALJI PR IVATE LIMITED DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 -I OF THE ACT THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED A.R.' IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE REAS ON THAT THE SAID CERTIFICATE DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE APPELLANT AND ALSO NOT FURNI SHED BEFORE THE A.O. IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES. REGARDING PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES OF RS.65 000/- PAID TO MR.VIKRAM GAIKWAD THE LEARNED A.R. RELIED UPON PAGE NO.81 & 82 OF HIS PAPER BOOK WHICH REVEALS APPOINTMENT LETTER OF MR.VIKRAM GAIKWAD AND THAT OF HIS WIFE. THE LEARNED AR. COULD NOT ESTABLI SH THAT THESE EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE A.O. MOREOVER AS PER THE APPO INTMENT LETTER RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED AR. MR.VIKRAM GAIKWAD WAS APPOINTED OR 01.02.2008 (I.E. ONLY FOR THE LAST 2 MONTHS OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR) A T A MONTHLY SALARY OF RS.17 500/- WHEREAS THE INSTANT PAYMENT INVOLVES AM OUNT OF RS.65 OOO/-. THE 5 ITA NO. 1804/MUM/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/S. FOOD PHARMA INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. I TO LEARNED A.R. WAS ASKED TO FURNISH NECESSARY EVIDENC E AS TO PROFESSIONAL TAX PAYMENT TO MAHARASHTRA GOVERNMENT IN RESPECT OF EMP LOYMENT OF MR.VIKRAM GAIKWAD IF ANY. THE LEARNED A.R. COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE AS TO PAYMENT OF PROFESSIONAL TAX WHICH CAN ESTABLISH TH AT THE IMPUGNED PAYMENT WAS MADE AS AND BY WAY OF SALARY. MOREOVER PAGE NO .94 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE LEDGER ACCOUNT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE PAY MENTS TO MR.VIKRAM GAIKWAD WERE ON ACCOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES. I N THE SAID LEDGER ACCOUNT TITLED AS 'PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES' THERE ARE VARIOU S PAYMENTS MADE TO ADVOCATES / PROFESSIONALS WHICH ALSO INCLUDES THE INSTANT PAYMENT MADE TO MR.VIKRAM GAIKWAD. THEREFORE THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR IS FALSE IN SO FAR AS IT .IS EVIDENT FROM THE LEDGER ACCOUNT ITSEL F WHICH IS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED A.R. THAT THIS PAYMENT OF RS.65 OOO/ - IS IN THE FORM OF 'PROFESSIONAL FEES' ONLY AND NOT 'SALARY'. ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWA NCE ON THIS COUNT IS ALSO JUSTIFIED. THE SAME FACTS APPLY IN CASE OF LEGAL EX PENSES OF RS.45 OOO/- PAID TO MR.VIJAY DEVJI WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE LEDGER ACCOUNT TITLED AS 'LEGAL EXPENSES'. ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWANCE ON THIS COUNT IS ALSO JUSTIFIED. SIMILAR FACTS APPLY TO ACCOUNTING CHARGES OF RS.55 185/- PA ID TO MR.GANGARAM. THE LEDGER ACCOUNT TITLED 'ACCOUNTING EXPENSES' CLEARLY REVEALS THAT THEY ARE IN THE NATURE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES FOR ACCOUNTING SERVICES . ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS JUSTIFIED FOR THE REASO N OF NON- DEDUCTION OF TAX QT SOURCE ON THESE PAYMENTS. NEEDLESS TO SAY AS REVEA LING FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE APPELLANT DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE B EFORE THE A.G. IN THIS REGARD AND ALSO DID NOT JUSTIFY THE REASONS FOR NOT AVAILI NG THE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLAN T ATTEMPTED TO TREAT THESE PAYMENTS AS SALARY PAYMENTS ON THE BASIS OF UNTENAB LE AND FALSE EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF 'APPOINTMENT LETTERS'. AS DISCUSSED HER EINABOVE THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS CLEARLY REVEAL TRUE NATURE OF PAYMENTS. DU RING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE LEARNED A.R. WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKE D TO FURNISH EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF PROFESSIONAL TAX PAYMENTS AND RETURN OF PROFESSIONAL TAX IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYMENT OF THESE PERSONS WHICH HE COULD NOT FURNISH. HAVING REGARD TO ALL THESE FACTS THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.D. INVOKING THE PROVISION OF .SECTION 40(0)(IA) OF THE ACT IS SUSTAINED. IT WOU LD BE WORTH TO MENTION HERE THAT BY VIRTUE OF NON- COOPERATION BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE A.O. THE APPELLANT HAD PREVENTED THE A.G. TO EXAMINE THE GEN UINENESS OF THESE EXPENSES IN DETAIL AND ALSO AS TO WHETHER THESE EXPENSES WER E INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THESE FACTS A S A WHOLE LEAD' TO AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AS' TO GENUINENESS OF EXPENSES AN D ALSO AS TO WHETHER SUCH EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AT ALL. FOR THIS REASON ALSO THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT ALLOW ABLE PER SE. 6 ITA NO. 1804/MUM/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/S. FOOD PHARMA INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. I TO NO NEW CIRCUMSTANCE HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BE FORE US IN ORDER TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY LEARNE D CIT (A). MOREOVER THERE ARE NO REASONS FOR US TO DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS RECO RDED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A). THEREFORE AFTER HEARING THE DR AND ANALYZING THE I MPUGNED ORDER WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS RECODED BY THE LE ARNED CIT (A) ARE JUDICIOUS AND WELL REASONED. ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. GROUND NO.2 7. THE CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN ITS ORDE R AND THE OPERATIVE PARA IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE: 4. POINT NO.2 - GROUND NO.2-DISALLOWANCE U/S.37(1) AMOUNTING TO RS.8 51 774/- 4.1 THE A.O. MADE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.37(1) OF TH E ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 8 51 774/- WHICH INCLUDES EXPENSES CLAIMED IN RESP ECT OF WATER CHARGES OF RS.79 078/- WAREHOUSING EXPENSES OF RS.60 OOO/- T RANSPORT CHARGES OF RS.1 79 100/- REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE OF RS.88 466/ - PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES OF RS.29 750/ - PROCESSING EXPENSES OF RS.3 67 40 6/- PACKING CHARGES OF RS.31 170/- MOTOR CAR CHARGES OF RS.14 118/- AND B ROKERAGE / COMMISSION OF RS.32 436/-. 4.1.1 VIDE PARA 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE A.O. O BSERVED THAT ON BEING ASKED TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ORIGINAL BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR VERIFICATION THE APPELLANT'S A.R. PRODUCED SEL F-MADE VOUCHERS ONLY AND THAT NO ORIGINAL BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT EXCEPT FOR ELECTRICITY AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES NO ' BILLS IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER HEAD OF EXPENSE WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAD ONLY SELF-MADE VOUCHERS WHERE THE CASH PAYMENT WAS MADE AND SOME OF THOSE VOUCHERS WERE EITHER SIGNED OR THUMB-IMPRESSED BY T HE RECEIVING PARTIES VERACITY OF WHICH WAS NOT AT ALL VERIFIABLE AND THA T MOST OF THEM WERE EVEN NOT SIGNED OR VOUCHED. THE A.O. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT A LL WERE COMPUTER GENERATED VOUCHERS GIVING SHORT NARRATIONS AND AMO UNT OF CASH PAID. 4.1.1 WATER CHARGES- 7 ITA NO. 1804/MUM/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/S. FOOD PHARMA INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. I TO THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE CASH PAYMENT OF RS.79 078/- TO A PRIVATE PARTY VIZ. KALYANJI WALJI & CO. TOWARDS W ATER CHARGES. THE A.G. OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF WATER CHARGES HAS BEEN MADE TO A PRIVATE PART'!. THEREFORE THE A.G. DISALLOWED THE SAME U/S.37(L) OF THE ACT AS HA VING BEEN INCURRED NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 4.1.2 WAREHOUSING EXPENSES- THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED WA REHOUSE EXPENSES OF RS.85 028/- IN WHICH THE APPELLANT HAD INCLUDED A S UM OF RS.60 OOO/- ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE CHARGES FOR WHICH THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY ORIGINAL DOCUMENT(S)/ BILL(S) EXCEPT F OR LEDGER ACCOUNT AND THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT EVEN EXPLAIN THIS JOURNAL E NTRY OF RS.60 OOO/-. THEREFORE THE A.G. DISALLOWED THE SUM OF RS.60 OOO /- U/S.37(1) OF THE ACT AS HAVING BEEN INCURRED NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 4.1.2 TRANSPORT CHARGES- THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL BILLS IN RESPECT OF TRANSPORT CHARGES SHOWN AS 'PAYABLE'. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THESE AMOUNTS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR UNDER THE HEAD 'SUNDRY CRED ITORS' HOWEVER IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE A.O. THAT IT WAS ERRONEOUSLY. SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD 'UNSECURED LOANS'. ON BEING ASKED TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL BILLS IT WAS STATED THAT THERE ARE NO ACTUALLY NOT BEEN P AID DURING THE YEAR AND MOREOVER ALL THE PAYMENTS ARE JUST BELOW THE AMOUNT APPLICABLE FOR TDS. THEREFORE THE A.O. DREW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AS TO NON-GENUINE CHARACTER OF SUCH EXPENSES. HENCE THE A.O. MADE A DISALLOWANCE @ 50% OF THESE EXPENSES INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 37(1) O F THE ACT. 4.1.3 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE- THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE INCURRED A SUM OF RS.1 13 862/- UNDER THIS HEAD. HOWEVER THE APPELLA NT COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY ORIGINAL DOCUMENT / BILLS EXCEPT FOR LEDGER ACCOUN T. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT EXPLAIN AS TO HOW AND WHY THE SUM OF RS.80 OOO/- HA S BEEN PAID UNDER THIS HEAD TO KALYANJI WALJI PRIVATE LIMITED. THEREFORE THE A.O. MADE DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAID SUM OF RS.8O OOO/- FOR NON -VERIFIABILITY OF THIS EXPENDITURE AND ALSO FOR NONCOMPLIANCE OF TDS PROVI SIONS. FURTHER OUT OF THE BALANCE SUM OF RS.33 862/- [1 13 862 - 8O OOO] THE A.O. MAD DISALLOWANCE @ 25% THEREOF AMOUNTING TO RS.8 466/-. THUS THE A .O. MADE THE DISALLOWANCE TOTALING RS.B8 466/- ON THIS COUNT. 8 ITA NO. 1804/MUM/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/S. FOOD PHARMA INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. I TO 4.1.4 PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES- THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT OUT OF THE EXPENDITURE OF RS .1 77 850/- THE APPELLANT HAS INCURRED THE SUM OF RS.30 OOO/- ONLY BY CHEQUE AND THE BALANCE EXPENDITURE OF RS.1 47 850/- HAS BEEN INCURRED IN C ASH ONLY AND THE APPELLANT COULD NOT EVEN PRODUCE ANY ORIGINAL BILL(S) OR ANY OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SO AS TO CLARIFY THE REASON OF MAKING SUCH PAYMENT OF RS.1 47 850/-. THEREFORE THE AO. MADE THE DISALLOWANCE @ 20% OF T HESE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.29 5701- FOR WANT OF DUE VERIFICAT ION. 4.1.5 PROCESSING EXPENSES- THE AO. OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE PAYMENT UNDER THIS HEAD AMOUNTING TO RS.7 34 812/- TO 16 DIFFEREN T PERSONS WHICH ARE JUST BELOW THE MINIMUM AMOUNT APPLICABLE FOR TDS PROVISI ONS. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THESE PAYMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN ACTUALLY MADE DUR ING THE YEAR BUT THE SAME ARE SHOWN AS PAYABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'UNSECURED LOAN S' INSTEAD OF 'SUNDRY CREDITORS'. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT BRING ON RECORD ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN ORIGINAL EXCEPT FOR LEDGER ACCOUNT. THEREFORE THE A.O. MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON THIS COUNT @ 50% OF THE EXPENSES CL AIMED AMOUNTING TO RS.3 67 406/- FOR WANT OF DUE VERIFICATION. 4.1.6 PACKING CHARGES- THE AO. OBSERVED THAT OUT OF THE SUM OF RS.1 66 777 /- CLAIMED UNDER THIS HEAD THE APPELLANT HAD MADE ONLY THE PAYMENT OF RS.10 9 27/ - AND THE BALANCE SUM OF RS.1 55 850/ - WAS PAYABLE. THE A.O. OBSERVED T HAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL BILLS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAI M. THEREFORE 'THE A.O. MADE DISALLOWANCE ON THIS COUNT @ 20% OF SUCH EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.31 170/- FOR WANT OF VERIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. 4.1.7 MOTOR CAR EXPENSES- THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT AS NO BILLS COULD BE PRODUCE D BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF ITS CLAIM OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES OF RS.70 589/- HE MADE THE DISALLOWANCE @ 20% AMOUNTING TO RS.14 118/-. 4.1.8 BROKERAGE & COMMISSION EXPENSES- THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FILE ANY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THESE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.1 62 182/- AND THAT ALL THESE PAYMENTS REMAIN 9 ITA NO. 1804/MUM/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/S. FOOD PHARMA INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. I TO UNPAID AS AT THE END OF THE YEAR. THEREFORE IN ABS ENCE OF ANY DETAIL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF THE A.O. M ADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON THIS COUNT @ 20% OF THESE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS .32 436/-. THUS THE A.O. MADE THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8 51 774/- U/S.37(1) (INCLUDING RS.80 OOO/- U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR THE EXPENSE CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD 'REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES') WHICH C OMPRISED OF THE DISALLOWANCES UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS DISCUSSED HERET OFORE. 4.2 THE A.O. HAS MADE PARTIAL DISALLOWANCES IN RES PECT OF APPELLANT'S CLAIM UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS OF EXPENSES. THE A.O. HAS CAT EGORICALLY STATED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT SUBSTAN TIATE ITS CLAIMS BY PRODUCING RELEVANT ORIGINAL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. EVEN DURING THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS; THE APPELLANT HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD ME RELY LEDGER ACCOUNTS WHICH CANNOT BE STATED TO BE THE PRIMARY EVIDENCES TO JUSTIFY CLAIMS MADE BY THE APPELLANT ESPECIALLY WHEN ALL THESE PAYMENTS A RE STATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH ONLY. FURTHER THE APPELLANT ALSO COUL D NOT BRING ON RECORD THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTION OF TA X AT SOURCE IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8O OOO/- CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES'. THUS THE APPELLANT COULD NO T REBUT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED A.O. IN THE COURSE OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDIN GS. THEREFORE I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ACTION OF THE A.O. O F MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF VARIOUS EXPENSES TOTALING RS.8 51 774/- U/S.37(1) O F THE ACT. THUS GROUND NO.2 OF APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. NO NEW CIRCUMSTANCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFO RE US IN ORDER TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LE ARNED CIT (A). MOREOVER THERE ARE NO REASONS FOR US TO DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A). THEREFORE AFTER HEARING THE DR AND ANALYZING THE I MPUGNED ORDER WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS RECODED BY THE LE ARNED CIT (A) ARE JUDICIOUS AND ARE WELL REASONED. ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME. RESULTANTLY THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 10 ITA NO. 1804/MUM/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/S. FOOD PHARMA INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. I TO GROUND NO.3 8. THE CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN ITS ORDE R AND THE OPERATIVE PARA IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE: 5. POINT NO.3 - GROUND NO.3 - DISALLOWAL1CE U/S.37 {1) OF RS.4 93 570/- IN RESPECT OF LABOUR CHARGES PAID IN CASH- 5.1 THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIME D DIRECT EXPENSES UNDER LABOUR CHARQES OF RS.14 88 040/- LOBOUR CHARGES BA LANCE OF RS.7 72 471/- AND LABOUR EXPENSES OF RS.2 52 340/-. THE APPELLANT FIL ED ONLY LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ALL THESE EXPENSES. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE ORIGINAL BILLS / VOUCHERS FOR THE SAME. THE APPELLANT MERELY PRODUCED COMPUTE R GENERATED VOUCHERS SOME OF WHICH ARE SIGNED / THUMB IMPRESSED AND MOST OF THEM ARE BLANK. ALL THESE PAYMENTS ARE STATED TO HAVE BEEN PAID IN CASH . EXCEPT FOR CONTENDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TO INCUR SUCH EXPENSES AND T HAT THE PAYMENT TO LABOUR IS AN ESSENTIAL AND VITAL FOR ITS BUSINESS THE APPELL ANT COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM WITH ANY COGENT PIECE OF EVIDENCE. THE A.O. THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT IT IS DIFFICULT 1'0 VERIFY AS TO HOW THE APPELLANT KEE PS CONTROL OVER INCURRENCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE AND AS TO HOW THESE EXPENSES COULD BE VERIFIED BY THEIR AUDITOR OR BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE A.O. OBS ERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAVING GROSS TURNOVER OF MORE THAN RS.5 CRORE HAS TO HAVE SOME CHECKS AND BALANCES SO FAR AS SUCH EXPENSES ARE CONCERNED THE REFORE THE A.O. MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4 93 570/- BEING 20% OF THE TOTA L EXPENSES OF RS.24 67 851/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THIS HEAD. 5.2 THIS IS AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE @ 20% OF THE EXPE NSES OF RS.24 67 851/- CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD 'LABOUR CHARGES'. ON BEING S PECIFICALLY ASKED FOR BY THE A.O. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF ORIGINAL BILLS / VOUCHERS. EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT MERELY FURNISHED LEDGER ACCOUNTS TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. MOREOVER THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS REVEAL THE PAY MENTS IN CASH FOR A' THE PAYMENTS. IF THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LA BOUR CHARGES THERE HAS TO BE STATUTORY REGISTERS / RECORDS WHICH ARE REQUIRE D TO BE MAINTAINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LABOUR LAWS VIZ. MINIMUM WAGES ACT 1948 PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT 1936 AND CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION AND ABOLI TION) ACT 1970. IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE GENUINENESS OF T HESE CLAIMS CANNOT BE VERIFIED IN ABSENCE OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCE. HOWEVER THE A.O. HAS TAKEN A LENIENT VIEW BY MAKING ONLY PARTIAL DIS ALLOWANCE ON THIS COUNT. THUS THE APPELLANT COULD NOT REBUT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED A.O. IN THE COURSE OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO 11 ITA NO. 1804/MUM/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/S. FOOD PHARMA INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. I TO INTERFERE IN THE ACTION OF THE A.O. OF MAKING DISAL LOWANCE ON THIS COUNT. THUS GROUND NO.3 OF APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. NO NEW CIRCUMSTANCE HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEF ORE US IN ORDER TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY LEARNE D CIT (A). MOREOVER THERE ARE NO REASONS FOR US TO DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS RECO RDED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A). THEREFORE AFTER HEARING THE DR AND ANALYZING THE I MPUGNED ORDER WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS RECODED BY THE LE ARNED CIT (A) ARE JUDICIOUS AND WELL REASONED. ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. GROUND NO.4 9. THE CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN ITS ORDE R AND THE OPERATIVE PARA IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE: 6. POINT NO.4 - GROUND NO.4 - ADDITION OF RS.7 72 001/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOANS U/S.68 OF THE ACT- THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED 'U NSECURED LOANS AT RS.2 63 24 893/. THE A.0. ASKED THE APPELLANT TO SUBSTAN TIATE THE CLAIM HAVING REGARD TO THE IDENTITY END CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS VIS-A-VIS GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. THE APPELLANT WAS SPECIFICALLY ASK ED TO FURNISH COPY OF THE LENDERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURNS OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR AS WELL AS FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH LOANS HAD BEEN BROUGHT IN TH E BOOKS CERTIFIED COP)' OF THEIR BALANCE SHEET PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT CAPITAL ACCOUNT INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF THE YEAR AS WELL AS OF THE Y EAR IN WHICH SUCH AMOUNT WAS BROUGHT TO BOOKS COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS WITH BANK BOOK I NARRATION OF ENTRIES OF THE COMPLETE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE AMOUNT WAS GIVEN BY THEM TO THE APPELLANT. IN RESPONSE THE APPELLANT MERELY FILED CERTAIN CONFIRMATIONS AND STATED THE NAMES OF 119 PERSONS WITH THE RESPEC TIVE AMOUNTS OF UNSECURED LOANS. THE APPELLANT CONTENDED BEFORE THE A.G. THAT AMOUNTS DUE TO CERTAIN PARTIES WERE FOR SUPPLY OF GOODS AND SERVICES AND N OT FOR ANY FINANCIAL DUES BUT THESE WERE WRONGLY TAKEN UNDER THE HEAD 'UNSECU RED LOONS'. THE APPELLANT FURTHER CONTENDED THAT ALL THESE CREDITORS ARE GENU INE AND BONAFIDE AND HAVE 12 ITA NO. 1804/MUM/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/S. FOOD PHARMA INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. I TO BEEN FULLY PAID IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR AND THAT THE RE ARE NO-BALANCES OUTSTANDING IN THEIR NAMES. 6.1.2 THE A.O. DID NOT FIND- THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT AS SATISFACTORY AND THEREFORE; MADE THE ADDITION OF RS:7 72 OO/- B EING UNEXPLAINED UNSECURED LOANS INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE A.O. VIDE PARA 6.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OBSERVED THAT OUT OF THE UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.2 63 24 8921- FRESH LOANS DURING THE YEAR ST OOD AT RS.52 38 206/- OUT OF WHICH RS.31 78 452/- WERE BANK LOANS DURING THE YEA R. THUS THERE REMAINED THE BALANCE SUM .OTRS.20 59 754/- OUT OF WHICH THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED SUNDRY EXPENSES WRONGLY CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD 'UNS ECURED LOANS' AMOUNTING TO RS.12 87 753/-. THUS CONSIDERING THIS PLEA OF T HE APPELLANT THE A.O. MADE THE NET DISALLOWANCE AT RS.7 72 001/- [20 59 754 - 12 87 753]. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE A.OS FINDING IN PARA 6.2 OF THE IMP UGNED ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER; 'AS CAN BE SEEN INSTEAD OF FILING PROOF AS CALLED F OR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN EMPTY STATEMENT OF GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS. TO TOP IT ALL IT HAS ON THE SECOND LAST DATE OF THE TIME LIMIT SUBMITS THAT IT BE CON VEYED OF ANY FURTHER INFORMATION OR EXPLANATION WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED IT IS A TRAVESTY. IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT CERTAIN EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE P&L A/C AND ARE NOT PAID HAS WRONGLY BEEN SHOWN AS UNSECURED LOANS INSTEAD OF TH E SAME BEING SHOWN AS SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE DETAILS FILED DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDING - ALTHOUGH NOT VERIFIABLE FOR ABSENCE OR NON-PRODUCTI ON OF ORIGINAL BILLS - CONFIRM THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE SAME IS CONSIDERED. THUS THE A.O. MADE THE NET ADDITION OF RS.7 72 001 /- U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 6.2 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE LEARNED A .R. OF THE APPELLANT FURNISHED PHOTOCOPIES OF THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE L OAN PARTIES WHICH WERE ALSO BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE THE A.O. HOWEVER THE A.O. HELD THAT MERELY FURNISHING 'THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE LOAN PARTIES D OES NOT SUFFICE AS THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS 'VIS-A- VIS CREDITWORTH INESS OF THE LOAN PARTIES CANNOT BE VERIFIED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE CONFI RMATIONS OF THE LOAN' PARTIES E DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT ITS BUSINESS COMPELS IT TO RAISE SUCH IMMEDIATE CASH LO ANS FROM IMMEDIATE BUSINESS CIRCLE AND THAT GENERALLY THESE LOANS ARE HAND LOANS FROM THE CLOSE CIRCLES AND ARE REPAID IN DUE COURSE WHEN THE FUND IS AVAILABLE WITH IT. THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE APPELLANT EMPHASIZED THAT ALL T HESE LOANS ARE RAISED FOR THE GENUINE BUSINESS NEED OF THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME ARE OF THE AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING RS.20 OOO/- EACH. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT T HE APPELLANT HAD RAISED SUCH LOANS IN CASH FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES FOR WHIC H THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES CALLED F OR BY THE A.O. SUCH AS LOAN PARTIES' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURNS OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR AS WELL AS FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH LOANS HAD BEEN BROUGH T IN THE BOOKS CERTIFIED COPY OF THEIR BALANCE SHEET PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT CAPITAL ACCOUNT INCOME 13 ITA NO. 1804/MUM/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/S. FOOD PHARMA INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. I TO & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF THE YEAR AS WE' AS OF THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH AMOUNT WAS BROUGHT TO BOOKS COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS WITH BANK BOOK / NARRATION OF ENTRIES OF THE COMPLETE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE AMOUNT WAS GIVEN BY THEM TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT ALSO COULD NOT BRIN G ON RECORD ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO INTEREST PAID / PAYABLE TO ANY OF SUCH PARTIES DURING THE YEAR OR SUBSEQUENT YEAR(S) DESP ITE SPECIFIC QUERY RAISED DURING THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS. IN RESPONSE THE AP PELLANT MERELY FILED CERTAIN CONFIRMATIONS AND STATED THE NAMES OF 119 PERSONS W ITH THE RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS OF: UNSECURED LOANS. EVEN IN THE PRESENT P ROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT COULD NOT BRING ON RECORD THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH IT COULD NOT PRODUCE BEFORE THE A.O. THUS IN ABSENCE OF THE SAME THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN PARTIES VIS-A-VIS GENU INENESS OF TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE VERIFIED EVEN AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. ALL THESE FACTS AS A WHOLE CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT NEITHER THE FINANCIAL CAPACI TY OF THE ALLEGED LENDERS NOR THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS STAND PROVED. ON TH E CONTRARY IT IMMENSELY TRANSPIRES THAT IT IS USED AS A TOOL OF MONEY LAUND ERING TO CAMOUFLAGE THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT UNDER THE GARB OF 'LOANS'. IT IS AN ESTABLISHED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT FOR A VALID CRE DIT FINANCIAL CAPACITY OF THE CONTRIBUTOR / GIVER HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED BEYOND DO UBT. SIMILARLY THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS HAS TO BE ESTABLIS HED WHICH CAN BE ASCERTAINED FROM THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND FINANCIAL CAPACITY OF THE CREDITORS. THUS IN LIGHT OF THE .AFORESAID FACTS R DO NOT FI ND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ACTION OF THE A.O. OF MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.7 72 OO1/- TREATING THE CASH LOANS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN SOURCED THROUGH CASH LOANS OBTAINED FROM VARIOUS PARTIES. I THEREF ORE UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS.7 72 OO1/-. THUS GROUND NO.4 OF APPEAL STANDS D ISMISSED. NO NEW CIRCUMSTANCE HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEF ORE US IN ORDER TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY LEARNE D CIT (A). MOREOVER THERE ARE NO REASONS FOR US TO DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS RECO RDED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A). THEREFORE AFTER HEARING THE DR AND ANALYZING THE I MPUGNED ORDER WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS RECODED BY THE LE ARNED CIT (A) ARE JUDICIOUS AND WELL REASONED. ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 14 ITA NO. 1804/MUM/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/S. FOOD PHARMA INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. I TO 10. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH OCTOBER 2016. SD/- SD/- (JASON P. BOAZ) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &' $ / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) MUMBAI; *$ DATED :07.10.2016 PS. ASHWINI / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. + ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. + / CIT - CONCERNED 5. ./0 ''12 12# ( ) / DR ITAT MUMBAI 6. 045 6 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER / !'# (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) #$ % ( ) / ITAT MUMBAI