M/s. Vinsent Crops Science Chemicals, Gandhinagar v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-4,, Gandhinagar

ITA 1983/AHD/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 198320514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAEFV0729P
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1983/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Vinsent Crops Science Chemicals, Gandhinagar
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-4,, Gandhinagar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 31-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 28-03-2011
Next Hearing Date 28-03-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 18-06-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI D.K.TYAGI HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. C. AGRAWAL HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1983/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 DATE OF HEARING:281311 DRAFTED:29.3.11 M/S. VINSENT CROPS SCIENCE CHEMICALS PLOT NO.501 GIDC AT MANSA TAL. MANSA DIST. GANDHINAGAR -382845 PAN NO.AAEFV0729P V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4 GANDHINAGAR (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI S.N.DIVETIA AR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI R.K. TOPIWALA DR O R D E R PER D.K.TYAGI JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-GANDHINAGAR IN APPEAL NO. CIT( A)/GNR/187/2008-09 DATED 18-03-2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 OF THE ACT ON 18.3.20 09 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 BY CIT(A)-GNR ABAD BY PARTLY UPHOLDING THE DISALLO WANCES OF EXPENSES MADE AO IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL UNLAWFUL AND AG AINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDIN G THE SAID DISALLOWANCES WITHOUT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPERL Y THE EXPLANATION OFFERED AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. ITA NO. 1983/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 M/S. VINSENT CROPS SCIENCE CHEMICALS V. ITO WD-4 GNR PAGE 2 2.1 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5 1 5 758 AND RS.10 970. 2.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING INCENTIVE EXPS. OF RS.5 15 758. THE OBS ERVATIONS MADE AND CONCLUSION REACHED BY CIT(A) FOR DISALLOWING THE IN CENTIVE EXPENSES ARE NOT ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT INSOFAR AS THE SA ME ARE AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISAL LOWANCE OF RS.10 790 MADE BY AO OUT OF TRANSPORT EXPENSES. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FORMATION OF INSECTICIDE S AND PESTICIDES FOR AGRICULTURAL USE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON VERIFICATION OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASS ESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.5 15 758/- UNDER THE HEAD INCENTIVE T O DEALERS TO MEET SALES TARGET. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE ASSE SSEE REPLIED AS UNDER:- DURING THE YEAR THE FIRM HAD ANNOUNCED AN INCENTIV E SCHEME FOR DEALERS WHO ACHIEVED THE TARGET SALES OF CERTAIN PR ODUCTS. NINETEEN DEALERS WERE SELECTED AND THEY WERE TAKEN FOR A CON FERENCE SEMINAR AND TOUR TO HONG KONG. THAILAND BY AIR. THE ENTIRE TRI ORGANIZED BY J.K. TRAVELS. THIS EXPLANATION WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFI CER AS THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR CONFERENCE / SEMINAR AND TOUR TO HONG KONG AND THAILAND WHILE ASSESSEES DEALS IN INSECTICIDES AND PESTICID ES AND ALL ITS DEALERS ARE LOCATED IN GUJARAT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS LACK OF PROPER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF TRAVELING ABROAD. THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE WAS REJECTED AND AMOUNT OF RS.5 18 758/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE MADE FOLLOWING SUBMIS SIONS:- A. INCENTIVES TO DEALERS: THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED RS.5 15 758/- TO THE PROF IT AND LOSS A/C. AS INCENTIVE TO DEALERS TO MEET SALES TARGETS EXP. A/ C.. THIS EXPENSE WAS ITA NO. 1983/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 M/S. VINSENT CROPS SCIENCE CHEMICALS V. ITO WD-4 GNR PAGE 3 WITH REGARD TO A SPECIAL SCHEME TO GIVE INCENTIVE T O THE DEALERS WHO SOLD THE PRODUCTS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM ABOVE THE TARGET FIXED FOR THE PURPOSE. A WRITTEN COMMUNICATION CIRCULAR WAS ISSUE D TO ALL THE DEALERS OF GUJARAT AND THE DEALERS WHO ACHIEVED THE SAID TA RGET WERE TAKEN ON A TRIP FOR A CONFERENCE TO THAILAND. THIS WAS PUREL Y IN THE NATURE OF INCENTIVE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NO QU ESTIONS WERE ASKED BY THE LEARNED A.O REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID EXPENSES NOT ONLY THAT IN T HE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 03/12/2008 THE A.O HAS NOT EVEN CARED TO MENTION THAT SHE NEEDS THE DETAILS OF THE SAID ACCOUNT. THE ASSE SSEE WAS ONLY ASKED A CASUAL QUESTION DURING THE HEARING AS TO TH E NATURE OF THAT EXPENSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD APTLY REPLIED STA TING THAT DURING THE YEAR THE FIRM HAD ANNOUNCED AN INCENTIVE SCHEME TO THE DEALERS WHO ACHIEVED THE TARGET SALES OF CERTAIN PRODUCTS. 19 D EALERS WERE SELECTED AND THEY WERE TAKEN FOR A CONFERENCE SEMINAR AND TO UR TO HONG KONG AND THAILAND BY AIR. THIS WAS PURELY IN NATURE OF I NCENTIVE FOR SALES. THE ENTIRE TRIP WAS ORGANIZED BY JFK AIR TRAVELS. HAD THE LEARNED A.O ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE PRODUCED WHATEVER EVIDENCE SHE THOUGHT APPROPRIATE TO CONVINCED HER LIKE. 1. THE PASSPORT OF ALL THE 19 DEALERS CONTAIN THE E NDORSEMENTS TO SHOW THAT THE SAID PEOPLE HAD BEEN TAKEN TO THE SAI D AND SAME PLACE ON THE SAID AND SAME DATE. 2. THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE ALSO SHOW THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF SALE TARGET HAS BEEN REACHE D BY THE SAID DEALERS. 3. NONE OF THE ABOVE DEALERS IS A RELATIVE OR IN AN Y WAY RELATED TO THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM. 4. THE LEARNED AC COULD HAVE OBTAIN THE CONFIRMATIO N ACCOUNTS OF PURCHASES MADE FROM THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN THE BOO KS OF THE SAID DEALERS. 5. THE LEARNED A.O COULD HAVE OBTAIN WRITTEN LETTER S FROM THE SAID DEALERS AS TO WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE SAID INCENTIVE OR NOT AS PROMISED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM. 6. THE LEARNED A.O COULD HAVE ALSO ISSUED SUMMONS A ND INTERROGATED THE SAID DEALERS AS TO WHETHER THEY HA VE BEEN GIVEN SAID INCENTIVE OR NOT. 7. IF ASKED TO PROVE GENUINENESS THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS ALSO PREPARED TO PRODUCE AFFIDAVITS OF THE SAID DEALERS ON OATH STATING THAT IT WAS AN INCENTIVE GIVEN TO THEM FOR ACHIEVING THE SALES TARGET AND THAT THEY THEMSELVES HAD BEEN TAKE N FOR THE FOREIGN VISIT. ITA NO. 1983/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 M/S. VINSENT CROPS SCIENCE CHEMICALS V. ITO WD-4 GNR PAGE 4 THUS THE GENUINE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE CAN ALWAYS BE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IF ASKED FOR WHERE ASS HERE NEITHER THE A SSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE NOR WAS IT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS. JUST BY ASKING CASUAL QUESTIONS DURING THE LAST HEA RING ON 22/12/08 ABOUT THE SAID EXPENSES COULD NOT MAKE THE ASSESSEE SUSPECT THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE IS BEING DOUBTE D BY THE LEARNED A.O AND ALL OF THE SUDDEN WHILE ISSUING THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER THE QUESTIONS OF GENUINENESS HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE LEARNED A.O HAS WRITTEN THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCED THE DETAILS SUCH AS WRITTEN DECLARATIONS F OR THE SO CALL INCENTIVE GRANTED 19 DEALERS TAKEN FOR TOUR TO HONG KONG AND THAILAND FOR SALE PROMOTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY PRODUCED BEFORE THE UNDER SIGNED. AS REGARDS THE ABOVE STATEMENT OF THE LEARNED A.O. WE CAN PRODUCED BEFORE YOUR HONOURS THE DIFFERENT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE LEARNED A.O AND ALSO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE FIRM. YOU WILL OBSERVE THAT THE LEARNED A.O HAS NOT ASKED FOR SUCH DECLARATIONS OTH ERWISE THE ASSESSEE FIRM COULD HAVE PRODUCED THE SAID DECLARAT IONS FROM THE SAID DEALERS. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE ORIGINA L BILLS OF JEK AIR TRAVELS INSTANTANEOUSLY. ALL THE QUESTION ANSWERS A RE DURING THE HEARING. THE PAYMENT TO JEK AIR TRAVELS ARE BY CROS S ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE ASSESSEE FIRM THEREFORE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST Y OU TO KINDLY EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF GENUINENESS OF THE SAID EXPENSES. AND KINDLY TO ALLOW YOUR ASSESSEE THE SAID EXPENDITURE OF RS.515758/- WHICH THE LEARNED A.O HAS DISALLOWED WITHOUT GIVING AN OP PORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE HIM ASSESSEE ALSO FIELD A COPY OF CIRCULAR I SSUED TO THE DEALERS WHEREIN THE INCENTIVE OF FOREIGN VISIT WAS PUT ON R ECORD FOR ACHIEVING THE TARGET OF EXISTING THE TURNOVER OF RS.5 LAKH. THE PHOTO CO PIES OF THE PASSPORTS OF 19 PERSONS WHO TRAVELED WITH THE APPROPRIATE ENDORSEME NT WERE ALSO FILED. COPIES OF INVOICE OF JEK AIR TRAVELS FOR THE PAYMEN TS MADE AND THE CASH MEMO. OF M/S. LKP FOREX LTD. FOR THE FOREIGN EXPENS ES OBTAINED WERE ALSO FILED. THE LIST OF THE DEALERS ALONG WITH THE SALE MADE AND COPIES OF THEIR ACCOUNT WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHICH RE ADS AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 1983/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 M/S. VINSENT CROPS SCIENCE CHEMICALS V. ITO WD-4 GNR PAGE 5 DETAILS OF INCENTIVE TO DEALERS & DISTRIBUTORS BEI NG FOREIGN TOUR TO BANGKOK AND THAILAND SR. NO. DISTRIBUTORS FIRM NAME TOTAL TURNOVER 1 PATEL NAVINBHAI SAMARTH BAPARAM SEEDS CORPORATION PROPRIETOR 3606264 2 MORI BHARATBHAI DHIRUBHAI SHIV AGRO CHEMICALS - BARAWALA 3 VORA JICNESHBHAI VORA JIGNESHBHAI 4 MR. SENTA JARAMBHAI AMBICA AGRO AAGENCYU MAHUVA TOTAL SALES OF DISTRIBUTORS 3606264 SR. NO DISTRIBUTORS FIRM NAME TOTAL TURNOVER 1 MORI VANARAJBAI NARAYAN AGRO AGENCY PROPRIETOR 152016 2 VALA LAXMANBAI KHODIYAR KRUSHI KENDRA PROPRIETOR 429509 3 DODIYA DILIPSINH PAYAL AGRO AGENCY PARTNER 260825 4 DANGAR SAHADEVBHAI PAYAL AGRO AGENCY PARTNER 0 5 GODANI HITESBHAI ADARSH KHEDUT HART PROPRIETOR 197458 6 CHAUHAN JORASANGBHAI SARDAR AGRO CENTER PARTNER 289900 7 CHAUHAN BHAVASANGBHAI SARDAAR AGRO CENTER PARTNER 0 8 PARAMAR GHANSHYAMBHAI PAYAL AGRO CHEMICALS PARTNER 180063 9 MORI BHARATSINH J PAYAL AGRO CHEMICALS PARTNER 0 10 DODIYA VANARAJBHAI RAGHURAM AGRO AGENCY PARTNER 688019 11 MORI BHAVASANGBHAI RAGHURAM AGRO AGENCY PARTNER 0 12 GODANIMANISHBHAI OHMKAR AGRO CHEMICALS PROPRIETOR 125116 13 CHADASAMA PRATAPSINGH MARUTI AGRO AGENCY PROPRIETOR 220575 TOTAL SAL ES OF DEALERS 2543481 FOLLOWING PARTNERS OF ASSESSEE FIRM WHO ACCOMPANIE D THE ABOVE DEALERS & DISTRIBUTORS: 14 CHAUDHARI VINODBHAI VINSENT CROP SCIENCE CHEMICALS ASSESSEE- ITA NO. 1983/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 M/S. VINSENT CROPS SCIENCE CHEMICALS V. ITO WD-4 GNR PAGE 6 PARTNER 15 CHAUDHARI ASHOKBHAI VINSENT CROP SCIENCE CHEMICALS ASSESSEE- PARTNER AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERV ING AS UNDER:- 4.3.1 COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE THE FACTS WHICH COME OUT CLEARLY FROM THE SCRUTINY OF THE DETAILS ARE- (1) THE APPELLANT HAS DULY FINANCED THE TRIPS OF 19 PERSONS. (2) 2 OF THE PARTNERS WERE INCLUDED IN SUCH 19 PERS ONS NAMELY SH. VINODBHAI CHAUDHARI AND SH. ASHOKBHAI CHAUDHARY . (3) THE APPELLANT COULD ESTABLISH BUSINESS CONNECTI ON OF 15 PERSONS (INCLUDING THE TWO PARTNERS) OUT OF 19 WHOS E TRIPS WERE FIANC. THIS IS AS PER LIST OF PARA 4.2.2 OF T HIS ORDER. (4) THE FINANCING HAS BEEN DONE ONLY FOR THE PLEASU RE TRIP OF 19 PERSONS AND THERE HAS BEEN NO CONFERENCE OR EDUCATI ONAL TOUR IN THE FOREIGN TRIP. (5) ALTHOUGH THE PAPERS PRESENTED BEFORE ME TALKED OF ELIGIBILITY OF FOREIGN TRIP FOR DEALERS WHO HAVE ACHIEVED SALES TA RGET OF RS.5 LAC AND ABOVE EVEN PARTIES WHO HAD LESSER SALES WE RE ALSO CONSIDERED AND SENT ON THIS TRIP. E.G. THE PARTNERS OF MS PAYAL AGRO CHEMICALS PROPRIETOR OF OHMKAR AGRO CHEMICALS ETC. (6) ALTHOUGH THE SCHEME TALKED OF ONE PERSON PER DE ALER THE MEMBERS SENT OUT WERE MORE THAN ONE. E.G FOUR PARTN ERS WERE SENT AGAINST THE NAME / SALE OF M/S. SAMARTH BPARAM SEEDS CORPN TWO PERSONS AGAINST SARDAR AGRO CENTER TWO PERSONS AGAINST PAYAL AGRO AGENCIES AND TWO PERSONS AGAINST RAGHURAM AGRO AGENCY. 4.3.2 THEREFORE WHAT WE SEE IS AN ARRANGEMENT WHER E BUSINESS HAS BEEN MIXED WITH PLEASURE BY THE PARTNERS AND SOME O F THOSE WHO WERE NOT ENTITLED TO TRAVEL HAVE BEEN FINANCED BY THE FI RM. IT SHOULD BE KEPT IN MIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM AND NOTHING BUT A COMPENDIUM OF THE PARTNERS. THAT IS WHY PERSONAL EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABL E TO PARTNERS ARE DISALLOWED. IN THIS CASE WHERE NO CONFERENCE HAS T AKEN PLACE OBVIOUSLY THE TRAVEL OF PARTNERS IS NOT CONNECTED W ITH THE BUSINESS NEEDS. SENDING DEALERS ABROAD AS PER CERTAIN SCHEME CAN BE A BUSINESS EXPENSE OF THE FIRM BUT NOT WHEN THE PARTN ERS UNDERTAKE THE ITA NO. 1983/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 M/S. VINSENT CROPS SCIENCE CHEMICALS V. ITO WD-4 GNR PAGE 7 SIMILAR TRIP. SECONDLY FOR ALL THOSE PARTIES WHERE MORE THAN ONE PERSON HAS TRAVELED THE PAYMENTS MADE ARE PRIMARILY GRATU ITOUS IN NATURE AND NOT BUSINESS. SIMILARLY FOR SUCH PARTIES WHICH DID NOT ACHIEVE THE TARGET OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIO N TO MAKE THE PAYMENT AND THEREFORE THOSE WHO ARE ALSO GRATUITOUS IN NATU RE. CLEARLY SUCH PERSONAL AND GRATUITOUS PAYMENTS ARE NOT ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENSES U/S.37. HENCE TO SUM UP OUT OF THE 19 PER SONS WHO TRAVELED THE APPELLANT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE EXPENS ES OF ONE PERSON ONLY AGAINST THE FOLLOWING SEVEN BUSINESS ENTITIES WHICH ACHIEVED THE SET TARGETS. 1) SAMARTH BAPARAM SEEDS CORPORATION 2) NARAYAN AGRO AGENCY 3) KHODIYAR KRUSHI KENDRA 4) PAYAL AGRO AGENCY 5) SARDAR AGRO CENTER 6) RAGHURAM AGRO AGENCY 7) MARUTI AGRO AGENCY 4.3.3 THE APPELLANT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CLAIM EXPEN SES FOR THE REST OF THE PERSONS BECAUSE OF EITHER LACK OF BUSINESS CONNECTI ON OR THE APPELLANT HAVING MADE PAYMENT WITHOUT ANY CONTRACTUAL OBLIGAT ION AND THEREFORE BEING GRATUITOUS IN NATURE OR THE APPELLANT HAVING MADE EXPENSES ON PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF PARTNERS ONLY. THE ASSESSING OF FICER WILL RECOMPUTE THE EXPENSES ON PRO-RATA BASIS FOR 7 OUT OF 19 PERS ONS FOR THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE UNDERTAKEN. THE SAME SHALL ONLY BE ALLO WED. FURTHER AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE IS NOW APPEAL BEFORE U S. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSION HAS MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHILE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND GOING THROUGH THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY ASSESSEE TO THE DEALERS WHEREIN THE INCENTIVE OF F OREIGN VISIT IS PUT ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT SCHEME UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIME D THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.5 LAKH COMES UNDER THE CLAUSE DEALER DONE RS. 5 LAKH BUSINESS FOR WHOLE YEAR ARE ALSO APPLICABLE ONE PERSON FOR BANGKOK PA TAYA TOUR. IT IS CLEAR THAT AS PER THE SCHEME OF THE ASSESSEE IF A DEALER MAKES SALES OF RS.5 LAKH DURING THE YEAR ONE PERSON OF HIS ORGANIZATION IS ENTITLED FOR TOUR TO BANGKOK ETC. LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF DURING THE ITA NO. 1983/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 M/S. VINSENT CROPS SCIENCE CHEMICALS V. ITO WD-4 GNR PAGE 8 APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FOUND THAT IN SOME CASES TARG ET OF SALE OF RS.5 LAKH WERE NOT MET BY THE DEALERS AND IN SOME CASES MORE THAN ONE PERSON OF DEALER HAD GONE ON TOUR TO BANGKOK ETC. HE THEREFOR E FOUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE EXPENDITURE OF ONE PERSON ONLY AGAINST SEVEN BUSINESS ENTITIES WHICH ACHIEVED THE SAID TARGET. H E THEREFORE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-COMPUTE THE EXPENSES ON PRO RATA BASIS FOR SEVEN OUT OF NINETEEN PERSONS FOR THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCUR RED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS SCHEME. THIS FINDING OF THE FACT REMAINED UNCONTROV ERTED AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US. THEREFORE WE FIND NO INFIRMITY I N THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31/03/2011 SD/- SD/- (D.C.AGRAWAL) (D.K. TYA GI) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD DATED : 31/03/2011 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-GANDHINAGAR 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD