Rave & Moti Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Kanpur

ITA 48/LKW/2014 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2014 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 4823714 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AACCR9012N
Bench Lucknow
Appeal Number ITA 48/LKW/2014
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant Rave & Moti Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur
Respondent Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Kanpur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 28-11-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 04-09-2014
Next Hearing Date 04-09-2014
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 24-01-2014
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.48/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008 - 09 M/S RAVE & MODI ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD JAGRAN BUILDING SARVODAYA NAGAR KANPUR. PAN:AACCR9012N VS. DY.C.I.T. - VI KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI P. K. KAPOOR C.A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI P. K. DEY D.R. DATE OF HEARING 04/09/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 8 /11/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - I KANPUR DATED 25/11/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 2009. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING 'EVEN IF THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE' AND IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 04 525/ - ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES/INTEREST. 2. BECAUSE THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 00 000/ - OUT OF O FFICE MAINTENANCE AND RESTAURANT EXPENSES HAS BEEN SUSTAINED ON A WRONG PREMISE NOT TENABLE EITHER ON FACTS OR IN LAW AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2 3. BECAUSE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF N ATURAL JUSTICE. 3. REGARDING GROUND NO. 1 IT IS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS ISSUE IS DISCUSSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED RULE 8D AND SECT ION 14A WITHOUT ESTABLISHING THAT ANY EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME FROM MUTUAL FUND. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FO LLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: ( I ) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS DEEPAK MITTAL [2014] 361 ITR 131 (P&H) ( II ) BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD. VS. DY CIT [2011] 140 TTJ (KOL) 73 ( III ) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS HERO CYCLES LTD. [2010] 323 ITR 518 (P&H) ( IV ) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS SUZLON ENERGY LTD. [2013] 354 ITR 630 (GUJ) ( V ) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD. [2013] 358 ITR 323 (GUJ) 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AS PER PARA 5.3 TO 5.3.2 OF HIS ORDER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: - 5.3 DISCUSSION: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THREE COUNTS OF DISALLOWANCE : 1 . RECORDING OF SATISFACTION: 3 THERE IS NO PROVISION IN SECTION 14 TO RECORD SATISFACTION IT MERELY STATES THAT 'ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED'. THE A.O. HAS ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE TO ASSESSEE TO ARRIVE AT A SATISFACTION TO WHICH ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED A DETAILED REPLY. BASED ON THIS REPLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GONE AHEAD TO MAKE NECESSARY DISALLOWANCES. REJECTION OF CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TANTAMOUNT TO SATISFACTION. SATISFACTION IS THUS IM PLIED BY THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THERE IS THUS NO SEPARATE REQUIREMENT TO RECORD SATISFACTION. THIS HAS BEEN HELD IN CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD . VS. C.I.T. NEW DELHI (203 TAXMAN 364) THAT 'DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATIO N TO EXEMPT INCOME UNDER RULE 80 WOULD COME INTO PLAY WHEN ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTS CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. 2 . NEXUS BETWEEN BORROWED FUNDS: THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A REFERENCE TO CASE OF CIT VS . HERO CYCLES 323 ITR 518 (P&H) WHERE NEXUS IS REQUIRED TO BE ESTABLI SHED . AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE ARE OLD INVESTMENTS THEREFORE IT IS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE A.O TO LOOK INTO THE NATURE AND TIME OF OLD INVESTMENTS IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE FRESH REQUIREMENT OF ESTABLISHIN G NEXUS IN EACH YEAR FOR OLD INVESTMENTS IS NEITHER REQUIRED NOR FEASIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3 . EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM OF TOTAL INCOME: HERE I MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE CASE OF ITAT DELHI 'B SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. ITO I.T.A. NO.87/DEL./2008 I N WHICH IT WAS HELD : ' THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTING IN SHARES. THE SHARES WERE HELD FOR CAPITAL PURPOSES AS WELL AS FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES. IN A Y 2004 - 2005 THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY DIVIDEND ON THE SAID SHARES AND SO THERE WAS NO EXEMPT INCOME. THE SPECIAL BENCH TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED 4 BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID BORROWINGS USED FOR PURPOSES OF INVESTMENT IN S HARES COULD BE DISALLOWED U/S 14A. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY TAX - FREE INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE SAID SHARES. HELD DECIDING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY REFERRING TO RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY 115 ITR 522 THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT INTEREST ON M ONIES BORROWED FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES WAS ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTION U/S 57( III ) IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ANY YIELD OF DIVIDEND TO THE ASSESSES. IT WAS HELD THAT THE WORDS 'EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR MAKING OR EARNING THE INCOME' IN S. 57( II I) D ID NOT MEAN THAT INCOME ACTUALLY HAD TO BE EARNED FOR THE ALLOWABLY OF THE EXPENDITURE. T HE CONVERSE OF THIS PRINCIPLE IS NOW APPLICABLE I.E. S. 14A DISALLOWS EXPENDITURE 'IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME' AND IN ORDER FOR TH E EXPENDITURE TO BE DISALLOWED ACTUAL INCOME NEED NOT BE EARNED' . 5.3.1 THUS EVEN IF THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE. FOR EARNING INCOME THERE HAS TO BE SOME EXPENDITURE OTHERWISE IT WILL BE A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. IN HIS ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BROUGHT MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED TOWARDS THAT. THE RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED ON TH E DOCTRINE OF RE - IPSA LOQUITUR (THE MATTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF) WHICH PLACES THE BURDEN OF PROVING OTHERWISE ON APPELLANT ONLY. . 5.3.2 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE THE ASSESSING OFFICE HAS CORRECTLY MADE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14 READ WITH RULE 8D. 6. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD. (SUPRA) WHERE THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY 115 ITR 522 . THE TRIBUNAL IN CHE MINVEST LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT AS PER THIS JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT INTEREST ON MONIES BORROWED FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES WAS ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTION U/S 57(III) IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ANY YIELD OF DIVIDEND TO THE ASSESSES. IT WAS ALS O 5 HELD THAT THE WORDS 'EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR MAKING OR EARNING THE INCOME' IN S ECTION 57(III) DID NOT MEAN THAT INCOME ACTUALLY HAD TO BE EARNED FOR THE ALLOWAB I L ITY OF THE EXPENDITURE. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT T HE CONVERSE OF THIS PRINCIPLE IS NOW APPLI CABLE I.E. S ECTION 14A DISALLOWS EXPENDITURE 'IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME' AND IN ORDER FOR THE EXPENDITURE TO BE DISALLOWED ACTUAL INCOME NEED NOT BE EARNED' . HENCE IT IS SEEN THAT THIS ISSUE REGARDING DISALLOWABILIT Y OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THIS DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT EVEN IF THERE IS NO ACTUAL EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME. 7. NOW WE EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF VARIOUS JUDGMENTS CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. 7.1 THE FIRST JUDGMENT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS DEEPAK MITTAL (S UPRA). IN THIS CASE IT WAS HELD BY HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT THAT WHEN THIS IS THE CONSISTENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO COLLECT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE THE EXPENDITURE IF ANY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THIS IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUND OF RS.59.23 LAC IN THE PRESENT YEAR BECAUSE SUCH INVESTMENT WAS NIL IN THE IMME DIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.117.52 LAC S IN THE PRESENT YEAR. HENCE IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLEARLY STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND HAS INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A AND RULE 8D. AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET ALSO WE FIND THAT THE SECURED LOAN HAS GONE UPTO 6 R S.3 047.77 LAC S IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. THIS MEANS THERE ARE FRESH BORROWING IN THE PRESENT YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF SECURED LOAN AND THERE IS FRESH INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.59.23 LAC S AND MOREOVER THERE IS LOSS IN THE PRESENT YEAR OF RS.335.91 LAC. NO DOUBT THERE IS INCREASE IN THE SH ARE CAPITAL OF RS.2 CRORE FROM RS.9.50 CRORE TO RS.11.50 CRORE BUT SUCH INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL IS LESS THAN LOSS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND HENCE SUCH INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES. T HEREFORE IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT ONLY INTEREST BEARING FUND WAS USED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND THEREFORE THE FINDING OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS REASONABLE THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IS NOT ACCEPTAB LE. HENCE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT DOES NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE. 7.2 THE SECOND JUDGMENT CITED BY THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF BALRAMPUR CHI NI MILLS LTD. VS. DY CIT (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE ALSO THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IS ON THE SAME PREMISE THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED ANY FINDING THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THEY ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH TH E CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE CLAIM MADE BY ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. IN THE PRESENT CASE WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT H E IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE ALSO WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED THAT THERE WAS FRESH BORROWING IN THE PRESENT YEAR ON WHICH INTEREST WAS PAID AND FRESH INVESTMENT IS THERE AND THEREFORE THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME. HENCE THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION IS ALSO NOT RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE. 7 7.3 THE THIRD JUDGMENT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS HERO CYCLES LTD . (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED WAS 2004 - 05 I.E. BEFORE THE INSERTION OF RULE 8D AND THEREFORE THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT RELEVANT NOW IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 RULE 8D HAS BEEN INSERTED IN I.T. RULES 1962 . T HEREFORE THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 7.4 THE NEXT JUDGMENT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS SUZLON ENERGY LTD. (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE THE DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS ON THE BASIS THAT THERE IS FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF ITS OWN AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT AND THIS IS NOT THE ASSERTION OF LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING OWN FUNDS TO COVER THE INVESTMENT MADE. IN FACT THERE IS FRESH INVESTMENT IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND THERE IS FRESH INTEREST BE ARING BORROWING AND THE LOSS IN THE PRESENT YEAR IS MUCH MORE THAN THE INCREASE IN THE SHARE CAPITAL AND THEREFORE IN THE PRESENT CASE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE INTEREST FREE FUND WAS AVAILABLE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT. THEREFORE THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS NOT RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE. 7.5 THE LAST JUDGMENT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERS AND CH EMICALS LTD. (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED WAS 2004 - 05 I.E. PRIOR TO INSERTION OF RULE 8D AND MOREOVER IN THIS CASE IT IS NOTED BY HON'BLE 8 GUJARAT HIGH COURT THAT THE ONUS WAS DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE INVEST MENT FROM WHERE DIVIDEND HAS BEEN RECEIVED WAS OUT OF ASSESSEES OWN FUND AND NO BORROWED FUND WAS USED. IN THIS CASE NO SUCH STATEMENT HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OR BEFORE US TO ESTABLISH THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS OUT OF ASSESSEES OWN FUND AND NO BORROWED FUND WAS USED. THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. AS PER ABOVE DISCUSSION WE HAVE SEEN THAT NONE OF JUDGMENT S CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE. W E HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF SPECIAL BENCH OF DELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (SUPRA) IN WHICH THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY (SUPRA) HAS BEEN FOLLOWED. HENCE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 1 IS REJECTED. 9. REGARDING GROUND NO. 2 LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS WHICH WERE MADE BEFORE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) AS PER PARA 6.3 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: - THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE VOUCHERS & BILLS FOR CASH EXPENSES TO VERIFY THEIR GENUINENESS. HOWEVER NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED DURING THE PROCEEDINGS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT RS.3 29 935/ - WERE MADE AS EXPENDITURE IN RESTAURANT & RS.4 515/ - & RS.26 662/ - WERE MADE IN CASH IN OFFICE MAINTENANCE & STA FF WELFARE HEAD. I AM IN AGREEMENT 9 WITH ADDITION MADE BY A.O AS NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED TO ME TO JUSTIFY THE SAME. THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 11. WE FIND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ON THE BASIS THAT FROM THE SCRUTINY OF THE DETAILS FILED IT IS NOTICED THAT THESE EXPENSES OF RS.30.57 LAC UNDER THE HEAD OFFICE MAINTENANCE AND RESTAURANT EXPENSES INCLUDES EXPENSES OF PURCHASE OF GENERAL ITEMS & R OUTINE ITEMS AND SOME OF THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN CASH ON SELF - MADE VOUCHERS WHICH ARE NOT OPEN TO COMPLETE VERIFICATION. THESE DISALLOWANCES ARE ON THE BASIS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE ARE NOT VERIFIABLE BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT QUANTIFIED THE AMOUNT OF CASH EXPENSES FOR WHICH VOUCHERS ARE NOT A VAILABLE AND WHAT IS THE AMOUNT OF SUCH VOUCHER AND WHAT IS THE NATURE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE WHICH ARE ON THE BASIS OF SELF - MADE VOUCHERS. HENCE IT IS SEEN THAT THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE WITHOUT EVEN POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE FOR WHICH N O SUPPORTING IS AVAILABLE ALTHOUGH THE SAME WAS SUPPOSE D TO BE AVAILABLE. HENCE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION SUCH AD HOC DISALLOWANCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE THEREFORE DELETE THIS DISALLOWANCE AND ALLOW THIS GROUND. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 8 /1 1 /2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R. I.T.A.T. LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR