D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 3(1), MUMBAI v. M/S. ASIAN ELECTRONICS LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 6612/MUM/2008 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 661219914 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AABCA0832C
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 6612/MUM/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 3(1), MUMBAI
Respondent M/S. ASIAN ELECTRONICS LTD., MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 09-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 09-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 03-02-2010
Next Hearing Date 03-02-2010
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 14-11-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA J.M. AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT A.M. SL.NO. ITA NO. AY 01 6612/M/08 2002-03 02 6656/M/08 2001-02 03 6657/M/08 2004-05 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX APPELLANT CIRCLE 3(1) ROOM NO. 607 6 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI 400 020. VS. M/S ASIAN ELECTRONICS LTD. RESPONDENT 144 MEHRNAZ CUFFE PARADE COLABA MUMBAI 400 005. (PAN AABCA 0832C) APPELLANT BY : MR. R.N. JHA RESPONDENT BY : MR. H.N. MOTIWALA ORDER PER A.L. GEHLOT A.M.: THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE PERTAIN TO ONE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF CIT(A)- XXVII MUM BAI PASSED ON 25.08.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 2001- 02 & 2004-05. SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEAL S THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND THEREFORE THE SAME ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. 1 ST COMMON GROUND IN ALL THE THREE YEARS IS THAT THE C IT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF LEASE RENT MADE BY THE AO. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO NO TICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RS. 2 56 27 263/- IN AY 2002-0 3 AS DEDUCTION ITA NOS. 6612 6656 & 6658/M/08 ASIAN ELECTRONICS LTD. 2 IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINE D BEFORE THE AO THAT THE LEASE RENTALS ACCRUED AND PAID DURING THE YEAR THOUGH NOT CHARGED TO THE P&L A/C HAD BEEN CLAIMED AS DEDUCTIO N. THE SAID LEASE RENTALS PAID IN RESPECT OF ASSETS WHICH HAVE BEEN G IVEN ON LEASE BUT NOT COMMISSIONED DURING THE YEAR/NOT STARTED GIVING REVENUE TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE PAID LEASE R ENTALS TO THE FINANCE COMPANY ON THE ITEMS LEASED OUT DURING THE YEAR. HOWEVER ACCORDING TO THE SUB-LEASE AGREEMENT WITH VARIOUS E LECTRICITY BOARDS THE LEASE RENTALS WOULD BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE LEASE AGREEMENT COMES INTO EFFECT OR THE ASSETS INSTALLED UNDER THE CONTRACT WERE COMMISSIONED AND STARTED EARNING LEASE RENTALS FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE AO FOLLOWED HIS EARLIER DISCUSSION IN AY 1999-2 000 AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) FO LLOWED THE ORDER OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 1997-98 AND 1998 -99 IN ITA NOS. 3599/MUM/02 AND ITA NO. 3600/MUM/02 DATED 04.04.200 8 AND DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 4. AT THE OUTSET THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THI S ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF I TAT FOR AY 2003-04 IN ITA NO. 2653/MUM/08 DATED 02.06.2009. 5. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSING THE RE CORD AS WELL AS GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF ITAT WE FIND THAT THE ITAT IN AY 2003-04 (SUPRA) UPHELD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN DCIT VS. M/S ASIAN ELECTRONICS LTD. IN ITA NOS. 3599/MUM/02 AND 3600/M UM/02 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98 AND 1998-989 DATED 04.04.2 008. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY T HE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL SUPRA WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 9 OF ITS ORDER HAS HELD AS UNDER:- ITA NOS. 6612 6656 & 6658/M/08 ASIAN ELECTRONICS LTD. 3 9. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS A ND GONE THROUGH RECORD CAREFULLY. THE AO HAS NOT DOUBT ED THE TRANSACTION. HIS EXPECTATION IS THAT ASSESSEE SHOUL D HAVE SHOWN CORRESPONDING INCOME TO THE EXPENSES. ACCORDI NG TO THE ASSESSEE IT HAS INCURRED EXPENSES OVER THE INCO ME IN THE INITIAL YEARS BUT ULTIMATELY IT EARNED PROFIT F ROM THIS TRANSACTION. IT IS A SETTLED POSITION THAT FOR ALLO WING BUSINESS EXPENSES IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE BUSI NESS SHOULD HAVE PRODUCED CORRESPONDING INCOME. THE EXPE NSES IS TO BE ALLOWED IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THEY ARE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. IN THIS CASE THE O BJECT AND THE INCURRENCE OF EXPENSES IS NOT IN DOUBT. THE LD . CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE WITH ALL POSSIBLE ANGLE AN D TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION HIS FINDING RECORDED IN PARA 7.4 AND 7.5 WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN IT. THEREFORE THIS GRO UND IN BOTH THE YEARS IS REJECTED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE BROUGH T ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SUPRA DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AND ACC ORDINGLY THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED. 5.1 SINCE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN THE CASE UNDER CON SIDERATION TO THAT OF 2003-04 WE RESPECTFULLY THE ORDER OF ITAT IN TH AT YEAR AND IN THE LIGHT OF THAT WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. 6. THE 2 ND GROUND FOR AY 2002-03 AND 2001-02 IS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON ADVANCE GIVEN TO SUBSID IARY COMPANY. 7. THE AO DISALLOWED INTEREST OF RS. 10 62 460/- IN AY 2002-03 AS THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN ADVANCE TO SISTER CONCERN AM OUNTING TO RS. 75 89 694/- WITHOUT CHARGING INTEREST. THE CIT(A) D ELETED THE SAID ADDITION OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SHA RE CAPITAL RESERVES AND SURPLUS AMOUNTING TO RS. 125 73 29 000 /-. SIMILAR IS THE CASE IN AY 2001-02. THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING OW N SHARE CAPITAL RESERVES AND SURPLUS OF RS. 142.39 LAKHS AS AGAINS T ADVANCES GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERN OF RS. 53.48 LAKHS. ITA NOS. 6612 6656 & 6658/M/08 ASIAN ELECTRONICS LTD. 4 8. AT THE OUTSET THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2003-04 IN IT A NO. 2246/M/2008 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.07.2009. 9. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSING THE RE LEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF ITA T IN AY 2003-04 WE FIND THAT THE ITAT REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 2.2 WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING PROPORTIONATE D ISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IN RELATION TO THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCE G IVEN TO THE SISTER CONCERN. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT HAD S UFFICIENT OWN CAPITAL AND FREE RESERVES FOR MAKING INTEREST FREE ADVANCES. BUT THIS IN ITSELF IN OUR VIEW IS NOT ENOUGH TO SHOW TH AT THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES HAD BEEN GIVEN OUT OF OWN FUND. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT ON THE DATE OF GIVING ADVANCE S SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DEMONST RATED BEFORE US. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE RE JECTED. HOWEVER WE ACCEPT THE ALTERNATE PLEA OF THE ASSESS EE THAT ISSUE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY IN THE LIGHT OF HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN CASE OF SA BUILDERS (SUPRA) REQUIRES EXAMINATION . IN CASE THE ADVANCES HAD BEEN GIVEN ON COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY T HEN INTEREST COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS HELD IN THE SAID CASE. W E THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO FOR PASSING A FRESH ORDER AFTER NECESSARY EXAMINATI ON IN THE LIGHT OF JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF S.A. BUILDERS (SUPRA) AND AFTER ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING T O THE ASSESSEE. 9.1 SINCE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF AY 2003-04 CITED SUPRA WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW T HE ORDER OF ITAT IN THAT YEAR AND IN THE LIGHT OF THAT WE REMIT THE MAT TER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH IDENTICAL DIRECTIONS AS GIVEN BY ITA T IN 2003-04. 10. THE OTHER INDEPENDENT GROUNDS RAISED IN AY 2004 -05 ARE DECIDED AS UNDER:- 11. THE 2 ND GROUND RAISED IN AY 2004-05 IS IN RESPECT OF DELET ION OF DISALLOWANCE OF PAYMENT OF PF MADE AFTER THE DUE DA TE. ITA NOS. 6612 6656 & 6658/M/08 ASIAN ELECTRONICS LTD. 5 12. THE AO DISALLOWED RS. 1 61 503/- BEING CONTRIBU TION OF EMPLOYEES PF DEPOSITED ON 16 TH DECEMBER 2003. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMOUNT OF PF WAS PAID WITHIN GRACE PERIOD. 13. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF TH E PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COV ERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E AO AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF RE VENUE IS DISMISSED. 14. GROUND NO. 3 IN AY 2004-05 IS AGAINST THE DELET ION OF DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 95 28 00 0/-. 15. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TH E AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOM E IN WHICH CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF AGAINST SHARE PREMIUM AMOUNT NOT CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN EARLIER YEARS. THE AO FURTHER NOTED TH AT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) READ WITH SECTION 36(2) DEDUCTION OF BAD DEBTS SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY IF THE SAME HAD BEE N TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN ANY EARLIER YEAR AND IT SHOULD BE WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN TH E ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE NATURE OF BAD DEBT. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDER:- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND ALSO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I HAVE NOTED THAT THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT ON THE GROUND THAT BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED THAT THE SE DEBTS HAVE BECOME BAD ON THE BASIS OF DECISIONS MENTIONED IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN DCIT VS. OMAN INTERNATI ONAL BANK SAOG [100 ITD 285] WHEREIN THE DECISIONS MENTIONED BY THE AO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE AO HAS HIMSELF OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AMOUNT IS IRRECOVERABLE FROM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD TO WHOM ASSETS WERE ITA NOS. 6612 6656 & 6658/M/08 ASIAN ELECTRONICS LTD. 6 LEASED. I HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT LEASE INCOME WAS OFF ERED TO TAX ON ACCRUAL BASIS IN EARLIER YEARS. FURTHER IN ORDER T O CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)9VII)- 1. THERE MUST BE A DEBT. 2. DEBT MUST BE INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OR PROFE SSION OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. DEBT MUST HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUT ING ASSESSABLE INCOME. 4. DEBT MUST HAVE BEEN WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE NOTED THAT ALL THE ABOVE SITUATIONS AND FULF ILLMENTS OF CONDITIONS ARE SEEN IN THE APPELLANTS CASE WHILE C LAIMING DEDUCTION OF BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 95 28 000/- . AS SUCH THE APPELLANTS CLAIM IS FOUND BONAFIDE AND THEREFO RE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO RS. 95 28 000/- IS DELE TED. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT T HE BAD DEBTS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS IN RESPECT OF DEBTORS ON A CCOUNT OF OUTSTANDING LEASE RENT. THE LEARNED AR DREW OUR ATT ENTION TO PARA 5 AT PAGE 4 OF AOS ORDER POINTING OUT THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION OF THE AO: ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FILED IT IS SEEN THAT TH E DEBTORS ARE MAINLY STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDS. 16.1 ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE OBSERVATION THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HIMSELF HAD ACCEPTED THE DEBTORS WERE MAINLY STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. THE AOS OBJECTION WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO GIVE ANY SPECIFIC REASON FOR NOT TAKING EFFORTS FOR RECOVERY. 17. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN CLEA R FINDING ABOUT THE NATURE OF DEBTS WHEREAS THESE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN CREDITED IN P&L A/C IN EARLIER YEARS OR NOT. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IN PRINCIPLE WE AGREE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AS HE HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF ITAT SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITA NOS. 6612 6656 & 6658/M/08 ASIAN ELECTRONICS LTD. 7 OMAN INTERNATIONAL (SUPRA) WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRME D BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. BUT WE FIND THAT FACTS O F THE ISSUE ARE NOT CLEAR NEITHER FROM THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIE S AS TO WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF BAD DEBTS. IN ONE PLACE THE AO OBSERV ED FROM THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DEBTORS ARE MAINLY F ROM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND IN CONCLUSION HE HELD THAT THERE IS NO CL ARITY OF THE NATURE OF DEBTS AND THESE AMOUNTS HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN CREDI TED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE CIT(A) TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- THE APPELLANT BEFORE ME SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE Y EAR THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED BOMBAY HIGH COURT ORDER DATE D AUGUST 18 2003 IN RESPECT OF SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT OF ASI AN ELECTRONICS COMPONENTS LTD. AND THE APPELLANT AS PE R THE SAID SCHEME A SUM OF RS. 2638.85 LACS WERE ADJUSTED AGAI NST THE SHARE PREMIUM ACCOUNTING STANDING AT RS. 4839.69 LA CS WHICH INCLUDED RS. 95.28 LACS TOWARDS BAD DEBTS. THE DETA ILS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD. NOW THE AO HAS NOT ALLOWED BAD D EBTS OF RS. 95 28 000/- ON THE GROUND THAT- A) BAD DEBTS WERE WRITTEN OFF AGAINST SHARE PREMIUM ACCOUNT; B) APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE EFFORTS FOR RECOVERY OF T HE SAME AND C) BAD DEBTS IS TO BE ALLOWED ONLY IF THE DEBTS HAD BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN EARLIER YEARS. 18.1 WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND AS TO HOW THAT AMOUNT OF BAD DEBTS OF RS. 95.28 LACS WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST SHARE PREMIUM ACCOU NT STANDING AT RS. 4839.69 LACS AS PER THE SCHEME ARRANGEMENT OF A SIAN ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS LTD. APPROVED BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 18 TH AUGUST 2003. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE NOT CLEAR WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE TO VERIFY THE NATURE OF BAD DEBTS AND DECID E THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ABOVE DECISION OF OMAN INTERNATIONA L LTD.(SUPRA) AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSES SEE. 19. GROUND NO. 4 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF DISALLO WANCE OF PROVISION OF WEALTH TAX WHILE CALCULATING THE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. ITA NOS. 6612 6656 & 6658/M/08 ASIAN ELECTRONICS LTD. 8 20. THE AO WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115J B ADDED THE PROVISION OF WEALTH TAX RS. 85 000/-. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE CALCULATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB BEFORE THE CIT (A). THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND HELD AS UNDER:- .THE APPELLANT STATED THAT EXPLANATION (A) TO SUB- SECTION (2) TO SEC. 115JB DOES NOT REQUIRE DISALLOW ANCE OF PROVISION TO WEALTH TAX. IT IS STATED THAT PROVISIO N FOR WEALTH TAX IS NOT AN ITEM FOR DISALLOWANCE AS ENUMERATED IN SE C. 115JB. IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT RELIED ON THE DECISION O F DCIT VS. INDIAN CONTAINER LEASING CO. LTD. [ITA NOS. 1485 A ND 1486/CAL/2002] 288 ITR(80)64. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APP ELLANT AND ALSO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I HAVE NOTED THAT PR OVISION FOR WEALTH TAX IS NOT AN ITEM ENUMERATED IN SEC. 115JB FOR DISALLOWANCE. HENCE THE AMOUNT IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADDED WHILE CALCULATING THE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ADDITION IS THEREFORE DELETED. 21. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LEARNED AR POINTED OUT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT CALCUTTA BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. INDIAN CONTAINER LEASING CO. LTD. 288 ITR 64 (AT). WE FIN D THAT ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS THE ITAT IN THE SAID CASE HELD THAT U NDER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 115JB THERE WAS NO PROVISION FOR MAKING AD DITION WITH REGARD TO ANY PROVISION FOR WEALTH TAX ACT. THE PROVISION FOR WEALTH-TAX DOES NOT FALL WITHIN ANY OF THE ITEMS OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 115JB AND THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION WAS JUSTIFIED. SIN CE THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS COVERED BY THE AFORESAID DECISION OF ITAT WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THAT DECISION AND IN THE LIGHT OF THAT WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS COUNT. ITA NOS. 6612 6656 & 6658/M/08 ASIAN ELECTRONICS LTD. 9 22. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE P ARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010 SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER DATED: 9 TH FEBRUARY 2010 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) CONCERNED. 4) THE CIT CONCERNED. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE A BENCH I.T .A.T. MUMBAI. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASST. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T. MUMBAI. KV S.NO. DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 04.02.10 SR.P.S./P.S 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 08.02.10 SR.P.S/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./PS SR.P.S./P.S 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. P.S./P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S./P.S 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER