Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Amit ShuklaDr. B. R. R. Kumar
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the orders of ld. CIT(A)-3, Delhi dated 18.05.2018 and 21.05.2018.
Since, the issues involved in all these appeals are identical, they were heard together and being adjudicated by a common order. to 5348/Del/2018 2 Dawat Foods Ltd. Deduction u/s 80IB(11A):
The assessee is a domestic company engaged in the integrated business of handling, processing, storage and transportation of food grains i.e. paddy and rice and thereafter selling the same in the domestic and overseas market. The assessee company claimed deduction u/s 80IB(11A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.”xxxx” during the relevant assessment year.
The company had set up the undertaking in the A.Y. 2008- 09 at Industrial Area, Mandideep, Madhya Pradesh. The main contention of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80IB(11A) is that the predominant activity of the assessee is milling/de-husking of paddy, which does not constitutes a ‘manufacturing activity’, and is beyond the scope of Section 80IB(11A) and that the activity of storage and transportation undertaken by the assessee are only incidental to the main manufacturing activity off the assessee. It is also a matter of record that the similar addition has been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) for the A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11.
At the outset, it was submitted that the aforesaid issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in assesse’s own case for the A.Y. 2009-10 in wherein the Tribunal, following the order of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of a group company, LT Foods Ltd. for the A.Y. 2007-08 in ITA No. 4046/Del/2013, allowed deduction claimed u/s 80IB(11A) of the Act and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. to 5348/Del/2018 3 Dawat Foods Ltd. The relevant findings of the Tribunal, is extracted hereunder:
“24. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Section 80IB (11A) of the Act mandates that the undertaking of the assessee should be engaged in an ‘integrated business’ and the assessee has demonstrated before us that the combining or coordinating of the three elements i.e. handling, storage and transportation of food grains is harmonious interrelated as whole activity and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(11A) of the Act. The decision in case of Dilip Kumar (Supra) held that exemption notification should be interpreted strictly; the burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of the exemption clause or exemption notification. When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject/assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue. In the present assessee’s case, the assessee has demonstrated that the assessee fulfilled the parameters of the exemptions. Besides this, in case of Group company of assessee i.e. L T Foods Ltd. for A.Y. 2007-08 in the Tribunal on identical facts allowed deduction claimed under Section 80IB (11A) of the Act. The Tribunal held as under:
“53. As we have stated above, we will have to test the expression “handling ”, occurring in section 80IB(11A) of the Act on the touchstone of the object sought to be achieved through such incentive, namely, achieving the enhanced food security by way of greater efficiency in the grain management system by minimizing the post-harvest food grain losses. It is an undeniable fact that traditionally pounding was the way in which the paddy was converted to the form of rice by separating the husk and brawn. It is also common knowledge to 5348/Del/2018 4 Dawat Foods Ltd. that in that process there used to be quantitative and qualitative losses, caused by the breaking of the grains etc. By de-husking the paddy and converting it into rice, no new article is brought into existence which is qualitatively different from the inputs, but is the simple process of de-husking the paddy to obtain the rice. This conversion meets the objective of minimizing the post-harvest losses which would lead to the greater efficiency of the food grain management system and consequently to the enhanced food security. In Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors. CA No. 3327 of 2007 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while interpreting the taxing statutes, the applicability of the section has to be seen in strict sense, and once the section is found to be applicable, then it has to be constructed liberally. Since undoubtedly the provisions of section 80IB(11A) of the Act are applicable to the activities of the assessee like clearing, steaming, soaking, drying, polishing and grinding it can also be not denied that de-husking the paddy would significantly enhance the life of the food grain, thereby reduces the loss of food grain and contributes to the preservation of food grains. In such an event, we are unable to understand how this particular process does not fit in the expression “handling”. For these reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the de-husking of the paddy to convert it into rice is also an integral part of reducing the post-harvest food grain loss.
“63. We, accordingly find that the assessee cannot be denied the deduction under section 80IB(11A) of the Act either in respect of the activities conducted by the assessee to meet the demand of the section, namely, deriving income from the integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of food grains or for non-compliance with the conditions depleted to 5348/Del/2018 5 Dawat Foods Ltd. under Section 80IB(2) of the Act. We do not find anything illegality are regularity either in the reasoning or the conclusions reached by the Ld. CIT(A) on this aspect, and while confirming the same find the grounds number 1 to 3 of Revenue’s appeal devoid of merits and reliable to be dismissed.”
Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim of deduction under Section 80IB(11A) of the Act. It is pertinent to note that all the conditions which have been stipulated in the statute have been fulfilled i.e. all the three activities of handling, storing and transportation have been undertaken on an integrated basis by the assessee. Thus, Ground No. 3 to 5 of Revenue’s appeal are dismissed.
In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal for the Revenue is dismissed.”
For the sake of completeness, the detailed findings of the Tribunal rendered in the case of LT Foods Ltd. for the A.Y. 2007-08 in [Refer pages 20 to 54 of the PB] is extracted hereunder:
In para 28 to 36, the Tribunal discussed the intent for introduction of deduction under section 80IB(11A) of the Act and held as under:
“34. On a careful understanding of the above, we also have no hesitation to hold that the beneficial provisions of section 80IB(11A) of the Act was introduced to encourage the development of infrastructure facilities in the private sector in the direction of integrated transaction of transportation, handling and storage aiming at the enhanced food security by to 5348/Del/2018 6 Dawat Foods Ltd. way of acquiring greater efficiency in the grain management system and minimizing the post-harvest food grain losses. There is a purpose of providing incentive to the private operators to create and enhance the infrastructural facilities in handling, storage and transportation in respect of food grains is stretching the financial food security through acquiring greater efficiency in the grain management system and minimize the postharvest food grain losses.
As a matter of fact, after referring to the provisions under section 80IB(11A) of the Act, the speech of the Finance Minister, CBD to circular number 14 of 2001 and also the discussion made in the Sampat Iyengar’s law of income tax 10th edition, learned Assessing Officer observed that the purpose behind the enactment of section 80IB(11A) of the Act was enhanced food security, because a large quantity of food grains was rotting in the country every year because of inadequate storage facility, and that to enhance food security and agricultural development, upgradation and modernization of infrastructure for storage, handling and transportation of food grains in order to minimize the post-harvest food grain losses by creating infrastructure, therefor.
In this context, it is not out of place to note the observations of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Shankar K. Bhanage 25 taxmann.com 310, to the effect that the literal interpretation of words "integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of food grains" will not lead to any absurdity or produce any manifestly unjust result; that the Legislative intent is not to encourage transportation or to 5348/Del/2018 7 Dawat Foods Ltd. handling of food grains but the Legislative intent is to encourage construction of godowns and warehouses with a view to providing storage of food grains. If we consider the entire combat of the scheme relating to the tax holiday provided by the Legislature, we find that the deductions are available under various provisions when the assessee has contributed something towards the infrastructure development of the country, but the main purpose of bringing this provision is construction of godowns specifically for stocking food grains for greater efficiency in the grain management system and minimize post- harvest food grain losses.”
Thereafter, in para 39 to 43, the Tribunal examined the activities undertaken by LT Foods Ltd. in the integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of food grains and observed as under:
“39. In this context, it is necessary to look at the activities conducted by the assessee in their integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of the food grains in furtherance of the above object of enhancing the food security by achieving the greater efficiency in the grain management system and minimizing the post-harvest food grain losses. If the unit of the assessee at Bahalgarh strives to achieve these objectives, it would certainly be entitled to the benefit of deduction under section 80IB(11A) of the Act. We are of the considered opinion that for this purpose we will have to keep it in mind that the incentive is provided for the integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of food grains with this particular avowed object and, therefore, there shall to 5348/Del/2018 8 Dawat Foods Ltd. not be any compartmentalization of these activities for the purpose of allowing the deduction.
It could be seen from the record that the activities of the assessee include purchasing and transporting paddy, storing paddy, processing the Paddy into rice, handling the Paddy during these processes and thereafter selling the rice in the domestic and overseas markets; that the assessee had set up an undertaking for handling and storage of the food grains and that apart from de-husking of the paddy for the purpose of rice, such processing/handling/ storage/ transportation involves the cleaning, steaming, soaking, drying, polishing, grinding and thereafter packing and marketing; that such processes done by the assessee on the paddy and enhance the life of the food grain , significantly reduces loss of food grain and significantly contributes to agricultural development of this product; and that all these activities are part of the treatment of paddy which is in essence de-husking the rice and treatment carried out by the assessee are part of the agricultural operations and both the rice and ask continue to remain food grain and continue to remain agricultural products.
Orders of the authorities below made reference to and extracted the legal opinion given by Shri PorusFerrack Kaka. The activities of the assessee with reference to which the legal opinion was given clearly establishes /corroborate the said fact only. According to assessee, they are conducting all the necessary activities from collection of the Paddy from the fields/mandi till they are made ready for human consumption by placing them in the markets, and more particularly, avoiding to 5348/Del/2018 9 Dawat Foods Ltd. the losses in threshing and winnowing by better mechanical methods, following sanitation during drying, milling and after milling to avoid contamination of grains and protect from insects, rodents and birds, using proper technique of processing i.e. cleaning, parboiling and milling, adopting the grading practices to get more profit and to avoid the economic losses, and using efficient and good packaging for storage, as well as in transportation, by investing more than Rs.30 crores for setting up of the eligible unit and for this purpose advanced machinery with improved technology was installed for efficiently handling food grains and to avoid any post-harvest losses, developed huge storage capacity to handle paddy stock of more than 1,50,000 Metric Ton (MT) and 70,000 MT of rice in order to bring efficiency in the grain management system and incurring significant expenditure to facilitate transportation of food grains by way of acquiring trucks, tractors and trolleys and has also hired trucks for the purposes of carrying food grains from the farmers and mandis to its storage blocks and thereafter to the markets, followed by upgradation and modernization of infrastructure for handling of food grains in order to bring greater efficiency in the storage and grain management system and minimize post-harvest food grain losses. Assessee also brought it to the notice of the learned Assessing Officer that the special auditors in the report at pages number is 30 and 31 part II volume 5 observed that the condition that the assessee should be engaged in the business of handling, storage and transportation of food grains was fulfilled.
Revenue does not dispute any of the activities carried by the assessee or installing the machinery Per treatment and to 5348/Del/2018 10 Dawat Foods Ltd. processing of the Paddy, setting up of storage facilities or hiring of trucks for transportation of the Paddy from the fields/Mandi to the storage and treatment facility and, rice from there to the markets. In fact, the assessing officer made a remark in the assessment order that simply because some part of the assessee’s business coincides with the part of the provision, he cannot be allowed to take benefit of something which was never the intention of the legislature. It goes without saying that the activities like collection of the paddy from the fields/mandi till they are made ready for human consumption by placing them in the markets, and more particularly, avoiding the losses in threshing and winnowing by better mechanical methods, following sanitation during drying, milling and after milling to avoid contamination of grains and protect from insects, rodents and birds, using proper technique of processing i.e. cleaning, parboiling and milling, adopting the grading practices to get more profit and than Rs.30 crores for setting up of the eligible unit and for this purpose advanced machinery with improved technology would coincide with the provision.”
In para 44 to 49, the Tribunal dealt with the meaning of expression ‘Handling’ and held that the activities involving cleaning, steaming, soaking, drying, polishing, grinding etc. clearly fall within the expression “handling” as contemplated under section 80IB(11A) of the Act by observing as under:
“44. While there is no problem in understanding the expressions like storage and transport, the expression “handling” has to be understood in the context of the integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of food grains. According to 5348/Del/2018 11 Dawat Foods Ltd. to the Ld. DR handling answers certain description were according to the assessee their activities fitting the description of handling. In the absence of any legislative clarification as to precisely which activities would amount to handling, and when the meaning of handling is a lefty to be interpreted context surely, it is necessary to meet some concreteness on this aspect as against imagination. No doubt the activities enumerated by the Ld. DR too answer the description of handling in the context of food grains under section 80IB(11A) of the Act, is necessary that in order to be eligible to claim the benefits under section 80IB(11A) of the Act, whether the assessee is required to install all such facilities or such facilities at suit the convenience of the assessee while meeting the avowed object of 80IB(11A) of the Act would entitle the assessee to claim such benefit is the mute question.
In plain English handling includes any process not amounting to manufacture of the treatment of the product with a view to deal with the same to achieve a desired purpose. In a sense it includes all the activities preparatory and axillary in nature. Merely because the word processing is occurring in 80IB(11A) of the Act in respect of the fruits or vegetables, it does not exclude all the processes from meaning of “handling”. As stated supra, there are various steps involved in minimizing the post-harvest losses as per the recommendations of the Agricultural Marketing Information Network. If we exclude the specific activities like storage and transport, all other activities which are preparatory, axillary and sundry in nature, but in furtherance of the avowed object of better grain management and minimizing the post-harvest losses to achieve food security to 5348/Del/2018 12 Dawat Foods Ltd. would naturally fall within the category of handling otherwise, such an expression will remain redundant. It cannot be said that the intermediary processes undertaken by the assessee in clearing, steaming, soaking, drying, polishing and grinding besides de-husking the paddy would significantly enhance the life of the food grain , reduces the loss of food grain and contributes to the preservation of food grains. If those activities do not answer the description of handling, we wonder what would be handling. The word has to be understood in its contextual sense and merely because the learned assessing officer does not agree with the assessee to include the milling of the paddy is covered by “handling”, it does not take away the other activities from the meaning of handling, so long as such activities keep nexus with the objective for which the benefit is intended. Whether or not the de-husking of paddy would form part of the handling, we shall deal with it a little later. In our opinion, the activities carried out by the assessee certainly form part of the expression “handling.”
The Tribunal wondered that if the facilities created by the assessee are not in the nature of handling and storage then which activities would fall in that category and answered that these activities have to be classified as handling and storage etc. because if the meaning was restricted only to creating of stores then legislature would have made the deduction available in case of warehousing facilities then instead of using the expression 'the integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of food grains' the deduction would have been provided 'for the business of modern warehouses' which has not been done. In such circumstances, while reaching the to 5348/Del/2018 13 Dawat Foods Ltd. conclusion that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80IB(11A) of the Act, the Tribunal made a reference to the case of L.T. Overseas (P.) Ltd for the assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06 in which case the deduction under section 80IB(11A) of the Act was allowed to the assessee who was conducting the activities which were identical to the activities conducted by the assessee in the case of Laxmi Energy (supra) and the assessee before us.
For that matter, Ld. DR admitted during the course of arguments while dealing with this alternative prayer for remand of the matter to the file of learned Assessing Officer that the facts involved in Laxmi energy (supra) are identical to the facts involved in the case on hand, in respect of the activities of the assessee. It is therefore, clear that the assessees who were conducting the business similar to the one done by the assessee in this case, were found entitled to the benefit under section 80IB(11A) of the Act and such a view is consistent so far. Without mincing many words, while following the ratio of those cases, we are of the considered opinion that the activities involving the cleaning, steaming, soaking, drying, polishing, grinding etc. are covered by the expression “handling” and the assessee is certainly conducting such activities which would entitle to the benefit of deduction under section 80IB(11A) of the Act.”
In the subsequent paras 50 to 53, the Tribunal held that de- husking of the paddy to convert it into rice is an integral part of reducing the post-harvest food grain loss as it enhances life of food grain and reduces the loss of food grain and contributes to to 5348/Del/2018 14 Dawat Foods Ltd. the preservation of food grains. The relevant observations of the Tribunal are reproduced as under:
“53. As we have stated above, we will have to test the expression “handling”, occurring in section 80IB(11A) of the Act on the touchstone of the object sought to be achieved through such incentive, namely, achieving the enhanced food security by way of greater efficiency in the grain management system by minimizing the post-harvest food grain losses. It is an undeniable fact that traditionally pounding was the way in which the paddy was converted to the form of rice by separating the husk and brawn. It is also common knowledge that that in that process there used to be quantitative and qualitative losses, caused by the breaking of the grains etc. By de-husking the paddy and converting it into rice, no new article is brought into existence which is qualitatively different from the inputs, but is the simple process of de-husking the paddy to obtain the rice. This conversion meets the objective of minimizing the post- harvest losses which would lead to the greater efficiency of the food grain management system and consequently to the enhanced food security. In Commissioner of Customs(Import) vs. Dilip Kumar and Company & Othrs CA No. 3327 of 2007 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while interpreting the taxing statutes, the applicability of the section has to be seen in strict sense, and once the section is found to be applicable, then it has to be constructed liberally. Since undoubtedly the provisions of section 80IB(11A) of the Act are applicable to the activities of the assessee like clearing, steaming, soaking, drying, polishing and grinding it can also be not denied that de-husking the paddy would significantly to 5348/Del/2018 15 Dawat Foods Ltd. enhance the life of the food grain, thereby reduces the loss of food grain and contributes to the preservation of food grains. In such an event, we are unable to understand how this particular process does not fit in the expression “handling”. For these reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the de-husking of the paddy to convert it into rice is also an integral part of reducing the post-harvest food grain loss."
On the basis of the aforesaid findings and reasoning, the Tribunal allowed the claim of deduction under section 80IB(11) of the Act by holding as under:
63. We, accordingly find that the assessee cannot be denied the deduction under section 80IB(11A) of the Act either in respect of the activities conducted by the assessee to meet the demand of the section, namely, deriving income from the integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of food grains or for non-compliance with the conditions depleted under section 80IB (2) of the Act. We do not find anything illegality are regularity either in the reasoning or the conclusions reached by the Ld. CIT(A) on this aspect, and while confirming the same find the grounds number 1 to 3 of Revenue’s appeal devoid of merits and reliable to be dismissed.
In view of the aforesaid, it was respectfully submitted that the CIT(A) has righty allowed the claim of deduction under section 80IB(11A) of the Act and we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). to 5348/Del/2018 16 Dawat Foods Ltd. Disallowance U/S 14A:
The assessee, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, received income amounting to Rs.2,03,13,535/- as share of its profit in partnership firm namely M/s. Ragunath Agro Industries, Amritsar. The said income was claimed as exempt under section 10 of the Act in the return of income.
In the impugned assessment order, the assessing officer made disallowance of Rs.36,87,907/- u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule,1962 (‘the Rules’) as under: - Disallowance of direct expenditure - Nil - Disallowance of interest expenditure - Rs.31,73,824 - Disallowance of administrative expense (by considering total investments) - Rs.5,14,083/- Findings of CIT(A)
It was submitted that similar disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act in the case of M/s LT Foods Ltd, a group company, in respect of share of profit received from a partnership firm was deleted in toto by the Tribunal in vide order dated 30.09.2020 by holding as under:
“95. We have gone through the record, in the light of the submissions made on either side. It could be seen from the assessment order, vide paragraph number 11, there were made the report of the special auditor as the basis for the disallowance, special auditor worked out the total disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules at rupees, 41, 80, 208/-, but in view of the provisions of section to 5348/Del/2018 17 Dawat Foods Ltd. 14A of the Act, he restricted the disallowance to the exempt income and determined the same at Rs.18,18,915/-. Nowhere in the order, the Assessing Officer had considered the accounts of the assessee as to what could have been the expenditure, that has to be allocated for earning the exempt income.
Even otherwise, we find strength in the ornament of the Ld. AR that in order to avoid the double taxation once in the hands of the firm and secondly in the hands of the partner, the share in the profits of the partnership form is not taxable in the hands of the partner as has been held by the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sudhir Kapadia VS. ITO in of 2013, which was followed in the case of Hamid A Moochhala VS. ACIT in ITA No. 2218/Mum/2010.
Further, there is no denial of the fact that as on 31/3/2006 and 31/3/2007, the capital and free reserves of the assessee were Rs. 60, 92, 50, 784/- and Rs.1,19,99,27,510/- respectively as against the investment in the partnership form on 31/3/2006 and 31/3/2007 stood at Rs.3,49,55,937/-and 3,67,57,562/- only and therefore, it cannot be said that any borrowed funds could have been utilised to make such investment incurring any interest expenditure.
Viewing from any angle, we did not find any ground to sustain addition made under 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. Such an addition is, therefore, is directed to be deleted. Ground number 17 is accordingly allowed.” to 5348/Del/2018 18 Dawat Foods Ltd. 12. In view of the aforesaid, it was submitted that there was no warrant to make disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the case of the assessee.
It was also submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2009- 10 in restricted the disallowance u/s 14A by directing the assessing officer to consider only those investments from which exempt income was earned during the year as against total investments appearing in the balance sheet. It may however be pertinent to note that the aforesaid decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of LT Foods was not at all considered by the Tribunal. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is extracted hereunder:
11. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. In the present case, the satisfaction is recorded while invoking Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. But the Assessing Officer considered exempt income earned as share in profit from partnership firm for the purpose of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The investments was made out of own funds and not borrowed funds and therefore, the assessee has not made any disallowance out of interest expenditure. The Ld. AR’s contentions that under Rule 8D (2)(iii), what is disallowable is an amount equal to V2 percentage of the average valu e of investment, the income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, is right. Therefore, as per the chart given by the Ld. AR, at the time of hearing, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the same and thereafter restrict the disallowance to Rs. 23,264/- to 5348/Del/2018 19 Dawat Foods Ltd. only if the contentions of the assessee are found correct, otherwise proceed according to the provisions of Income Tax Act and Rules. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Ground No. 8 and 9 are partly allowed for statistical purpose.
On going through the record, we hold that the assessee is not liable for any disallowance on interest as no interest bearing funds have been utilized for the purpose of making investment. Since, the share of profit from the partnership is mere distribution of income which is already been taxed, hence the provisions u/s 14A are not attracted in such case. Further, we also affirm the principle of no disallowance is called for where there is no exempt income earned. The AO is directed to re- compute the disallowance, keeping in view the guidelines mentioned above.
Prior period Expenses (A.Y. 2012-13)
The assessee had debited a sum of Rs.8,79,356/- on account of prior period expense to the profit and loss account which was claimed as deduction while computing the taxable income for the relevant assessment year.
The aforesaid amount comprised of excess input tax receivable of Rs.8,16,068/- and bank processing charges of Rs.63,288/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed prior period expenses aggregating to Rs.8,79,356/- on the grounds that they do not relate to the relevant previous year. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. to 5348/Del/2018 20 Dawat Foods Ltd.
The relevant facts are that the aforesaid expenditure was duly claimed as deduction in the computation of income as the same were business expenditure incurred in the ordinary course of running the business and allowable revenue deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. Further, in so far as bank processing charges of Rs.63,288/- is concerned, the processing charges was accounted and charged by the bank during the relevant assessment year only, but the assessee inadvertently debited the same into prior period expenses.
In view of the above, the disallowance of prior period expenses is being deleted in toto.
In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 22/10/2021.