ACIT CIR 25(3), MUMBAI vs. RUKMINI IYER, MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja (Accountant Member):

2 Rukimini Iyer Ltd. dated 09.07.2012, decided against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘AO’) u/s 143(3) of the Act. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced below:

“(1) "On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the AO. to delete the addition of Rs 94,05,029/- made by the AO. on account of commission paid on sales while the assessee has not deducted tax at source u/s.195 of the I.T. Act and remitted to the Govt. account. This amount is even otherwise disallowable u/s4O(a)(i)(A) of the I.T. Act." (2) "On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the AO. to delete the addition of Rs 78,48,442/- made on account of inflating the amount of as the assessee failed to reconcile the balances with supporting evidence." (3) "On the fact & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred i directing the AO. to delete the addition of Rs 1,31,77,941/- made on account of ceased liability as much as the ass see failed to produce any confirmation from the parties in respect of credits." (4) "The appellant prays that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on the above grounds b set aside and that of the AO be restored." (5) "The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground."

2.1 Ground no.1: In this ground, Revenue has challenged the action of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.94,05,029/- made by the AO on account of commission paid on sales, on the ground that assessee did not deduct TDS u/s 195.

3 Rukimini Iyer Ltd.

2.2. The brief facts, as culled out from the orders of lower authorities, are that the assessee is the proprietor of M/s. P. P. International, which is a merchant exporter of pharmaceutical products. It was noticed by the AO that the assessee had debited an amount of Rs.94,05,029/- towards commission on sales, and that the entire amount had been paid to person residing outside India. The AO asked the assessee to submit the proof of payments made to such persons. In reply, the assessee submitted that the same were actually in the form of discounts which would be provided as and when payments would be received from parties to whom sales have been made by the assessee, and that the same was a kind of provision for discount, kept in the form of commission. It has been mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee did not submit any proof for having transferred the amount, and therefore, the assessee was asked to explain as to why the entire commission debited to P & L A/c should not be disallowed as not actual expense is incurred and no payments are likely to be made. In view of these facts, it was held by the AO that since no justification has been submitted till the date of passing of the assessment order, therefore, assessee’s claim of commission on sales to the tune of Rs.94,05,029/- was not allowable and therefore, it was added to total income of the assessee, by the AO.

2.3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein, detailed submissions were filed

4 Rukimini Iyer Ltd. by the Assessee, and these are reproduced herein for the sake of ready reference:

“The assessee has declared sales of Rs.10,58,45,983/- during the relevant assessment year and has debited an amount of Rs.94,05,029/- as commission on sale in the profit & loss A/c. The commission has been debited in respect of only the following parties as under-

Name of the Party Sales Comission Hil Drugs/Hoodie Investment Ltd. 5,07,98,951/- 40,05,279/- Lapharco 42,39,548/- 4,70,953 Onell Pharma 1,51,95,879/- 31,33,175 Enertis Sarl 30,33,044/- 13,77,164/- Medilab Dakkar Nil 2,70,553/- Dailo Bailo Nil 101773/- Virend International Nil 46132/- Total 7,32,67 94,05,029/-

The amount has not been paid by the parties till date. Further in case of Medilab Dakkar, Dailo Bailo and Virend International the commission amount of Rs. 4,18,458/- is actually bad-debt but wrongly claimed as commission. These amounts are not received so far by appellant. This error will not affect the profit position as both commission or bad debt are allowable expenditures. c) The assessee had offered a trade discount on sales to the above referred parties, and booked the entire sales in profit & loss a/c to show higher sales to the bank for obtaining loan from them. Further, we had to maintain the projected sales, as submitted to the bank, while obtaining the credit facilities. The commission is in fact is a Trade

5 Rukimini Iyer Ltd.

Discount, which was to be deducted from sales, but has been debited to profit & loss alc as commission. d) The facts can be verified from the statement of discount and supporting documents attached therewith as stated in the point (b) above, e) The assessee is consistently following the mercantile system of accounting and the liability existing at the year end, has been properly booked as expenditure. f) The assessee relies on the following judgments in support of his claim – i) CIT v Associated Electrical Agencies {2004} 266 ITR 63 (Mad.) The claim has to be judged in the light of commercial expediency. As such if the payment is made out of commercial expediency, despite there was no legal compulsion, the same is allowable. ii) Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v Their Workmen [1969J 73 ITR 53 (SC) Accrued but undischarged liability must be allowed under mercantile system. It was held by the Supreme Court that in case of assessee maintaining his accounts on mercantile system, a liability already accrued, though to be discharged at a future date, would be a proper deduction while working out the profits and gains of his business, regard being had to be accepted principles of commercial practice of accountancy. It is not as if such deduction is permissible only in case of amounts actually expended or paid. Just as actual receipts as well as those accrued due are brought in for 6 Rukimini Iyer Ltd.

Income Tax assessment, so also liabilities accrued due would be taken into account while working out the profits and gains of the business. iii) Mysore Lamp Works Ltd [1990J 1851TR 96 (Kar) . 52 Taxman 260 (Kar). Expenditure which is deductible for Income tax purposes is one which is towards a liability actually existing at the time but the putting aside of money which may become expenditure on the happening of an event is not expenditure. g) The Discount is given only to these customers as mentioned In earlier paragraph. These parties are new parties with whom the business has been carried-out from the A Y 2007-08, for the first time and continued during the relevant assessment year. We are enclosing the copy of ledger a/c of these parties i) Hoodie Investment / HIL Drugs ii) Oneill Pharma iii) Lapharco iv) Enertis SarI v) Medilab Dakkar Kindly note that The AR of Assessee has submitted the detailed chart indicating the deduction of Discount by these patties in the Financial Year 2008-09, which included the amount provided for the relevant assessment year. Further Note that the product supplied to these parties ale totally different, from the sales made to other parties, hence comparison in rate cannot be made.

7 Rukimini Iyer Ltd.

In view of above we request you to allow the amount of Rs. 94, 05, 029/- as commission/discount, as it is ascertained liability deducted in subsequent year from the payment made to the appellant by the customers and the accrual method of accounting consistently followed by the appellant. h) In the A. Y. 2007-08 also the A. O. has disallowed the Commission / Discount on Sales stating the similar grounds/reasons, which your goodself has allowed vide order dated 26/07/2010. The Copy of the Order is attached herewith. I) In the A.Y. 2008-09 also the A.O. has disallowed the Commission/Discount on Sales stating the similar grounds/reasons which your goodself has allowed vide order dated 03.02.2010. The copy of the order is attached herewith. In view of above we request you to allowed the expense on Trade Discount on sales amounting to Rs.94,05,029/- which is wrongly termed as commission on sales, considering the commercial expediency, accrual method of accounting consistently followed by the assessee and the case laws as cited above.”

2.4 The Ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the Assessee as well as observations made by the AO in the assessment order. Ld CIT(A) accepted the argument of the assessee that the amount of Rs 94,05,029/ was an ascertained liability and was accordingly allowable to the 8 Rukimini Iyer Ltd. assessee in view of the accrual method of accounting, consistently followed by the assessee. It was found by Ld CIT(A) that considering the entire facts of the case, claim of the assessee was accepted in the appeal order dt. 26.07.2010 for A.Y 2007-08 passed by predecessor of Ld CIT(A). Similarly, the assessee's submissions were accepted in subsequent A.Y.2008-09 vide appeal order dt 03.02.2012. It was held by him that facts and situation remaining the same, there were no reasons to differ with earlier orders, and accordingly, disallowance of Rs 94,05,029/ was deleted.

2.5 During the course of hearing before us, it has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee that the issue involved in this ground is covered by the orders of Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee own cases for A.Ys.2007-08 & 2008-09, and copies of these orders have been enclosed in the paper book. It was requested that there is no change in facts, and position of law remains the same and therefore, the orders of earlier years should be followed to maintain consistency and harmony.

2.6. On the other hand, Ld. DR argued on behalf of the department as submitted that AO was justified in making additions and therefore, additions should be confirmed. But with respect to the orders of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in earlier years, nothing was submitted by the Ld. DR so as to distinguish the same, on facts or law.

9 Rukimini Iyer Ltd.

2.7. We have considered submission made by both the sides, orders of the lower authorities and material placed before us as well as orders of the Tribunal of earlier years. The issue involved herein is that whether the amount of commission expenses debited by the assessee is allowable in the given facts and circumstances or not. The grievance of the Ld. AO was that the assessee was not able to show that expenses incurred were accrued and crystallized during the year. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the orders of earlier years passed by his predecessors to decide this issue in favour of the assessee. It is noted that this issue has reached up to Tribunal, wherein in both the assessment years i.e. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09, the orders of Ld. CIT(A) have been confirmed, by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue on this issue. It is noted that in A.Y.2007-08, the tribunal in its order dated 09.04.2014, in has examined this issue in detail. The relevant para of the Tribunal containing relevant observations is reproduced below:

the AO was not correct. It is not disputed that alleged commission at rate of 12% of the sales was in fact a discount on sales. It is obvious that the purchaser would pay the sale price after deducting the discount given on the sale of the product. So far the question of accrual of the liability during the year under consideration is concerned, it may be noted that the sales in question were booked by the assesseee during the year. As and when the sales were booked by the assessee, at the same time the discount payable against those sales was also to be booked along with the sales. So the moment the sales along with discounts are booked, the liability to pay or the right of the purchaser to deduct the discount accrues. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the impugned additions. This ground of the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed.

2.8. Similarly in A.Y.2008-09 the Tribunal has decided this issue in favour of assessee vide order dated 1.06.2015 in wherein the order of A.Y. 2007-08 has been followed by the Tribunal.

2.9. We have considered these orders as well as the material placed before us. As stated above, nothing has been brought before us to distinguish the orders of earlier years on facts or law. Therefore, factual and legal position remaining same, following the orders of earlier years, we find that no interference is called for in the order of Ld. CIT(A), and 11 Rukimini Iyer Ltd. therefore same is hereby confirmed. Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.

3. Ground No. 2: In this ground the Revenue has challenged the action of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.78,48,442/- made by the AO on account of any inflating the amount of sundry creditors. The brief facts in respect to this ground are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO, on the basis of inquiries made by him, noted in the assessment order that there was difference between the balance of sundry creditors (two parties) as per the amount shown in the books of accounts and as per the confirmation received from the said three parties, aggregating to Rs.78,48,442/- the details of difference noted by the AO is reproduced herein below:

Name of the Party Amount (in Rs.) Amount (in Difference shown in the Rs.) as per Balance Sheet the reply received 1 2 3 2-3 Yash Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 41,69,178 36,87,693 4,81,485 Lyka BDR International Ltd. 1,40,39,775/- 1,24,97,324 15,42,451 Globela Pharma Pvt. Ltd. 71,97,284 13,72,778 58,24,506 The assessee submitted reconciliation statement before the AO explaining the difference but the AO was not satisfied with the 12 Rukimini Iyer Ltd. explanation of the assessee and therefore, addition was made by him.

3.1 Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein it was submitted that the aforesaid parties are genuine, which shall be evident from the notices issued by the department and response received from these parties. The assessee also submitted reconciliation statement for explaining the different between the two balances, as was intimated by the AO. But, without pointing out any discrepancies or doubt in the mind of AO with regard to the reconciliation statement, the AO arbitrarily added alleged difference of Rs.78,48,442/-. The assessee made payment to these suppliers through account payee cheques. The bank statements were made available to AO and no discrepancies were pointed out therein by the AO. The purchases from these suppliers were also shown in the VAT return filed by the assessee, their corresponding sales were also shown in the VAT return and VAT Audit Report submitted by the assessee. The copies of VAT returns and VAT Audit Report were submitted to the AO. No discrepancies were pointed out by the AO, either in purchase or in sales. The entire purchases done by the assessee were exported, since the assessee has done hundred percent exports sales. No defects were pointed out in the quantitative details submitted by the assessee. It was submitted that it was impossible to export the goods without purchases, and that these were duly supported by custom and excise clearance and bills of lading. Exports proceeds were 13 Rukimini Iyer Ltd. received in foreign currency in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee also submitted product wise details of opening stock, purchases, sales and closing stock. It was also submitted that in the case of M/s.Globela Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the assessee had opened two ledger accounts in the books of accounts, one showing debit balance and other showing credit balance. The AO did not examine both the ledger accounts, and that is how the reasons for difference could not be understood by him.

3.2 Ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee as well as complete material available on record and deleted the disallowance made by the AO, by giving detailed reasoning in para 6.3.1 of its order.

3.3 Before us, Ld. DR has relied upon the assessment order and Ld. Counsel has relied upon the detailed findings of Ld. CIT(A) given in the appellate order for deleting the disallowance made by the AO.

3.4 We have gone through the submissions made by both the sides, and orders of lower authorities and material placed before us for our consideration. It is noted that AO had added the amount of difference without properly verifying the facts and the material placed before him. In our considered view, the assessee has discharged its primary onus by submitting requisite evidences. But Ld. AO made half cooked inquiries only and did not exercise his powers available under the law to clear his doubts, nor did he confront any of his doubts to the 14 Rukimini Iyer Ltd. assessee. We feel, if AO would have acted fairly by putting across all his queries to the assesse, the assessee would have explained all the doubts there and then. The disallowance was made by the AO by overlooking evidences and factual material placed by the assessee before the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) has appreciated these documentary evidences and facts and circumstances of the case in right prospective. It has been held by the Ld. CIT(A) that the AO could have issued show cause notice before making the addition or asked for the additional proof in writing which he failed to do so. It was contended that in case of Globela, there was debit as well as credit balance appearing in assets side and Liability side of Balance Sheet which is clearly mentioned in reconciliation statement submitted by the assessee. Further the Balance Sheet along with schedules was also available on record with AO. Similarly reconciliation statement was duly submitted in respect of Lyka and Yash but it was not taken cognizance by A.O. After making consideration of facts of the case and in the absence of material on record to the contrary, it was held by Ld CIT(A) that the claim of tile assessee was justified, particularly when assessee’s business is 100% exports and all purchases were made as per specification of export order. The purchases and sales quantities were duly reconciled. All sales were duly supported by custom clearance and bill of ladings, and payment to parties were made by account payee cheques. Under these circumstances, the question of unexplained creditors could not arise. These creditors were regular parties having normal business transactions. It was further noted by 15 Rukimini Iyer Ltd.

Ld CIT(A) that the transactions with these parties by the assessee continued in subsequent assessment year also, and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination the amount under consideration could not be treated as ceased liability. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the judicial pronouncements, the CIT(A) agreed with the explanation of assessee in respect of reconciliation of balance with these three creditors and directed the AO to delete addition. We find that the findings of Ld. CIT(A) are correct as per law and fact and no interference is called for therein, thus order of Ld. CIT(A) is confirmed and Ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.

4. In Ground No. 3: In this Ground, the Revenue has challenged the action of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.1,31,77,941/- made by the AO on account of ceased liability.

4.1 The brief facts are that during the course of assessment proceedings the AO issued notice to following two parties :-

(i) M/s. Themis Medicare Ltd. (ii) Arul Selvi In absence of response from these two creditors, it was presumed that this is a case of ceased liability and accordingly the closing balance of these two parties was added as income.

16 Rukimini Iyer Ltd.

4.2 The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), where detailed submissions were filed, and these are produced hereunder for ready reference:

M/s. Themis Medicare Ltd. Rs.97,77,941/- and Arul Selvi Rs.34,00,000/- para 4.2 of Assessment order u/s.40(a)(ia)

This inappropriate addition has been made under wrong section of Income Tax Act, which is not applicable in respect of transactions with these parties. Hence the addition is void ab-initio. However we are making our submission under protest and without prejudice, as under:

The A.O. issued notice u/s 133(6) to this party. However the notice duly served to Themis Medicare Ltd and no response was received from the above parties, as soon as the matter was brought to notice of assessee, she accordingly telephonically informed the parties to respond to notices of A.O. still the parties did not respond. The Appellant states that the A.O. had all the power to summon them and in case of default, penalize. But without utilizing his own powers as provided in the Income-tax Act the A.O. simply concluded the amount payable to these parties as ceased liability u/s 40 (a)(ia). There is no fault of appellant. It is further submitted that the A.O. has inherent power under the provisions of Income Tax Act such as section 131, 133, 272A( 1), 272A(2) etc. which are not exercised by A.O. The assessee has no power under any Law to 17 Rukimini Iyer Ltd. compel third par y to produce them before A.O. but can only make request. The request was duly made to suppliers on telephone to meet the requirement of A.O. The AO did not bother to send reminder to these parties & penalized them for their non co-operation. Themis has deliberately not cooperated with the department as they have issued legal notice to appellant & also sent letter to assessee that unless their payment is made they will not confirm the balances. We have attached the advocate notice & email reply received from Themis as evidence. Further appellant has made payment of Rs.11500000/- in subsequent year. It manes total outstanding of Rs.97,77,941/- as on 31.03.2009 has been paid. The copy of ledger account of financial year 2009-10 attached herewith as evidences of subsequent payment. Hence there is no question of cessation of liability to this party. The notice sent to Arul Selvi was not served as appellant had given address available with her. But the issue is something else, which the AO has not understood. This transaction is not a revenue expenditure and was not debited to the Profit and Loss Account and therefore the AO was not justified in adding the same. For the sake of clarification, the Appellant also re-affirms that She has purchased shares of M/s. Shree Makaleswar Plastics Pvt. Ltd. From Ms. Arul Selvi, the amount shown as payable to Arul Selvi Rs.34,OO,OOO/- is against the purchase of Shares of M/s. Shree Makaleswar Plastics Pvt Ltd, which 18 Rukimini Iyer Ltd. is shown as investment in the Balance Sheet. This amount has nothing to do with the regular business activity, this amount is payable against the purchase or Shares/Investments. The A.O. has not considered the facts and simply added this balance as ceased u/s 40(a)(ia). All the liabilities are genuine & payable in due course. We have made payments to them in subsequent period amounting to Rs.26,00,000/- The copies of ledger accounts of these parties are attached herewith which indicate that these amounts outstandings are subsequently paid, which was also produced before the AO during assessment stage. In both the above cases ,the A.O. did not give reasonable opportunity of being heard and also show cause notice before making addition as cessation of liability. Accordingly additions are not justified. As payment made to these parties in subsequent period clearly indicate the continuity of transaction and no cessation of any liability.

4.3. After considering the submissions of the assesse and perusing detailed factual material submitted before him, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by making detailed discussion in the appeal order in para 6.3.2., same is reproduced for ready reference:

In respect of Themis, AO has stated that notice u/s 133(6) was duly served, however the party failed to submit the confirmation and details sought for by AO. On 19 Rukimini Iyer Ltd. consideration of the facts, it is observed that appellant has no power under the Law but AO has inherent power's under various sections such as 131,133,272A( i ), 272A(2) etc. which were not exercised by him. Further The AR of appellant has explained that an amount of Rs.l,15,OO,OOO/- was already paid in subsequent A.Y .. This amount or Rs.l,15,OO,OOO/- is inclusive of Rs.97,77,941/- which was outstanding in Balance sheet as on 31.3.2009. This conduct of appellant indicate the genuineness of transaction between appellant & Themis. Moreover AR also pointed out during appellate proceedings that Themis has written mail to appellant clearly stating that they will not co-operate with appellant as some payments are outstanding which is against the law & rule of natural justice.

Themis has deliberately not cooperated with the Income Tax Department for which they need to be penalized. However the AO instead of penalizing Themis wrongly penalized appellant by adding amount of Rs 97,77,941/.Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the judicial pronouncements, the appellant's submission is accepted and, therefore, I direct the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs.97,77,941/-.

6.3.3. In case of Arun Selvi , it stated by AR that this amount does not pertain to purchases . It relates to purchase of shares of M/S shree 1akaleshwar plastics Pvt

20 Rukimini Iyer Ltd.

Ltd and amount outstanding as on 31.03.2009 was Rs.34,00,000/ out of which an amount of Rs 26,OO,OOO/ was paid in subsequent year. The notice served to them was returned unserved as party had changed address. But since out of Rs.34,OO,OOO/-, the appellant paid an amount of Rs.26,OO,OOO/- in subsequent A.Y. itself, therefore by no stretch of imagination, this amount could have become ceased liability in A. Y. 2009-10. Further, the balance outstanding was satisfactorily explained for having carried it over. I am of the considered view that the addition made by AO is unjustified and delete the addition of Rs 34,0,000/.

4.4. Before us the Ld. DR has relied upon the order of AO and the assessee has relied upon detailed findings of Ld. CIT(A), as reproduced above.

4.5. We have gone through rival contentions, orders of lower authorities and entire factual material placed before us for our consideration. In our considered opinion, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that liabilities with respect to aforesaid two creditors cannot be presumed to have ceased. The assessee has continued to acknowledge these liabilities in its books of accounts. These parties have also not denied existence of transactions with the assessee. There is no provision under the income tax law under which these credit balances, representing amount payable to the aforesaid parties, can be added as income of the assessee, in the given facts and circumstances of the case. We take support of our view from 21 Rukimini Iyer Ltd. the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Harayana High Court in the case of Sita Devei Juneja 325 ITR 593, and relevant observations from the judgment are reproduced below:

“3. Against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed appeal, which has been dismissed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, while observing as under: "It was for the Assessing Officer to show that the liabilities in question had ceased to exist. In fact, these liabilities were payable by the assessee and unless demonstrated, they were to be shown as outstanding. These liabilities were appearing in the assessee's balance- sheet, indicating acknowledgment of the debts payable by the asses see, as has been held in CIT v. Tamilnadu Warehousing Corporation [2007] 292 ITR 310 (Mad) and Ambica Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 54 ITR 167 (Guj). As such, these liabilities could not have been treated to have ceased and so, invocation of the provisions of section 41(1) was not at all called for. Moreover, as held by the hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works P. Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 518, the cessation of the liability can come about only by a bilateral act and not unilateral act. In the present case, the assessee treated the liability as existing. Further, section 41(1) of the Act provides for a deeming fiction, as per which an amount not having the nature of income is treated as income. That being so, the burden of proving the fiction is on the Department. Sans the discharging of this burden, the addition cannot be made. Here, the Assessing Officer has not made out any case of applicability of section 41(1). To attract section 41(1), there must exist a trading liability, in regard to which the deduction had been claimed and allowed. No such trading liability had been proved herein. The addition was clearly made on the basis of mere presumptions, conjectures and surmises. The Assessing Officer failed to show that in any earlier year, allowance of deduction had been made in respect of any trading liability incurred by the assessee, nor was it proved that any benefit was obtained by the assessee concerning such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof during the concerned year. There thus, did not accrue any benefit to the assessee which could be deemed

22 Rukimini Iyer Ltd. to be the profits or gains of the assessee's business which would otherwise not be the assessee's income. The assessment order, as such, is directly against the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief CIT v. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 434."

5. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and in our opinion, no substantial questions of law, as raised

23 Rukimini Iyer Ltd. by the Revenue in this appeal, arise from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.”

4.6. Thus, in view of the facts of the case before us and the clear position of law, we find that addition was illegal and factually incorrect and therefore, the same has been rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), no interference is called for threshing, therefore, same is confirmed and Ground No. 3 is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th October, 2015.