I.T.As. Nos.456/KB and 689/KB of 2003, decided on 30th January, 2004. VS I.T.As. Nos.456/KB and 689/KB of 2003, decided on 30th January, 2004., 2006 PTD-INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN 1586 (2004)

(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----Ss. 107AA, 107 & 156---Finance Ordinance (XXI of 2000), Preamble---Tax credit for investment---Assessing Officer disallowed the tax credit claimed under S.107AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 on the ground that unlike 5.107 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 there was no explanation available under S.107AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 whereby tax credit could not be extended to lease assets---First Appellate Authority allowed such tax credit---Department moved application under S.156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 before First Appellate Authority that unlike 5.107 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 no explanation was available for S.107AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 whereby the benefit could be given for lease assets---First Appellate Authority revised his order under S.156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, vacated its earlier order, and consequently restored the order of the Assessing Officer---Validity---In substance the entire arrangement was an investment, which the lease finance was only a methodology to acquire the assets---No distinction could be drawn between an asset, which was acquired through direct purchase or acquired through lease finance---For the purposes of S.107AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 no such distinction could be drawn---Order of First Appellate Authority allowing the credit under S.107AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 in respect of leased assets was absolute, as such same did not warrant interference---Departmental appeal and subsequent order of First Appellate Authority invoking S.156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 observing that benefit of tax credit under S.107AA was available only to those industrial undertaking which "invested and owned that plant and machinery" was annulled by the Appellate Tribunal---Appeal of assessee was allowed on the issue and departmental appeal lost its effect whereby same was dismissed being infructuous.

(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----Ss. 107, Explan. & 107AA---Tax credit for replacement, balancing and modernization of machinery or plant---Tax credit for investment---Provisions of S.107 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 are analogous to S.107AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; both sections deal with the availability' of tax credit pertaining to investment in plant and machinery---In explanation to S.107 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 the terms "amount" and "purchases of plant and machinery" have been defined in the. explanation thereto so as to extend the benefit to . investments made in machinery purchased through lease finance---Section 107AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 also uses the expressions "amount" and purchase of plant and machinery---Definition given in the Explanation to S.107 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 is to be extended to the same terms used in S.107AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; in other words, Explanation to S.107 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 will also fully apply to S.107AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Terms "amount" and "purchase of plant and machinery" used in S.107AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 will also include plant and machinery acquired through lease finance.

1990 PTD (Trib.) 463 rel.

(c) Interpretation of statutes---

----Para materia---Under the principles of para materia, words in two similar statutes or provisions have to be given similar/analogous connotation.

(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI,of 1979)---

----Ss. 107-AA & 107---Tax credit for investment---Key words in S.107-AA of the Income Tax ordinance, 1979 are "amount" and "purchase of plant and machinery", which are the same as in S.107 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979----Meanings in the two sections are to be interpreted para materia with each other; in other words, 5.107-AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 having same context as analogous to S.107 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 is to be interpreted in para materia with 5.107 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.

PLD 1966 Kar. 518; PLD 1966 Dacca 54; PLD 1979 SC (AJ&K) 74; PLD 1984 Kar. 472 and PLD 1989 Kar. 299 rel.

(e) Interpretation of statutes---

----Words defined in the Act are to be given same definition.

PLD 1974 Kar. 417 rel.

(f) Interpretation of statutes---

----Principles embodied in one section may reasonably be resorted to in construing any other similar provision of the same statutes. [p. 1594] F

(g) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

---Ss. 107-AA & 107---Tax credit for investment---Provisions embodied in S.107 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, whereby tax credit has been made available to purchase of assets through lease finance,, are also to be extended to S.107-AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, considering that both provisions are analogous and use same expression/terminology.

PLD 1980 SC 295; 1971 SCMR 657; PLD 1996 SC 324 and Mohammad Yahaya v. Messrs Valika Properties CP No.490 of 2002 rel.

(h) Interpretation of statutes---

----Explanation to section is only a clarification, calculated to remove doubts and not a substantive provision.

(i) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----Ss. 107-AA & 107---Tax credit for investment---Terms "amount" and "purchase of plant and machinery" had been defined through an explanation to 5.107 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 which was a clarification whereby the legislature, in its wisdom, had chosen to give such words the connotation/construction in the explanation and remove doubts---Explanation was in relation to the specific words---Same words having been repeated in S.107-AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 in context with being very similar and analogous to 5.107 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 were to be given the same meaning---Explanation was only classificatory and not a substantive provision and only removed doubts.

1981 PLC 566; PLD 1981 SC 1 and AIR 1991 Born. 196 and 199 rel.

(j) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----S. 107-AA---Tax credit for investment---Assets acquired through lease and buy back arrangements were, in substance, arrangements to acquire the property and the arrangement of lease rentals was just sham transaction---Real substance and not the form of the transaction had to be appreciated.

PLD 1966 Lahore 244; (1951) 20 ITR 9 (Pat.) and Tax Forum, Feb. 2002 ITAT rel.

(k) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----S. 107-AA---Tax credit for investment---Section 107-AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 did not exclude leased assets from its ambit.

(1) Interpretation of statutes---

----Whatever is not specifically prohibited/excluded shall be deemed to be permitted/included.

2000 YLR 2527 rel.

(m) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----Ss. 107-AA & 107---Tax credit for investment---Objective behind the enactment of S.107AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Intention behind the introduction of new section was to encourage the new investments and modernization by additional plant and equipments so as to encourage "Rapid Industrial Development"---Same was another favourable step forward with a view to introduce a provision to further facilitate tax credit, where investment in plant and machinery was made in furtherance to BMR either by balancing or modernization and replacement of machinery and plant---Both the objectives and contexts of S.107 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and S.107AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 conform and match with each other.

(n) Income Tax Ordinance'(XXXI of 1979)---

----Ss. 107-AA & 107---Tax credit for investment---Departmental point of view that S.107 & S.107AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 are not "one and the same" either if they were not para materia was discarded by the Appellate Tribunal. [p. 1596] 0

I.T.A. No. 2053/KB of 2002 rel.

(o) Interpretation of statues---

----Word defined in one statute used in similar connection in later statute should be presumed to carry the same meaning.

PLD 1966 SC 451 rel.

(p) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)

25(c)-Amounts subsequently recovered in respect of deductions, etc.---Excise duty payable---Deferred liabilities on account of excise duty was shown being trading liabilities of more than 3 years---Assessee explained that this issue had been pending before Supreme Court and requested to keep pending till final decision---Assessing Officer refused the same on the ground that this was a trading liability, the expense of which had been claimed in earlier years and the department had allowed this expenses, since then expense had not been paid till date and the time limit of three years had expired and whole amount was added under S.25(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Validity---First Appellate Authority deleted such addition by observing that there was no justification making addition because the Government had filed an appeal on the issue before the Supreme Court and the decision was awaited---Deletion was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal.

(q) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

?----S. 24(ft)---Deductions not admissible---Cash payments---Addition was made on the ground that total amount of expenses incurred in cash pertaining to entertainment, vehicle running, printing and stationery attracts the provisions of S.24(ft) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Validity---First Appellate Authority deleted such addition by observing that most of the expenses incurred were below statutory exemption limit, therefore, did not come within the ambit of S.24(ft) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Deletion was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal.

Aijaz Asad Rasool, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No.456/KB of 2003).

Dr. Muhammad Farough Naseem and Mushtaq Ahmed Vohra, FCA for Respondent (in I.T.A. No.456/KB of 2003).

Dr. Muhammad Farough Naseem and Mushtaq Ahmed Vohra, FCA for Appellant (in I.T.A. No.689/KB of 2003).

Aijaz Asad Rasool, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No.689/KB of 2003).

Date of hearing: 20th January, 2004.

ORDER

By this order we would prefer to decide the following appeals:--

(i) I.T.A. No. 456/KB of 2003 preferred by the Department being aggrieved and dissatisfied from the impugned order, dated 20-2-2003 passed by the learned CIT(A).

(ii) I.T.A. No. 689/KB of 2003 instituted at the instance of assessee against order, dated 31-3-2003 passed by the learned CIT(A) on the application for rectification of mistake under section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, preferred by the Department.

2. In the first appeal referred above to, the Department has taken objection to the order, allowing the credit under section 107AA of the Income Tax Ordinance in respect of leased assets and deleting the . additions; (i) excess perquisites Rs.200,100 under section 24(1), (ii) repairs and maintenance Rs.104,278, (iii) Vehicle Running Expenses Rs.503,328, (iv) Entertainment Expenses Rs.631,186, (v) Charity Expenses Rs.285,000, (vi) Excise Duty Payable Rs.13,388,106 under section 25(c), (vii) Cash Payment Rs.65,440 under section 24(ff) and " (viii) Depreciation Rs.453,566.

3. The assessee in his appeal has challenged the order, dated 31-3-2003 rectifying the earlier appellate order, dated 20-2-2003 passed under section 132 and maintaining the order passed by the DCIT. It is further prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) be cancelled/ modified and Judicial order be passed as deem fit.

4. The background leading to the present controversy regarding claim of tax credit is that the appellant assessee invested in the purchase of plan and machinery, whereas the finance involved was arranged through Messrs Askari Leasing Ltd. under sale and lease back arrangements under which the appellant was to sell the machinery to Askari Leasing thereafter the said machinery would be leased out to the appellant who paid the lease instalments and finally the appellant would buy-back the said machinery from the leasing company. The Assessing Officer disallowed the tax credit claimed under section 107AA to the extent of Rs.448,766 on the ground that unlike section 107 there was no explanation available under section 107AA whereby tax credit could not be extended to lease assets.

5. In first round of appeal the learned CIT(A) vacated the treatment given by the Assessing Officer and allowed tax credit under section 107AA. The Department being aggrieved and dissatisfied from the treatment preferred the departmental appeal referred above to. At the same time the Department moved application under section 156 before the learned CIT(A) that unlike section 107 no explanation was available for section 107AA whereby the benefit could be given for lease assets. Relying upon this, the learned CIT(A) revised his order under section 156, vacated its earlier order, and consequently restored the order of Assessing Officer in this regard. Against this, appeal has been preferred by the assessee. In the circumstances supra, the cross-appeals are to be decided by deciding the following issue on merits:--

"Whether the assessee can claim tax credit under section 107AA when this provision of the Ordinance does not contain any explanation as is available under section 107 wherein the benefit of tax credit has been extended to leased assets?"

6. Heard the learned representative of the two parties at length. Reference of the relevant law, however, before further discussion is made, would be necessary. Under section 107 of the 1979 Ordinance tax credit is available where an assessee company "invests any' amount in the purchase of plant and machinery for installation" within the period stipulated therein. Through an explanation thereto the terms "amount" and "purchase of plant and machinery" were defined to include any acquisition of machinery through lease. For convenience the explanation to section 107 is reproduced as below:--

"Explanation:--As used in this subsection:

(a) "amount" in case of plant and machinery acquired on lease, means the amount expended by the lessor in the purchase of the said plant and machinery; and

(b) "Purchase of plant and machinery" includes acquisition of plant and machinery on lease from a scheduled bank, a financial institution or a leasing company on such terms and conditions as may be approved by the Central Board of Revenue."

It is important to point out that the explanation to section 107was added through the Finance Act, 1986 while section 107-AA was added through the Finance Ordinance, 2000 which also, inter alia, uses the same terminology as section 107 i.e. where any assessee "invests any amount in the purchase of plant and machinery for installation" within a specified time limit. The key terms in both sections 107 and 107-AA are "amount" and "purchase of plant and machinery". It is submitted that section 107-AA does not contain any explanation but the explanation in section 107 can be used to interpret the terms contained in section 107-AA in view of the following analysis:--

(a) A Full Bench of this august Tribunal in 1990 PTD (Trib.) 463 while relying upon the Bank of Bahawalpur v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner PLD 1977 SC 164 and Iftikhar Ahmed v. President NBP PLD 1988 SC 534 has been pleased to hold the following:--

"where a term or phrase has been defined or assigned a definite meaning or definition in a section of statute then the same meaning/definition is to be assigned to that word or phrase, whenever it recurs in other section or provision of the statute where it is in consonance and fits in with the subject and context or the latter section or the provision."

These observations fully apply in the present circumstances. In the present case the provisions of section 107 are analogous to section. 107-AA. Both deal with the availability of tax credit pertaining to investment in plant and machinery. In the explanation to section 107 the terms "amount" and "purchases of plant and machinery" have been defined in the explanation thereto so as to extend the benefit to investments made in machinery, purchased through lease-finance. This definition has been given by the legislature. Section 107-AA also uses the expressions "amount" and "purchase of plant and machinery." Hence following the principle expounded in 1990 PTD (Trib.) 463 the definition given in the explanation to section 107 is to be also extended to the same terms used in section 107-AA. In other words, the explanation to section 107 will also fully apply to section 107-AA. Hence the terms "amount" and "purchase of plant and machinery" used in section 107-AA will also include plant and machinery acquired through lease-finance as in the present case;

(b) under the principles of para materia, words in two similar statutes or provisions have to be given similar/analogous connotation. The key words in section 107-AA are "amount" and "purchase of plant and machinery", which are the same as in section 107, hence the meanings in the two are to be interpreted para materia with each other. In other words, section 107-AA having same context as an analogous to section 107 is to be interpreted in para materia with section 107. The case-law relied upon in this context is hereunder:

PLD 1966 Kar. 518(b); PLD 1966 Dacca 54 (d); PLD 1979 SC (AJ&K) 74 (b); PLD 1984 Kar. 472 (d) and PLD 1989 Kar. 299 (b)

(e) words defined in the Act are to be given that definition:-

PLD 1974 Kar 417(c)

(d) another extension of the above principle is that the principles embodied in one section may reasonably be resorted to in construing any other similar provision of the same statute. In the present case, the provisions embodied in section 107, whereby tax credit has been made available to purchase of assets through lease-finance, are also to be extended to section 107-AA, considering that both provisions are analogous and use same expression/terminology:

PLD 1980 SC 295; 1971 SCMR 657(c); PLD 1996 SC 324 at pages 530 and 531; Muhammad Yahaya v. Messrs Valika Properties C.P. No.490 of 2002.

(e) even otherwise the explanation is only a clarification, calculated to remove doubts and not a substantive provision. In the present I case the terms "amount" and "purchase of plant and machinery" have been defined through an explanation to section 107. In other words, it is a clarification whereby the legislature in its own wisdom has chosen to give such words the connotation/ construction in the explanation and remove doubts. Explanation is thus in relation to the specific words. The same words having been repeated in section 107-AA in context with very similar and analogous to section 107 are to be given the same meaning. For the points that an explanation is only classificatory and not a substantive provision, and only removes doubts. The relevant law in this context relied upon is hereunder:--

1981 PLC 566 (iv); PLD 1981 SC 1 at page 10; AIR 1991 Bom. 196 at pages 198 and 199

(f) even otherwise assets acquired through leased and buy back arrangements are in substance arrangements to acquire the property and the arrangement of lease rentals is just as sham transaction. It is an elementary principle of tax laws that real substance and not the form of the transaction has to bell appreciated:

PLD 1966 Lahore 244 (a); (1951) 20 ITR 9 (Pat.) and Tax Form, Feb, 2002 ITAT

Section 107-AA does not exclude leased assets from its ambit. It is a settled proposition of law that whatever is not specifically prohibited/excluded shall be deemed to be permitted included:--

2000 YLR 2527 (c)

In the circumstances supra, we find that in substance the entire arrangement being an investment, when the lease-finance is only a methodology to acquire the assets, hence no distinction can be drawn between an asset, which is acquired through direct purchase or acquired m through lease-finance. As such for the purposes of section 107-AA no such distinction can be drawn and the order of the Assessing Officer and the revised order of the CIT Appeals ought to be annulled.

7. It is worth-mentioning that section 107AA has been brought about through the Finance Ordinance, 2000. The budget Speech, dated 17-6-2000 in this context also deals with the objective behind the production of section 107AA which is reproduced as below:--

"86. Encouragement of new investment and modernization of existing plant and equipment is critical for rapid industrial development. Under the investment policy a liberal first year allowance ranging from 40% to 80% is available to new industries. We are moving another step forward and introducing a provision for tax credit equal to 10% of investment in plant and machinery for new investments and investments for BMR made during two years starting from 1st July, 2000. This tax credit would be in lieu of the first year allowance, at the option of the taxpayer."

8. The contents of the Budget Speech leave no doubt and are crystal clear to show that the intention behind the introduction of new section is to encourage the new investments and modernization of additional plant and equipments so as to encourage "Rapid Industrial Development". In fact it is another favourable step forward with a view? to introduce a provision to further facilitate tax credit, where investment in plant and machinery is made in furtherance to BMR either if balancing modernization and replacement of machinery and plant. Thus both the objectives and contexts of 107 and 107AA conform and match with each other.

9. Before parting with the issue it would not be unaccustomed to point out that in appeal either if ITA No.2053/KB/2002 the departmental point of view that section 107AA of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 not "one and the same" either if they were not para materia has been discarded by another Bench vide ITA No.2053/KB/2002 through order, dated 27-2-2004 relying upon a case law reported as PLD 1966 Supreme Court P-451, wherein it is held that word defined in one statute used in similar connection in later statute should be presumed to carry the same meaning. In the circumstances supra we are of the considered opinion and find that the order of the learned CIT(A), dated 20-2-2003 allowing the credit under section 107AA in respect of leased assets is absolute, as such does not warrant interference. Consequently the departmental appeal and subsequent order of learned CIT(A), dated 31-3-2003 invoking section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance observing that benefit of tax credit under section 107AA is available only to those industrial undertaking which "invested and owned that plant and machinery" is annulled. As a result thereof the appeal preferred by the assessee bearing ITA No.689/KB/2003 stands allowed on this issue, accordingly departmental appeal lost its effect whereby dismissed being infructuous.

10. So far as the additions are concerned, we dispose off the same as under:--

(I)??????? EXCESS PERQUISITES:

11. Since the assessee did not make any adjustment for excess perquisites under section 24(1) in computation of income filed, therefore, other employees as per note 25.1 only the Chief Executive and Directors were allowed excess perquisites to the extent of Rs.200,100 as against the last years figures of Rs.124,715, hence the Assessing Officer added back Rs.200,100 to total income. However, the learned CIT in appeal deleted the addition made under section 24(1) of Rs.200,100 for the reason that the audited accounts on record have been persuaded. Perquisites allowed are within 45% of basic pay, hence deleted. The reasons assigned by the learned CIT(A) seem to be reasonable thus maintainable, therefore, the action of learned CIT(A) in this regard is maintained.

(II)?????? REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE:

12. The assessee has claimed Rs.417,113 as compared to the claim of Rs.931,256 made in the preceding year. The Assessing Officer keeping in view the history, of the case disallowed the claim to the extent of 25% and added-back the same to income of the assessee i.e. Rs.104,278. The assessee challenged the add-back before the learned CIT(A) who deleted the addition for the reasons that all the payments are made against duly approved bills. Further, payments are made through cheques. He however, observed that not a significant instance of unverifiability has been pointed out, hence no add-back can be made without Show-Cause Notice, therefore, it is deleted. We therefore, find no reason to interfere with the action of learned CIT(A). The deletion of addition is hereby confirmed.

(III) VEHICLE RUNNING EXPENSES:

13. In this regard it is noted that in the preceding year the claim was made at Rs.1,359,535 out of which 25% was disallowed. At the assessment stage details and justification of the increase in claim were furnished. It was noted that vehicles were allowed to be used to senior staff and also remained in their personal use. However, the Assessing Officer considering the facts available on record as well as the history of the case, disallowed 25% of the claim and a sum of Rs.503,338 was added-back to profit being excessive and for non-business use as per history of the case. The assessee however, agitated the add-backs before the learned CIT(A) who deleted the same by observing that all the payments were made against duly approved bills and through cheques. He also noted that not a single instance of unverifiability was pointed out by the Assessing Officer. The deletion made by the learned CIT(A) appears to be justified, hence it is maintained.

(IV) ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES:

14. As regards the entertainment expenses, the Assessing Officer added-back an amount of Rs.631,180 to the total income of the assessee because evidences were not adduced. In appeal before the learned CIT(A), this addition was deleted for the reasons that all the payments were made through cheques and not a single instance of unverifiability was mentioned. The action of the learned CIT(A) in this regard seems to be reasonable, hence it is upheld.

(V)?????? CHARITY EXPENSES:

15. Since the payments were made to approved and non-approved institutions, therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.393,750 out of total claim. However, in appeal the learned CIT(A) deleted the same by observing that the amount is directly deductible and evidence of payment attached because out of Rs.393,750, an amount of Rs.285,000 was paid to APTMA for Draught Relief Fund. The learned CIT(A) is justified in his action, hence the deletion is sustainable in law, which is confirmed.

(VI) EXCISE DUTY PAYABLE:

16. In this respect it is observed that an amount of Rs.13,388,106 was shown as deferred liabilities on account of excise duty. Being trading liabilities of more than 3 years, the assessee was confronted on this issue for addition under section 25(c). In reply thereof the assessee contended before the Assessing Officer that this issue had been pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and requested to keep pending the issue till final decision. The Assessing Officer having examined the reply and after perusing the circumstances, refused the same by observing that this is a trading liability, the expense of which have been claimed in earlier years and the department has allowed this expense. Since this expense had not been paid till date and the time limit of three years has expired, therefore,. the whole amount of Rs.13,388,106 was added under section 25(c). The assessee challenged this addition before the learned CIT(A) who deleted the same by observing that there is no justification in addition made under section 25(c) because the Government of Sindh has filed an appeal on the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision is awaited. Since cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned CIT(A), that the excise duty on loans is payable to Banks, therefore, the deletion is upheld.

(VII) CASH PAYMENT:

17. Since the expenses incurred in cash pertaining to entertainment, vehicle running, printing and stationery, therefore, the total amount attracts the provisions of section 24(ft), as such an addition of Rs.65,440 was made. The learned CIT(A) deleted this addition by observing that most of the expenses incurred are below statutory exemption limit, therefore, do not come within the ambit of section 24(ft). The action of the learned CIT(A) appears to be forceful, hence we do not find reasons to interfere in his action whereby the deletion is confirmed.

(VIII) DEPRECIATION:

18. The addition of Rs.452,266 made by the Assessing Officer was deleted by the learned CIT(A) for the reasons that no legal basis for arbitrary addition was made. He also observed that the appellant is a public limit company, motor vehicles have been provided to staff as per terms of the employment. He further observed that motor vehicles have been used wholly and solely for the purpose of business, the cars are used in pool, same are in use of all employees. Since the expenses were incurred for the business of assessee, therefore, the addition was rightly deleted by the learned CIT(A). This action of the learned CIT(A) is justified. Hence confirmed.

19. No other grounds are pressed.

20. The upshot of the above is, "the appeal of the assessee as well as the Department are disposed off in the manner indicated above".

C.M.A./512/Tax (Trib.)??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.