Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Himland Agro Foods Ltd., Chandigarh vs Dcit, Chandigarh on 17 January, 2017
I N T H E I N C O M E T A X AP P EL L AT E T R I BU N A L
D I VI S I O N B EN C H , C H AN D I G A R H
BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA Nos.743,745 to 747/CHD/2013
A.Ys: 2005-06, 2007-08 to 2009-10
M/s Himland Agro Foods Ltd., Vs The DCIT,
1054, Industrial Area, Central Circle-1,
Phase-2, Chandigarh. Chandigarh.
PAN: AAACH9406Q
&
ITA Nos.757 & 758/CHD/2013
A.Ys: 2008-09 & 2009-10
M/s Heera Moti Agro Products, Vs The DCIT,
199, HPSIDC, Industrial Area, Central Circle-1,
Baddi, Distt. Solan (HP) Chandigarh.
PAN: AACFH8098M
&
ITA Nos.751 & 752/CHD/2013
A.Ys: 2008-09 & 2009-10
M/s Hera Moti Healthcare Products Ltd., Vs The DCIT,
1054, Industrial Area, Central Circle-1,
Phase-II, Chandigarh. Chandigarh.
PAN: AAACH3744D
&
ITA Nos.569 & 570/CHD/2013
A.Ys: 2008-09 & 2009-10
M/s Hera Moti Spices Pvt. Ltd., Vs The DCIT,
1054, Industrial Area, Central Circle-1,
Phase-II, Chandigarh. Chandigarh.
PAN: AABCH4813J
2
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal
Respondent by : Shri Ravi Sarangal
Date of Hearing : 04.01.2017
Date of Pronouncement : 17.01.2017
O R D E R
PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM Thi s order shall dispose off all the above appeals fil ed by different assessees, ho wever, of connected group. Since identical issues arise in all the group appeals of different assessees, therefore, all appeals are decided as under.
2. We have heard ld. Representati ves of both the parti es and perused the material on record.
ITA 743/2013 ( A.Y. 2005-06) M/s Himland Agro Foods Ltd., Chandigarh
3. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of ld. CI T(Appeals) Central, Gurgaon dated 26.03.2013 for assessment year 2005-06. 3(i) Ld. Counsel for assessee did not press ground Nos. 1 to 3 and additi onal ground of appeal, same are dismissed as not pressed.
4. On ground Nos. 4 to 7, assessee chal lenged the addition of sundry creditors to the tune of Rs. 4,24,408/- which were trade creditors as per regular books of account 3 of the assessee. In this case, search & seizure operation was carried out and the assessment under section 153A/143(3) of the Act was framed. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to file confirmations from the sundr y creditors and to furnish confirmed ledger accounts. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee has introduced fresh creditors amounting to Rs. 4,24,408/- during the year. In the absence of confirmation and copy of the ledger account, addition was accordingl y made. The ld. CI T( Appeals) decided several appeals of the assessee through common order and noted in the impugned order that this ground is same as in assessment year 2003-04. It is, therefore, necessar y to take into consideration the findings of ld. CI T(Appeals) in assessment year 2003-04. The ld. CI T(Appeals) noted that addition on account of sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 25,21,860/- was made in assessment year 2003-04. The assessee di d not file confirmations. It has been submitted by the assessee that sundry credi tors as per balance sheet dated 31.03.2003 was to the tune of Rs. 25,21,860/-.
4(i) It was further explained that assessee who is engaged in manufacturi ng and trading, would have sundry creditors and debtors in the normal course of business. Regarding non fili ng of the confirmations before Assessing Officer, it was pleaded that time avai lable was very short for compliance. It was argued that ledger account was already in possessi on of the department, clearly revealed the 4 receipt of materi al from the suppl iers duly acknowledged by the purchase bil ls and payments on the debit side which was evi denced from the bank statements. These are running accounts in the l edger. During the appeal proceedi ngs, yearwise list of sundry credi tors for financial years 2002-03 to 2008-09 i ndicati ng amount outstanding at the end of each year was fil ed in the Paper Book. However, only some confirmations were filed as it was contended that period under considerati on is as old as 3 to 10 years, so obtaining confirmation was difficult. It was also contended that these are running balances which have been squared up in subsequent years. The ld. CI T(Appeals) also noted in assessment year under appeal i.e. 2005-06, Assessing Officer made addition of fresh sundry creditors for non furnishi ng of confirmations/bill s.
5. The ld. CI T(A) in his findings observed that some of the confirmations furni shed no w have been sought for admission as additional evi dence on the ground of non- providing of reasonable opportuni ty. The ld. CI T( Appeals) found that Assessing Officer whil e disposing of the appeal for assessment year 2009-10 had accepted the confirmations fil ed in respect of 9 fresh creditors of which four year cases were disall owed as no PAN etc. have been filed, some had been added back. The request of admission of additional evi dence was accordingly, rejected. The ld. CI T(Appeals) found the enti re amount of sundry creditors outstanding as on 31.03.2003 pertaini ng to assessment 5 year 2003-04 has been added back. The ld. CI T( Appeals) noted that to his mind, such addition is not tenable. Trading result for assessment year 2003-04 has, otherwise been accepted by the Assessing Officer so it defies logic to add back the entire balance in the account. It was noted that many of the parties are havi ng running accounts from prior to 01.04.2002 therefore, l d. CI T(Appeals) was unable to confirm the addition for assessment year 2003-04 as by doing so, the entire trading results of the assessee would be abnormal. Appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2003-04 was, accordingl y, all owed. In A.Y. 205-06 etc. addition of sundr y creditor was li mited to fresh addition.
6. The ld. CI T( Appeals) as regards assessment year under appeal 2005-06 held that fresh cash credit additions are in order and accordingly, same was confirmed. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the simil ar issue was considered by I TAT Chandigarh Bench in the group cases of the assessee namely M/s Heera Moti Agro Industries Vs DCI T etc. in ITA 739/CHD/2013 for assessment year 2007-08 and the order have been passed on 20.09.2016. The findings in para 5 to 9 (ii) of the order are reproduced as under :
"5. On ground Nos. 3 to 6, assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 5,92,647/- in respect of sundry creditors/trade creditors. In this case 6 s e a r c h & s e i z u r e o p e r a t i o n wa s c a r r i e d o u t a n d a s s e s s me n t u n d e r s e c t i o n 1 5 3 A / 1 4 3 ( 3 ) o f t h e A c t w a s f r a me d . T he Assessing O ff icer asked the assessee to f ile conf irmations from the sundry creditors and to f urnish c o n f i r me d ledger accounts. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee has introduced fresh creditors amounting to Rs. 5,92,647/- during the year. In the absence of conf irmation and copy of the l e d g e r a c c o u n t , a d d i t i o n wa s a c c o r d i n g l y m a d e . T h e l d . C IT ( A p p e a l s ) d e c i d e d s e v e r a l a p p e a l s o f t h e a s s e s s e e t h r o u g h c o m mo n o r d e r a n d n o t e d i n the impugned order that th is ground is covered in a s s e s s me n t year 2003-04. It is, theref ore, necessary to take into consideration the f indings o f l d . C IT ( A p p e a l s ) i n a s s e s s me n t y e a r 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 . The ld. C IT ( A p p e a l s ) noted that addition on account of sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 5 5 , 0 5 , 2 9 0 / - wa s m a d e i n a s s e s s m e n t y e a r 2 0 0 3 -
04. T he assessee did not f ile conf ir mations. It has been submitted by the assessee that sundry creditors as per balance sheet dated 31.03.2003 was to the tune of Rs. 55,05,290/-.
5(i) It wa s f urther explained that the a s s e s s e e wh o i s e n g a g e d i n m a n u f a c t u r i n g a n d t r a d i n g , wo u l d h a v e s u n d r y c r e d i t o r s , d e p o s i t o r s in normal course of business. Regarding non f iling of the conf irmation before Assessing O f f i c e r , i t wa s p l e a d e d t h a t t i m e a v a i l a b l e wa s very short f or co mpliance. It was argued that ledger account was already in possession of the d e p a r t me n t , clearly revealed the receipt of m a t e r i a l f r o m t h e s u p p l i e r s d u l y a c k n o wl e d g e d by the purchase bills and payments on the debit side wh i c h was evidenced from the bank 7 statements. These are running accounts in the l e d g e r . D u r i n g a p p e a l p r o c e e d i n g s , y e a r - wi s e l i s t of sundry creditors f or f inancial years 2002-03 to 2008-09 indicating the amount outstanding at the e n d o f e a c h y e a r wa s f i l e d i n t h e P a p e r B o o k . H o we v e r , o n l y s o me c o n f i r m a t i o n s we r e f i l e d a s i t wa s c o n t e n d e d t h a t p e r i o d u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n is as old as 3-10 years, so obtaining conf irmations was d if f icult. It wa s also c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e s e a r e r u n n i n g b a l a n c e s wh i c h h a v e b e e n s q u a r e d u p i n s u b s e q u e n t a s s e s s me n t years. The ld. CIT(Appeals) also noted that in a s s e s s me n t y e a r u n d e r a p p e a l i . e . 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 , t h e Assessing Off icer made add ition of f resh sundry creditors for non furnishing of conf irmations/bills.
6. The ld. C IT ( A p p e a l s ) in his findings observed that s o me of the conf ir mations furnished no w have been sought for admission as additional evidence on the ground of non providing of reasonable opportunity. The ld. C I T ( A p p e a l s ) f o u n d t h a t A s s e s s i n g O f f i c e r wh i l e disposing off appeal f or assessment year 2009- 10 had accepted the conf irmations f iled in respect of six fresh creditors and in respect of those cases not f iled, the same have been added back. In respect of another six creditors, A s s e s s i n g O f f i c e r f o u n d t h a t n o P A N n u mb e r wa s provided and consequently rejected the conf irmations. The request for admission of a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e wa s r e j e c t e d s e p a r a t e l y .
7. T h e l d . C IT ( A p p e a l s ) f o u n d t h a t e n t i r e amount of sundry creditors outstanding as on 31.03.2003 pertaining to assessment year 2003- 04 of Rs. 55,05,290/- had been added back. The 8 l d . C IT ( A p p e a l s ) n o t e d t h a t t o h i s mind, such addition is not tenable. Trading result for a s s e s s me n t y e a r 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 h a s , o t h e r wi s e b e e n acce pted by Assessing Off icer so it def ines logic to add back the entire balance in the account. It was also noted that many of the parties are having running account f rom prior to 01.04.2002, t h e r e f o r e , l d . C I T ( A p p e a l s ) wa s u n a b l e t o c o n f i r m t h e a d d i t i o n f o r a s s e s s me n t y e a r 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 a s b y doing so, the entire trading results of the a s s e s s e e wo u l d b e a b n o r m a l . The appeal of the assessee for a s s e s s me n t year 2003-04 wa s a c c o r d i n g l y a l l o we d .
7(i) The ld. C IT ( A p p e a l s ) , as regards a s s e s s me n t y e a r u n d e r a p p e a l 2 0 0 7 - 0 8 h e l d t h a t fresh credit additions are in order and a c c o r d i n g l y , s a m e wa s c o n f i r me d .
8. We have heard ld. Representatives of both the parties. The ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made bef ore a u t h o r i t i e s b e l o w. He has submitted that all are trade creditors as per regular books of account maintained by assessee and have been audited. No evidence of purchase or sales outside the books of account has been f ound. T he purchases a r e d u l y r e c o r d e d i n t h e b o o k s o f a c c o u n t wh i c h h a v e b e e n a c c e p t e d b y t h e d e p a r t me n t . Chart is f iled in the Pap er Book to show b al ances year af t e r y e a r d u e t o t h e p a r t i e s . N o e v i d e n c e wa s found during the course of search that such balances we r e not due or any purchases in r e s p e c t o f s u c h p a r t i e s we r e b o g u s . The books of account had been seized during the course of search and all the accounts we r e wi t h the d e p a r t me n t i n c l u d i n g l e d g e r a c c o u n t . Theref ore, 9 there is no question of non production of the record. The Assessing Off icer did not give any opportunity to the assessee to produce the material bef ore him.
8(i) The Assessing Off icer in a s s e s s me n t year 2009-10 accepted the claim of assessee. All are running accounts and purchases from the parties have been accepted and outstanding amounts have been paid in subsequent year. The ld. counsel f or the assessee ref erred to the chart of sundry trade creditors from 31.03.2003 to 3 1 . 0 3 . 2 0 0 9 i n t h e P a p e r B o o k wh i c h i s f i l e d a t page 4 to 7 of the Paper Book. He has submitted that in assessment year 2007-08, the assessee has running accounts of the trade creditors and p a i d t h e b a l a n c e a mo u n t i n s u b s e q u e n t y e a r . He has, theref ore, submitted that on the same reasoning as adopted by ld. CIT(Appeals) for a s s e s s me n t year 2003-04, the entire addition should have been deleted. It is also stated that the d e p a r t me n t a l appeal for a s s e s s me n t year 2003-04 have been dismissed by the Tribunal in group cases.
8(ii) On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon orders of the authorities below and relied upon decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the c a s e o f V . I . S . P . ( P ) L t d . V s C IT 2 6 5 IT R 2 0 2 i n wh i c h i t wa s h e l d t h a t i f l i a b i l i t y s h o wn i n t h e account is found bogus, then amount can be a d d e d t o wa r d s t h e i n c o me o f t h e a s s e s s e e .
9. We have considered rival submissions. It is a c ase of search and it is not ind ic ated if any material was found during the course of search against the assessee to prove that 10 a s s e s s e e h a d b o g u s l i a b i l i t y s h o wn i n t h e b o o k s of account on account of purchase of material. The books of account including the ledger account we r e a l r e a d y i n p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e d e p a r t m e n t and according to the assessee, all the materials purchased have been supported by purchase bills a n d p a y me n t s a r e e v i d e n c e d b y b a n k s t a t e me n t s . T h e A s s e s s i n g O f f i c e r h a s n o wh e r e me n t i o n e d i n t h e a s s e s s me n t o r d e r a s t o h o w m a n y p a r t i e s we e h a v i n g t r a d e b a l a n c e s f o r wh i c h a d d i t i o n h a s b e e n m a d e a n d e v e n n o s p e c i f i c a mo u n t o f e a c h p a r t y h a s b e e n me n t i o n e d . Theref ore, no s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g o f f ac t h a v e b e e n g i v e n a g a i n s t the assessee f or making the addition. The ld. CIT (Appeals ) held in the impugned order th at th e issue in assessment year under appeal i.e. 2007- 0 8 i s c o v e r e d b y h i s o r d e r f o r a s s e s s me n t y e a r 2003-04. The facts are identical as have been c o n s i d e r e d i n a s s e s s me n t y e a r 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 . The ld. C I T ( A p p e a l s ) i n a s s e s s me n t y e a r 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 d e l e t e d the entire addition because entire sundry creditors outstanding on end of the f inancial year cannot be addede. The ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that the trading results for a s s e s s me n t year 2003-04 have been accepted by the Assessing Off icer theref ore, there is no logic to make addition of the entire balance in this account.
9(i) The ld. C IT ( A p p e a l s ) also noted that many of the parties are having running accounts from prior to 01.04.2002. T h e l d . C IT ( A p p e a l s ) also held that if addition of this nature is c o n f i r me d , t h e t r a d i n g r e s u l t s o f t h e a s s e s s e e wo u l d be abnormal. The ld. counsel for the assessee during the course of a r g u me n t s submitted that the d e p a r t me n t a l appeal for 11 a s s e s s me n t y e a r 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 h a d b e e n d i s m i s s e d b y the T ribunal in group cases. When according to t h e l d . C IT ( A p p e a l s ) , t h e i s s u e i s c o v e r e d b y h i s order f or assessment year 2003-04, there should not be any reason to conf ir m the add ition ag ains t t h e a s s e s s e e i n a s s e s s me n t y e a r u n d e r a p p e a l , b e c a u s e t h e f ac t s a r e i d e n t i c a l . the assessee pleaded that purchases have been made from various parties and assessee has running a c c o u n t s wi t h t h e m. A l l e n t r i e s a r e s h o wn i n t h e b o o k s o f a c c o u n t wh i c h h a v e b e e n s e i z e d b y t h e d e p a r t me n t . The assessee has produced the c h a r t i n t h e P a p e r B o o k f r o m a s s e s s me n t y e a r 2002-03 to 2008-09 to show that these are r u n n i n g a c c o u n t s wi t h v a r i o u s p a r t i e s s i n c e l o n g . According to ld. counsel f or the assessee, even in s o me o f t h e c a s e s o f t h e g r o u p , wh o we r e t r a d e c r e d i t o r s i n a s s e s s me n t y e a r u n d e r a p p e a l , a r e assessed by the same Assessing Off icer, t h e r e f o r e , f ac t s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n v e r i f i e d f r o m their record available wi t h the Revenue D e p a r t me n t . In a s s e s s me n t year under appeal also, trading results have been accepted by Assessing Off icer, theref ore, f or balance trading amount, the ld. CIT(Appeals) should not have c o n f i r me d t h e a d d i t i o n . T he parties have running accounts wi t h the assessee and if similar a d d i t i o n i s m a d e , i t wo u l d g i v e e n t i r e t r a d i n g results of the assessee, to be abnormal. Theref ore, the ld. C IT ( A p p e a l s ) should have f o l l o we d t h e o r d e r f o r a s s e s s me n t y e a r 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 for the purpose of deleting the addition against the assessee. H o we v e r , l d . C I T ( A p p e a l s ) n o t e d that addition is limited to f resh additions only. This reason is also incorrect because ld. counsel f o r t h e a s s e s s e e d e mo n s t r a t e d t h a t e v e n i f t h e r e 12 a r e s o me f r e s h c r e d i t o r s f r o m t h e s a me p a r t i e s appearing in the books of account of the assessee but these are running accounts f rom the earlier years, theref ore, for diff erence of the a mo u n t itself , no such addition should be made against the assessee. Since, no details have been given i n t h e a s s e s s me n t o r d e r a n d t h e c h a r t n o w f i l e d have not been considered by the authorities b e l o w a n d a l s o a c c o r d i n g t o t h e a s s e s s e e , wh e n no proper opportunity have been given by the A s s e s s i n g O f f i c e r , i t wo u l d b e r e a s o n a b l e a n d appropriate to restore this issue to the f ile of A s s e s s i n g O f f i c e r wi t h d i r e c t i o n t o r e - d e c i d e t h i s issue by giv ing reasonable suff icient o pportunity of being heard to the assessee.
9(ii) We, accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore this issue to the f ile of Assessing Off icer wi t h direction to re- d e c i d e t h i s i s s u e b y f o l l o wi n g t h e r e a s o n s f o r d e c i s i o n g i v e n b y l d . C IT ( A p p e a l s ) f o r a s s e s s me n t year 2003-04 (supra) wh e r e b y addition on identical issue have been deleted. The Assessing Off icer shall give reasonable suff icient opportunity of being heard to the assessee." 6(i) He has, therefore, submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. Copy of the order is placed on record. ld. DR did not dispute the same. In this view of the matter, we find that issue is covered in favour of the assessee by order of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the group cases of the assessee namely M/s Heera Moti Agro Industries etc. (supra) in which the orders of authorities below were set aside and matter 13 was restored to the file of Assessing Officer with direction to re-decide this issue by following the reasons for decision given by ld. CIT(Appeals) for assessment year 2003-04 whereby addition on identical issue have been deleted. The orders of authorities below are set aside and issue is remanded to A.O. The A.O. is, therefore, directed to follow order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Heera Moti Agro Industries (supra) who shall re-decide this issue accordingly as is directed in this case. These grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes.
7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA 745/2013 ( A.Y. 2007-08) M/s Himland Agro Foods Ltd., Chandigarh
8. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) Central, Gurgaon dated 26.03.2013 for assessment year 2007-08. The ld. counsel for the assessee did not press ground Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 as well as additional grounds of appeal. These grounds are, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
9. On ground No.3, assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 28,295/- under section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 2,89,295/- because TDS was not deducted in view of the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld. 14 CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition. The ld. counsel for the assessee contended that in-fact, this addition should have been of Rs. 28,295/- only as against Rs. 2,89,295/- and submitted that this fact may be verified by the Assessing Officer. In this view of the matter, the addition in principle is confirmed, however, Assessing Officer is directed to verify whether this addition should be of Rs. 2,89,295/- or Rs. 28,295/- as is submitted by ld. counsel for the assessee. This ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
10. On ground Nos. 5 and 6, assessee challenged the addition of sundry creditors to the tune of Rs. 18,42,115/- which were trade creditors as per regular books of account. This issue is same as is considered and decided in the case of assessee in ITA No. 743/2013 for assessment year 2005-06. It is, therefore, covered matter. The orders of authorities below are accordingly set aside and matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with direction to follow the order in assessment year 2005-06 (supra) and decide the issue accordingly. These grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA 746/2013 ( A.Y. 2008-09) M/s Himland Agro Foods Ltd., Chandigarh 15
12. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals), Central, Gurgaon dated 26.03.2013 for assessment year 2008-09.
13. The ld. counsel for the assessee did not press ground Nos. 1 to 6 of the appeal as well as additional grounds of appeal. These are, accordingly, dismissed as not pressed.
14. On ground Nos. 7 to 10, assessee challenged the addition of sundry creditors to the tune of Rs. 8,61,208/- which were trade creditors as per regular books of account. This issue is same as is considered and decided in the case of assessee in ITA No. 743/2013 for assessment year 2005-06. It is, therefore, covered matter. The orders of authorities below are accordingly set aside and matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with direction to follow the order in assessment year 2005-06 (supra) and decide the issue accordingly. These grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 14(i) In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA 747/2013 ( A.Y. 2009-10) M/s Himland Agro Foods Ltd., Chandigarh
15. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) Central, Gurgaon dated 16 26.03.2013 for assessment year 2009-10. The ld. counsel for the assessee did not challenge ground Nos. 1, 2 and 4 as well as additional grounds of appeal. The same are, therefore, dismissed being not pressed.
16. On ground No. 3 assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 1,12,944/- in respect of the alleged unrecorded purchases on the basis of document No. 26 of Annexure A-23 of Delta 7. This is a bill dated 12.07.2008 raised by M/s Heera Moti Spices Product to assessee company which the Special Auditor observed was not recorded in the books of account. During appeal, it was submitted before ld. CIT(Appeals) that bill No. 2936 dated 12.07.2008 was stated to be goods sent by sister concern which was not accepted due to poor quality. It was further submitted that search operation was conducted on 15.07.2008 just after two days of the bill under dispute hence, was not recorded/entered. It was highlighted that trading account drawn up and closing stock worked out during search did not reflect any discrepancy in stock and the fate of the material lying outside was explained during the search and no adverse inference was drawn by the search party. It was also argued that Assessing Officer has not proved that any payment against the purchase had been made outside the books of account and so invoking of provisions of Section 69A of the Act does not arise.
1716(i) The ld. CIT(Appeals) did not accept contention of the assessee because no submission was made during assessment proceedings. The ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that even if contention of the assessee as regards non- acceptance of the goods is acceptable, there is no reason why the difference of the same amount should continue to exist in the accounts of both the parties even in financial year 2011-12. The transaction is between sister concerns. Details of the goods and reasons for rejection have not been elucidated either. This ground was, accordingly, dismissed.
17. We have heard rival submissions. The ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before authorities below and referred to PB-7 which is copy of the ledger account of M/s Heera Moti Spices Product from financial years 2008-09 and submitted that the sister concern has shown amount of Rs. 1,12,944/- in their books as per bill No. 2936 dated 12.07.2008 which was a credit purchase. PB-11 is copy of the accounts of this party in the books of account of assessee in which this amount have not been shown. He has, therefore, submitted that since no payment was made and no stock have been entered into the books of account of this bill, therefore, no addition under section 69 should be made. On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon orders of authorities below.
18
18. On consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view addition under section 69A of the Act is wholly unjustified. The addition under section 69A could be made of unexplained income which is not recorded in the books of account and source of the same have not been explained. The facts noted above clearly show it was a credit purchase which according to submission of the assessee was rejected because it was of poor quality. Any how, when credit purchase is entered into books of account of M/s Heera Moti Spices Product and no payment have made by assessee and no further inquiry have been conducted from this party whether any payment have been made by assessee, the transaction remained of credit purchase which is also clear from the ledger account of the seller party as well as entry in the books of account of the assessee. In the absence of any payment proved by the Assessing Officer, it cannot be considered to be a case of unexplained money generated by the assessee. The assessee further explained before the ld. CIT(Appeals) that during the search, trading account was drawn up and closing stock was worked out in which no discrepancy was found by the search party as well and no adverse inference was drawn. These submissions of the assessee have no been rebutted by the authorities below therefore, no addition under section 69A could be made in the facts and circumstances of the case. We, accordingly, set aside 19 the orders of authorities below and delete the addition of Rs. 1,12,940/-. This ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
19. On ground Nos. 5 to 8, assessee challenged the addition of sundry creditors to the tune of Rs. 31,19,422/- which were trade creditors as per regular books of account. This issue is same as is considered and decided in the case of assessee in ITA No. 743/2013 for assessment year 2005-06. It is, therefore, covered matter. The orders of authorities below are accordingly set aside and matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with direction to follow the order in assessment year 2005-06 (supra) and decide the issue accordingly. These grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
20. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
ITA 757/2013 ( A.Y. 2008-09) M/s Heera Moti Agro Products, Chandigarh
21. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) Central, Gurgaon dated 18.03.2013 for assessment year 2008-09.
22. The ld. counsel for the assessee did not press ground Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5 and additional grounds of 20 appeal. These are, therefore, dismissed being not pressed.
23. On ground No. 4, assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 4,60,000/- as per page 22 of Annexure 5 of seized documents. It is noted in the impugned order that cash receipt of Rs. 1,25,000/- for the period April,2007 to June,2007 was seized which is marked as A-5 page 22. The payment is shown at Rs. 5,85,000/-. The assessee produced summary of the receipt and extract of cash book which was found incorrect as the figure did not match with the seized paper. In the absence of any further clarification, the negative cash amount of Rs. 4,60,000/- was added under section 69C of the Act which is difference between receipt and payment. In appeal, assessee argued that document is a rough memorandum about expenses incurred or to be incurred against cash maintained by Munim. The assessee further argued that receipt side cannot be reconciled with the regular books as being part of the cash in hand as per the regular books whereas payments are duly verifiable being wages, bank deposits, payment of taxes etc. to claim that receipt side should not represent unaccounted sales. The ld. CIT(Appeals) found that Assessing Officer has held that receipt and payments were irreconcilable. The argument that payments were of certain amounts, were never put forth to the Assessing Officer. Moreover, claim is without 21 documentary evidence. In any case, even if paid, the source has to be explained by the assessee. This ground was accordingly, dismissed.
24. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The ld. counsel for the assessee filed copy of the seized document and submitted that it is a dumb document and did not lead to anywhere. There is no evidence that the figures were in lacs. In the alternate contention, he has submitted that though the assessee did not press ground No. 5, but on ground No. 5 the identical seized paper was found, copy of which is placed on record in which the authorities below have applied GP rate considering it to be sales outside the books of account. Therefore, addition may be deleted or at the best, GP rate may be applied. On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon orders of authorities below.
25. We have considered rival submissions. The seized paper shows cash receipt 2007-08 and against HAP [it is considered to be the name of the assessee M/s Heera Moti Agro Product] in the receipt column, the figure is mentioned as 1.25. In cash payment, it is 5.85 and difference is shown -4.60. The assessee claimed that this document is rough memorandum about expenses incurred or to be incurred against cash maintained by the Munim. No evidence has been brought on record if 22 said figures were in lacs. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Girish Chaudhry 163 Taxman 608 h e l d , " I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e r e we r e n o m a t e r i a l o n r e c o r d t o s h o w a s t o o n wh a t b a s i s t h e A s s e s s i n g O f f i c e r r e a c h e d t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t f i g u r e ' 4 8 ' wa s t o b e r e a d a s Rs. 48 lacs". T h e d o c u me n t r e c o v e r e d d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f s e a r c h i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e w a s a d u mb d o c u me n t . Thus, Tribunal rightly deleted the addition made by the A s s e s s i n g O f f i c e r o n a c c o u n t o f u n d i s c l o s e d i n c o me o n the basis of seized material." The same facts are noted by Assessing Officer in the assessment order as per seized document. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence on record as to how Assessing Officer concluded that these figures are in lacs, it appears that the seized paper is dumb document, therefore, no addition should be made of this nature against the assessee. We, therefore, following decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Girish Chaudhry (supra) and in the facts and circumstances of the case, set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the entire addition. This ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
26. On ground Nos. 6 to 9, assessee challenged the addition of sundry creditors to the tune of Rs. 8,45,334/- which were trade creditors as per regular books of account. This issue is same as is considered and decided in the case of assessee M/s Himland Agro 23 Food Ltd. in ITA No. 743/2013 for assessment year 2005-06 (supra). It is, therefore, covered matter. The orders of authorities below are accordingly set aside and matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with direction to follow the order in assessment year 2005-06 (supra) and decide the issue accordingly. These grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
27. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
ITA 758/2013 ( A.Y. 2009-10) M/s Heera Moti Agro Products, Baddi (Solan)
28. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) Central, Gurgaon dated 18.03.2013 for assessment year 2009-10.
29. The ld. counsel for the assessee did not press ground Nos. 1 to 4 of the appeal of the assessee alongwith additional grounds. These grounds are, accordingly, dismissed as being not pressed.
30. On ground Nos. 5 to 8, assessee challenged the addition of sundry creditors to the tune of Rs. 10,23,835/- which were trade creditors as per reglar books of account. This issue is same as is considered and decided in the case of assessee M/s Himland Agro Food Ltd. in ITA No. 743/2013 for assessment year 24 2005-06 (supra). It is, therefore, covered matter. The orders of authorities below are accordingly set aside and matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with direction to follow the order in assessment year 2005-06 (supra) and decide the issue accordingly. These grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
31. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA 751/2013 & ITA/752/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10) M/s Heera Moti Health Care Products Ltd. Chandigarh
32. Both the appeals by the same assessees are directed against the common order of ld. CIT(Appeals) Central, Gurgaon dated 18.03.2013 for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10.
33. In assessment year 2008-09, ld. counsel for the assessee did not challenge ground Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and additional grounds of appeal. Same are, accordingly, dismissed as not pressed.
34. In assessment year 2009-10, ld. counsel for the assessee did not press ground Nos. 1, 2 and 6 of grounds of appeal alongwith additional grounds of appeal. Same are dismissed being not pressed.
35. In assessment year 2008-09, assessee on ground Nos. 5 to 8 challenged the addition of sundry creditors 25 to the tune of Rs. 18,94,770/- which were trade creditors as per regular books of account. In assessment year 2009-10, assessee similarly raised ground Nos. 3 to 5 challenging the addition of sundry creditors to the tune of Rs. 17,97,134/- which were trade creditors as per regular books of account. This issue is same as is considered and decided in the case of assessee M/s Himland Agro Food Ltd. in ITA No. 743/2013 for assessment year 2005-06 (supra). It is, therefore, covered matter. The orders of authorities below are accordingly set aside and matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with direction to follow the order in assessment year 2005-06 (supra) and decide the issue accordingly. These grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
36. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes ITA 569/2013 ( A.Y. 2008-09) M/s Heera Moti Spices P. Ltd.,Chandigarh
37. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) Central, Gurgaon dated 15.03.2013 for assessment year 2008-09.
38. The ld. counsel for the assessee did not press ground Nos. 1, 2 and 6. Same are dismissed being not pressed.
26
39. On ground No. 3, assessee challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in applying GP rate of 2.5% to the gross profit declared by the assessee without rejecting books of account under section 145(3) by applying GP rate at 23.22% as against GP shown of 20.13%. It transpired that assessee had agreed for addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- on account of low GP in assessment year 2003-04. So taking the GP rate of assessment year 2003-04 as the base, GP for subsequent assessment years were increased by 5.86%. During proceedings under section 153A, the Assessing Officer referred to observation of Special Auditors that no quantitative details of stock was provided nor the stock registers and other related registers during audit, deduced that the GP ratio declared by the assessee did not seem to be justified and so the profits declared on the basis of books of account could not be accepted. A chart showing ratio of GP in the return of income filed is reproduced in the impugned order to show that in assessment year under appeal, the GP rate was 15.75% as against 16.58% of preceding assessment year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer, therefore noted that GP has dropped by almost 3% from 2003-04 onwards, thereafter GP declared is quite consistent fluctuating from 17.3% to 15.01%. The NP ratio, however, has been inconsistent. It was submitted by assessee that application of GP rate of assessment year 2003-04 is without any material on 27 record and without having rejected the books of account under section 145(3) of the Act. It was also argued that the assessee is manufacturing concern and many factors affect the GP ratio every year. It was also highlighted that the search party had taken out the inventory of the stock which was compared with the trading account drawn on the date of search but no discrepancy has been found. Lastly, it was also stated that the agreed addition for assessment year 2003-04 could not be used for basis of making additions in subsequent years.
40. The ld. CIT(Appeals) considering submission of the assessee noted that the GP addition in assessment year 2003-04 has been used as a base for making the addition. Under the provisions of Section 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to compute the total income of the assessee for which assessment year by considering both the disclosed and undisclosed income. So, what is pertinent here is the observation of the Special Auditor that no stock register/valuation details of stock have been provided during the audit. It was also stated that no quantitative details of stock have been maintained by assessee. Needless to say the assessee is in the business of manufacturing and trading of masalas so the maintenance of quantitative detail may not be feasible. However, during the special audit and assessment proceedings, the assessee was duty bound to produce details so called by the 28 authorities below. On the other hand, the method of working out GP by the Assessing Officer has no scientific basis. The ld. CIT(Appeals), therefore, restricted GP addition from 5.86% to 2.5% and directed the Assessing Officer to compute the income accordingly.
41. We have considered rival submissions. The ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before authorities below and submitted that no specific defects have been pointed out in maintenance of the books of account. No quantitative details of stock were provided. The Special Auditor did not point out any specific defect in the maintenance of the books of account. He has relied upon decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jacksons House 39 DTR 212 in which it was held as under :
"Assessee's books of accounts could not be rejected by invoking s. 145(3) when there is no specific defect pointed out in the books of account maintained by the assessee following a regular method of accounting and stock register was also maintained though not in the form expected by Assessing Officer"
41(i) On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that special audit had been done because correct profit could not be deduced from the books of account of the assessee, therefore, addition is justified.
29
42. After considering rival submissions, we do not find any justification to sustain the addition by applying higher GP of 2.5%. It is admitted fact that the Assessing Officer did not pointed out any specific defects in maintenance of the books of account by the assessee. Even the special auditor has not pointed out any specific defects in maintenance of the books of account of the assessee. The addition is made by following the agreed addition for preceding assessment year 2003-04 without any justification. Each year is separate year and merely because assessee agreed for addition in assessment year 2003-04, is no basis to make the addition against the assessee by enhancing the GP in subsequent years. Since books of account of the assessee have not been rejected, therefore, trading results cannot be disturbed by enhancing the GP. Further, the Assessing Officer compared GP of assessee from assessment year 2003-04, Assessing Officer ignored the fact that in preceding assessment year 2007-08, GP ratio of the assessee was 16.58% and in assessment year 2008-09, GP is 15.74% and there is no peak difference between the GP. Further, in preceding assessment year 2007-08, NP rate declared by the assessee was 1.36% and NP rate in assessment year under appeal 2008-09 is 2.36% which is higher as compared to the earlier year. Therefore, on these basis itself, addition is wholly unjustified. The ld. 30 CIT(Appeals) in his findings admitted that assessee is in the business of manufacturing and trading of Masalas so maintenance of quantity details may not be feasible. Therefore, there was justification for not providing quantitative details/stsock.
42(i) The assessee further submitted before ld. CIT(Appeals) that assessee is manufacturing concern and many factors affect GP ratio every year. The submissions of the assessee have not been rebutted through any evidence on record. The assessee also submitted before ld. CIT(Appeals) that search party had taken out inventory of the stock which was compared with the trading account drawn as on the date of search but no discrepancy had been found. Thee submissions of the assessee have also not been rebutted by the authorities below. Therefore, considering the above discussion and the totality of facts and circumstances, we are of the view addition is unjustified by enhancing GP rate by 2.5%. The orders of authorities below are, accordingly, set aside the addition is deleted on account of applying enhanced GP of 2.5%. This ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
43. On ground No. 4, assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 4,96,000/-. It is noted in the impugned order that as per seized paper, the cash receipts of Rs. 3,96,000/- for the period April,2007 to June,2007 was 31 seized which is marked as A-5 page 22. Payment is shown at Rs. 8.90 lacs. The assessee produced the summary of receipt and extract of cash book which was fund incorrect as the figure did not match with the seized paper. In the absence of further clarification, the amount of Rs. 4,96,000/- was added under section 69C of the Act which is difference between receipt and the payment. The assessee submitted before ld. CIT(Appeals) that document is rough memorandum about expenses incurred or to be incurred against cash maintained by Munim. It was submitted that the receipt side cannot be reconciled with the regular books of account as being part of the cash in hand as per regular books whereas payments are duly verifiable being wages, bank deposits, payment of taxes etc. The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, confirmed the addition.
44. After considering rival submissions, we are of the view addition is wholly unjustified. The Assessing Officer noted details from the seized paper in the impugned order which shows, Receipts "3.96" and Payments "8.90" It is submitted by both the parties that this issue is same as have been considered on ground No. 4 in the case of M/s Heera Moti Agro Products in ITA 757/2013. Following the above order in the case of M/s Heera Moti Agro Products (supra) on which identical issue have been decided in favour of the assessee, we, following the reasons for decision for the 32 same case, set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the entire addition. This ground of appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed.
45. On ground No. 5, assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 25,12,955/- and Rs. 29,31,819/-. It is noted in the impugned order that these additions comprise of two parts generated from Delta 4 accounting software market, page 134 of A-2 for the period 01.04.2007 to 30.11.2007. The second part is page 119 of A-5 of Delta 3 for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008. The document created is in the name of the assessee company depicting money transaction "Jama" and "Naam". The contents of these two documents have been narrated in the impugned order by reproducing the same. The dates mentioned are different so there is no question of over-lapping of the entries. The contention of the assessee, on being asked to give complete details as well as reconciled books was that these documents did not belong to the assessee. Invoking Section 292C of the Act, the sum of Rs. 53,13,977/- was added by the Assessing Officer.
46. In appeal, the submission of the assessee is again that the papers did not belong to the assessee and were not typed at its instruction. It was further argued that assessee's name is written at the top of the document, is engaged in the business of manufacturing of spices, 33 could not have any link with such name appearing on the papers like Apsara Sarees, Manish Kapur, Modi Nagar, Card Wala, Kharchaa, Manish Dalaal etc. No signature of the assessee has been affixed and neither was the assessee even confronted with the same during search proceedings. Another argument was that at the best, an addition of Rs. 5 lacs could be made if the document is read as a whole. The payable of Rs. 20,12,955/- was clearly mentioned which, therefore, could not be added back including the alleged interest. As regards second paper, it was stated that only Rs. 10 lacs as 'Jama' could be added as Rs. 19,13,819/- was mentioned as payable. Similarly, interest could not be added.
47. The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, did not accept contention of the assessee and noted that the account show "Jama" with 'Bayaz' days of Rs. 5 lacs against which 'naam' has been shown. By 'Lena baaki hai' it is obvious that some payments have been received and balance is due. Interest has also been worked man-day- wise. The Assessing Officer added the amount which have been received of Rs. 25,12,955/- and Rs. 29,31,819/- respectively. The interest is integral part of entire transaction. The assessee failed to rebut these documents therefore, Assessing Officer who made the addition correctly. This ground was accordingly, dismissed.
34
48. We have heard ld. Representatives of both the parties. The ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before authorities below and submitted that the seized document contain name of the assessee company on top, meaning thereby it is sent by somebody else i.e. third party. The document is not signed by assessee and it did not belong to the assessee. The document contained 'payable only'. There is no evidence of payment of interest, at the best GP addition can be made. No investment is proved by the department. On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon orders of the authorities below.
49. We have considered rival submissions. Both the seized papers are found from the possession of the assessee. Both the seized papers contain name of the assessee on the top. The seized papers contain the details of "amount jama" and "amount naam". Since these documents were found from the possession of the assessee during the course of search, therefore, it has to be presumed that these seized papers belong to the assessee and the contents of the same are true and correct therefore, authorities below rightly applied provisions of Section 292C of the Act against the assessee because assessee failed to explain the contents of the seized papers. However, it is a fact that as against first seized paper, amount of Rs. 5 lacs have been shown as 'Jama' and against 'naam' payable 35 amount of Rs. 20,12,955/- has been shown. The interest is also noted in the second seized paper. As against amount 'jama' in second paper, amount of Rs. 10 lacs have been shown and the amount of Rs. 19,31,819/- have been shown as amount 'naam' i.e. 'payable' and interest. Since no amount is paid by the assessee, therefore, payable amount could not be added against the assessee. Further, there is no evidence found of any interest paid by the assessee. Therefore, these additions would be wholly unjustified. However, the amount of Rs. 5 lacs and Rs. 10 lacs have been shown as amount 'jama' in both seized paper meaning thereby assessee paid this amount to the concern partly who have prepared the seized paper. Since assessee failed to explain the seized paper which were found from the possession during the course of search, therefore, 'jama' amount shall have to be considered as amount paid by the assessee to a third party. Therefore, addition to the extent of Rs. 15 lacs (5+10) shall have to be maintained. The assessee also failed to explain as to how GP rate should be applied on these transactions. As against the amount noted against 'naam' i.e. payable and interest, no evidence was found against the assessee that these amounts have been paid by the assessee. Further, the payable itself shows that no amount have been paid by the assessee against the narration 'naam'. Therefore, considering totality of the 36 facts and circumstances, it is clear that both the additions of Rs. 25,12,955/- and Rs. 29,31,819/- cannot be sustained. As against both these additions, we restrict the addition to Rs. 15 lcs only.
50. In the result, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed partly.
51. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as indicated above.
ITA 570/2013 ( A.Y. 2009-10) M/s Heera Moti Spices P. Ltd.,Chandigarh
52. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) Central, Gurgaon dated 15.03.2013 for assessment year 2009-10.
53. The ld. counsel for the assessee did not press ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee. Same are dismissed being not pressed.
54. On ground No. 3 assessee challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in applying GP rate of 2.5% to the GP declared by assessee without rejecting the books of account. This issue is same as has been considered in assessment year 2008-09 in ITA 569 of 2013. Following the reasons for decision in that appeal, we set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the entire 37 addition. In the result, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
55. On ground No. 4, assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 32,94,380/-. This issue is similar to the money transaction "jama" and "naam" as in assessment year 2008-09, which have been generated from accounting software Delta-3. The Assessing Officer observed that there were interest calculations on the basis of number of dates and in totality, the balance from these documents were found to be Rs. 32,94,380/- which have been added back to the total income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals) following his order for assessment year 2008-09, confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
56. After considering rival submissions, we are of the view this issue is same as have been considered in assessment year 2008-09 on ground No. 5. The Assessing Officer has reproduced the seized paper in the assessment order. In the first seized paper, noted in para 8 of the assessment order, Assessing Officer has mentioned 'jama' amount of Rs. 22,75,336/- and against 'naam' Rs. 32,58,279/-. The balance amount (Lena baaki 'naam') is Rs. 9,82,943/-. The interest is also mentioned at Rs. 16,657/-. The Assessing Officer, however, made addition of Rs. 3,81,779/- on this issue by following Section 292C of the Act. Another paper 38 seized is referred to in para 8.1 of the assessment order in which 'jama' amount has been shown at Rs. 34,200/- and against 'naam' at of Rs. 28,77,197/- has been shown. The balance (lena baaki) is mentioned at Rs. 28,42,997/-, interest is also shown. The Assessing Officer following Section 292C of the Act, made the addition of Rs. 28,77,197/-. Ld. Representatives of both the parties submitted that this issue is same as have been considered in assessment year 2008-09. Ld. counsel for the assessee also submitted an amount of Rs. 19,45,700/- is same amount considered in A.Y. 2008-09 in para 10.1 of order, therefore, it is duplicate amount. The contention of ld. counsel for the assessee is correct in this regard. However, following the reasons for decision for assessment year 2008-09, we restrict the addition as regards first seized paper, to Rs. 3,81,779/- as is made by the Assessing Officer because it cannot be enhanced further. As regards the second seized paper is concerned, 'jama' amount is only Rs. 34,200/- therefore, as against addition of Rs. 28,77,197/-, the addition is restricted to Rs. 34,200/-. The Assessing Officer shall pass the consequential order accordingly. This ground is, therefore, partly allowed by following reasons for assessment year 2008-09.
57. On ground Nos. 5 to 8, assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 13,96,998/-. The ld. CIT(Appeals) following his order for assessment year 2003-04 on 39 account of fresh creditor confirmed the addition. Ld. Representatives of both the parties submitted that this issue is same as is considered and decided in the case of assessee M/s Himland Agro Foods Ltd. Vs DCIT, Chandigarh in ITA No. 743/2013 for assessment year 2005-06. It is, therefore, covered matter. The orders of authorities below are accordingly set aside and matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer with direction to follow the order in assessment year 2005-06 (supra) and decide the issue accordingly. These grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
58. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
59. In the result, all appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SAINI)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 17th January,2017.
'Poonam'
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A)
4. The CIT,DR
Assistant Registrar,
ITAT/CHD