M/s Ginni filaments Ltd., Mathura V. A.C.I.T.-3, Mathura

CO 17/AGR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8812 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 30-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIRUDH KUMAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 115JB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.164/AGRA/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, VS. M/S. GINNI FILAMENTS LTD., MATHURA. 110-KM STONE, DELHI MATHURA ROAD, CHHATA, MATHURA. (PAN: AABCG 0942 K). C.O. NO.17/AGRA/2013 (IN ITA NO.164/AGRA/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 M/S. GINNI FILAMENTS LTD., VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, 110-KM STONE, MATHURA. DELHI MATHURA ROAD, CHHATA, MATHURA. (PAN: AABCG 0942 K). (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) REVENUE BY : SHRI ANIRUDH KUMAR, CIT (D.R.) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANURAG SINHA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 30.07.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.08.2013 ORDER PER A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 2 ITA NO.164/AGRA/2013 & C.O. NO.17/AGRA/2013. A.Y. 2006-07 THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY TH E ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2012 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-I, AGRA FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THAT THE LD CIT(A)-I, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,84,635/- MADE ON ACCO UNT OF ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF STAFF WELFARE EXP ENSES AND MOST OF THE PAYMENT MADE WAS IN CASH. 2. THAT THE LD CIT(A)-I, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,40,096/- MADE FOR THE ABSENCE OF ANY LOG BOOK OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND PERSONAL USE OF TELE PHONE BY THE DIRECTORS AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS COULD NOT BE RUL ED OUT. 3. THAT THE LD CIT(A)-I, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,07,654/- MADE FOR THE ABSENCE OF ANY LOG BOOK IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE EXPENSES AND PERSONAL US E OF VEHICLES ALSO COULD NOT BE RULED OUT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN IT S CROSS APPEAL:- 1. BECAUSE, THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST TO THE EXTE NT AGAINST THE CROSS OBJECTOR IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS, LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. BECAUSE, ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND IN T HE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WER E NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING FOR REVALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK IGNORING THE DETAILED SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD. 3. BECAUSE, ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER HAVING HELD THAT LIABILITY OF E XCISE DUTY WOULD ARISE ONLY AFTER GOODS ARE CLEARED FROM THE FACTORY OUGHT NOT TO HAVE HELD 3 ITA NO.164/AGRA/2013 & C.O. NO.17/AGRA/2013. A.Y. 2006-07 THAT THE AO HAS CORRECTLY APPLIED THE METHOD OF V ALUATION AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 145A OF THE ACT. 4. BECAUSE, ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WE RE UNJUSTIFIED IN MAKING AND CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.6,17,892/- IGN ORING THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD. 5. BECAUSE, ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND IN TH E OVERALL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERR ED IN WRONGLY DISALLOWING PART OF THE EXPENSES DEBITED UNDER THE FOLLOWING HEADS IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD : (A) REPAIR & MAINTENANCE (BUILDING) RS.6,53,569/- (B) REPAIR & MAINTENANCE (OTHERS & ELECTRICAL) RS.6 ,31,991/- 6. BECAUSE, WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT THE AO AN D WHILE SUSTAINING THE ADDITION THE CIT(A) MADE VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS/CONCLUSIONS WHICH ARE CONTRARY TO FACT S AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN THIS ASPECT ARE WHOLLY PERVERSE AND INADMISSIBLE IN LAW. WHILE MAKING AND SUSTAINING T HE ADDITION SUBMISSION MADE AND EVIDENCES FILED HAVE BEEN REJEC TED ARBITRARILY. 7. BECAUSE, THE APPELLANT DENIES LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234C OF THE ACT. 8. BECAUSE, IN RELATION TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS HAVE BEEN TAKEN HEREINBEFORE, THE APPELLANT REFER AND RELY UPON THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE STATEMENT OF FACT ACCOMPANYING THE MEMO OF APPEAL. 3. FIRST WE TAKE UP APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. B RIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MAN UFACTURING AND TRADING OF COTTON YARN AND COTTON KNITTED FABRICS. THE COMPAN Y OPERATES UNDER 100 % EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN SUPPORTING BILLS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF 4 ITA NO.164/AGRA/2013 & C.O. NO.17/AGRA/2013. A.Y. 2006-07 EXPENSES, THE A.O. DISALLOWED 1/12 TH OUT OF STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES OF WHICH CALCULATION COMES TO RS.5,84,635/-. SIMILARLY 1/7 TH OUT OF TELEPHONE CHARGES ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE, OF WHICH, CALCULATIONS COM ES TO RS.4,40,096/- AND 1/10 TH OUT OF VEHICLE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE, OF WHICH, CALCULATION COMES TO RS.5,07,654/-. 4. THE CIT(A) DELETED ALL THE ABOVE THREE ADDITIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE A.O. MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCES WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY S PECIFIC EXPENDITURE FOR DISALLOWANCE. 5. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF I.T.A.T., AGRA BENCH IN ASS ESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.YS. 2007-08 & 2003-04 IN ITA NOS.399/AGRA/2011, 402/AGR A/2011 & 398/AGRA/2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 12.07.2013. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PAR TIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. WE FIND THAT ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, THE ISSUE H AS BEEN DECIDED BY I.T.A.T., AGRA BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.YS. 2007-08 & 20 03-04 IN ITA NOS.399/AGRA/2011, 402/AGRA/2011 & 398/AGRA/2012 VI DE ORDER DATED 12.07.2013. THE RELEVANT FACTS AND FINDING OF I.T. A.T. IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 5 ITA NO.164/AGRA/2013 & C.O. NO.17/AGRA/2013. A.Y. 2006-07 27. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS IN R ESPECT OF DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.3,18,519/-. THE A.O. MADE THE ADDIT ION OF RS.3,18,519/- BEING 1/12 TH OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A .O. HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE A.O. HAS DISALLOW ED 1/12 TH ADHOC DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC EXPE NDITURE. 28. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PA RTIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. WE NOTICE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DEL ETED THE ADDITION AS THE A.O. MADE ADHOC ADDITION WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY S PECIFIC EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 29. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS RELEVANT TO STATE THAT TH E CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION AS THE A.O. HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT AN Y SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE LIKE BILLS AND VOUCHERS OR THE EXPENDITURE WHICH WERE NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE CIT(A) WHEREVER IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THE A.O. HAS POINTED OUT SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE WHICH WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE OF VOUCHERS AND WERE NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THOSE ADDITIO NS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). IN THE LIGHT OF DETAILED DISCUSSION MA DE BY THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.3,18,519/-. IN THE ALIGHT OF THE FACT, ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,18,519/-. 30. THE SECOND GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL PERTAINS TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.3,95,212/- AND THE THIRD GROUND PERT AINS TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.5,64,367/-. THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED 1/8 TH OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF TELEPHONE AND MOBILE EXPENSES OF WHICH CALCULATI ON COMES TO RS.3,95,212/- AND RS.5,64,637/- BEING 1/10 TH OUT OF VEHICLE EXPENSES. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE C IT(A) AS UNDER :- (PAGE NOS.37 & 38) THEREFORE, I AGREE WITH THE LD. AR THAT IN CASE AN Y EXPENDITURE HAS SUFFERED F.B.T., DISALLOWANCE ON PA RT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE MADE TOWARDS POSSIBLE USE OF FACILITIES BY DIRECTORS AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. IN MY OPINI NG, THE F.B.T. SO LEVIED WOULD TAKE CARE OF ANY DISALLOWANC E WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLY MADE BEFORE IMPOSITION OF SUCH LEVY. 6 ITA NO.164/AGRA/2013 & C.O. NO.17/AGRA/2013. A.Y. 2006-07 CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND RELYING ON AFORESAID CASE LAWS MENTIONED BY LD. AR AS WELL THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT, AGRA IN THE CASE OF SHIVANGI METAL (P ) LTD. VS. ACIT, MATHURA. I HEREBY DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.3 ,95,212/- AND RS.5,64,367./- MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON AD HOC BASIS OUT OF TELEPHONE AND VEHICLE EXPENSES. THEREFORE, GROUND NOS.4 & 5 ARE ALLOWED. 31. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PA RTIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. WE NOTICE THAT BEFORE DELETING THE ADDITI ON THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE ISSUE. THE CIT(A ) NOTED THAT THE A.O. MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OUT OF TELEPHONE AND VEHICLE EXP ENSES FOR PERSONAL USE OF THE DIRECTOR. THE CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THE F.B.T . HAS BEEN PAID BY THE COMPANY ON VEHICLE AND TELEPHONE. THEREFORE, NO SE PARATE DISALLOWANCE IS REQUIRED FOR PERSONAL USE OF TELEPHONE AND VEHICLE ETC. THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL TO THE FI NDING OF THE CIT(A). IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT, ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. 7. SINE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, TO MAINTAIN CONSIS TENCY, WE FOLLOW THE ABOVE ORDER OF I.T.A.T., AGRA BENCH AND IN THE LIGHT OF T HAT WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.5,84,635/-, RS.4,40,096/- AND RS.5, 07,654/- OUT OF STAFF WELFARE, OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND OUT OF VEHICLES EXPENSES RESPECTIVELY. C.O. NO.17/AGRA/2013 BY THE ASSESSEE 8. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GIVE EFFETE OF SECTION 145A OF THE ACT IN CLOSING STOCK. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY GAVE THE EFFEC T OF SECTION 145A OF THE ACT IN 7 ITA NO.164/AGRA/2013 & C.O. NO.17/AGRA/2013. A.Y. 2006-07 RESPECT OF CST & DUTY DRAW BACK IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 145A OF THE ACT AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,11,58,545/- IN VALUATION OF T HE CLOSING STOCK. THE CIT(A) IN PRINCIPLE AGREED WITH THE A.O. THAT SECTION 145A OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE, HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) WHILE FOLLOWING HIS EARLIER ORDER IN ASS ESSEES OWN CASE DIRECTED THE A.O. TO RECALCULATE THE VALUATION OF OPENING STOCK, PURCHASE AND SALE AMOUNT AND THEN CLOSING STOCK IN THE SIMILAR MANNER AS PER THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY HIM IN A.Y. 2007-08. 9. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO.1 AND 8 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. 10. GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 PERTAIN TO SECTION 145A OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER). 11. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOR THE P URPOSE OF EXCISE DUTY, THEREFORE, THE EFFECT OF SECTION 145A OF THE ACT IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN ACCORDINGLY. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PA RTIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. WE FIND THAT ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS THE ISSUE HA S BEEN DECIDED BY I.T.A.T., AGRA BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEAR IN IT A NOS.399/AGRA/2011, 8 ITA NO.164/AGRA/2013 & C.O. NO.17/AGRA/2013. A.Y. 2006-07 402/AGRA/2011 & 398/AGRA/2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 12.0 7.2013. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF I.T.A.T. IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE P ARTIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. THE GROUND NOS.1 & 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE IN ITS APPEAL PERTAIN TO GIVING EFFECT TO SECTION 145A OF THE ACT. IN PR INCIPLE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING VALUATION OF PURCHASE, SALE AND STOCK IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 145A OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE EFFECT OF SECTION 145A IS TO BE GIVEN IN RESPECT OF CENTRAL SALES TAX, DUTY DRAW BACK AND EXCISE DUTY. THE CIT(A) WHILE CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISS ION HELD THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT DELIVERED BY VARI OUS COURTS ABOUT THE INCLUSION OF CESS, DUTY, FEE OR TAX WHICH ARE ACTUA LLY PAID OR INCURRED IN THE VALUATION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF GOODS AND INVENTO RY (CLOSING STOCK AS WELL AS OPENING STOCK). THE CIT(A) WHILE CONSIDERING TH E ASSESSEES SUBMISSION HELD THAT EXCISE DUTY IS INCLUDIBLE WHEN IT WAS INC URRED OR PAID. WHILE DECIDING THIS ASPECT, THE CIT(A) NOTED AS UNDER:- I FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS CORRECTLY APPLIED THE METHOD OF VALUATION AS PROVID ED UNDER SECTION 145A. THE ASSESSEE PICKED UP THE LAST LINE OF THE OBSERVA TION OF THE CIT(A) AND RAISED THE GROUND NO.2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TH E GROUND NO.2 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A). OBSERVATIO N OF THE CIT(A) IN PARAGRAPH NOS.5.16 AND 5.17.2 BOTH ARE REQUIRED TO BE READ TOGETHER. IF WE READ BOTH THE PARAGRAPHS TOGETHER, WE NOTICE THAT T HE CIT(A) HAS CLEARLY OBSERVED THAT INCLUSION OF EXCISE DUTY IN THE CLOSI NG STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS THE A.O. DID NOT BRING ON RECORD WHETHER GOODS REQU IRED FOR SALE IN DOMESTIC MARKET WAS BROUGHT OUTSIDE THE FACTORY OF THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. THE A.O. WAS DIRECTED TO FIND OUT THE AMOUNT OF GODS BR OUGHT OUTSIDE THE FACTORY AFTER MANUFACTURING FOR SALE IN DOMESTIC MARKET AND COMPUTE THE AMOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SUCH GOODS. IT HAS ALSO BEEN DIRECTED BY CIT(A) TO THE A.O. THAT SUCH DETAILS OF INCURRING OF EXCISE DUTY COULD BE COLLECTED BY THE A.O. FROM THE CONCERNED E XCISE AUTHORITIES WHO CLEAR THE GOODS FROM FACTORY OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER MANUFACTURING. THE CIT(A) FURTHER DIRECTED THAT AFTER COMPUTING THE AM OUNT OF EXCISE DUTY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MANUFACTURING OF GOODS WHICH WERE BROUGHT OUTSIDE THE FACTORY, THE SAME SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK AND AFTER DEDUCTING THE VALUE OF EXCISE DUTY TAKEN IN THE OPENING STOCK OF THE FINISHED GOODS, THE NET ADDITION HAS TO BE A MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN SUCH DIRECTION TO THE A.O AFTE R ACCEPTING ASSESSEES CONTENTION. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US , IT WAS ASKED THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES TO FURNISH THE DETAILED WORKING OF EFFECT OF 9 ITA NO.164/AGRA/2013 & C.O. NO.17/AGRA/2013. A.Y. 2006-07 SECTION 145A IN RESPECT OF EXCISE DUTY AND INDICATE THE EFFECT OF SECTION 145A IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ASSESSEE BUT THE LD. AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVES HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY SUCH CALCULATION BEFORE US. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN CLEAR GUIDELINES REGARDING CALCULATION OF EFFECT OF SECTI ON 145A IN RESPECT OF EXCISE DUTY. CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION , THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT OUT ANY EXAC T GRIEVANCE WITH QUANTITY. IN ABSENCE OF SUCH DETAILS, ORDER OF CIT(A) CANNOT BE HELD TO BE INCORRECT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT, ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CO NFIRMED IN THIS REGARD. 13. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, TO MAINTAIN CONS ISTENCY, WE FOLLOW THE ABOVE ORDER OF I.T.A.T. IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA) AN D IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT, ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. 14. OTHER GROUNDS NO.4, 5 & 6 RAISED IN THE CROSS O BJECTION ARE PERTAINING TO CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.6,17,892/- OUT OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF PLANT & MACHINERY, RS.6,53,569/- OUT OF BUILDING REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE, RS.6,31,991/- OUT OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRIC AND FURN ITURE & FIXTURES ETC. THE A.O. NOTICED THE SPECIFIC BILLS FOR AMOUNT OF DISALLOWAN CE, THE DETAILS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY A.O. IN HIS ORDER. 15. THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF A.O. AS T HE A.O. HAS POINTED OUT SPECIFIC VOUCHER FOR MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE. 10 ITA NO.164/AGRA/2013 & C.O. NO.17/AGRA/2013. A.Y. 2006-07 16. AFTER HEARING THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PA RTIES, WE NOTICE THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE ORDER OF I.T.A.T., AGRA BENC H IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS.399/AGRA/2011, 402/AGRA/2011 & 398/AGRA/2012 VI DE ORDER DATED 12.07.2013. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF I.T.A.T. IS RE PRODUCED AS UNDER :- 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE P ARTIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE US WAS THAT THE A.O. MADE THE ADHOC ADDITION AND SU CH ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. WE NOTICE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT THE A.O. HAS POINTED OUT THE SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE CIT(A) HAS DISTINGUISHED THE JUDGEMENT CITED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHILE DISTINGUISHING THE DECISION CITED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE MATTER RELATING TO REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF T HE PLANT & MACHINERY FOR WHICH SUBSTANTIAL EXPENSES WERE CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE BUT SUPPORTING BILLS AND VOUCHERS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED. WHEN THE A.O. HAS POINTED OUT SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE EXPENDITURES WERE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSIN ESS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS BURDEN IN THIS REGARD. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT, WE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.89,184/-. THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED ON THE ISSUE. 17. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, TO MAINTAIN CONS ISTENCY, WE FOLLOW THE ABOVE ORDER OF I.T.A.T. IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WHEREIN TH E ORDER OF CIT(A) HAS BEEN CONFIRMED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS, WE CONFIRM T HE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THIS YEAR ALSO. 11 ITA NO.164/AGRA/2013 & C.O. NO.17/AGRA/2013. A.Y. 2006-07 18. GROUND NO.7 IS IN RESPECT OF CHARGING OF INTERE ST UNDER SECTION 234C OF THE ACT. THIS GROUND IS ALSO IDENTICAL TO EARLIER YEAR S WHEREIN THE I.T.A.T., AGRA BENCH IN ITA NOS.399/AGRA/2011, 402/AGRA/2011 & 398 /AGRA/2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 12.07.2013 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AS UNDER :- 25. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE P ARTIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS WHICH WERE MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A). WE NOTICE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION INC LUDING SUBMISSION REGARDING THE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT BY TH E FINANCE ACT W.E.F. 01.04.2001 IN RESPECT OF CALCULATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A). WE NOTICE THAT THE CIT(A ) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234C OF THE ACT IS MANDATORY AS PER LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M.H. ANJUM GHASWALA, 252 ITR 1 (SC). WHEN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M.H. ANJUM GHASWALA (SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMIT Y IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED IN THIS R EGARD. 19. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF I.T.A.T., AGRA BEN CH, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS CONFIRMED. 20. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BOTH ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PBN/* 12 ITA NO.164/AGRA/2013 & C.O. NO.17/AGRA/2013. A.Y. 2006-07 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY