M/s. Amarjit Singh Bajwa (Contractors), Gurdaspur V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Gurdaspur

CO 29/ASR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7325 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.371(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN :AACFA0093A DY. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, VS. M/S. AMARJEET SINGH B AJWA (CONTRACTORS) CIRCLE, PATHANKOT. DORANGALA, GURDASPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.29(ASR)/2010 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.371(ASR)/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN :AACFA0093A M/S. AMARJEET SINGH BAJWA (CONTRACTORS) VS. DY. COM MR. OF INCOME-TAX, DORANGALA, GURDASUR. CIRCLE, PATHANKOT. DEPARTMENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR ASSESSEE BY: SH. P.N.ARORA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING:23/07/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:26/07/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARISES FROM THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A), AMRITSAR, DATED 15.06.2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED C.O. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL: 2 I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT TO ALLOW THE GROUND NO.2 R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE PL EA THAT CASE WAS WRONGLY SELECTED FOR COMPULSORY SCRUTINY WHEREA S THE CASE WAS RIGHTLY SELECTED FOR COMPULSORY SCRUTINY IN ACC ORDANCE WITH PARA 2(Q) OF GUIDELINES ISSUED BY CBDT NEW DELHI. II) WHETHER ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,43,33,248/- ON ACCOUNT OF WAGES PAYABLE AND RS .68,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY PAYABLE ON THE MERIT BASIS. III) WHETHER ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT TO ALLOW THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO REPRESENT THE CASE ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. IV) APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ADD ANY OR M ORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. IN THE C.O., THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING G ROUNDS: I) ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND DEL ETING THE ADDITIONS AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE. II) THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS GOT NO BASIS AND JUSTIFICAT ION FOR COMING IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE DEPARTMEN T DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS VERY EX HAUSTIVE AND CLEAR ON THE FACTS AS WELL AS ON THE LAW AND THE LD . CIT(A) HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE DELETING THE ADDITIONS. AS SUCH, THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) MAY BE CONFIRMED AND THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT M AY BE DISMISSED AS THE DEPARTMENT HAS GOT NO BASIS, JUSTI FICATION AND REASON FOR COMING IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE THAT THE MATTER IN THE FIRST ROUND TRAVELED UP TO THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH AND THE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 05.06.2009 IN ITA NO.231(ASR)/2009 & IT A NO.150(ASR)/2009 3 SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, WHICH ARE GIVEN IN PARA 7 A RE REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ARE REPRODUCED FOR THE SA KE OF CLARITY AS UNDER: HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE A.O. HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HAS ALSO NOT ESTIMATED THE INCOME UN DER SECTION 143(3) AND MADE SPECIFIC ADDITION IN THE DISCREPANC IES NOTICED BY HIM. THEREFORE, THE FACTS OF THE CASES RELIED ON B Y THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE FACTS OF T HE PRESENT CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE A.O. HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF NON-PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND H E MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE OF NON-VERIFIABLE PURCHASE S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HA S NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING ON THE ADDITION OF RS.1,43,33,248/- ON ACCO UNT OF UNVERIFIABLE CREDITS SHOWN AS A LABOUR AND WAGES PAYABLE WITHOUT APPRECIATION OF FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ITS CLAIM. AS WE HAVE REPRODUCED ABOVE THE FINDINGS OF THE LEA RNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IM PUGNED ORDER IS A NON-SPEAKING ORDER ON THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEP ARTMENT AS MENTIONED ABOVE. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. WE ARE DIRECTING THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON THE BASIS OF RECORD AVAILABLE WITH HIM RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ON THE SAME AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE ALSO DIRECTING THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAM E AFRESH UNDER LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FINDING GIVEN IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL, I.E. I.T.A. NO.23 1(ASR)/2009, THE CROSS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. I.T.A. NO.1 50(ASR)/2009 IS ALSO SET ASIDE TO THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN THE RESULT, BOT H THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3.1. THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE THE ITAT, AMRITSAR B ENCH, BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE ALSO REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CLAR ITY AS UNDER: 4 I. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE LD. CIT(A0 JAMMU, HQ AT AMRITSAR WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW TO DIREC T THE A.O. TO APPLY THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 11% ON THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT AO HAS FRAMED T HE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) AND HAD NOT REJECTED THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. II) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT(A) JAMMU, HQ AT AMRITSAR WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW NOT ADJU DICATING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIABLE BOGUS PURCH ASES OF MATERIAL WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT ASSESS EE DID NOT FILE ANY CONFIRMATION OF THE PURCHASES AND AS PER THE GO VERNMENT DEPARTMENTS THIS MUCH OF MATERIAL WAS NOT REQUIRED AT ALL. III) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT(A) JAMMU, HQ AT AMRITSAR WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW BY NOT A DJUSTING THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.1,43,33,248/- ON ACCOUN T OF UNVERIFIABLE CREDITS SHOWN AS LABOUR AND WAGES PAYA BLE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THIS MUCH OF WAGES WERE PAYA BLE AS ON 31.03.2006. IV) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT(A0 JAMMU, HQ AT AMRITSAR WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONVERTING A CASE OF UNVERIFIABLE/BOGUS PURCHASES INTO A CASE OF NO BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS AND THUS APPLIED A PERCENTAGE RATE TO DET ERMINE THE NET PROFIT TO BE TAXED. 3.2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. DCIT(DR) FOR THE REVENU E MR. TARSEM LAL, POINTED OUT AT THE COPY OF THE PROCEDURE FOR SELEC TION OF CASES FOR SCRUTINY FO R NON-CORPORATE ASSESSEES, WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN ASSE SSEES PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 88 TO 90. IT WAS READ BY THE LD. DCIT(DR) THAT THE SAID PROC EDURE FOR SELECTION OF CASES FOR SCRUTINY IS FOR THE CASES TO BE TAKEN FOR SCRUTINY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. OBVIOUSLY, THE CASES TO BE TAKEN FOR SCRUTINY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 WILL PERTAIN TO T HE YEARS PRECEDING TO 5 FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 WHEREAS THE IMPUGNED YEAR BE FORE US IS FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND THE REFORE, THIS PROCEDURE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEEBEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT FOR THE YEAR IN DISPUTE, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DEC IDING THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED BY THE LD. DCIT(DR ), MR. TARSEM LAL THAT SINCE THE MATTER HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) BY THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, TO ADJUDICATE THE MATTER AFRESH UND ER LAW AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE SET ASIDE MA TTER, THERE WAS NO ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THE JURISDICTION AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DECIDING THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. P.N.ARORA, ADVOCATE, RELIED UPON THE SAID PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION OF CASE AT PB 88 TO 90 AND THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE ARE CONVINCED WITH THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. DCIT (DR), MR. TARSEM LAL THAT THE PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION OF CASE S FOR SCRUTINY FOR NON- CORPORATE ASSESSEES IS FOR THE CASES FOR TAKING INT O SCRUTINY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 AND SELECTION IN THE FINANCI AL YEAR 2005-06 CAN ONLY BE TAKEN FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DECIDING THE ISSUE F OLLOWING THE SAID PROCEDURE 6 WHICH IS NOT AVAILABLE DURING THE IMPUGNED FINANCI AL YEAR 2005-06 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. MOREOVER, THE MATTE R HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) BY THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BE NCH NOT ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS REQU IRED TO LIMIT HIMSELF TO THE DIRECTION OF THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH AND THE L D. CIT(A) HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE DECIDED WIT H REGARD TO JURISDICTION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IS REVERSED AND GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED ACCORDINGLY. 6. AS REGARDS GROUNDS NO. 2 & 3, THE BRIEF FACTS AR E THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO PRODUCE COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONGWITH DETAILS OF WAGES AND SALARY PAYABLE AND WHEN THESE WERE ACTUALLY PAID, THE DETAILS OF SECURITIES AND FDRS ETC. THE ADVOCATE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD E MPLOYED KASHMIRI LABOUR WHICH STAYS AT THE VARIOUS JOB SITES AND LAB OUR IS PAID ON DAILY BASIS. AS THE LABOUR STAYS IN TENTS AT THE JOBS SITES ON F AR OFF PLACES FROM TOWNS AND VILLAGES, DUE TO WHICH LACK OF ANY SECURITY MEASURE S AT THE SITES, THEY KEEP THEIR CASH WITH US AND TAKE IT FROM US ONLY AT THE TIME OF LEAVING FOR THEIR HOMES & VILLAGES AFTER COMPLETION OF WORKS. THE HIS TORY OF LABOUR PAID AND PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: Y.E. AMOUNT OF LABOUR WORK EMPLOYED LABOUR PAYABLE 7 31.03.2003 11612860.00 4838060.00 31.03.2004 8394260.00 4583540.00 31.03.2005 29754360.00 14025660.00 31.03.2006 27472950.00 16622660.00 THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED DETAILS OF SALARY PAYAB LE, PURCHASE BILLS OF CEMENT AND BRICKS, DETAILS OF FDRS AND SECURITIES, WAGES PAYABLE ETC.. THE AO NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION AND DET AILS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN ASKED TO PRODUCE MUSTER ROLLS, A TTENDANCE REGISTER AND OTHER DETAILS WITH RESPECT TO WAGES AND SALARY WHIC H WERE NOT PRODUCED. THE AO AFTER ALLOWING ONE MONTH WAGES OUT OF TOTAL WAGE S PAYABLE OF RS.1,66,22,660/- DISALLOWED RS.1,43,33,248/- AND AD DED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ALSO MADE A DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.68,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY PAYABLE. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) IN VIEW OF THE DIRECTION OF THE I TAT, AMRITSAR BENCH AND ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, ALLO WED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF THE LABOUR TO WHOM WAGES ARE PAYABLE AS AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR. DURING THE YEAR, AS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE H AD MADE TOTAL PAYMENTS OF 8 RS.1,08,50,290/- ON ACCOUNT OF WAGES. AS AT 31.03.2 005, THE AMOUNT OF WAGES WAS PAYABLE AT RS.1,40,25,660/-. EVEN IF DURI NG THE IMPUGNED YEAR, NO WAGES PERTAINING TO THIS YEAR HAVE BEEN PAID AND ENTIRE PAYMENT OF RS.1,08,50,290/- WAS IN RESPECT OF WAGES PAYABLE OU TSTANDING ON 31.03.2005. THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.31,75,3 70/- WAS INCLUDED IN THE WAGES PAYABLE AT RS.1,66,22,660/- AS AT 31.03.2005, WHICH CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR AS LIABILITY BEING PERTAINED T O THE EARLIER YEAR. THEREFORE, THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE AD DITION TO THIS EXTENT HAS RIGHTLY BEEN HELD BY LD. CIT(A). AS REGARDS THE GE NUINENESS OF WAGES, THE AO HAS TREATED THE WAGES OF ONE MONTH AS GENUINE AN D OTHERS AS INGENUINE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AUTHORITIES HAVE TO MAKE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT WHICH SHOULD BE HONES T AND FAIR. THIS VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF BRIJ BHUSHAN LAL PRADUMAN KUMAR VS. CIT (1978) 115 ITR 2 24 (SC). THOUGH ARBITRARINESS CANNOT BE AVOIDED IN SUCH ESTIMATE, T HE SAME MUST NOT BE CAPRICIOUS BUT SHOULD HAVE A REASONABLE NEXUS TO TH E AVAILABLE MATERIAL AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ESTIMATE SHOULD BE M ADE ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF REASON, AS HELD BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MYSORE FERTILIZER CO. VS. CIT 59 ITR 268. THE AO IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS BRUSHED ASIDE THE RELIANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE PAST HISTORY, WHICH IN FACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 HAS BEEN FINALIZED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE 9 ORDER DATED 24.03.2006 AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE AND THERE WAS OUTSTANDING WAGES PAYABLE AMOUNTING TO RS.48,38,060 /-. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WAS ALSO PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 26.12.2007 WHERE OUTSTANDING W AGES PAYABLE WERE AT RS.1,40,25,660/- . IF THE ADDITIONS, AS MADE BY TH E AO ARE COMPARED WITH THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE, THE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE COMES AT 40.32% WHICH IS ALMOST 4 TO 5 TIMES OF THE INCOME SHOWN IN THE PAST AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF OTHER CONTRACTORS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMEN T MADE BY THE AO IS NOT BASED ON THE FACTS BUT AN ARBITRARY ASSESSMENT. THE EXPENDITURE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS ON THE WAGES AS TO THE TURNOVER WAS 66.46%, 67.95% AND 55.60% FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2004-05 A ND 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY AS COMPARED TO 58.75% IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO EXCESS CLAIM OF THE EXPENDITURE DURING THE IM PUGNED YEAR. IT IS ALSO COMMON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO MAKE SECURITY DEPO SITS WHICH ARE INTEGRAL PARTS OF THE CONTRACTS AND THEY ARE SETTLED ONLY ON THE SETTLEMENT OF THE FINAL BILLS BY THE CONTRACTEE. IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPITAL OR HAS THE MINIMUM CAPITAL AND THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO MANAGING HIS AFFAIRS WITH THE NET MINIMUM CAPITAL OF RS. 2 LACS APPROXIMATELY, THEN THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY OBJECTION AND THE DEPARTMENT CAN NOT SIT OVER THE C HAIR OF THE BUSINESS PERSON. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. DR IN T HIS REGARD ARE REJECTED. THE AO IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 007-08 HAS APPLIED N.P. 10 RATE OF 8% ON CONTRACT RECEIPTS AFTER INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT, WHEREIN THE OUTSTANDING WAGES A RE PAYABLE AT RS.85,39,110/- AS AT 31.03.2007. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE A.O. SIMILARLY, FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE DELET ION OF ADDITION OF RS.68,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY PAYABLE IS JUSTIFI ED. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER AND HENCE, THE SAME IS UPHELD. 9. AS REGARDS GROUND RELATE TO THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES OF MATERIAL, WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEWS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT GI VING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE AO HAD GIVEN A SHOW CAUSE TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME BY APPLYING A N.P. RATE OF 8%, IF SUCH DETAILS WERE N OT SUBMITTED. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING SPECIFIC ADDITIO N WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. 10. AS REGARDS THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO, AS ARGUED BY THE LD. DR, THE AO HAS GIVEN WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN THE SAID LETTER WITH REGARD TO THE WAGES OF RS.1,43,33,248/-, THE SAME HAS BEEN CONSIDERED B Y US AND NO USEFUL PURPOSE COULD BE SERVED EVEN IF AN OPPORTUNITY COU LD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, SINCE WE HAVE APPROVED THE CONTENTION OF THE AO GIVEN IN THE LETTER DATED 11 20.11.2009 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED DETAILS OF WAGES PAYABLE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,43,33,248/- AND OTHER SUBMISSIONS OF THE AO IN OUR ORDER HEREINABOVE. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE PRESENT CASE, GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 11. AS REGARDS C.O. NO.29(ASR)/2010 OF THE ASSESSEE , THE SAME IS SUPPORTIVE IN NATURE AND THEREFORE, DID NOT REQUIR E ANY ADJUDICATION AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.371(ASR)/2010 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND C.O. NO.20(ASR)/2010 OF THE ASSE SSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26TH JULY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 26TH JULY, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: 2. THE 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.