M/s Sudarshan Paper & Board Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata V. DCIT, Circle - 4(2), KOLKATA, Kolkata

CO 33/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7458 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2021
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Speculation loss; Assessment record; Onus to prove; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 14A; 133(6); 37(1); 250; 13; 68; 145; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI ABY T. VARKEY, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO. 131/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA.................................................APPELLANT VS. M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD............................................RESPONDENT 27, BRABOURNE ROAD ROOM NO. 311 KOLKATA 700 001 [PAN : AAHCS 1241 F] C.O. NO. 33/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD.................................................APPELLANT 27, BRABOURNE ROAD ROOM NO. 311 KOLKATA 700 001 [PAN : AAHCS 1241 F] VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA.............................................RESPONDENT ITA NO. 836/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA.................................................APPELLANT VS. M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD............................................RESPONDENT 27, BRABOURNE ROAD ROOM NO. 311 KOLKATA 700 001 [PAN : AAHCS 1241 F] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI S.M. SURANA, ADVOCATE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI MANISH KANORIA, CIT D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : FEBRUARY 11 TH , 2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : APRIL 1 ST , 2021 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE BUT IDENTICAL ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2, (HEREINAFTER THE LD. CIT(A)), PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 07/11/2017 & 22/02/2018, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 AND 2014-15 RESPECTIVELY. THE CROSS- OBJECTION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 131/KOL/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14. AS THE ISSUES ARISING IN BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON, FOR THE SAKE OF CON VENIENCE, THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND IS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN PAPER AND BOARD. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014- 15 ON 29/11/2014. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.13,14,75,970/ RS.21,52,86,940/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 2.1. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL DISPUTING THE PASSING OF PARTE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO DISPUTING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ASSESS ASSESSEE AND VIOLATING VARIOUS PRINCIPLES OF LAW BASED ON WHICH BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENTS WERE TO BE PASSED. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THE R THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOWED NO INCLINATION TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. HE JUSTIFIED THE PASSING OF ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT. IN THE SECOND REMAND RE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT WERE UNJUSTIFIED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PARA 4 JUSTIFIES THE ADDITIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE ON 28/01/201 SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE PAST RECORD BY WAY OF SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN THE A 3. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD IN DELETING RS.3,12,66,706/ THE ASSESSEE IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND REMAND PROCEEDINGS. 2 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD 14. AS THE ISSUES ARISING IN BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON, FOR THE SAKE OF VENIENCE, THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND IS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN PAPER AND BOARD. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 -14 ON 26/09/2013 AND FOR THE 15 ON 29/11/2014. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.13,14,75,970/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 -15. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL DISPUTING THE PASSING OF GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO DISPUTING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ASSESS MENT WAS COMPLETED IGNORING THE PAST RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND VIOLATING VARIOUS PRINCIPLES OF LAW BASED ON WHICH BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENTS WERE TO BE PASSED. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THE R EMAND REPORT ON 9 TH AUGUST, 2017, CLAIMING THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOWED NO INCLINATION TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. HE JUSTIFIED THE PASSING OF ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT. IN THE SECOND REMAND RE PORT, CALLED FOR BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT WERE UNJUSTIFIED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PARA 4 JUSTIFIES THE ADDITIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE ON 28/01/201 6. THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE PAST RECORD BY WAY OF PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT ORDERS AS WELL AS THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN THE A SSESSEES CASE AND GRANTED RELIEF AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14, READS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD . CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING RS.3,12,66,706/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TRADE PAYABLES WHICH COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND REMAND PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO. 131/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 C.O. NO. 33/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ITA NO. 836/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD . 14. AS THE ISSUES ARISING IN BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON, FOR THE SAKE OF VENIENCE, THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND IS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN PAPER AND BOARD. IT ON 26/09/2013 AND FOR THE 15 ON 29/11/2014. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR DETERMINING THE TOTAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 -14 AND AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL DISPUTING THE PASSING OF EX- GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO DISPUTING THE WAS COMPLETED IGNORING THE PAST RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND VIOLATING VARIOUS PRINCIPLES OF LAW BASED ON WHICH BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENTS WERE TO BE PASSED. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CALLED FOR A REMAND AUGUST, 2017, CLAIMING THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOWED NO INCLINATION TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. HE JUSTIFIED THE PASSING OF ORDER U/S CALLED FOR BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT WERE UNJUSTIFIED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PARA 4 JUSTIFIES THE ADDITIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO 6. THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT ORDERS AS WELL AS THE SSESSEES CASE AND GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 14, READS AS FOLLOWS: - . CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON ACCOUNT OF TRADE PAYABLES WHICH COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED BY 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ERRED IN DELETING A SUM OF RS. 4,93,01,115/ EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRE D IN DELETING OF RS. 11,14,396/ 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING A SUM OF RS. 84,47,086/ EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING A SUM OF RS. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW ERRED IN DELETING A SUM OF RS. 2,53,82 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR LEAVE TO ADD, DELETE, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY GROUND BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS 4.1. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 144 OF THE ACT WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE FACT OF TH ASSESSEE'S NON- COM PLIANCE IN ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF IN DELETING RS. 92,20,409/ - 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRC DELETING RS. 4,36,97,031/- FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S FAILURE TO 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES RS. 11,86,90,207/- ON ACCOUNT OF CURRENT LIABILITIES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S FAILURE TO PROVE OR SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME 5. W HETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS. 69,20,273/ 6. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRC RS. 1,48,827/- U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8 7. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES O RS. 2,96,05,303/- AS NE T PROFIT @ 2% OF GROSS RECEIPTS 8. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING RS. 69,70,413/- AS OTHER INCOME 9. WHETHER THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR LEAVE TO ADD, DELETE, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY GROUND BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 3 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ERRED IN DELETING A SUM OF RS. 4,93,01,115/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN WHICH COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS D IN DELETING OF RS. 11,14,396/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING A SUM OF RS. 84,47,086/ - ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID WHICH WAS NOT BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING A SUM OF RS. 1,68,80,801/-AS OTHER INCOME. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE LD. C ERRED IN DELETING A SUM OF RS. 2,53,82 ,407/- AS ADDITIONAL NET PROFIT. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR LEAVE TO ADD, DELETE, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY GROUND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15, READS AS FOLLOWS: WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 144 OF THE ACT WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE FACT OF TH PLIANCE IN ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS . WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CI - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED TRADE PAYABLES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S FAILURE TO PROVE OR SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ON ACCOUNT OF CURRENT LIABILITIES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE PROVE OR SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME . HETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING PAYMENT OF RS. 69,20,273/ -. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CI T(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING RS. 1,48,827/- U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8 D. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING T PROFIT @ 2% OF GROSS RECEIPTS . WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING AS OTHER INCOME . WHETHER THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR LEAVE TO ADD, DELETE, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY GROUND BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO. 131/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 C.O. NO. 33/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ITA NO. 836/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD . THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CLT(A) HAS ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN WHICH COULD NOT BE THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID WHICH WAS NOT THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS , THE LD. C IT(A) HAS THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR LEAVE TO ADD, DELETE, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY GROUND 15, READS AS FOLLOWS: - WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 144 OF THE ACT WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE FACT OF TH E THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CI T(A) HAS ERRED UMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED TRADE PAYABLES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ON ACCOUNT OF CURRENT LIABILITIES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING T(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING F THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING WHETHER THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR LEAVE TO ADD, DELETE, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY GROUND BEFORE 4.2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE CROSS 1. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ALL THE ADDITIONS AFTER ALLOWING THE AO AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAD ON ALL THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL. 2. FOR THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 5. THE LD. D/R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE FILED PHOTOCOPIES OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLING FOR THE REMAND REPORT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. NOT DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCES F GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER GAVE HIS REPORT ON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE REFERRED TO THE REMAND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN THE INSTANCES WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE HIM AND JUSTIFIED THE PASSING OF THE ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED AN ORDER WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY T OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE AND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THESE APPEALS SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DIR WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS 5.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT T ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS AND FILED ALL THE DETAILS CALLED FOR AND THAT THIS FACT IS CLEAR FROM BOTH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HAS IN A VERY ARBITRARY MANNER, WITHOUT CONSIDERING ANY OF THE PAPERS OR EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE HIM DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MADE HIGH PITCHED AND HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED ADDITIONS WHICH CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. 5.2. HE SUBMITTED T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT NOT ONLY ON THE ISSUE OF VIOLATIONS OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BUT ALSO ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED 4 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE CROSS - OBJECTIONS, READS AS FOLLOWS: FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING ALL THE ADDITIONS AFTER ALLOWING THE AO AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAD ON ALL THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE FOR THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF THE LD. D/R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CO - OPERATED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE FILED PHOTOCOPIES OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLING FOR THE REMAND REPORT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. NOT DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCES F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE OR TO AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER GAVE HIS REPORT ON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE REFERRED TO THE REMAND HAS GIVEN THE INSTANCES WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE HIM AND JUSTIFIED THE PASSING OF THE ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED AN ORDER WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY T OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE AND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THESE APPEALS SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DIR ECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT T ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS AND FILED ALL THE DETAILS CALLED FOR AND THAT THIS FACT IS CLEAR FROM BOTH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE A VERY ARBITRARY MANNER, WITHOUT CONSIDERING ANY OF THE PAPERS OR EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE HIM DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MADE HIGH PITCHED AND HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED ADDITIONS WHICH CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. HAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT NOT ONLY ON THE ISSUE OF VIOLATIONS OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BUT ALSO ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED ITA NO. 131/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 C.O. NO. 33/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ITA NO. 836/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD . OBJECTIONS, READS AS FOLLOWS: - CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING ALL THE ADDITIONS AFTER ALLOWING THE AO AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAD ON ALL THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE FOR THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF OPERATED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE FILED PHOTOCOPIES OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLING FOR THE REMAND REPORT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ILED BY THE ASSESSEE OR TO AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER GAVE HIS REPORT ON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE REFERRED TO THE REMAND REPORT WHEREIN, HAS GIVEN THE INSTANCES WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE HIM AND JUSTIFIED THE PASSING OF THE ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED AN ORDER WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE AND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THESE APPEALS SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN ECTED TO COOPERATE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS AND FILED ALL THE DETAILS CALLED FOR AND THAT THIS FACT IS CLEAR FROM BOTH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER A VERY ARBITRARY MANNER, WITHOUT CONSIDERING ANY OF THE PAPERS OR EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE HIM DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MADE HIGH PITCHED AND HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED HAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT NOT ONLY ON THE ISSUE OF VIOLATIONS OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BUT ALSO ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NOTICES TO TH E ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM DURING THE THE ASSESSEE HAD AGAIN APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DREW THE ATTENTION TO ALL THE PAPERS FILED ON RECORD BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT REFER AND SIMPLY SUPPORTED HIS ORDERS PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES NEED NOT BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT AVAIL ALL THE OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED TO HIM DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS:- VETO ELECTROPOWERS [2012] 20 TAXMANN.COM 279 (JAIPUR) RAJESH BABUBHAI DAMANIA [2002] 122 TAXAMN 614 (GUJ.) 6. ON MERITS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK THIS BENCH SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE TO 10 OF THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 LD. CIT(A) ON EACH OF THESE ARGUMENTS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014- 15, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE AT PAGES 9 TO 27 OF HIS ORDER. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 1266/KOL/2016 AND ITA NO. 316/KOL/2016, ORDER DT. 09/11/2018 AND SUCH ANOTHER CASES, WHICH WE WOULD BE DEALING AS AND WHEN NECESSARY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL MAY DISPOSE OFF THE CASE ON MERITS AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD THE SUB MISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. ON THE CROSS- OBJECTIONS, HE SUBMITS THAT IT WAS FILED ONLY IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 8. THE LD. CIT D/R, IN R EPLY, COULD NOT CONTRADICT THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON EACH OF THE ADDITIONS. ON THE ISSUE OF OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD IN FACT CONDUCTED THE HEARING DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH FILED INFORMATION AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED 5 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD E ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AGAIN APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DREW THE ATTENTION TO ALL THE PAPERS FILED ON RECORD BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT REFER SUPPORTED HIS ORDERS PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES NEED NOT BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT AVAIL ALL THE OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS IN THE REMAND VETO ELECTROPOWERS [2012] 20 TAXMANN.COM 279 (JAIPUR) RAJESH BABUBHAI DAMANIA [2002] 122 TAXAMN 614 (GUJ.) ON MERITS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK THIS BENCH SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE , FOR EACH OF THE ADDITIONS, WHICH ARE BROUGHT OUT AT PAGES 9 TO 10 OF THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 AND THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON EACH OF THESE ARGUMENTS , FROM PAGES 10 TO 18 OF HIS 15, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE AT PAGES 9 TO 27 OF HIS ORDER. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND 2011 1266/KOL/2016 AND ITA NO. 316/KOL/2016, ORDER DT. 09/11/2018 AND SUCH ANOTHER CASES, WHICH WE WOULD BE DEALING AS AND WHEN NECESSARY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL MAY DISPOSE OFF THE CASE ON MERITS AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD THE MISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). OBJECTIONS, HE SUBMITS THAT IT WAS FILED ONLY IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER EPLY, COULD NOT CONTRADICT THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD IN FACT CONDUCTED THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH , THE ASSESSEE HAD APPEARED, FILED INFORMATION AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT. ITA NO. 131/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 C.O. NO. 33/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ITA NO. 836/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD . PROCEEDINGS AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AGAIN APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DREW THE ATTENTION TO TO ANY DOCUMENTS SUPPORTED HIS ORDERS PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES NEED NOT BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT AVAIL ALL THE OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS IN THE REMAND ON MERITS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH THE WHICH ARE BROUGHT OUT AT PAGES 9 14 AND THE FINDINGS OF THE FROM PAGES 10 TO 18 OF HIS ORDER. FOR THE 15, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE AT PAGES 9 TO 27 OF HIS ORDER. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE 11 AND 2011 -12 IN ITA NO. 1266/KOL/2016 AND ITA NO. 316/KOL/2016, ORDER DT. 09/11/2018 AND SUCH ANOTHER CASES, WHICH WE WOULD BE DEALING AS AND WHEN NECESSARY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL MAY DISPOSE OFF THE CASE ON MERITS AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD THE MISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL OBJECTIONS, HE SUBMITS THAT IT WAS FILED ONLY IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER EPLY, COULD NOT CONTRADICT THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD IN FACT CONDUCTED , THE ASSESSEE HAD APPEARED, AND HIS REMAND REPORT. 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: 10. A PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED DETAILS ON 25/08/2015 A NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT NO DETAILS, WHATSOEVER, W ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERIES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN FACT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RECORDED FOR ASSESSMENT WERE ON RECORDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT REFER TO ANY OF THESE DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT AND DIRECTED THE ASSES THE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS FILED THIS REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A VERY CRYPTIC MANNER STATED AS FOLLOWS: 5. IN COURSE OF HEARING DATED 12.01.2018, THE A.R. OF AS TO HOW THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 09.03.2016 WAS DEVOID OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND MERIT. 11. THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, APPROACH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. W THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ADDITIONS MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR DURING THE R INFORMATION OR DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR BEING SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSES ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 12. NOW, WE CONSIDER THE ADDITIONS ON MERITS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 13. DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION: THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 6 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND E, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: - A PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED DETAILS ON 25/08/2015 A ND 27/01/2016. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT NO DETAILS, WHATSOEVER, W ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERIES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN FACT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT ALL THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT WERE ON RECORDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT REFER TO ANY OF THESE DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT AND DIRECTED THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS FILED AND REPORT ON THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A VERY CRYPTIC MANNER STATED AS FOLLOWS: 5. IN COURSE OF HEARING DATED 12.01.2018, THE A.R. OF ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE AS TO HOW THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 09.03.2016 WAS DEVOID OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, APPARENTLY, SHOW ARBITRARINESS AND LACK OF JUDICIOUS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. W HEN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ADDITIONS BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . THIS IS NOT DONE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR DURING THE R EMAND PROCEEDINGS EXAMINED THE INFORMATION OR DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND ON EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR BEING SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN NOW, WE CONSIDER THE ADDITIONS ON MERITS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION: THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 ITA NO. 131/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 C.O. NO. 33/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ITA NO. 836/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND E, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES A PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ND 27/01/2016. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT NO DETAILS, WHATSOEVER, W ERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERIES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF THAT ALL THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT WERE ON RECORDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT REFER TO ANY OF THESE DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT. THE LD. SING OFFICER TO EXAMINE ALL AND REPORT ON THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A VERY CRYPTIC MANNER STATED AS FOLLOWS: - ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE AS TO HOW THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 09.03.2016 WAS DEVOID OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND SHOW ARBITRARINESS AND LACK OF JUDICIOUS HAS CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ADDITIONS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEITHER EMAND PROCEEDINGS EXAMINED THE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND ON EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN NOW, WE CONSIDER THE ADDITIONS ON MERITS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 -12. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 ITA NOS 1266 & 316/KOL/2016, ORDER DT. 09/11/2018, HAD CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AND HAD HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 5. WE FIRST TAKE UP THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION ON SA LES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 PAYMENT OF COMMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,14,51,971/ PARTIES. ONLY IN THE CASE OF ONE PARTY I.E. SUGAM VINIMAY P. LTD., THE COMMISSION PAID DISALLOWED. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 VERY SAME CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING INCURRED EXPENDITURE TOWARDS SALES COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED, IN OUR VIEW, ALL THE REQUIRED EVIDENCE TO DISCHARG BURDEN OF PROOF THAT LAY ON ITS. THE LD. CIT(A), IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION HAS RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTUAL POSITION AND AT PARA 7.4. OF HIS ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12 (SUPRA) HAS RIGHTLY DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. I N THE CASE OF SUGAM VINIMAY P. LTD., THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12 AT PARA 7.5. HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 7.5. SO FAR AS SUGAM VINIMAY 131 AND THE SAME CAME BACK UNSERVED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT PRODUCE THE PARTY BEFORE THE AO. HOWEVER, LIKE OTHER AGENTS, IT ALSO RESPONDED TO THE AO'S NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT AND FILED ALL DE AO VIZ., (I) NATURE AND AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION MADE WITH THE ABOVE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. (II) NAME OF THE PARTIES FOR WHOM SALES WERE ARRANGED WITH QUANTITY AND CONSIDERATION OF SALES, (III) OPENING AND CLOSING BA LANCE AND PAYMENT MADE DURING THE YEAR, (IV) LEDGER COPY OF ACCOUNTS WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, (V) BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS IN WHICH TRANSACTIONS IS REFLECTED AND (VI) COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OR FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN AND PAN. BY FILING THESE DETAILS, TH SUGAN VINIMAY PRIVATE LTD. HAD SQUARELY DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY ONUS CAST ON THEM. IN THIS CASE ALSO, BILL WAS RAISED BY INCLUDING SERVICE TAXES ETC. AND ASSESSEE MADE THE PAYMENTS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AFTER DEDUCTION OF TDS. THE RE WAS AN AGREEMENT ALSO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ITS AGENT SUGAM VINIMAY PVT. LTD BY WHICH THE AGENT HAD THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE COMMISSION AND SUGAM VINIMAY ALSO FILED THE RETURN SHOWING THE COMMISSION INCOME. THE AO ALSO HAS NOT ALLEGED THAT ASSESS SUGAM VINIMAY ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER OR THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT GENUINE OR THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVING BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE RECIPIENT HAVE FOUND THEIR WAY BACK TO THE ASSESSEE SOME WAY OR THE OTHER. THIS BEING THE CASE, AO CAN SUGAM VINIMAY AS 'SHYAM TRANSACTION', EVEN THOUGH THE AGENT DID NOT RESPOND TO HIS SUMMON. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY ONUS, AO CANNOT HOLD A TRANSACTION BOGUS WITH BRINGING ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO THE CONTRARY. BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.21,90,181/ 5.1. THE LD. D/R, COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY INFIRMITY IN THESE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE WE UPHOLD THE SAME. FOR SIMI DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,05,612/ PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS HEREBY DELETED. THE ASSESSEE FILED ALL THE REQUISITE DETAILS REFERRED ABOVE IN SU THE PARTY. NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE MERELY BECAUSE THE PARTY HAS NOT APPEARED IN PERSON BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THAT YEAR . THE KOLKATA A BENCH OF THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND 2011 ITA NOS 1266 & 316/KOL/2016, ORDER DT. 09/11/2018, HAD CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AND WE FIRST TAKE UP THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION ON LES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,14,51,971/ PARTIES. ONLY IN THE CASE OF ONE PARTY I.E. SUGAM VINIMAY P. LTD., THE COMMISSION PAID DISALLOWED. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHOSE TO DISALLOW THE VERY SAME CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING INCURRED EXPENDITURE TOWARDS SALES COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED, IN OUR VIEW, ALL THE REQUIRED EVIDENCE TO DISCHARG BURDEN OF PROOF THAT LAY ON ITS. THE LD. CIT(A), IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION HAS RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTUAL POSITION AND AT PARA 7.4. OF HIS ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 12 (SUPRA) HAS RIGHTLY DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. N THE CASE OF SUGAM VINIMAY P. LTD., THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT 12 AT PARA 7.5. HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: - 7.5. SO FAR AS SUGAM VINIMAY PVT. LTD. IS CONCERNED, AO ISSUED SUMMON U/S. 131 AND THE SAME CAME BACK UNSERVED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT PRODUCE THE PARTY BEFORE THE AO. HOWEVER, LIKE OTHER AGENTS, IT ALSO RESPONDED TO THE AO'S NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT AND FILED ALL DE TAILS ASKED FOR BY THE AO VIZ., (I) NATURE AND AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION MADE WITH THE ABOVE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. (II) NAME OF THE PARTIES FOR WHOM SALES WERE ARRANGED WITH QUANTITY AND CONSIDERATION OF SALES, (III) OPENING AND LANCE AND PAYMENT MADE DURING THE YEAR, (IV) LEDGER COPY OF ACCOUNTS WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, (V) BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS IN WHICH TRANSACTIONS IS REFLECTED AND (VI) COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OR FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN AND PAN. BY FILING THESE DETAILS, TH E ASSESSEE AND M/S. SUGAN VINIMAY PRIVATE LTD. HAD SQUARELY DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY ONUS CAST ON THEM. IN THIS CASE ALSO, BILL WAS RAISED BY INCLUDING SERVICE TAXES ETC. AND ASSESSEE MADE THE PAYMENTS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AFTER DEDUCTION RE WAS AN AGREEMENT ALSO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ITS AGENT SUGAM VINIMAY PVT. LTD BY WHICH THE AGENT HAD THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE COMMISSION AND SUGAM VINIMAY ALSO FILED THE RETURN SHOWING THE COMMISSION INCOME. THE AO ALSO HAS NOT ALLEGED THAT ASSESS EE COMPANY AND SUGAM VINIMAY ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER OR THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT GENUINE OR THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVING BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE RECIPIENT HAVE FOUND THEIR WAY BACK TO THE ASSESSEE SOME WAY OR THE OTHER. THIS BEING THE CASE, AO CAN NOT SUMMARILY REJECT THE COMMISSION PAYMENT TO SUGAM VINIMAY AS 'SHYAM TRANSACTION', EVEN THOUGH THE AGENT DID NOT RESPOND TO HIS SUMMON. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY ONUS, AO CANNOT HOLD A TRANSACTION BOGUS WITH BRINGING ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO THE CONTRARY. IN VIEW OF SUCH, BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.21,90,181/ - IS ALSO DELETED . THE LD. D/R, COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY INFIRMITY IN THESE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE WE UPHOLD THE SAME. FOR SIMI LAR REASONS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,05,612/ - , MADE FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT THE PARTY HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS HEREBY DELETED. THE ASSESSEE FILED ALL THE REQUISITE DETAILS REFERRED ABOVE IN SU PPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM AND IDENTITY OF THE PARTY. NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE MERELY BECAUSE THE PARTY HAS NOT APPEARED IN PERSON BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 131/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 C.O. NO. 33/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ITA NO. 836/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD . . THE KOLKATA A BENCH OF THE 11 AND 2011 -12 IN ITA NOS 1266 & 316/KOL/2016, ORDER DT. 09/11/2018, HAD CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AND WE FIRST TAKE UP THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION ON 11 HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,14,51,971/ -, PAID TO 11 PARTIES. ONLY IN THE CASE OF ONE PARTY I.E. SUGAM VINIMAY P. LTD., THE COMMISSION PAID WAS 12, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHOSE TO DISALLOW THE VERY SAME CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING INCURRED EXPENDITURE TOWARDS SALES COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED, IN OUR VIEW, ALL THE REQUIRED EVIDENCE TO DISCHARG E THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT LAY ON ITS. THE LD. CIT(A), IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION HAS RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTUAL POSITION AND AT PARA 7.4. OF HIS ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR N THE CASE OF SUGAM VINIMAY P. LTD., THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT PVT. LTD. IS CONCERNED, AO ISSUED SUMMON U/S. 131 AND THE SAME CAME BACK UNSERVED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT PRODUCE THE PARTY BEFORE THE AO. HOWEVER, LIKE OTHER AGENTS, IT ALSO RESPONDED TO THE TAILS ASKED FOR BY THE AO VIZ., (I) NATURE AND AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION MADE WITH THE ABOVE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. (II) NAME OF THE PARTIES FOR WHOM SALES WERE ARRANGED WITH QUANTITY AND CONSIDERATION OF SALES, (III) OPENING AND LANCE AND PAYMENT MADE DURING THE YEAR, (IV) LEDGER COPY OF ACCOUNTS WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, (V) BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS IN WHICH TRANSACTIONS IS REFLECTED AND (VI) COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OR FILING OF E ASSESSEE AND M/S. SUGAN VINIMAY PRIVATE LTD. HAD SQUARELY DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY ONUS CAST ON THEM. IN THIS CASE ALSO, BILL WAS RAISED BY INCLUDING SERVICE TAXES ETC. AND ASSESSEE MADE THE PAYMENTS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AFTER DEDUCTION RE WAS AN AGREEMENT ALSO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ITS AGENT SUGAM VINIMAY PVT. LTD BY WHICH THE AGENT HAD THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE COMMISSION AND SUGAM VINIMAY ALSO FILED THE RETURN SHOWING THE EE COMPANY AND SUGAM VINIMAY ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER OR THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT GENUINE OR THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVING BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE RECIPIENT HAVE FOUND THEIR WAY BACK TO THE ASSESSEE SOME WAY OR THE OTHER. NOT SUMMARILY REJECT THE COMMISSION PAYMENT TO SUGAM VINIMAY AS 'SHYAM TRANSACTION', EVEN THOUGH THE AGENT DID NOT RESPOND TO HIS SUMMON. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY ONUS, AO CANNOT HOLD A TRANSACTION BOGUS WITH OUT IN VIEW OF SUCH, THE LD. D/R, COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY INFIRMITY IN THESE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). LAR REASONS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 -11, THE , MADE FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT THE PARTY HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS HEREBY DELETED. THE ASSESSEE FILED ALL THE PPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM AND IDENTITY OF THE PARTY. NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE MERELY BECAUSE THE PARTY HAS NOT APPEARED IN 5.2. THE KOLKATA D BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 141/KOL/2016 & C.O. NO. 1 1/KOL/2016; ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 PARA 6, HELD AS FOLLOWS: - 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE PRIMARY REASON FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THIS COMMISSION BY THE LD. AO IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVED THE NATURE AND FACTUM OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THESE THREE COMMISSION AGENTS TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. AO, THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION, THOUGH SUBJECTED TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOUR MERELY A BOOK ENTRY TO REDUCE THE TAXABLE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY FURNISHED THE BILL RAISED BY THOSE COMMISSION AGENTS ON THE ASSESSEE WHICH CLEARLY CONTAINED THE LIST OF PARTIES I.E. CUSTOMERS OF THE ASSESSEE, WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS CLEARLY PROVES THAT THESE PARTIES WERE INTRODUCED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE CONCERNED COMMISSION AGENTS. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SALES ABOVE RS 50,000/ WHICH ADMITTEDLY CONTAINED SALES MADE TO THE VARIOUS PARTIES MENTIONED IN THE COMMISSION BILL RAISED BY COMMISSION AGENTS. WE HAVE ALSO CROSS VERIFIED FROM THE DETAILS OF SALES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. AO WITH THE COMMISSION BI RAISED BY COMMISSION AGENTS WHEREIN THE TOTAL SALES MADE TO THESE PARTIES ALSO TALLY. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE SAID COMMISSION AGENTS EVEN THOUGH DID NOT RESPOND TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE LD. AO BY MAKING THEIR PERSONAL APPEARANCE, BUT HAD FURNISHED THE REQUISITE DETAILS TO THE LD. AO AND HAD ALSO GIVEN CONFIRMATION THAT THEY HAD INDEED INCLUDED THE SUBJECT MENTIONED COMMISSION IN THEIR RETURNS AND PAID TAXES THEREON. ALL THESE FACTS CLEARLY PROVED THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE COMMISSION TO THE ASSESSEE ACHIEVING THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. THERE COULD BE MORE THAN ONE JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR COMMISSION AGENTS FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE LD. AO IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED THEREON. THE LD. AO IS EMPOWERED UNDER THE LAW TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION AGAINST SUMMONS ISSUED TO MEASURES THEREON. THE LD DISBELIEVE THE CLAIM OF COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE SAME ARE SUPPORTED BY VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND CONFIRMED BY THE SAID PARTIES. PRIMARY ONUS HAS BEEN DULY DISCHA COMMISSION PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR THE LD AO TO DOUBT THE VERACITY OF THE SAID TRANSACTIONS. ADMITTEDLY NONE OF THE COMMISSION AGENTS WERE RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE OR INTER ALLEGE SOME MALA FIDE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO CASE MADE OUT BY THE LD AO TO TREAT THE COMMISSION TRANSACTIONS AS INGENUINE TRANSACTIONS IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA APPEARANCE OF THE SAID COMMISSION AGENTS IN PERSON BEFORE THE LD. AO WOULD NOT MAKE THE TRANSACTION OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION AS INGENUINE. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION MA ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 2 TO 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 6. APPLYING THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW IN THIS CASE LAW TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 13.1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 FACTS. HENCE WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF COMMISSION PAYMENTS AND UPHOLD THE SAME BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 8 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD THE KOLKATA D BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 141/KOL/2016 & C.O. NO. 1/KOL/2016; ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13; MADHUSUDAN RUNGTA & SONS (HUF) VS. ITO AT - 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE PRIMARY REASON FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THIS COMMISSION BY THE LD. AO IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE LD. AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVED THE NATURE AND FACTUM OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THESE THREE COMMISSION AGENTS TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. AO, THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION, THOUGH SUBJECTED TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOUR MERELY A BOOK ENTRY TO REDUCE THE TAXABLE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY FURNISHED THE BILL RAISED BY THOSE COMMISSION AGENTS ON THE ASSESSEE WHICH CLEARLY CONTAINED THE LIST OF PARTIES I.E. CUSTOMERS OF THE ASSESSEE, TO WHOM SALES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS CLEARLY PROVES THAT THESE PARTIES WERE INTRODUCED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE CONCERNED COMMISSION AGENTS. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SALES ABOVE RS 50,000/ - BEFORE THE LD. AO FOR TH E WHOLE YEAR WHICH ADMITTEDLY CONTAINED SALES MADE TO THE VARIOUS PARTIES MENTIONED IN THE COMMISSION BILL RAISED BY COMMISSION AGENTS. WE HAVE ALSO CROSS VERIFIED FROM THE DETAILS OF SALES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. AO WITH THE COMMISSION BI RAISED BY COMMISSION AGENTS WHEREIN THE TOTAL SALES MADE TO THESE PARTIES ALSO TALLY. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE SAID COMMISSION AGENTS EVEN THOUGH DID NOT RESPOND TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE LD. AO BY MAKING THEIR PERSONAL APPEARANCE, BUT HAD REQUISITE DETAILS TO THE LD. AO AND HAD ALSO GIVEN CONFIRMATION THAT THEY HAD INDEED INCLUDED THE SUBJECT MENTIONED COMMISSION IN THEIR RETURNS AND PAID TAXES THEREON. ALL THESE FACTS CLEARLY PROVED THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE COMMISSION TO THE ACHIEVING THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. THERE COULD BE MORE THAN ONE JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR COMMISSION AGENTS FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE LD. AO IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED THEREON. THE LD. AO IS EMPOWERED UNDER THE LAW TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION AGAINST THESE COMMISSION AGENTS FOR NON- COMPLIANCE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO SECTION 131 OF THE ACT. THE STATUTE PROVIDES FOR RELEVANT REMEDIAL MEASURES THEREON. THE LD AO WITHOUT RESORTING TO SUCH MEASURES, CANNOT PROCEED TO DISBELIEVE THE CLAIM OF COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE SAME ARE SUPPORTED BY VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND CONFIRMED BY THE SAID PARTIES. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PRIMARY ONUS HAS BEEN DULY DISCHA RGED BY THE ASSESSEE PROVING THE CLAIM OF COMMISSION PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR THE LD AO TO DOUBT THE VERACITY OF THE SAID TRANSACTIONS. ADMITTEDLY NONE OF THE COMMISSION AGENTS WERE RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE OR INTER ESTED PARTIES WITH THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO ALLEGE SOME MALA FIDE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO CASE MADE OUT BY THE LD AO TO TREAT THE COMMISSION TRANSACTIONS AS INGENUINE TRANSACTIONS IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES. WE HOLD THAT MERE NON APPEARANCE OF THE SAID COMMISSION AGENTS IN PERSON BEFORE THE LD. AO WOULD NOT MAKE THE TRANSACTION OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION AS INGENUINE. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION MA DE BY THE LD. AO. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 2 TO 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. APPLYING THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW IN THIS CASE LAW TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 -11. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 -12. THE LD. D/R COULD NOT DISTINGUISH THESE CASE LAW ON WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF COMMISSION PAYMENTS AND UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE FOR ITA NO. 131/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 C.O. NO. 33/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ITA NO. 836/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD . THE KOLKATA D BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 141/KOL/2016 & C.O. NO. 13; MADHUSUDAN RUNGTA & SONS (HUF) VS. ITO AT 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE PRIMARY REASON FOR LD. AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVED THE NATURE AND FACTUM OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THESE THREE COMMISSION AGENTS TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. AO, THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION, THOUGH SUBJECTED TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOUR CE IS MERELY A BOOK ENTRY TO REDUCE THE TAXABLE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY FURNISHED THE BILL RAISED BY THOSE COMMISSION AGENTS ON THE ASSESSEE TO WHOM SALES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS CLEARLY PROVES THAT THESE PARTIES WERE INTRODUCED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE CONCERNED COMMISSION AGENTS. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD E WHOLE YEAR WHICH ADMITTEDLY CONTAINED SALES MADE TO THE VARIOUS PARTIES MENTIONED IN THE COMMISSION BILL RAISED BY COMMISSION AGENTS. WE HAVE ALSO CROSS VERIFIED FROM THE DETAILS OF SALES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. AO WITH THE COMMISSION BI LL RAISED BY COMMISSION AGENTS WHEREIN THE TOTAL SALES MADE TO THESE PARTIES ALSO TALLY. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE SAID COMMISSION AGENTS EVEN THOUGH DID NOT RESPOND TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE LD. AO BY MAKING THEIR PERSONAL APPEARANCE, BUT HAD REQUISITE DETAILS TO THE LD. AO AND HAD ALSO GIVEN CONFIRMATION THAT THEY HAD INDEED INCLUDED THE SUBJECT MENTIONED COMMISSION IN THEIR RETURNS AND PAID TAXES THEREON. ALL THESE FACTS CLEARLY PROVED THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE COMMISSION TO THE ACHIEVING THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. THERE COULD BE MORE THAN ONE JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR COMMISSION AGENTS FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE LD. AO IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED THEREON. THE LD. AO IS EMPOWERED UNDER THE LAW TO COMPLIANCE TO THE OF THE ACT. THE STATUTE PROVIDES FOR RELEVANT REMEDIAL AO WITHOUT RESORTING TO SUCH MEASURES, CANNOT PROCEED TO DISBELIEVE THE CLAIM OF COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE SAME ARE SUPPORTED IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE RGED BY THE ASSESSEE PROVING THE CLAIM OF COMMISSION PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR THE LD AO TO DOUBT THE VERACITY OF THE SAID TRANSACTIONS. ADMITTEDLY NONE OF THE COMMISSION ESTED PARTIES WITH THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO ALLEGE SOME MALA FIDE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO CASE MADE OUT BY THE LD AO TO TREAT THE COMMISSION TRANSACTIONS AS NCES. WE HOLD THAT MERE NON - APPEARANCE OF THE SAID COMMISSION AGENTS IN PERSON BEFORE THE LD. AO WOULD NOT MAKE THE TRANSACTION OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION AS INGENUINE. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. DE BY THE LD. AO. APPLYING THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW IN THIS CASE LAW TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 -12 AND ALLOW THE THE LD. CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF HIS PREDECESSOR THE LD. D/R COULD NOT DISTINGUISH THESE CASE LAW ON WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE FOR 14. UNSECURED LOANS:- THE ASSESSEE, IN THIS CASE HAD BORROWED WELL AS DIRECTORS AND THE RELATIVES OF THE DIRECTORS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ALL THE LOANS TAKEN FROM BODY CORPORATES. HE DID NOT MAKE ADDITIONS OF THE LOANS TAKEN FROM TH ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014- 15, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED ALL THE LOANS TAKEN FROM BODY CORPORATES AS GENUINE AND HAD NOT MADE ANY ADDIT THE LOANS RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTORS AND THEIR RELATIVES 2014-15 WERE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THESE ADDITIONS. AT PARA 5 OF HIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14, HE HELD AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DU HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN ADDING BACK RS. 4,93,01,115/ THERE IS NO ADVERSE COMMENTS ABOUT BEEFIN COMMODITIES LIMITED, JIT FINANCE PVT. LTD. AND KANDOI TRANSPORT LIMITED A OF THREE OTHER PARTIES ON WHOM NOTICES U/S. 131 WERE DULY SERVED PARTICULARLY WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 AND FURTHER SHOULD HAVE LOOKED INTO THE PAST RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO IN THE NAME OF BLUEMOTION LOGISTIC LTD, BEEFIN COMMODITIES LTD, JIT FINANCE PVT LTD, KONOI TRANSPORT LTD, PRIME ROSE COMMONAGES PVT LTD AND TRUST WORTHY VINIMAY PVT LTD. THE CONFIRMATION LET TERS AND DETAILS IN RESPECT OF ALL THE AFORESAID 6 PARTIES WERE SUBMITTED TO THE AO. THE AO SAYS THAT THE DETAILS OF THREE PARTIES WERE NOT SUBMITTED TO HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO STATES THAT HE ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 131 TO THESE PARTIES ON WHOM THESE NO TICES WERE DULY SERVED. WHEN THE DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED, IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO HOW THE AD WAS ABLE TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 131 TO THESE THREE PARTIES. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO STATES THAT NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THEM. WHEN NOTICE WERE SERVED, THEN THE AO SHOULD HAVE PROCEEDED FURTHER TO ENFORCE THEIR ATTENDANCE SPECIALLY IN AN EX- PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT PROCEED FURTHER TO MAKE ENQUIRY OR FORCE THE ATTENDANCE OF THESE THREE PARTIES. IT WAS MORE ESSENTIAL WHEN THE AS SESSMENT WAS BEING COMPLETED U/S. 144. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT PRECEDE FURTHER IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND OTHER DETAILS AND THE NOTICES WERE DULY SERVED ON THE PARTIES THE ADDITION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE 159 ITR 78. THE AO HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE LOANS FROM THESE PARTIES IN ASST. YEAR 2014 15 (ALTHOUGH ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BUT IT PERTAINS TO WHEREIN IN THE EX- PARTE ASSESSMENT ALSO THE LOAN FROM THESE PARTIES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. 9 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD THE ASSESSEE, IN THIS CASE HAD BORROWED MONEY BOTH FROM BODY CORPORATES WELL AS DIRECTORS AND THE RELATIVES OF THE DIRECTORS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ALL THE LOANS TAKEN FROM BODY CORPORATES. HE DID NOT MAKE ADDITIONS OF THE LOANS TAKEN FROM TH E DIRECTORS AND THEIR RELATIVES 14 AND ACCEPTED THEM AS GENUINE. ON THE CONTRARY, FOR THE 15, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED ALL THE LOANS TAKEN FROM BODY CORPORATES AS GENUINE AND HAD NOT MADE ANY ADDIT ION OF THE SAME. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LOANS RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTORS AND THEIR RELATIVES DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WERE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THESE ADDITIONS. AT PARA 5 OF HIS ORDER FOR 14, HE HELD AS FOLLOWS: - I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN ADDING BACK RS. 4,93,01,115/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT WHEN THERE IS NO ADVERSE COMMENTS ABOUT BEEFIN COMMODITIES LIMITED, JIT FINANCE PVT. LTD. AND KANDOI TRANSPORT LIMITED A ND FURTHER THE AO DID NOT PROCEED TO ENFORCE THE ATTENDANCE OF THREE OTHER PARTIES ON WHOM NOTICES U/S. 131 WERE DULY SERVED PARTICULARLY WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 AND FURTHER SHOULD HAVE LOOKED INTO THE PAST RECORDS HAS ALSO ADDED BACK RS. 4,93,01,115/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE NAME OF BLUEMOTION LOGISTIC LTD, BEEFIN COMMODITIES LTD, JIT FINANCE PVT LTD, KONOI TRANSPORT LTD, PRIME ROSE COMMONAGES PVT LTD AND TRUST WORTHY VINIMAY PVT LTD. TERS AND DETAILS IN RESPECT OF ALL THE AFORESAID 6 PARTIES WERE SUBMITTED TO THE AO. THE AO SAYS THAT THE DETAILS OF THREE PARTIES WERE NOT SUBMITTED TO HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO STATES THAT HE ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 131 TO THESE PARTIES ON TICES WERE DULY SERVED. WHEN THE DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED, IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO HOW THE AD WAS ABLE TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 131 TO THESE THREE PARTIES. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO STATES THAT NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THEM. WHEN NOTICE THEN THE AO SHOULD HAVE PROCEEDED FURTHER TO ENFORCE THEIR ATTENDANCE PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT PROCEED FURTHER TO MAKE ENQUIRY OR FORCE THE ATTENDANCE OF THESE THREE PARTIES. IT WAS MORE ESSENTIAL WHEN SESSMENT WAS BEING COMPLETED U/S. 144. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT PRECEDE FURTHER IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND OTHER DETAILS AND THE NOTICES WERE DULY SERVED ON THE PARTIES THE ADDITION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ORISSA CORPN. LTD. REPORTED IN 159 ITR 78. THE AO HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE LOANS FROM THESE PARTIES IN ASST. YEAR 2014 15 (ALTHOUGH ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BUT IT PERTAINS TO DIRECTOR AND PARTE ASSESSMENT ALSO THE LOAN FROM THESE PARTIES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. ITA NO. 131/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 C.O. NO. 33/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ITA NO. 836/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD . MONEY BOTH FROM BODY CORPORATES , AS WELL AS DIRECTORS AND THE RELATIVES OF THE DIRECTORS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 -14, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ALL THE LOANS TAKEN FROM BODY CORPORATES. HE DID NOT E DIRECTORS AND THEIR RELATIVES DURING THE AND ACCEPTED THEM AS GENUINE. ON THE CONTRARY, FOR THE 15, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED ALL THE LOANS TAKEN FROM BODY ION OF THE SAME. ON THE OTHER HAND, DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THESE ADDITIONS. AT PARA 5 OF HIS ORDER FOR THE I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AR OF THE APPELLATE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT WHEN THERE IS NO ADVERSE COMMENTS ABOUT BEEFIN COMMODITIES LIMITED, JIT FINANCE PVT. LTD. AND ND FURTHER THE AO DID NOT PROCEED TO ENFORCE THE ATTENDANCE OF THREE OTHER PARTIES ON WHOM NOTICES U/S. 131 WERE DULY SERVED PARTICULARLY WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 AND FURTHER SHOULD HAVE LOOKED INTO THE PAST RECORDS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE NAME OF BLUEMOTION LOGISTIC LTD, BEEFIN COMMODITIES LTD, JIT FINANCE PVT LTD, KONOI TRANSPORT LTD, PRIME ROSE COMMONAGES PVT LTD AND TRUST WORTHY VINIMAY PVT LTD. TERS AND DETAILS IN RESPECT OF ALL THE AFORESAID 6 PARTIES WERE SUBMITTED TO THE AO. THE AO SAYS THAT THE DETAILS OF THREE PARTIES WERE NOT SUBMITTED TO HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO STATES THAT HE ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 131 TO THESE PARTIES ON TICES WERE DULY SERVED. WHEN THE DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED, IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO HOW THE AD WAS ABLE TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 131 TO THESE THREE PARTIES. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO STATES THAT NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THEM. WHEN NOTICE THEN THE AO SHOULD HAVE PROCEEDED FURTHER TO ENFORCE THEIR ATTENDANCE PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT PROCEED FURTHER TO MAKE ENQUIRY OR FORCE THE ATTENDANCE OF THESE THREE PARTIES. IT WAS MORE ESSENTIAL WHEN SESSMENT WAS BEING COMPLETED U/S. 144. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT PRECEDE FURTHER IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND OTHER DETAILS AND THE NOTICES WERE DULY SERVED ON THE PARTIES THE ADDITION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ORISSA CORPN. LTD. REPORTED IN 159 ITR 78. THE AO HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE LOANS FROM THESE PARTIES IN ASST. YEAR 2014 - DIRECTOR AND RELATIVES ONLY) PARTE ASSESSMENT ALSO THE LOAN FROM THESE PARTIES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. FURTHERMORE, IN SPITE OF ALL THE DETAILS HAVING BEEN FILED ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE AO HAVING BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK INTO MADE THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE SAME AND HAS NOT ADVERSELY COMMENTED ON THE SAME. I FIND THAT THE AO ADDED BACK RS. 4,93,01,115/ ADVERSE COMMENTS ABOUT BEEFIN COMMODITIES LIMITED, JIT FINANCE PV TRANSPORT LIMITED AND TRUST WORTHY VINIMAY PVT LTD. THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT NOTICE U/S 131 WAS ISSUED TO THREE PARTIES BUT I FAILED TO UNDERSTAND WHY ADDITION WAS MADE FOR OTHER FOUR PARTIES AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE FOR MIRA COMMOSALES PVT NOTICE U/S 131 WAS ISSUED TO THAT PARTY. 13.03.2016 TO THESE PARTIES FOR 16.03.2016 AND ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 18.03.2016. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING CONFIRMATION LETTERS OF ALL THE AFORESAID 6 PARTIES WERE SUBMITTED TO THE AO. THE AO SAYS THAT THE DETAILS OF THESE PARTIES WERE NOT SUBMITTED TO HIM. THE AO ALSO STATES THAT HE ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 131 TO THESE PARTIES ON WHOM THESE NOTICES WERE DUL FURNISHED, IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO HOW THE A PARTIES. FURTHER, THE A O SERVED, THEN THE AO SHOULD HAVE PROCEEDED FURTH IN AN EX- PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE LOANS FROM THESE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BUT IT PERTAINS TO DIRECTOR AND RELATIVES ONLY) WHEREIN IN THE PARTE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON 09.03.2016 AND THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 18.03.2016. FURTHERMORE, IN SPITE OF ALL THE DETAILS HAVING BEEN FILED ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE A SUBMI SSIONS MADE THE A ON THE SAME. THE MATTER WAS ALSO SENT BACK TO THE A AVAILED THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THESE PARTIES ON MERIT. NO ADVERSE COMMENTS/FIN HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE A MENTIONED THAT DETAILS WERE FILED BUT SINCE NOB AND OR RECONCILE VARIOUS ISSUES INVOLVED. DELETE ADDITION. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS INCREASE IN USECURED LOANS FROM DIRECTORS AND THEIR RELATIVES AND FULL DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE A.O. EVEN THOUGH WERE RECEIVED BY ALL THE DIRECTORS WERE HAVING BROUGHT FORWARD BALANCES AND SUCH LOANS WERE DULY ACCEPTED IN EARLIER YEARS. DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR, ALL THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE LOAN (WHETHER FRESH INFUSION OR REPAYMENT OF THE SAME) HAS CHANNELS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REGULARLY PAYING INTEREST ON THE ABOVE LOAN. THE SAME IS EVIDENT FROM THE LOAN CONFIRMATIONS. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE TAX AUDIT REPORT BEFORE THE A.O. FROM WHICH IT IS C LOANS IN EARLIER YEARS AND THE NAMES OF THE DIRECTORS TO WHOM INTEREST WAS PAID WAS ALSO 10 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD FURTHERMORE, IN SPITE OF ALL THE DETAILS HAVING BEEN FILED ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE AO HAVING BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK INTO MADE THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE SAME AND HAS NOT ADVERSELY COMMENTED ON THE SAME. I FIND THAT THE AO ADDED BACK RS. 4,93,01,115/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT WHEN THERE IS NO ADVERSE COMMENTS ABOUT BEEFIN COMMODITIES LIMITED, JIT FINANCE PV TRANSPORT LIMITED AND TRUST WORTHY VINIMAY PVT LTD. THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT NOTICE U/S 131 WAS ISSUED TO THREE PARTIES BUT I FAILED TO UNDERSTAND WHY ADDITION WAS MADE FOR OTHER FOUR PARTIES AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE FOR MIRA COMMOSALES PVT NOTICE U/S 131 WAS ISSUED TO THAT PARTY. I FIND THAT THE NOTICE U/S 131 WAS ISSUED ON 13.03.2016 TO THESE PARTIES FOR 16.03.2016 AND ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND DETAILS IN RESPECT OF ALL THE AFORESAID 6 PARTIES WERE SUBMITTED TO THE AO. THE AO SAYS THAT THE DETAILS OF THESE PARTIES WERE NOT SUBMITTED TO HIM. THE AO ALSO STATES THAT HE ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 131 TO THESE PARTIES ON WHOM THESE NOTICES WERE DUL Y SER VED. WHEN THE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED, IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO HOW THE A O WAS ABLE TO ISSUE NOTICE U O ALSO STATES THAT NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THEM. WHEN NOTICES WERE SHOULD HAVE PROCEEDED FURTH ER TO ENFORCE THEIR ATTENDANCE ESPECIALLY PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE LOANS FROM THESE PARTIES IN ASST. YEAR 2014 ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BUT IT PERTAINS TO DIRECTOR AND RELATIVES ONLY) WHEREIN IN THE PARTE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON 09.03.2016 AND THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 18.03.2016. FURTHERMORE, IN SPITE OF ALL THE DETAILS HAVING BEEN FILED ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE A O HAVING BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK INTO THE SSIONS MADE THE A O HAS NOT EXAMINED THE SAME AND HAS NOT ADVERSELY COMMENTED THE MATTER WAS ALSO SENT BACK TO THE A O FOR REMAND REPORT AND THE AD AGAIN DID NOT AVAILED THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THESE PARTIES ON MERIT. NO ADVERSE COMMENTS/FIN THE A O IN THE REMAND REPORT. THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS MENTIONED THAT DETAILS WERE FILED BUT SINCE NOB O DY APPEARED FOR HEARIN AND OR RECONCILE VARIOUS ISSUES INVOLVED. KEEPING IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE A FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15, AT PAGE 10 & 11, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL S AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS INCREASE IN USECURED LOANS FROM DIRECTORS AND THEIR RELATIVES AND FULL DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE A.O. EVEN THOUGH WERE RECEIVED BY ALL THE DIRECTORS WERE HAVING BROUGHT FORWARD BALANCES AND SUCH LOANS WERE DULY ACCEPTED IN EARLIER YEARS. DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR, ALL THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE LOAN (WHETHER FRESH INFUSION OR REPAYMENT OF THE SAME) HAS BEEN DONE THE BANKING CHANNELS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REGULARLY PAYING INTEREST ON THE ABOVE LOAN. THE SAME IS EVIDENT FROM THE LOAN CONFIRMATIONS. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE TAX AUDIT REPORT BEFORE THE A.O. FROM WHICH IT IS C LEARLY EVIDENT THAT THE DIRECTORS GRANTED LOANS IN EARLIER YEARS AND THE NAMES OF THE DIRECTORS TO WHOM INTEREST WAS PAID WAS ALSO ITA NO. 131/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 C.O. NO. 33/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ITA NO. 836/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD . FURTHERMORE, IN SPITE OF ALL THE DETAILS HAVING BEEN FILED ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE AO HAVING BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK INTO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE SAME AND HAS NOT ADVERSELY COMMENTED ON THE SAME. AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT WHEN THERE IS NO ADVERSE COMMENTS ABOUT BEEFIN COMMODITIES LIMITED, JIT FINANCE PV T LTD, KANDOI TRANSPORT LIMITED AND TRUST WORTHY VINIMAY PVT LTD. THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT NOTICE U/S 131 WAS ISSUED TO THREE PARTIES BUT I FAILED TO UNDERSTAND WHY ADDITION WAS MADE FOR OTHER FOUR PARTIES AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE FOR MIRA COMMOSALES PVT LTD WHEN THE I FIND THAT THE NOTICE U/S 131 WAS ISSUED ON 13.03.2016 TO THESE PARTIES FOR 16.03.2016 AND ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON AND DETAILS IN RESPECT OF ALL THE AFORESAID 6 PARTIES WERE SUBMITTED TO THE AO. THE AO SAYS THAT THE DETAILS OF THESE PARTIES WERE NOT SUBMITTED TO HIM. THE AO ALSO STATES THAT HE ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 131 VED. WHEN THE DETAILS WERE NOT WAS ABLE TO ISSUE NOTICE U /S 131 TO THREE ALSO STATES THAT NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THEM. WHEN NOTICES WERE ER TO ENFORCE THEIR ATTENDANCE ESPECIALLY YEAR 2014 -15 (ALTHOUGH ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BUT IT PERTAINS TO DIRECTOR AND RELATIVES ONLY) WHEREIN IN THE EX- PARTE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON 09.03.2016 AND THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 18.03.2016. FURTHERMORE, IN SPITE OF ALL THE DETAILS HAVING BEEN FILED ALONG WITH THE HAVING BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK INTO THE HAS NOT EXAMINED THE SAME AND HAS NOT ADVERSELY COMMENTED FOR REMAND REPORT AND THE AD AGAIN DID NOT AVAILED THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THESE PARTIES ON MERIT. NO ADVERSE COMMENTS/FIN DING IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS DY APPEARED FOR HEARIN G, TO EXPLAIN KEEPING IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE A O IS DIRECTED TO 15, AT PAGE 10 & 11, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: - I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL S AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE THE THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS INCREASE IN USECURED LOANS FROM DIRECTORS AND THEIR RELATIVES AND FULL DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE A.O. EVEN THOUGH THE SAME WERE RECEIVED BY ALL THE DIRECTORS WERE HAVING BROUGHT FORWARD BALANCES AND SUCH LOANS WERE DULY ACCEPTED IN EARLIER YEARS. DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR, ALL THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING BEEN DONE THE BANKING CHANNELS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REGULARLY PAYING INTEREST ON THE ABOVE -MENTIONED LOAN. THE SAME IS EVIDENT FROM THE LOAN CONFIRMATIONS. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE LEARLY EVIDENT THAT THE DIRECTORS GRANTED LOANS IN EARLIER YEARS AND THE NAMES OF THE DIRECTORS TO WHOM INTEREST WAS PAID WAS ALSO AVAILABLE IN THE DETAILS OF INTEREST AND SCHEDULE ENCLOSED WITH THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET. THE AO SHOULD HAVE ENQUIRED THE SA DIRECTORS PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS BEING COMPLETED EXPARTE. HAVING NOT DONE SO THE ADDITION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED SINCE PARTICULARLY IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 THE AO WAS DUTY BOUND TO ACT REASONABLY MAKE THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE BASED FN ADEQUATE MATERIAL. THE AO WAS AWARE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, YET NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO DIRECTORS NOR WAS ANY NOTICE ISSUED TO ADEQUATE ENQUIRY AND MATERIAL THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT PROPER. THE DETAILS AND CONFIRMATIONS OF THE UNSECURED LOANS FROM DIRECTORS AND THEIR RELATIVES WERE FILED AND WERE BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE REMAND REPORTS. THE DIRECTORS OR THE RELATIVES WERE OLD, THE LOANS FROM THEM WERE ALSO ACCEPTED IN EARLIER YEARS. ALL OF THEM WERE ASSESSED TO TAX AND PAN WERE SUBMITTED. NO ENQUIRY AT ALL WAS MADE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSM ANY ADVERSE COMMENT BEEN MADE IN THE REMAND REPORTS. NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO ANYONE OF THEM IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR REMAND PROCEEDINGS. I FIND THAT THE CONFIRMATION AND DETAILS CHART WERE THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE AO DID NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC ADDITION ON UNSECURED LOANS AND ONLY ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE OF OPENING AND CLOSING BALANCE WERE MADE BY HIM. THERE IS NO ADVERSE COMMENTS MADE BY THE AO ON ME OBSERVATION WERE MADE ON THE ADDITION AS MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN VIEW OF ABOVE; THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 14.1. THE LD. D/R, COULD NOT FACTUALLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 15. UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN BANKS: THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FACTUAL FINDING THAT ALL THESE CASH DEPOSITS I WERE RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE DETAILS OF THE SAME FURNISHED TO T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS THESE DEPOSITS ARE PART OF THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE FIND NOT INFIRMITY IN THE SAM UPHOLD THIS FACTUAL FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. D/R AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 16. UNEXPLAINED TRADES PAYABLE: TRADE PAYABLES ARISE ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT PURCHASES PURCHASES AND SALES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT DISTURBED. THE ARBITRARY ADDITION HAS BE MADE OF THE TRADE CREDITORS. EVEN CREDIT PURCHASES MADE FROM ITC LIMITED, AMOUNTING TO RS.2.23 CRORES AND RS.1.83 CRORES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA 11 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD AVAILABLE IN THE DETAILS OF INTEREST AND SCHEDULE ENCLOSED WITH THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET. THE AO SHOULD HAVE ENQUIRED THE SA ME BY MAKING REFERENCE OR ISSUING NOTICES TO THE DIRECTORS PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS BEING COMPLETED EXPARTE. HAVING NOT DONE SO THE ADDITION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED SINCE PARTICULARLY IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 THE AO WAS DUTY BOUND TO ACT REASONABLY AND MAKE ENQUIRIES WHICH WERE NECESSARY BEFORE JUMPING TO MAKE THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE BASED FN ADEQUATE MATERIAL. THE AO WAS AWARE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, YET NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO DIRECTORS NOR WAS ANY NOTICE ISSUED TO THE AUDITORS TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH. IF THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT BASED ON ADEQUATE ENQUIRY AND MATERIAL THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT PROPER. THE DETAILS AND CONFIRMATIONS OF THE UNSECURED LOANS FROM DIRECTORS AND THEIR RELATIVES WERE FILED AND WERE BEFORE THE AO THE TIME OF SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE REMAND REPORTS. THE DIRECTORS OR THE RELATIVES WERE OLD, THE LOANS FROM THEM WERE ALSO ACCEPTED IN EARLIER YEARS. ALL OF THEM WERE ASSESSED TO TAX AND PAN WERE SUBMITTED. NO ENQUIRY AT ALL WAS MADE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSM ANY ADVERSE COMMENT BEEN MADE IN THE REMAND REPORTS. NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO ANYONE OF THEM IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR REMAND PROCEEDINGS. I FIND THAT THE CONFIRMATION AND DETAILS CHART WERE FIELD BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF BOTH THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE AO DID NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC ADDITION ON UNSECURED LOANS AND ONLY ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE OF OPENING AND CLOSING BALANCE WERE MADE BY HIM. THERE IS NO ADVERSE COMMENTS MADE BY THE AO ON ME RIT ON THE LOANS AND NO SPECIFIC NEGATIVE OBSERVATION WERE MADE ON THE ADDITION AS MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN VIEW OF ABOVE; THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE LD. D/R, COULD NOT FACTUALLY CONTROVERT THESE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN BANKS: - THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FACTUAL FINDING THAT ALL THESE CASH DEPOSITS I WERE RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE DETAILS OF THE SAME FURNISHED TO HE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS THESE DEPOSITS ARE PART OF THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE FIND NOT INFIRMITY IN THE SAM UPHOLD THIS FACTUAL FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. D/R AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. UNEXPLAINED TRADES PAYABLE: - TRADE PAYABLES ARISE ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT PURCHASES OF GOODS OR SERVICES. THE PURCHASES AND SALES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT DISTURBED. THE ARBITRARY ADDITION HAS BE MADE OF THE TRADE CREDITORS. EVEN CREDIT PURCHASES MADE FROM ITC LIMITED, AMOUNTING TO RS.2.23 CRORES AND RS.1.83 CRORES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2013- 14, WERE ADDED. THIS IS ITA NO. 131/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 C.O. NO. 33/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ITA NO. 836/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD . AVAILABLE IN THE DETAILS OF INTEREST AND SCHEDULE ENCLOSED WITH THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET. ME BY MAKING REFERENCE OR ISSUING NOTICES TO THE DIRECTORS PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS BEING COMPLETED EXPARTE. HAVING NOT DONE SO THE ADDITION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED SINCE PARTICULARLY IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 THE AO WAS AND MAKE ENQUIRIES WHICH WERE NECESSARY BEFORE JUMPING TO MAKE THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE BASED FN ADEQUATE MATERIAL. THE AO WAS AWARE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, YET NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO DIRECTORS NOR THE AUDITORS TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH. IF THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT BASED ON ADEQUATE ENQUIRY AND MATERIAL THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT PROPER. THE DETAILS AND CONFIRMATIONS OF THE UNSECURED LOANS FROM DIRECTORS AND THEIR RELATIVES WERE FILED AND WERE BEFORE THE AO THE TIME OF SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE REMAND REPORTS. THE DIRECTORS OR THE RELATIVES WERE OLD, THE LOANS FROM THEM WERE ALSO ACCEPTED IN EARLIER YEARS. ALL OF THEM WERE ASSESSED TO TAX AND PAN WERE SUBMITTED. NO ENQUIRY AT ALL WAS MADE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSM ENT NOR HAS ANY ADVERSE COMMENT BEEN MADE IN THE REMAND REPORTS. NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO ANYONE OF FIELD BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF BOTH THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE AO DID NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC ADDITION ON UNSECURED LOANS AND ONLY ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE OF OPENING AND CLOSING BALANCE WERE MADE BY HIM. THERE IS NO RIT ON THE LOANS AND NO SPECIFIC NEGATIVE OBSERVATION WERE MADE ON THE ADDITION AS MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN VIEW OF ABOVE; THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. CONTROVERT THESE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FACTUAL FINDING THAT ALL THESE CASH DEPOSITS I N BANK, WERE RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE DETAILS OF THE SAME FURNISHED TO HE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS THESE DEPOSITS ARE PART OF THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE FIND NOT INFIRMITY IN THE SAM E. THUS, WE UPHOLD THIS FACTUAL FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. D/R AND OF GOODS OR SERVICES. THE PURCHASES AND SALES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT DISTURBED. THE ARBITRARY ADDITION HAS BE MADE OF THE TRADE CREDITORS. EVEN CREDIT PURCHASES MADE FROM ITC LIMITED, AMOUNTING TO 14, WERE ADDED. THIS IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RECORD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS WRONG IN ADDING BACK RS.3,12,66,706/- AS UNEXPLAINED TRADES A ABLE WHEN THE DETAILS OF SUCH PURCHASES WERE FILED VIDE LETTER DATE 04.02.2016 THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.3 ,12,66,706/ THERE IS NO DISPUTE OVER THE FACT THAT THE LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE FILED. THE ASSESSEE IS DEALER IN PAPER AND ALL THESE SUNDRY CREDITORS ARE APPEARING FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND EVERY YEAR. THE SUNDRY CREDITORS NAMED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO APPEARED IN THE LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR THE A.Y. 2011 PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ACCEPTED THE SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR THAT YEAR. THE DETAILS OF THE SUND RY CREDITORS FOR A. YEAR 2011 YEAR THE NAMES AND COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES WERE ALSO AVAILABLE, EVEN IF FOR ARGUMENT SAKE THE AO FELT THAT COMPLETE ADDRESSES WERE NOT AVAILABLE. THE AO DID NOT EVEN ISSUE ANY NOTIC SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE NOT GENUINE. THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE CREDITORS WERE NOT GENUINE, WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDI THAT THE ADDITION FOR TRADE PAYABLE IS CONCERNED THE AO STATES THAT FOR ADDRESS OF CERTAIN PARTIES LIKE MAP LIMITED, MUTILAL PAPER AND BOARD MILL, NEXTGEN PRINTERS PVT LTD, SPAST MARKETING LTD., THE ASSES THE AO ADDED BACK THE ENTIRE TRADES PAYABLE OF RS. 3,12,67,706/ ASSESSEE. FIRSTLY, WHEN NO PROPER ADDRESS OF ONLY 4 PARTIES WAS GIVEN, WHY ADDITION IS MADE OF THE ENTIRE TRADES PAYABLE. THE WHOSE FULL ADDRESS WAS GIVEN AND IF NO DISCREPANCY WAS FOUND THEREIN, THEN THE NATURAL PRESUMPTION IS THAT ALL THE TRADES PAYABLE WERE GENUINE. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT LOOKED INTO HIS OWN RECORDS APPLIED HIS MIND. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 TRADES PAYABLE AND SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE LIST OF TRADES PAYABLE/SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR THE A. YEAR 2011- 12 ALONG WITH ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 SHOWS THAT THERE APPEARED CREDIT IN THE NAME OF MULTIWAL PAPER AND BOARD MILL LIMITED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 LTD. WAS ONLY RS.3741/ AND RS. 613625/- AND SAID CREDIT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 CREDIT IN THE NAME OF NEXTGEN PRINTERS PVT. LTD. WAS ONLY RS.1,52,541/ INCREASE IN THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WAS RS.2.34 CRORES IN ITC (BCM), RS. 1.8 CROES IN ITC LT D (GEETA PRESS) AND S. MURLI INDUSTRIAL RS. 40 LAKH CREDITS IN ASST. YEAR 2011 WERE DULY ACCEPTED INCLUDING CREDIT IN THE NAME OF MAP PAPER AND MAP SHILPA. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT PROPER ADDRESS, FURNISHED. HOWEVER, ALL THE ADDRESSES WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 12 FOR WHICH HE HIMSELF COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 11.3.2016 AND DULY ACCEPTED ALL THESE TRADES PAYABLE. I FIND THAT THE AO MADE THREE ASSESSMENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSTT YEAR 2014 ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSTT YEAR 2011 12 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD HIGHLY ARBITRARY. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS WRONG IN ADDING BACK AS UNEXPLAINED TRADES A ABLE WHEN THE DETAILS OF SUCH PURCHASES WERE FILED VIDE LETTER DATE 04.02.2016 THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED THE ADDITION MADE BY ,12,66,706/ - ON THE GROUND THAT SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE NOT ESTABLISHED. THERE IS NO DISPUTE OVER THE FACT THAT THE LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE FILED. THE ASSESSEE IS DEALER IN PAPER AND ALL THESE SUNDRY CREDITORS ARE APPEARING FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THE SUNDRY CREDITORS NAMED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO APPEARED IN THE LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR THE A.Y. 2011 - 12 FOR, WHICH HE HIMSELF PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ACCEPTED THE SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR THAT YEAR. THE RY CREDITORS FOR A. YEAR 2011 - 12 IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. IN THE SAID YEAR THE NAMES AND COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES WERE ALSO AVAILABLE, EVEN IF FOR ARGUMENT SAKE THE AO FELT THAT COMPLETE ADDRESSES WERE NOT AVAILABLE. THE AO DID NOT EVEN ISSUE ANY NOTIC E U/S.133(6) TO THE SUNDRY CREDITOR TO PROVE THAT ANY OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE NOT GENUINE. THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE CREDITORS WERE NOT GENUINE, WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDI TION. THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION FOR TRADE PAYABLE IS CONCERNED THE AO STATES THAT FOR ADDRESS OF CERTAIN PARTIES LIKE MAP LIMITED, MUTILAL PAPER AND BOARD MILL, NEXTGEN PRINTERS PVT LTD, SPAST MARKETING LTD., THE ASSES SEE FURNISHED INCOMPLETE ADDRESSES AND THEREFORE THE AO ADDED BACK THE ENTIRE TRADES PAYABLE OF RS. 3,12,67,706/ - AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FIRSTLY, WHEN NO PROPER ADDRESS OF ONLY 4 PARTIES WAS GIVEN, WHY ADDITION IS MADE OF THE ENTIRE TRADES PAYABLE. THE AO COULD HAVE ENQUIRED FROM THE PARTIES WHOSE FULL ADDRESS WAS GIVEN AND IF NO DISCREPANCY WAS FOUND THEREIN, THEN THE NATURAL PRESUMPTION IS THAT ALL THE TRADES PAYABLE WERE GENUINE. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT LOOKED INTO HIS OWN RECORDS AND HAS NOT PROPERLY APPLIED HIS MIND. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 THE AO HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED ALL TRADES PAYABLE AND SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE LIST OF TRADES PAYABLE/SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR 12 ALONG WITH ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 -14 IS ENCLOSED H EREWITH, WHICH SHOWS THAT THERE APPEARED CREDIT IN THE NAME OF MULTIWAL PAPER AND BOARD MILL LIMITED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 TOO. THE CREDITS IN THE NAME OF SPAST MARKETING RS.3741/ - IN THE NAME OF NAP LIMITED THE CREDIT WAS RS.11,83,393/ AND SAID CREDIT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 CREDIT IN THE NAME OF NEXTGEN PRINTERS PVT. LTD. WAS ONLY RS.1,52,541/ INCREASE IN THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WAS RS.2.34 CRORES IN ITC (BCM), RS. 1.8 CROES IN ITC D (GEETA PRESS) AND S. MURLI INDUSTRIAL RS. 40 LAKH CREDITS IN ASST. YEAR 2011 WERE DULY ACCEPTED INCLUDING CREDIT IN THE NAME OF MAP PAPER AND MAP SHILPA. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT PROPER ADDRESS, FURNISHED. ADDRESSES WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 12 FOR WHICH HE HIMSELF COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 11.3.2016 AND DULY ACCEPTED ALL MADE THREE ASSESSMENTS OF THE APPELLATE COMPANY IN NINE DAYS. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSTT YEAR 2014 - 15 WAS PASSED ON 09.03.2016, THE ORDER FOR THE ASSTT YEAR 2011 - 12 WAS PASSED ON 11.03.2016, THE ITA NO. 131/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 C.O. NO. 33/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ITA NO. 836/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD . HIGHLY ARBITRARY. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS WRONG IN ADDING BACK AS UNEXPLAINED TRADES A ABLE WHEN THE DETAILS OF SUCH PURCHASES WERE FILED VIDE LETTER DATE 04.02.2016 THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED THE ADDITION MADE BY ON THE GROUND THAT SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE NOT ESTABLISHED. THERE IS NO DISPUTE OVER THE FACT THAT THE LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE FILED. THE ASSESSEE IS DEALER IN PAPER AND ALL THESE SUNDRY CREDITORS ARE APPEARING FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THE SUNDRY CREDITORS NAMED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 12 FOR, WHICH HE HIMSELF PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ACCEPTED THE SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR THAT YEAR. THE 12 IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. IN THE SAID YEAR THE NAMES AND COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES WERE ALSO AVAILABLE, EVEN IF FOR ARGUMENT SAKE THE AO FELT THAT COMPLETE ADDRESSES WERE NOT AVAILABLE. THE AO DID E U/S.133(6) TO THE SUNDRY CREDITOR TO PROVE THAT ANY OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE NOT GENUINE. THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE CREDITORS WERE NOT GENUINE, WAS TION. THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION FOR TRADE PAYABLE IS CONCERNED THE AO STATES THAT FOR ADDRESS OF CERTAIN PARTIES LIKE MAP LIMITED, MUTILAL PAPER AND BOARD MILL, NEXTGEN PRINTERS PVT SEE FURNISHED INCOMPLETE ADDRESSES AND THEREFORE AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FIRSTLY, WHEN NO PROPER ADDRESS OF ONLY 4 PARTIES WAS GIVEN, WHY ADDITION IS AO COULD HAVE ENQUIRED FROM THE PARTIES WHOSE FULL ADDRESS WAS GIVEN AND IF NO DISCREPANCY WAS FOUND THEREIN, THEN THE NATURAL PRESUMPTION IS THAT ALL THE TRADES PAYABLE WERE GENUINE. IT IS FURTHER AND HAS NOT PROPERLY 12 THE AO HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED ALL TRADES PAYABLE AND SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE LIST OF TRADES PAYABLE/SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR EREWITH, WHICH SHOWS THAT THERE APPEARED CREDIT IN THE NAME OF MULTIWAL PAPER AND BOARD MILL 12 TOO. THE CREDITS IN THE NAME OF SPAST MARKETING IN THE NAME OF NAP LIMITED THE CREDIT WAS RS.11,83,393/ - AND SAID CREDIT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 -15. THE CREDIT IN THE NAME OF NEXTGEN PRINTERS PVT. LTD. WAS ONLY RS.1,52,541/ -. THE MAJOR INCREASE IN THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WAS RS.2.34 CRORES IN ITC (BCM), RS. 1.8 CROES IN ITC D (GEETA PRESS) AND S. MURLI INDUSTRIAL RS. 40 LAKH CREDITS IN ASST. YEAR 2011 -12 WERE DULY ACCEPTED INCLUDING CREDIT IN THE NAME OF MAP PAPER AND MAP SHILPA. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT PROPER ADDRESS, FURNISHED. ADDRESSES WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 FOR WHICH HE HIMSELF COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 11.3.2016 AND DULY ACCEPTED ALL APPELLATE COMPANY IN NINE DAYS. THE 15 WAS PASSED ON 09.03.2016, THE 12 WAS PASSED ON 11.03.2016, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSTT YEAR 2013 ON 18.03.2016. THE ACC AND 2014- 15 (ALTHOUGH 2014- 15 BUT NO SPECIFIC A ND CLOSING BALANCE HAS BEEN THIS ORDER. I FIND FROM THE ASSESSME PARTIES WERE AVAILABLE IN THESE ASSESS THE APPELLATE DID NOT PROVIDE ADDRE ADDITION OF ENTIRE TRADE PAYABLE AMOUNT. THE SUNDRY CREDITORS NAMED BY THE A LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR THE A.Y. 2011 ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ACCEPTED THE SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR THAT YEAR. IN THE SAID YEAR THE NAMES AND COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES WERE ALSO AVAILABLE. THE AO HAS HOT LOOKED INTO HIS OWN RECORDS AND HAS NOT PROPERLY APPLIED HIS MIND. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE LIST OF TRADES PAYABLE/SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR THE ASSTT YEAR 2011 12 ALONG WITH ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 NAME OF MULTIWAL PAPER AND BOARD MILLS LI THE CREDITS IN THE NAME O NAP LIMITED THE CREDIT WAS RS. BEEN AC CEPTED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 PRI NTERS PVT LTD WAS ONLY RS. 1,52, WAS RS. 2.34 CRORES IN ITC LTD (BCM), RS. 1.8 CRO MURLI INDUSTRIAL RS. 40 LAKHS. ALL THE CREDITS IN ASST YEAR 2011 INCLUDING CREDIT IN THE NAME OF MAP PAPER AND MAP SHILPA. THE A ADDITION ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT PROPER ADDRESS WAS NOT FURNISHED. HOWEVER, ALL THE ADDRESSES WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 HIMSELF COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 11.3.2016 (THIS ORDER WAS PASSED ON 18.03.2016) AND DULY ACCEPTED ALL THESE TRADES PAYABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE OF TRADE PAYABLES AS PER BALANCE SHEET AND NO SPECIFIC PARTY WISE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO. THE NOTICE U/S 131 WAS ISSUE TO ITC FOR THE YEAR 2011 BUT THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION MADE THE ADDITION EVEN TRADE PAYABLE RELAT RECORD AND EVEN WHEN ALL THESE THREE ASSESSMENT WERE MADE IN ONLY NINE DAYS. THE MATTER WAS ALSO SENT FOR REMAND REPORT TO THE AO AND EVEN THAN THE AO DID NOT LOOK INTO HIS OWN RECORD AND HIS OTHER TWO ASSES NINE DAYS I.E. FROM 09.03.2016 TO 18.03.2016. MENTIONED THAT DETAILS WERE FILED BUT SINCE NOBODY APPEARED FOR HEARING. TO EXPLAIN AND OR RECONCILE VARIOUS ISSUES INVOLVED. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RECORD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 13 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSTT YEAR 2013 - 14 I.E. THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS PASSED ON 18.03.2016. THE ACC EPTED THE ALL THESE TRADE CREDITORS IN THE ASSTT 15 (ALTHOUGH THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TRADE CREDITORS HAS BEEN MADE IN 15 BUT NO SPECIFIC PARTY ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE AND ONLY DIFFERENCE OF OPENING ND CLOSING BALANCE HAS BEEN MADE) AND BOTH THESE TWO ORDERS WERE PASSED PRIOR TO THIS ORDER. I FIND FROM THE ASSESSME NT RECORD THAT THE COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THESE PARTIES WERE AVAILABLE IN THESE ASSESS MENT FOLDERS. I ALSO FAILED TO UNDERSTAND, WHEN THE APPELLATE DID NOT PROVIDE ADDRE SS OF THESE FOUR PARTIES THAN WHY THE A ADDITION OF ENTIRE TRADE PAYABLE AMOUNT. THE SUNDRY CREDITORS NAMED BY THE A O IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO APPEARED IN THE LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR THE A.Y. 2011 - 12 FOR WHICH HE HIMSELF PASSED THE AND ACCEPTED THE SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR THAT YEAR. IN THE SAID YEAR THE NAMES AND COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES WERE ALSO AVAILABLE. HAS HOT LOOKED INTO HIS OWN RECORDS AND HAS NOT PROPERLY APPLIED HIS MIND. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 -12 THE AO HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED ALL TRADES PAYABLE AND SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE LIST OF TRADES PAYABLE/SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR THE ASSTT YEAR 2011 12 ALONG WITH ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 SHOWS THAT THERE APPEARED CREDIT IN THE NAME OF MULTIWAL PAPER AND BOARD MILLS LI MITED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 THE CREDITS IN THE NAME O F SPAST MARKETING LTD WAS ONLY RS. 3741/- , IN THE NAME OF NAP LIMITED THE CREDIT WAS RS. 11,83,393/- AND RS. 613625/- AND SAID CREDIT HAS CEPTED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 -15. THE CREDIT IN THE NAME OF NEXTGEN NTERS PVT LTD WAS ONLY RS. 1,52, 541/- . THE MAJOR INCREASE IN THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WAS RS. 2.34 CRORES IN ITC LTD (BCM), RS. 1.8 CRO RES IN ITC LTD (GEETA PRESS) AND S. MURLI INDUSTRIAL RS. 40 LAKHS. ALL THE CREDITS IN ASST YEAR 2011 - 12 WERE DULY ACCEPTED INCLUDING CREDIT IN THE NAME OF MAP PAPER AND MAP SHILPA. THE A O ADDITION ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT PROPER ADDRESS WAS NOT FURNISHED. HOWEVER, ALL THE ADDRESSES WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 FOR WHIC HIMSELF COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 11.3.2016 (THIS ORDER WAS PASSED ON 18.03.2016) AND DULY ACCEPTED ALL THESE TRADES PAYABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE OF TRADE PAYABLES AS PER SPECIFIC PARTY WISE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO. THE NOTICE U/S 131 WAS ISSUE TO ITC FOR THE YEAR 2011 - 12 AND REPLY WAS RECEIVED TO THE AO BUT THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION MADE THE ADDITION EVEN TRADE PAYABLE RELAT ING TO ITC. THE AO WAS NOT BOTHER TO SEE HIS OWN RECORD AND EVEN WHEN ALL THESE THREE ASSESSMENT WERE MADE IN ONLY NINE DAYS. THE MATTER WAS ALSO SENT FOR REMAND REPORT TO THE AO AND EVEN THAN THE AO DID NOT LOOK INTO HIS OWN RECORD AND HIS OTHER TWO ASSES SMENT ORDERS WHICH WERE PASSED IN NINE DAYS I.E. FROM 09.03.2016 TO 18.03.2016. THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS MENTIONED THAT DETAILS WERE FILED BUT SINCE NOBODY APPEARED FOR HEARING. TO EXPLAIN AND OR RECONCILE VARIOUS ISSUES INVOLVED. KEEPING IN VIEW OF IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED . FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 -15, HE HELD AS FOLLOWS:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO. 131/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 C.O. NO. 33/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ITA NO. 836/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD . 14 I.E. THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS PASSED EPTED THE ALL THESE TRADE CREDITORS IN THE ASSTT YEAR 2011-12 ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TRADE CREDITORS HAS BEEN MADE IN ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE AND ONLY DIFFERENCE OF OPENING AND BOTH THESE TWO ORDERS WERE PASSED PRIOR TO RECORD THAT THE COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THESE FOLDERS. I ALSO FAILED TO UNDERSTAND, WHEN SS OF THESE FOUR PARTIES THAN WHY THE A O MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO APPEARED IN THE 12 FOR WHICH HE HIMSELF PASSED THE AND ACCEPTED THE SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR THAT YEAR. IN THE SAID YEAR THE HAS HOT LOOKED INTO HIS OWN RECORDS AND HAS NOT PROPERLY APPLIED HIS MIND. IN HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED ALL TRADES PAYABLE AND SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE LIST OF TRADES PAYABLE/SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR THE ASSTT YEAR 2011 - 14 SHOWS THAT THERE APPEARED CREDIT IN THE MITED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 -12 TOO. , IN THE NAME OF SAID CREDIT HAS THE NAME OF NEXTGEN . THE MAJOR INCREASE IN THE SUNDRY CREDITORS LTD (GEETA PRESS) AND S. 12 WERE DULY ACCEPTED HAS MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT PROPER ADDRESS WAS NOT FURNISHED. HOWEVER, ALL THE 12 FOR WHIC H HE HIMSELF COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 11.3.2016 (THIS ORDER WAS PASSED ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE OF TRADE PAYABLES AS PER SPECIFIC PARTY WISE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO. THE 12 AND REPLY WAS RECEIVED TO THE AO BUT THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION MADE THE ING TO ITC. THE AO WAS NOT BOTHER TO SEE HIS OWN RECORD AND EVEN WHEN ALL THESE THREE ASSESSMENT WERE MADE IN ONLY NINE DAYS. THE MATTER WAS ALSO SENT FOR REMAND REPORT TO THE AO AND EVEN THAN THE AO DID NOT SMENT ORDERS WHICH WERE PASSED IN THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS MENTIONED THAT DETAILS WERE FILED BUT SINCE NOBODY APPEARED FOR HEARING. TO KEEPING IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE AO I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WAS AVAILABLE IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE BALANCE SHEET WHICH WAS WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE AO, A COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE VERIFIED THE NAMES OF THE CREDITORS FROM THE DETAILS ALREADY AVAILABLE WITH HIM IN THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE COMPLETING THE AS ASSESSMENT RECORDS FOR AY. 2011 WERE PAPER MILLS WHOSE NAMES AND ADDRESSES WERE AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS FOR ASST T. YR. 2011 VERIFIED THE CREDITORS. THE ABOVE OF THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASE HAS DULY BEEN ACCEPTED, ALL THE CREDITORS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN EARLIER YEARS AFTER MAKING DUE AND PROPER ENQUIRY AND BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE CREDITORS WERE NOT GENUINE. I FIND THAT THE DETAILS WITH NAME AND ADDRESSES WERE AGAIN FILED ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TWICE AT THE TIME OF REMAND REPORT STAGE. THESE CREDITORS AL APPEARED IN EARLIER YEARS AND THEIR ADDRESSES WERE AVAILABLE IN THE LIS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12 AND 2013 ASSESSMENT AND NO ADVERSE DID NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC ADDITION ON TRADE PAYABLES AND ONLY ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE OF OPENING AND CLOSING BALANCE WERE MADE BY HIM. THERE IS NO ADVERSE COMMENT MADE BY THE AO ON MERIT ON THE TRADE PAYABLES AND NO WERE MAD E ON THE ADDITION AS MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 16.1. THE LD. D/R COULD NOT CONTROVERT THIS FACTUAL FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, WE UPHOLD THE SAM E AND DISMISS THESE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE. 17. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF PROFIT: THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGES 17 & 18 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRES APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION HAS MENTIONED THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SATISFIED THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHETHER THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SECTION 145(1) HAS BEEN FOLLOWING BY THE ASSESSEE O NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION 145(1) OF THE ACT OR NOT. HENCE, ADDITION OF 2% GP WAS MADE. THE AO HAS FURTHER ADDED RS 1,68,80,801/ INCOME AS LAST ITEM. THE AR OF THE APPELL RS.2,53,82,407/ IGNORING THE PAST RECORDS AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DULY AUDITED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT 14 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WAS AVAILABLE IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE BALANCE SHEET WHICH WAS DULY FILLED BEFORE THE AO. THE DETAILS WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE AO, A COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THE A.O. OUGHT TO THE NAMES OF THE CREDITORS FROM THE DETAILS ALREADY AVAILABLE WITH HIM IN THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE COMPLETING THE AS SESSMENT U/ S. 144. THE A ASSESSMENT RECORDS FOR AY. 2011 -12 AS WELL AS 2013- 14. FURTHER, ALL THESE CREDITORS WERE PAPER MILLS WHOSE NAMES AND ADDRESSES WERE AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT T. YR. 2011 -12 AS WELL AS 2013-14 AND THUS, THE A.O . COULD HAD EASILY VERIFIED THE CREDITORS. THE ABOVE - MENTIONED ADDITION WAS NOT CALLED FOR ALSO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASE HAS DULY BEEN ACCEPTED, ALL THE CREDITORS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN EARLIER YEARS AFTER MAKING DUE AND PROPER ENQUIRY AND THE A BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE CREDITORS WERE NOT GENUINE. I FIND THAT THE DETAILS WITH NAME AND ADDRESSES WERE AGAIN FILED ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TWICE AT THE TIME OF REMAND REPORT STAGE. THESE CREDITORS AL APPEARED IN EARLIER YEARS AND THEIR ADDRESSES WERE AVAILABLE IN THE LIS 12 AND 2013 -14 YET NO VERIFICATION WAS MADE IT ASSESSMENT AND NO ADVERSE COMMENT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE REMAND REPORT. THE A DID NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC ADDITION ON TRADE PAYABLES AND ONLY ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE OF OPENING AND CLOSING BALANCE WERE MADE BY HIM. THERE IS NO ADVERSE COMMENT ON MERIT ON THE TRADE PAYABLES AND NO - SPECIFIC NEGATIVE OBSERVATION E ON THE ADDITION AS MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED THE LD. D/R COULD NOT CONTROVERT THIS FACTUAL FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, WE E AND DISMISS THESE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF PROFIT: - THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGES 17 & 18 GAVE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRES APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION HAS MENTIONED THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SATISFIED THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHETHER THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SECTION 145(1) HAS BEEN FOLLOWING BY THE ASSESSEE O R INCOME, HAS BEEN COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION 145(1) OF THE ACT OR NOT. HENCE, ADDITION OF 2% GP WAS MADE. THE AO HAS FURTHER ADDED RS 1,68,80,801/ - IN THE FINAL COMPUTATION OF INCOME AS LAST ITEM. THE AR OF THE APPELL ATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS WRONGLY ADDED BACK RS.2,53,82,407/ - AS NET PROFIT AT 2% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS WITHOUT ANY BASIS IGNORING THE PAST RECORDS AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DULY AUDITED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT AT 2% OF THE TURNOVER AND FURTHER ITA NO. 131/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 C.O. NO. 33/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ITA NO. 836/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD . THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WAS AVAILABLE DULY FILLED BEFORE THE AO. THE DETAILS WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE AO, A COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THE A.O. OUGHT TO THE NAMES OF THE CREDITORS FROM THE DETAILS ALREADY AVAILABLE WITH HIM S. 144. THE A O HAD THE 14. FURTHER, ALL THESE CREDITORS WERE PAPER MILLS WHOSE NAMES AND ADDRESSES WERE AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT . COULD HAD EASILY MENTIONED ADDITION WAS NOT CALLED FOR ALSO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASE HAS DULY BEEN ACCEPTED, ALL THE CREDITORS HAVE BEEN THE A O HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE CREDITORS WERE NOT GENUINE. I FIND THAT THE DETAILS WITH NAME AND ADDRESSES WERE AGAIN FILED ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TWICE AT THE TIME OF REMAND REPORT STAGE. THESE CREDITORS AL SO APPEARED IN EARLIER YEARS AND THEIR ADDRESSES WERE AVAILABLE IN THE LIS T FOR THE YET NO VERIFICATION WAS MADE IT THE TIME OF COMMENT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE REMAND REPORT. THE A O DID NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC ADDITION ON TRADE PAYABLES AND ONLY ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE OF OPENING AND CLOSING BALANCE WERE MADE BY HIM. THERE IS NO ADVERSE COMMENT -S SPECIFIC NEGATIVE OBSERVATION E ON THE ADDITION AS MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED . THE LD. D/R COULD NOT CONTROVERT THIS FACTUAL FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, WE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION HAS MENTIONED THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SATISFIED THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHETHER THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SECTION 145(1) HAS BEEN FOLLOWING R INCOME, HAS BEEN COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION 145(1) OF THE ACT OR NOT. HENCE, ADDITION OF 2% GP WAS IN THE FINAL COMPUTATION OF ATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS WRONGLY ADDED BACK AS NET PROFIT AT 2% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS WITHOUT ANY BASIS IGNORING THE PAST RECORDS AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DULY AUDITED IN ACCORDANCE AT 2% OF THE TURNOVER AND FURTHER SEPARATELY ADDED THE OTHER ITEMS OF INCOME AS OTHER INCOME IN THIS PROCESS THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE BUSINESS INCOME AT 2% AT RS. 2,53,82,407/ ADDED RS. 1,68,80,801/ BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND SO CONSIDERED IN EARLIER YEARS. IN FACT, THE IN COMPARATIVE STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE AO AS CALLED FOR BY HIM, THE COMPUTATION OF NET PROFIT AND GROSS PROFIT HAVE BEEN MADE BY INCLUDING SUCH INCOME. THE NET PROFIT AND GROS S PROFIT RATE WAS QUITE FAIR AND REASONABLE IN COMPARISON TO EARLIER YEARS. . BUT THE AO HAS RAISED THE NET PROFIT 3.33% ON THE TURNOVER OF RS. 1,26,91,20,332/ CHART OF THE NET PROFIT OF LAST 3 YE SUBMISSIONS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE AO. IN FACT, THE COMPARATIVE FIGURES WERE ALSO GIVEN TO THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HE HIMSELF WANTED THE SAME. HE HAS YEARS COMPARATIVE FIGURES WERE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO HIM. THEREFORE, THE A NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE PAST RECORDS AND ESTIMATE THE NET PROFIT AS MUCH HIGHER FIGURE. THE AO WH CAN NOT IGNORE THE PAST RECORDS WHICH CAN BE THE BEST GUIDE FOR ESTIMATING THE INCOME, EVEN IF HE CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESSEES INCOME IS TO BE ESTIMATED. I FIND THAT THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION HAS MENTIONED THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS OFFICER ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHETHER THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SECTION 145(1) HAS BEEN FOLLOWING BY THE ASSESSEE OR INCOME HAS BEE STANDARD NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION 145(1) OF THE ACT OR NOT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE SAME TIME DID NOT MENTION IN HIS ORDER WHAT ARE THE MISTAKES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT POI ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SECTION 145 (1) OR INCOME HAS NOT BEEN COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION 145(1) OF THE ACT. THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLATE WERE INCORRECT, INCOMPLETE, UNRELIABLE AND CONSEQUENTLY LIABLE FOR REJECTION. THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE APPELLATE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS 4.30 % AS AGAINST THE GROSS PROFIT OF 4.08% IN THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E. AND THERE WAS NOT ADDITION BY THE SAME AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR. IT WAS 4.10% IN THE YEAR 2014 UNDER CONSIDERATION IS HIGHER ADDED RS. 1,68,80,801/ BUSINESS RECEIPTS. IN FACT, IN THE COMPARATIVE STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE AO AS CALLED FOR BY HIM, THE COMPUTATION OF NET PROFIT AN BY INCLUDING SUCH INCOME. THE AO SHOULD HAVE STARTED HIS COMPUTATION OF THE RETURN INCOME AND FURTHER ADD ALL THE ADDITION /DISALLOWANCE MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. KEEPING IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELE ADDITION. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED SIMILARLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 15 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD SEPARATELY ADDED THE OTHER ITEMS OF INCOME AS OTHER INCOME IN THIS PROCESS THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE BUSINESS INCOME AT 2% AT RS. 2,53,82,407/ ADDED RS. 1,68,80,801/ - AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHICH WAS P BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND SO CONSIDERED IN EARLIER YEARS. IN FACT, THE IN COMPARATIVE STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE AO AS CALLED FOR BY HIM, THE COMPUTATION OF NET PROFIT AND GROSS PROFIT HAVE BEEN MADE BY INCLUDING SUCH INCOME. THE NET PROFIT AND S PROFIT RATE WAS QUITE FAIR AND REASONABLE IN COMPARISON TO EARLIER YEARS. . BUT THE AO HAS RAISED THE NET PROFIT 3.33% ON THE TURNOVER OF RS. 1,26,91,20,332/ - WHICH IS MUCH MORE THAN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE COMPARATIVE CHART OF THE NET PROFIT OF LAST 3 YE ARS HAVE ALSO BEEN FILED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE AO. IN FACT, THE COMPARATIVE FIGURES WERE ALSO GIVEN TO THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HE WANTED THE SAME. HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON AS TO WHY THE EARLIER YEARS COMPARATIVE FIGURES WERE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO HIM. THEREFORE, THE A NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE PAST RECORDS AND ESTIMATE THE NET PROFIT AS MUCH HIGHER FIGURE. THE AO WH ILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 144 NOT IGNORE THE PAST RECORDS WHICH CAN BE THE BEST GUIDE FOR ESTIMATING THE INCOME, EVEN IF HE CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESSEES INCOME IS TO BE ESTIMATED. I FIND THAT THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION HAS MENTIONED THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SATISFIED THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHETHER THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SECTION 145(1) HAS BEEN FOLLOWING BY THE ASSESSEE OR INCOME HAS BEE N COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION 145(1) OF THE ACT OR NOT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE SAME TIME DID NOT MENTION IN HIS ORDER WHAT ARE THE MISTAKES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT POI NTED OUT THE ISSUES OF DEVIATION FROM THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SECTION 145 (1) OR INCOME HAS NOT BEEN COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION 145(1) OF THE ACT. THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLATE WERE INCORRECT, INCOMPLETE, UNRELIABLE AND CONSEQUENTLY LIABLE FOR REJECTION. THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE APPELLATE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS AGAINST THE GROSS PROFIT OF 4.08% IN THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E. AND THERE WAS NOT ADDITION BY THE SAME AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR. IT WAS 4.10% IN THE YEAR 2014 - 15. THE GROSS PROFIT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS HIGHER IN THESE THREE YEARS. THE AO HAS ALSO SEPARATELY ADDED RS. 1,68,80,801/ - AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHICH WAS PART OF THE BUSINESS RECEIPTS. IN FACT, IN THE COMPARATIVE STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE AO AS CALLED FOR BY HIM, THE COMPUTATION OF NET PROFIT AN D GROSS PROFIT HAVE BEEN MADE BY INCLUDING SUCH INCOME. THE AO SHOULD HAVE STARTED HIS COMPUTATION OF THE RETURN INCOME AND FURTHER ADD ALL THE ADDITION /DISALLOWANCE MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. KEEPING IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELE THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED . SIMILARLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 -15, HE HELD AS FOLLOWS:- ITA NO. 131/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 C.O. NO. 33/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ITA NO. 836/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD . SEPARATELY ADDED THE OTHER ITEMS OF INCOME AS OTHER INCOME IN THIS PROCESS THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE BUSINESS INCOME AT 2% AT RS. 2,53,82,407/ - AND SEPARATELY AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHICH WAS P ART OF THE BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND SO CONSIDERED IN EARLIER YEARS. IN FACT, THE IN COMPARATIVE STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE AO AS CALLED FOR BY HIM, THE COMPUTATION OF NET PROFIT AND GROSS PROFIT HAVE BEEN MADE BY INCLUDING SUCH INCOME. THE NET PROFIT AND S PROFIT RATE WAS QUITE FAIR AND REASONABLE IN COMPARISON TO EARLIER YEARS. . BUT THE AO HAS RAISED THE NET PROFIT 3.33% ON THE TURNOVER OF RS. WHICH IS MUCH MORE THAN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE COMPARATIVE ARS HAVE ALSO BEEN FILED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE AO. IN FACT, THE COMPARATIVE FIGURES WERE ALSO GIVEN TO THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HE TO WHY THE EARLIER YEARS COMPARATIVE FIGURES WERE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO HIM. THEREFORE, THE A O WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE PAST RECORDS AND ESTIMATE THE NET PROFIT AS MUCH COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 144 NOT IGNORE THE PAST RECORDS WHICH CAN BE THE BEST GUIDE FOR ESTIMATING THE INCOME, EVEN IF HE CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESSEES INCOME IS TO BE ESTIMATED. I FIND THAT THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION HAS MENTIONED THAT CONSIDERING THE APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SATISFIED THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHETHER THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SECTION 145(1) HAS BEEN N COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION 145(1) OF THE ACT OR NOT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE SAME TIME DID NOT MENTION IN HIS ORDER WHAT ARE THE MISTAKES IN THE BOOKS OF NTED OUT THE ISSUES OF DEVIATION FROM THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SECTION 145 (1) OR INCOME HAS NOT BEEN COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION 145(1) OF THE ACT. THERE CER COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLATE WERE INCORRECT, THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE APPELLATE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS AGAINST THE GROSS PROFIT OF 4.08% IN THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E. -2011-12 AND THERE WAS NOT ADDITION BY THE SAME AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE 15. THE GROSS PROFIT IN THE YEAR IN THESE THREE YEARS. THE AO HAS ALSO SEPARATELY AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHICH WAS PART OF THE BUSINESS RECEIPTS. IN FACT, IN THE COMPARATIVE STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE AO AS D GROSS PROFIT HAVE BEEN MADE BY INCLUDING SUCH INCOME. THE AO SHOULD HAVE STARTED HIS COMPUTATION OF THE RETURN INCOME AND FURTHER ADD ALL THE ADDITION /DISALLOWANCE MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. KEEPING IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELE TE THESE I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION HAS MENTIONED THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SATISFIED THE ASSESSING OF ABOUT THE- CORRECTNESS OR WHETHER THE METHOD OF ACCOUNT PROVI BY THE ASSESSEE OR INCOME HAS BEEN COMPUT NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION MADE. THE AO HA INCOME AS LAST ITEM THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST ADDITION WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT YE THE P ROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING OF THE OTHER INCOME OF RS. 69,70,413/ METHOD WAS A CCEPTED BETWEEN THE A.Y. 2010 EVEN IF THE AO ESTIMATED THE PROFIT IN A FAIR AND JUSTIFIABLE MANNER. NEEDLESS TO ASSESSEES OWN PAST RECORDS CAN BE THE BEST GUIDE FOR SUCH ESTIMATE PARTICULARLY WHEN JUSTIFY THE NET PROFIT ESTIMATED HIM. WHEN THE EARLIER YEAR'S COMPARATIVE FIGURES OF THE RATE OF PROFIT IS TAKEN INTO ACCO INCREASE IN THE TURN OVER THE NET PROFIT DECLARED AND REASONABLE. NO ADDITION OF ANY NATURE FOR AND SUCH ADDITION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE ADDITION IS BY ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT. THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT AT 2% OF INCOME AS OTHER INCOME IN THIS PROCESS THE A INCOME AT 2% AT RS. 2,96,05,303/ INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHICH WAS PART OF THE BUSINE CONSIDERED IN EARLIER YEARS. IN FACT THE IN COMPARATIVE STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE AO AS CALLED FOR BY HIM, THE COMPUTATION OF NET PROFIT AND GROSS PROFIT HAVE BEEN MADE BY INCLUDING SUCH INCOME. THE NET PROFIT AND GROSS PROFIT RATE WAS QUITE FAIR AND RE THE NET PROFIT 2.5% ON THE TURNOVER OF RS.1,48,02,65,126/ THAN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE COMPARATIVE CHART OF THE NET PROFIT OF LAST 3 YEARS HAVE ALSO BEEN FILED IN THE WRITTE CONTROVERTED BY THE AA. IN FACT THE COMPARATIVE FIGURES WERE ALSO GIVEN TO THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HE HIMSELF WANTED THE SAME. HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON AS TO WHY THE EARLIER YEARS COMPARATIVE F WERE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO HIM. THE A ASSESSEE U/S. 144 CANNOT IGNORE THE PAST RECORDS WHICH CAN BE THE BEST GUIDE FOR ESTIMATING THE INCOME, EVEN IF HE CONSIDERED THAT THE BE ESTIMATED PAR COMPARABLE CASE YEAR'S COMPARATIVE FIGURES OF THE RATE OF PROFIT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND KEEPING IN MIND THE INCREASE IN THE TURN OVER THE ASSESSEE WAS QUITE FAIR AND REASONABLE. NO ADDITION OF ANY NATURE IN THE 16 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN THE LIG HT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION HAS MENTIONED THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SATISFIED THE ASSESSING OF CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHETHER THE METHOD OF ACCOUNT PROVI DE D IN SECTION 145 (1) HAS BEEN FOLLOWING BY THE ASSESSEE OR INCOME HAS BEEN COMPUT ED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD SECTION 145(1) OF THE ACT OR NOT. HEN CE, ADDITION OF 2% GP WAS HA S FURTHER ADDED RS. 69,70,413/- IN THE FINAL INCOME AS LAST ITEM . THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST ADDITION WHICH HAS BEEN ASSESSEE I.E., ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATE OF PROFIT AT RS. 2,96,05,303/ DURING THE RELEVANT YE AR, THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 1,48,02,65,126/ ROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING YEAR WAS 0.80% WHICH WAS INCLUSIVE OF THE OTHER INCOME OF RS. 69,70,413/ -. THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE ON SIMILAR CCEPTED BETWEEN THE A.Y. 2010 -11, AND A.Y. 2012 WANTED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 ESTIMATED THE PROFIT IN A FAIR AND JUSTIFIABLE MANNER. NEEDLESS TO OWN PAST RECORDS CAN BE THE BEST GUIDE FOR SUCH ESTIMATE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD OF ANY COMPARABLE CASE TO JUSTIFY THE NET PROFIT ESTIMATED HIM. WHEN THE EARLIER YEAR'S COMPARATIVE FIGURES OF THE RATE OF PROFIT IS TAKEN INTO ACCO UNT AND KEEPING IN MIND THE INCREASE IN THE TURN OVER THE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REASONABLE. NO ADDITION OF ANY NATURE IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT WAS CALLED FOR AND SUCH ADDITION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE ADDITION IS BY ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT. THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT AT 2% OF THE TURNOVER AND FURTHER SEPARATELY ADDED THE OTHER ITEMS OF INCOME AS OTHER INCOME IN THIS PROCESS THE A O HAS ESTIMATED THE BUSINESS INCOME AT 2% AT RS. 2,96,05,303/ - , AND SEPARATELY ADDED RS. 69,70,413/ INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHICH WAS PART OF THE BUSINE SS CONSIDERED IN EARLIER YEARS. IN FACT THE IN COMPARATIVE STATEMENT FILED BEFORE AS CALLED FOR BY HIM, THE COMPUTATION OF NET PROFIT AND GROSS PROFIT HAVE BEEN MADE BY INCLUDING SUCH INCOME. THE NET PROFIT AND GROSS PROFIT RATE WAS QUITE FAIR AND RE ASONABLE IN COMPARISON TO EARLIER YEARS. BUT THE A THE NET PROFIT 2.5% ON THE TURNOVER OF RS.1,48,02,65,126/ - , WHICH IS MUCH MORE THAN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE COMPARATIVE CHART OF THE NET PROFIT OF LAST 3 YEARS HAVE ALSO BEEN FILED IN THE WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE AA. IN FACT THE COMPARATIVE FIGURES WERE ALSO GIVEN TO THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HE HIMSELF WANTED THE SAME. HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON AS TO WHY THE EARLIER YEARS COMPARATIVE F WERE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO HIM. THE A O WHILE COMPL ETING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 144 CANNOT IGNORE THE PAST RECORDS WHICH CAN BE THE BEST GUIDE FOR ESTIMATING THE INCOME, EVEN IF HE CONSIDERED THAT THE - ASSESSEE'S INCOME BE ESTIMATED PAR TICULARLY WHEN THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD OF ANY COMPARABLE CASE TO JUSTIFY THE NET PROFIT ESTIM ATED BY HIM. WHEN THE EARLIER YEAR'S COMPARATIVE FIGURES OF THE RATE OF PROFIT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND KEEPING IN MIND THE INCREASE IN THE TURN OVER THE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS QUITE FAIR AND REASONABLE. NO ADDITION OF ANY NATURE IN THE ITA NO. 131/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 C.O. NO. 33/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ITA NO. 836/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD . I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION HAS MENTIONED THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SATISFIED THE ASSESSING OF FICER COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT D IN SECTION 145 (1) HAS BEEN FOLLOWING ED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD CE, ADDITION OF 2% GP WAS IN THE FINAL COMPUTATION OF THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST ADDITION WHICH HAS BEEN ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATE OF PROFIT AT RS. 2,96,05,303/ -. OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 1,48,02,65,126/ -, YEAR WAS 0.80% WHICH WAS INCLUSIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ON SIMILAR AND A.Y. 2012 -13 THEREFORE, WANTED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 HE SHOULD HAVE ESTIMATED THE PROFIT IN A FAIR AND JUSTIFIABLE MANNER. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE OWN PAST RECORDS CAN BE THE BEST GUIDE FOR SUCH ESTIMATE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD OF ANY COMPARABLE CASE TO JUSTIFY THE NET PROFIT ESTIMATED HIM. WHEN THE EARLIER YEAR'S COMPARATIVE AND KEEPING IN MIND THE ASSESSEE WAS QUITE FAIR IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT WAS CALLED THE ADDITION IS BY ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT. THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE NET SEPARATELY ADDED THE OTHER ITEMS OF HAS ESTIMATED THE BUSINESS , AND SEPARATELY ADDED RS. 69,70,413/ - AS RECEIPTS AND SO CONSIDERED IN EARLIER YEARS. IN FACT THE IN COMPARATIVE STATEMENT FILED BEFORE AS CALLED FOR BY HIM, THE COMPUTATION OF NET PROFIT AND GROSS PROFIT HAVE BEEN MADE BY INCLUDING SUCH INCOME. THE NET PROFIT AND GROSS PROFIT RATE WAS ASONABLE IN COMPARISON TO EARLIER YEARS. BUT THE A O HAS RAISED , WHICH IS MUCH MORE THAN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE COMPARATIVE CHART OF THE NET PROFIT OF LAST 3 YEARS N SUBMISSIONS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE AA. IN FACT THE COMPARATIVE FIGURES WERE ALSO GIVEN TO THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HE HIMSELF WANTED THE SAME. HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON AS TO WHY THE EARLIER YEARS COMPARATIVE F IGURES ETING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 144 CANNOT IGNORE THE PAST RECORDS WHICH CAN BE THE BEST GUIDE ASSESSEE'S INCOME IS TO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD OF ANY ATED BY HIM. WHEN THE EARLIER YEAR'S COMPARATIVE FIGURES OF THE RATE OF PROFIT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS QUITE FAIR AND REASONABLE. NO ADDITION OF ANY NATURE IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT WAS CALLED NOR MADE IN ANY EARLIER YEAR WHEN REGULAR ASSESSMENT WAS MADE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CITED WRITTEN SUBMISSI THE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED. THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF AND 2013- 14. THE THE REMAND REPORT SUBMI REASONABLE IN COMPARISON TO EARLIER YEARS. HENC CALLED FOR SINCE THE SAME WAS PART OF THE BUSINESS INCOME FOR WHICH SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN SEPARATELY MADE HERE ABOVE. THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 AND 2013- 14. NO ADVERSE COMMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED. I FIND THAT THE A THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHETHER THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SECTION 145 (1) HAS BEEN FOLLOWING BY THE ASSESSEE OR INCOME HAS BEEN C WITH THE STANDARD NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION 145(1) OF THE ACT OR NOT. THE A SAME TIME DID NOT MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER WHAT ARE THE MISTAKES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLATE COMPANY, THE A OF DEVIATION FROM THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SECTION 145 (1) OR INCOME HAS NOT BEEN COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION 145(1) OF THE ACT. THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COME TO THE CONC BY THE APPELLATE WERE INCORRECT, INCOMPLETE, UNRELIABLE AND CONSEQUENTLY LIABLE FOR REJECTION. THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE APPELLATE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR 2013 WAS 4.30 % AS AGAINST THE GROSS PROFIT OF 4.08 % I 2011- 12 AND IT WAS 4.10 % IN THE YEAR 2014 ADDED RS. 69,70,413/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHICH WAS PART OF THE BUSINESS RECEIPTS. IN FACT, IN THE COMPARATIVE STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE A CALLE D FOR BY HIM, THE. COMPUTATION OF NET PROFIT AND GROSS PROFIT .HAVE BEEN MADE BY INCLUDING SUCH INCOME. THE A OR THE RETURN INCOME AND FURTHER ADD HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. KEEPI DELETE THESE ADDITION. 17.1. THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS ARE NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. CIT D/R. HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE 18. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CURRENT LIABILITIES: THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DISPOSING GROUND NO. 7 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 17 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD TRADING ACCOUNT WAS CALLED NOR MADE IN ANY EARLIER YEAR WHEN REGULAR ASSESSMENT WAS MADE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CITED J UDGE WRITTEN SUBMISSI ONS. THE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED. THE COVERED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT ( A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 14. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE COMMENT IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMI TTED BY HIM. THE RATE OF PROFIT WAS QUITE FAIR REASONABLE IN COMPARISON TO EARLIER YEARS. HENC E, NO SEPARATE ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR SINCE THE SAME WAS PART OF THE BUSINESS INCOME FOR WHICH SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN SEPARATELY MADE HERE ABOVE. COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 14. NO ADVERSE COMMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS I FIND THAT THE A O WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION HAS MENTIONED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SATISFIED THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHETHER THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SECTION 145 (1) BEEN FOLLOWING BY THE ASSESSEE OR INCOME HAS BEEN C OMPU TED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION 145(1) OF THE ACT OR NOT. THE A SAME TIME DID NOT MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER WHAT ARE THE MISTAKES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLATE COMPANY, THE A O HAS ALSO NOT POINTED OUT THE ISSUES OF DEVIATION FROM THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SECTION 145 (1) OR INCOME HAS NOT BEEN COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION 145(1) OF THE ACT. THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COME TO THE CONC LUSION THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLATE WERE INCORRECT, INCOMPLETE, UNRELIABLE AND CONSEQUENTLY LIABLE FOR REJECTION. THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE APPELLATE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR 2013 WAS 4.30 % AS AGAINST THE GROSS PROFIT OF 4.08 % I N THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E. 12 AND IT WAS 4.10 % IN THE YEAR 2014 -15. THE AO HAS ALSO SEPARATELY ADDED RS. 69,70,413/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHICH WAS PART OF THE BUSINESS RECEIPTS. IN FACT, IN THE COMPARATIVE STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE A D FOR BY HIM, THE. COMPUTATION OF NET PROFIT AND GROSS PROFIT .HAVE BEEN MADE BY INCLUDING SUCH INCOME. THE A O SHOULD HAVE STARTED HIS COMPUTATION OR THE RETURN INCOME AND FURTHER ADD ALL THE ADDITION /DISALLOWANCE MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. KEEPI NG IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE A DELETE THESE ADDITION. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. FACTUAL FINDINGS ARE NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. CIT D/R. HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE FOR BOTH THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CURRENT LIABILITIES: - (ONLY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DISPOSING GROUND NO. 7 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 ITA NO. 131/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 C.O. NO. 33/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ITA NO. 836/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD . TRADING ACCOUNT WAS CALLED NOR MADE IN ANY EARLIER YEAR WHEN REGULAR UDGE MENTS IN THE THE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED. THE A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 -12 HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE COMMENT IN RATE OF PROFIT WAS QUITE FAIR AND E, NO SEPARATE ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR SINCE THE SAME WAS PART OF THE BUSINESS INCOME FOR WHICH COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 -12 14. NO ADVERSE COMMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION HAS MENTIONED THAT CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SATISFIED THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHETHER THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SECTION 145 (1) TED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION 145(1) OF THE ACT OR NOT. THE A O AT THE SAME TIME DID NOT MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER WHAT ARE THE MISTAKES IN THE BOOKS OF HAS ALSO NOT POINTED OUT THE ISSUES OF DEVIATION FROM THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SECTION 145 (1) OR INCOME HAS NOT BEEN COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION 145(1) OF THE ACT. THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE LUSION THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLATE WERE INCORRECT, INCOMPLETE, UNRELIABLE AND CONSEQUENTLY LIABLE FOR REJECTION. THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE APPELLATE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR 2013 -14 THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E. HAS ALSO SEPARATELY ADDED RS. 69,70,413/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHICH WAS PART OF THE BUSINESS RECEIPTS. IN FACT, IN THE COMPARATIVE STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE A O AS D FOR BY HIM, THE. COMPUTATION OF NET PROFIT AND GROSS PROFIT .HAVE BEEN SHOULD HAVE STARTED HIS COMPUTATION /DISALLOWANCE MADE BY NG IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE A O IS DIRECTED TO FACTUAL FINDINGS ARE NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. CIT D/R. HENCE, WE UPHOLD SSMENT YEARS . (ONLY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 -15) THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DISPOSING GROUND NO. 7 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 -15, I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESEN WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS ADDED BACK RS. 11,86,90, (TAKEN IN GROUND NO. 7) AS OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES. THE LIST OF OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES WERE AVAILABLE IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE BALANCE SHEET DULY FILED BEFORE THE AO. THE DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO, A COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. FROM EVIDENT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 11,86,90,207/ 1,28,09,245/- WHICH IS AGAINST THE ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS AND RS. 11,05,01,600/ WHICH IS AGAINST VARIOUS OTHER LIABILITIES. AS AGAINST THE OUTSTANDIN 1,28,09,245/- IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME ARE THE MONEY ADVANCED BY VARIOUS CUSTOMERS WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE IS DOING REGULAR BUSINESS. THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE CONDUCTED INDEPENDENT QUERIES FROM THE CUSTOMERS WHEN THE DETAILS WERE AVAILAB WITH HIM IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BEFORE HIM. AS REGARDS TO THE STANDING BALANCE OF RS. 11,86,90,207/- IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT REPRESENTS THE ELECTRICITY EXPENSES RS.17,274/- , TELEPHONE EXPENSES RS. 7,677/ 35,532/- , SECURITY DEPOSIT AGAINST RS. 11,00,00,000/ 1,94,083/- AND OTHERS RS. 2,47,036/ 5,01,600/- IS AGAINST THE DUES WHICH ARE, OBLIGATORY IN NATURE AND WERE EVEN PAID THE NEXT YEAR. AS FAR AS THE SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS. 11,00,00,000/ WAREHOUSE IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SUJAJI FASHION PVT LTD WHEREIN AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT THE OTHER P ARTY WOULD HAD TO PAY A SUM OF RS. 11 CRORES TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUISITION OF LAND AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE WAREHOUSE. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. THUS, THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 11 CRORE BEING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS PER AGREEMENT CANNOT BE ADDED. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS RELATING TO THE OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES WAS THERE BEFORE THE A.O. THE A.O. EVEN HAD THE INDIVIDUAL NAMES OF THE PARTIES AND THUS HE OUGHT TO HAVE VERIFIED THE SAME IN DEPENDENTLY BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144. THE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED TWICE AND ALL THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES WERE FILED. NO ADVERSE COMMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE TWO REMAND REPORTS. DETAILS OF EACH WAS FILED. EACH AND EVERY HEAD OF THE CURRENT LIABILITY WAS EXPLAINED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED TWICE. THERE IS NO ADVERSE COMMENT OF THE AO. NO SUCH ADDITIONS WERE EVER MADE. I FIND TH AT THE DETAILS OF OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES WERE AGAIN FILED ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TWICE AT THE TIME OF REMAND REPORT STAGE. THE AO DID NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC ADDITION ON TRADE PAYABLES. THERE IS NO ADVERSE COMMENTS MADE BY THE AO ON MERIT ON T HE OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES AND NO SPECIFIC NEGATIVE OBSERVATION WERE MADE ON THE ADDITION AS MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE A DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 18.1. THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS THE SAME AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 18 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS ADDED BACK RS. 11,86,90, (TAKEN IN GROUND NO. 7) AS OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES. THE LIST OF OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES WERE AVAILABLE IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE BALANCE SHEET DULY FILED BEFORE THE AO. THE DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO, A COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. FROM EVIDENT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 11,86,90,207/ - CAN BE BIFURCATED INTO TWO PARTS LE RS. 1,28,09,245/- WHICH IS AGAINST THE ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS AND RS. 11,05,01,600/ WHICH IS AGAINST VARIOUS OTHER LIABILITIES. AS AGAINST THE OUTSTANDIN G BALANCE OF RS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME ARE THE MONEY ADVANCED BY VARIOUS CUSTOMERS WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE IS DOING REGULAR BUSINESS. THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE CONDUCTED INDEPENDENT QUERIES FROM THE CUSTOMERS WHEN THE DETAILS WERE AVAILAB WITH HIM IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BEFORE HIM. AS REGARDS TO THE STANDING BALANCE OF IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT REPRESENTS THE ELECTRICITY , TELEPHONE EXPENSES RS. 7,677/ - , OTHER MAINTENANCE CHARGE RS. , SECURITY DEPOSIT AGAINST RS. 11,00,00,000/ - WAREHOUSE, SALARY PAYABLE RS. AND OTHERS RS. 2,47,036/ - . FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CAN BE SEEN THAT A SUM OF RS. IS AGAINST THE DUES WHICH ARE, OBLIGATORY IN NATURE AND WERE EVEN PAID THE NEXT YEAR. AS FAR AS THE SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS. 11,00,00,000/ WAREHOUSE IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SUJAJI FASHION PVT LTD WHEREIN AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT THE ARTY WOULD HAD TO PAY A SUM OF RS. 11 CRORES TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUISITION OF LAND AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE WAREHOUSE. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. THUS, THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 11 CRORE BEING RECEIVED AS PER AGREEMENT CANNOT BE ADDED. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS RELATING TO THE OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES WAS THERE BEFORE THE A.O. THE A.O. EVEN HAD THE INDIVIDUAL NAMES OF THE PARTIES AND THUS HE OUGHT TO HAVE VERIFIED THE DEPENDENTLY BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144. THE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED TWICE AND ALL THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES WERE FILED. NO ADVERSE COMMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE TWO REMAND REPORTS. DETAILS OF EACH AND EVERY ITEM AND HEAD WISE DETAIL OF THE CURRENT LIABILITIES WAS FILED. EACH AND EVERY HEAD OF THE CURRENT LIABILITY WAS EXPLAINED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED TWICE. THERE IS NO ADVERSE COMMENT OF THE AO. NO SUCH ADDITIONS AT THE DETAILS OF OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES WERE AGAIN FILED ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TWICE AT THE TIME OF REMAND REPORT STAGE. THE AO DID NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC ADDITION ON TRADE PAYABLES. THERE IS NO ADVERSE COMMENTS MADE BY THE AO ON HE OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES AND NO SPECIFIC NEGATIVE OBSERVATION WERE MADE ON THE ADDITION AS MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE A DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS ARE NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. CIT D/R. HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. ITA NO. 131/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 C.O. NO. 33/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ITA NO. 836/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD . TATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS ADDED BACK RS. 11,86,90, 207/- (TAKEN IN GROUND NO. 7) AS OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES. THE LIST OF OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES WERE AVAILABLE IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE BALANCE SHEET DULY FILED BEFORE THE AO. THE DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO, A COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. FROM THE DETAILS IT IS CAN BE BIFURCATED INTO TWO PARTS LE RS. 1,28,09,245/- WHICH IS AGAINST THE ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS AND RS. 11,05,01,600/ - G BALANCE OF RS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME ARE THE MONEY ADVANCED BY VARIOUS CUSTOMERS WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE IS DOING REGULAR BUSINESS. THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE CONDUCTED INDEPENDENT QUERIES FROM THE CUSTOMERS WHEN THE DETAILS WERE AVAILAB LE WITH HIM IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BEFORE HIM. AS REGARDS TO THE STANDING BALANCE OF IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT REPRESENTS THE ELECTRICITY , OTHER MAINTENANCE CHARGE RS. WAREHOUSE, SALARY PAYABLE RS. . FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CAN BE SEEN THAT A SUM OF RS. IS AGAINST THE DUES WHICH ARE, OBLIGATORY IN NATURE AND WERE EVEN PAID IN THE NEXT YEAR. AS FAR AS THE SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS. 11,00,00,000/ - AGAINST THE WAREHOUSE IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SUJAJI FASHION PVT LTD WHEREIN AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT THE ARTY WOULD HAD TO PAY A SUM OF RS. 11 CRORES TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUISITION OF LAND AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE WAREHOUSE. COPY OF THE AGREEMENT IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. THUS, THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 11 CRORE BEING RECEIVED AS PER AGREEMENT CANNOT BE ADDED. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS RELATING TO THE OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES WAS THERE BEFORE THE A.O. THE A.O. EVEN HAD THE INDIVIDUAL NAMES OF THE PARTIES AND THUS HE OUGHT TO HAVE VERIFIED THE DEPENDENTLY BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144. THE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED TWICE AND ALL THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES WERE FILED. NO ADVERSE COMMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE TWO REMAND AND EVERY ITEM AND HEAD WISE DETAIL OF THE CURRENT LIABILITIES WAS FILED. EACH AND EVERY HEAD OF THE CURRENT LIABILITY WAS EXPLAINED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED TWICE. THERE IS NO ADVERSE COMMENT OF THE AO. NO SUCH ADDITIONS AT THE DETAILS OF OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES WERE AGAIN FILED ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TWICE AT THE TIME OF REMAND REPORT STAGE. THE AO DID NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC ADDITION ON TRADE PAYABLES. THERE IS NO ADVERSE COMMENTS MADE BY THE AO ON HE OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES AND NO SPECIFIC NEGATIVE OBSERVATION WERE MADE ON THE ADDITION AS MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE A O IS ARE NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. CIT D/R. HENCE, WE UPHOLD 19. FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS : THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND YEAR 2014- 15, AT PAGE 26 & 27, HELD AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ADDITIONAL GR RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 50,43,859/ TREATING THE SAME AS SPECULATION LOSS. THE ASSESSEE IS A PROVISION FOR RATE DIFFERENCE OF THE FOREIGN CURRENCY AT THE TIME OF FLUCTUATIONS AFTERWARDS. IT WAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED IN THE PROFI THAT THERE WAS FLUCTUATION ON THE PURCHASE OF GOODS IN RESPECT THE TIME OF PLACEMENT O CURRENCY WAS DEBITED THE TRADING ACCOUNT UNDER COST OF GOODS SOLD AND THE SAME DULY CERTIFIED BY THE AUDITOR THEREFORE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCE APPELLAT E HAS FURTHER PLACED HIS RELIANCE COURT HAS IN THE CASE OF SUTLEJ COTTON MILLS LT AIR, 5 1979 SCR (1) 976 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS ARISING IN THE COURSE BUSINESS WAS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. I FIND THAT THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT HAS NOWHERE DOUBTED THE GENUINITY OF THE LOSS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ADVERSELY COMMENT ON THE SAME AT THE TIME OF SENDING THE REMAND REPORT IN THE MATTER. KEEPING IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 19.1. THE LD. CIT D/R, COULD NOT CONTROVERT THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 20. DEPRECIATION :- (ONLY F THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014- 15, AT PAGE 27 & 28, HELD AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ANOTHER ADDITIONAL GROUND RELATING TO THE ADMISSIBI NEW ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE 'RELEVANT YEAR HAD SHOWN NET PURCHASE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,46,645/ ADDITION OF THE ASSETS WERE DULY R AUDITOR. THE A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO REJECT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OR TO DISBELIEVE THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. THUS, THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION 19 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS : - (ONLY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15) THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND 1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT 15, AT PAGE 26 & 27, HELD AS FOLLOWS: - I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ADDITIONAL GR RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 50,43,859/ - BEING FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS BY THE AO TREATING THE SAME AS SPECULATION LOSS. THE ASSESSEE IS A N EXPORTER AND HAS TO M PROVISION FOR RATE DIFFERENCE OF THE FOREIGN CURRENCY AT THE TIME OF AFTERWARDS. IT WAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED IN THE PROFI T AND LOSS ACCOUNT FLUCTUATION ON THE PURCHASE OF GOODS IN RESPECT OF FOREIGN THE TIME OF PLACEMENT O F ORDER AND AT THE TIME OF ACTUAL PAYMENT. SUCH LOSS ON FOREIGN CURRENCY WAS DEBITED THE TRADING ACCOUNT UNDER COST OF GOODS SOLD AND THE SAME DULY CERTIFIED BY THE AUDITOR AS THE FOREIGN CURRENCY LOSS ON PURCHASE OF GOODS THEREFORE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCE S IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE SPECULATION LOSS. THE AR OF THE E HAS FURTHER PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS IN THE CASE OF SUTLEJ COTTON MILLS LT D. VS. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX 1979 AIR, 5 1979 SCR (1) 976 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS ARISING IN THE COURSE BUSINESS WAS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. I FIND THAT THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT HAS NOWHERE DOUBTED THE GENUINITY OF THE LOSS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ADVERSELY COMMENT ON THE SAME AT THE TIME OF SENDING THE REMAND REPORT IN THE MATTER. KEEPING IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE LD. CIT D/R, COULD NOT CONTROVERT THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. (ONLY F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15) THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT 15, AT PAGE 27 & 28, HELD AS FOLLOWS: - I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ANOTHER ADDITIONAL GROUND RELATING TO THE ADMISSIBI LITY OF DEPRECIATION DENIED BY THE AO ON ADDITION OF THE THE ASSESSEE DURING THE 'RELEVANT YEAR HAD SHOWN NET PURCHASE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,46,645/ - AND COMPUTERS WORTH RS. 2,76,990/ ADDITION OF THE ASSETS WERE DULY R EFLECTED IN TAX AUDIT REPORT AND WAS CERTIFIED BY THE AUDITOR. THE A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO REJECT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OR TO DISBELIEVE THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. THUS, THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON THE ASSETS PURCHASED DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. ITA NO. 131/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 C.O. NO. 33/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ITA NO. 836/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD . FOR THE ASSESSMENT I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ADDITIONAL GR OUND BEING FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS BY THE AO N EXPORTER AND HAS TO M AKE PROVISION FOR RATE DIFFERENCE OF THE FOREIGN CURRENCY AT THE TIME OF EXPORT AND T AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOREIGN CURRENCY AT F ORDER AND AT THE TIME OF ACTUAL PAYMENT. SUCH LOSS ON FOREIGN CURRENCY WAS DEBITED THE TRADING ACCOUNT UNDER COST OF GOODS SOLD AND THE SAME WAS PURCHASE OF GOODS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE SPECULATION LOSS. THE AR OF THE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME F INCOME TAX 1979 AIR, 5 1979 SCR (1) 976 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS ARISING IN I FIND THAT THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT HAS NOWHERE DOUBTED THE GENUINITY OF THE LOSS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ADVERSELY COMMENT ON THE SAME AT THE TIME OF SENDING THE REMAND REPORT IN THE MATTER. KEEPING IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE LD. CIT D/R, COULD NOT CONTROVERT THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT AS ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD THE AR OF THE APPELLATE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ANOTHER ADDITIONAL LITY OF DEPRECIATION DENIED BY THE AO ON ADDITION OF THE THE ASSESSEE DURING THE 'RELEVANT YEAR HAD SHOWN NET PURCHASE OF PLANT AND COMPUTERS WORTH RS. 2,76,990/ -. THE EFLECTED IN TAX AUDIT REPORT AND WAS CERTIFIED BY THE AUDITOR. THE A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO REJECT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OR TO DISBELIEVE THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. THUS, THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN ON THE ASSETS PURCHASED DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ALONG WITH THE EVIDENCE OF THE PURCHASE OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERY ON WHICH DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED. NO ADVERSE COMMENT HAVE BEEN CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLATE BEING FACTUAL ISSUE AND AS MENTIONED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. THE APPELLATE HAS DIRECTED TO FILE ALL RELEVANT PAPERS BEFORE THE AO. THE APPELLATE MAY BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE TO FILE HIS SUBMISSION IN THE MATTER. ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 20.1. THE LD. CIT D/R, COULD NOT CONTROVERT THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 21. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. CROSS- OBJECTION IS ONLY SUPPORTING KOLKATA, THE SD/- [ ABY T. VARKEY ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 01.04.2021 {SC SPS} COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD 27, BRABOURNE ROAD ROOM NO. 311 KOLKATA 700 001 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 20 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD THE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ALONG WITH THE EVIDENCE OF THE PURCHASE OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERY ON WHICH DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED. NO ADVERSE COMMENT HAVE BEEN MADE EITHER IN THE BILLS OF PURCHASE OR IN THE IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLATE BEING FACTUAL ISSUE AND AS MENTIONED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. THE APPELLATE HAS DIRECTED TO FILE ALL PAPERS BEFORE THE AO. THE APPELLATE MAY BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE TO FILE HIS SUBMISSION IN THE MATTER. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE LD. CIT D/R, COULD NOT CONTROVERT THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. OBJECTION IS ONLY SUPPORTING THE REVENUE APPEALS AND IS DISMISSED AS SUCH. KOLKATA, THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2021. [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -4(2), KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 131/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 C.O. NO. 33/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ITA NO. 836/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. SUDARSHAN PAPER & BOARD PVT. LTD . THE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ALONG WITH THE EVIDENCE OF THE PURCHASE OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERY ON WHICH DEPRECIATION WAS MADE EITHER IN THE BILLS OF PURCHASE OR IN THE IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLATE BEING FACTUAL ISSUE AND AS MENTIONED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. THE APPELLATE HAS DIRECTED TO FILE ALL PAPERS BEFORE THE AO. THE APPELLATE MAY BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THE LD. CIT D/R, COULD NOT CONTROVERT THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. THE THE REVENUE APPEALS AND IS DISMISSED AS SUCH. SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES