M/s Abhay Enterprises, Ranchi V. ACIT Circle-3, Ranchi

ITA 100/RAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0026 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY PAUL
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVESHPODDER; S S. K. PODDER
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Corroborative evidences; TDS; Set aside; FORM 26AS
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 44AD; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 142(1); 145(3)

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 100/RAN/2015, AY 2011-12 ABHAY ENTERPRISES IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI [BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, JM & SHRI M. BALAGAN ESH, AM] I.T.A NO. 100/RAN/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S. ABHAY ENTERPRISES, VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX, HAMIDGANJ,DALTANGANJ, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI PALAMAU-822101,JHARKHAND (PAN:AACFM3340M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING: 16.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.09.2016 FOR THE APPELLANT: S/SHRI S. K. PODDER & DEVESH POD DER, ADV. FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI SANJAY PAUL, DR ORDER PER SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM: THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A), RANCHI VIDE APPEAL NO. 47/RAN//14-15 DATED 06.03.2015. ASSESSMENT WA S FRAMED BY ACIT, CIRCLE- 3, RANCHI U/S. 143(3)/144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 19 61 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR AY 2011-12 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 25.03.20 14. 2. THE PRIME ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL I S AS TO WHETHER THE LD CITA IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATE OF NET PROFIT @ 8% ADOPTED BY THE LD AO, BY HOLDING THE TRANSPORTATION AND HIRE RECEIPTS AS AN INDEPENDENT STREAM OF INCOME OTHER THAN CONTRACT RECEIPT AND TREATING THE INTERE ST INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED AS CIVIL CONTRACTOR AND THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR TH E ASST YEAR 2011-12 WAS FILED ON 3.3.2012 DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 76,22,020/ - . THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEA RED FROM TIME TO TIME AND COMPLIED PARTLY IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED WITH NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE 2 ITA NO. 100/RAN/2015, AY 2011-12 ABHAY ENTERPRISES ACT. ON EXAMINATION OF RECORDS SUBMITTED AND EVIDE NCES PRODUCED, THE LD AO OBSERVED THE FOLLOWING FACTS :- THE ASSESSEE HAD THREE STREAMS OF INCOME (A) FIRST, CONTRACT RECEIPT IN LIEU OF CIVIL CONTRACT (B) SECOND, RECEIPT FROM TRANSPORTATION AND HIRE CHARGE S (C) THIRD, INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES (INTEREST FROM FIX ED DEPOSIT AND INTEREST INCOME FROM INCOME TAX REFUND) THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO F URNISH DETAILS OF CASH BOO, LEDGERS, PAYMENT DETAILS, PURCHASE BOOKS AND OTHER REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 14.3.2014, TH E AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE SAME BEFORE THE LD AO. THE LD AO ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE BILLS AND VOUCHERS RELATING TO CONTRACT WORK AND SUPPORTING E VIDENCES, THEREFORE, HE WAS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE AUDIT REPORT. HENCE HE REJECTED THE BOOKS F ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT AND PROCEEDED TO DET ERMINE THE INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THE LD A O ON PERUSAL OF VARIOUS CONTRUCTION CONTRACTS FLOATED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT VIA CPWD AND BY STATE GOVERNMENT VIA PWD AND VARIOUS PAPERS AVAILABLE IN THE WEBSITE OF MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, OBSERVED THAT THE STANDARD NORM FOR INBUILT PROFIT PRESCRIBED FOR MOST OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS STOOD AT 15% WITH A COMPONENT OF 10% TOWARDS CONTRACTORS PROFIT AND 5% TOWARDS OVERHEAD EXPENSE S. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN EXECUTING THE CONTRACT WORK IN REMOTE AREAS OF PALA MAU DISTRICT, THEREFORE REMOTENESS HAD A BEARING ON THE EXPENSES ON MATERIA L PURCHASED AND LABOUR CHARGES. ACCORDINGLY , CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF W ORK CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD AO ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT AT 8% OF GROSS R ECEIPTS FOR CONTRACT WORK OF RS. 14,20,82,769/- AND DETERMINED THE NET PROFIT AT RS. 1,13,66,621/- AND GRANTED DEDUCTION TOWARDS INTEREST PAID TO PARTNERS (RS. 14 ,84,611/-) ; REMUNERATION TO 3 ITA NO. 100/RAN/2015, AY 2011-12 ABHAY ENTERPRISES PARTNERS (RS. 9,00,000/-) AND DEPRECIATION (RS. 25, 08,960/-) AND ARRIVED AT THE NET TAXABLE PROFIT FROM CONTRACT BUSINESS AT RS. 64,73, 050/-. 3.1. THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE TRANSPORTA TION AND HIRE CHARGES RECEIPT WAS A SEPARATE STREAM OF INCOME, SEPARATE FROM CONT RACT RECEIPT AND ALL EXPENSES RELATED TO EARNING OF SUCH INCOME LIKE DRIVER / STA FF SALARY PAYMENT, FUEL EXPENSES, MACHINERY RUNNING EXPENSES ETC ALREADY TAKEN INTO A CCOUNT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WHILE ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT FROM CONTRA CT RECEIPT, THE TOTAL TRANSPORTATION AND HIRE CHARGES RECEIPTS OF RS. 25,32,050/- WAS AD DED TO THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS. 3.2. THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOW N INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSIT OF RS. 10,67,560/- AND INTEREST ON INCOME TAX REFUND O F RS. 1,19,390/- AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. HE OBSERVED THAT THESE INCOME CONSTITUTE THE THIRD STREAM OF INCOME, HAVING NO CORRESPONDING DEBITABLE EXPENSES. THESE INCOMES WERE TO BE CONSIDERED ON STANDALONE BASIS, HAVING NO LINKAGE WITH ESTIMAT ION OF INCOME ON CONTRACT RECEIPTS. THUS THE TOTAL FIGURE OF RS. 11,86,950/- WAS ADDED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY THE LD AO. 3.3. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD AO DETERMINED THE TOTAL I NCOME AS BELOW:- INCOME FROM CONTRACT BUSINESS 64,73,050/- INCOME FROM TRANSPORTATION AND HIRE 25,32,500/- INTEREST INCOME UNDER OTHER SOURCES 11,85,950/- ------------------ TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE 1,01,91,500/- ------------------ 4. THE ASSESSEE ARGUED BEFORE THE LD CITA THAT TH E PROFIT BEFORE DEPRECIATION DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 6.02% IS VERY REASONABL E AND IF THE INTEREST INCOME IS TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME, THEN THE PROFIT DISCLOS ED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF WOULD BE 8% AND THERE IS NO NEED TO ESTIMATE THE BUSINESS PR OFIT SEPARATELY AT 8% . IT WAS ARGUED THAT TRANSPORT AND HIRE CHARGES ARE PART OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND THAT IN THE 4 ITA NO. 100/RAN/2015, AY 2011-12 ABHAY ENTERPRISES PAST, THE SAME WAS CONSIDERED AS CONTRACT RECEIPTS. HENCE THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INDEPENDENT INCOME IN TOTALITY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT LD AO HAD APPLIED THE NET PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 8% ON GROSS P AYMENT RECEIVED INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE AUDITED AND AS SESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED U/S 44AD OF THE ACT ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS A S TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDED RS 40 LACS. IT WAS THEREFORE REQUESTED T O ADOPT 6% AS NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE IN TOTO AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. 4.1. THE LD CITA OBSERVED THAT THE LD AO HAD RESOR TED TO ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT @ 8% OF GROSS PAYMENTS RECEIVED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE PROFIT MARGIN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LOW AND NOT ACCEPTABLE. HE O BSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT BOTHER TO PRODUCE THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES IN SUPPO RT OF THE CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND HENCE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN THE LD AO REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS AND RESORTING TO ESTI MATION OF NET PROFIT @ 8% OF GROSS RECEIPTS. THE LD CITA PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF BRIJ LAL PUDHUMAN KUMAR VS CIT REPORTED IN (1978) 115 ITR 524 (SC) WHEREIN HE STATED THAT THE APEX COURT HAD APPROVED A PROFIT RATE OF 10% IN CASE OF CIVIL CONTRACTOR WHEN PROPER RECORDS WERE N OT MAINTAINED. ACCORDINGLY, HE UPHELD THE ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT AT 8% MADE BY THE LD AO. SIMILARLY HE UPHELD THE OTHER TWO ACTIONS OF THE LD AO I.E TREATING THE TRANSPORT AND HIRE RECEIPTS AS A SEPARATE STREAM OF INCOME INDEPENDENT OF CONTRACT R ECEIPTS AND TREATING THE INTEREST INCOME ON FIXED DEPOSITS AND IT REFUND AS INCOME FR OM OTHER SOURCES. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. FOR THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIR MING ESTIMATE OF NET PROFIT @ 8% ADOPTED BY LD. AO AS PER AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NET PROFIT OF 6.02% BEFORE DEPRECIATION WAS DISCLOSED. PROFIT DISCLOSED COMPA NIES WELL WITH PAST RECORDS AS SUCH ESTIMATE OF PROFIT AS MADE WAS ILLEGAL AND INC ORRECT. 2. FOR THAT TRANSPORTATION RECEIPTS CANNOT BE CONSI DERED AS INCOME IN TOTALITY. IN PAST LD. CIT(A) AND LD. AO HAD ACCEPTED THE TRANSPO RTATION RECEIPTS AS PART OF CONTRACT RECEIPT AND CONSIDERED A REASONABLE RATE O F PROFIT ON THE TOTAL RECEIPTS DISCLOSED FROM CIVIL CONTRACT AND TRANSPORTATION CO NTRACT. EXPENSES ON VEHICLE 5 ITA NO. 100/RAN/2015, AY 2011-12 ABHAY ENTERPRISES MAINTENANCE AND HIRE CHARGES WERE CLAIMED IN THE AU DITED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 3. FOR THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDE RING THE INTEREST INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES SEPARATELY. LD. CIT(A) HIMSELF FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR TREATED THE INTEREST INCOME AS INCIDENTAL TO BUSINE SS AND NO SEPARATE ADDITION WAS MADE. HONBLE ITAT DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY R EVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 4. FOR THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRM ING THE ESTIMATE OF NET PROFIT @ 8% AGAINST ESTIMATE OF NET PROFIT @ 6% AS ADOPTED B Y LD. CIT(A) FOR EARLIER YEAR BY TREATING THE TRANSPORTATION RECEIPTS AS NET PROF IT WHEREAS FOR THE EARLIER YEAR LD. CIT(A) HIMSELF TREATED THE TRANSPORTATION RECEI PTS AS CONTRACT AND TREATING THE INTEREST RECEIPTS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHER EAS LD. CIT(A) HIMSELF TREATED THE INTEREST INCOME AS PART OF BUSINESS INCOME AND NO SEPARATE ADDITION WAS MADE. 5. FOR THAT CREDIT FOR ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE DEDUCTI ON OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR WHICH TDS CERTIFICATE WERE FILE D IRRESPECTIVE OF REFLECTION IN FORM 26AS. 6. THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TREATED THE TRANSPORTATION AND HIRE CHARGES AS PART OF ITS BUSINESS INCOME IN ITS RETUR N OF INCOME AND THIS HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE WHIC H HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE PAST. HE STATED THAT THE INTERES T INCOME IS DERIVED FROM FIXED DEPOSITS KEPT WITH BANKS WHICH WERE GIVEN AS SECURI TY WITH THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENT WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE IS DOING CONTRACT JOBS. HE ARGUED THAT THESE DEPARTMENTS WOULD REVIEW THE SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE OF THE CO NTRACT BY THE ASSESSEE AND RETAIN THE LIEN ON THE DEPOSITS TILL THE END OF THE MAINTE NANCE PERIOD CONTEMPLATED IN THE CONTRACT AND THEN RELEASE THE LIEN IN ORDER TO ENAB LE THE ASSESSEE TO WITHDRAW THE DEPOSITS AND USE IT FOR ITSELF. THIS NORMALLY TAKES A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS TO GET THE LIEN ON DEPOSITS RELEASED / DISCHARGED. HENCE THE BUSI NESS NEXUS OF MAINTAINING THE FIXED DEPOSITS IS PROVED AND HENCE THE INTEREST INC OME DERIVED THEREON SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE LD AR FUR THER ARGUED THAT SIMILAR ISSUES OF DISPUTE CAME UP BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE ASST YEAR 2009-10 , WHEREIN THE LD AO HAD DETERMINED THE NET PROFIT AT 8% OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND TREATED THE TRANSPORTATION AND HIRE RE CEIPTS AS A SEPARATE STREAM OF BUSINESS INCOME AND INTEREST INCOME WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 6 ITA NO. 100/RAN/2015, AY 2011-12 ABHAY ENTERPRISES THE ASSESSEE IN THAT YEAR HAD REPORTED NET PROFIT O F 5.7 / 5.8% OF RECEIPTS. HE ARGUED THAT THE LD CITA IN ASST YEAR 2009-10 DECIDE D TO TREAT THE TRANSPORTATION AND HIRE RECEIPTS AS PART OF BUSINESS INCOME AND DIRECT ED THE LD AO TO DETERMINE THE NET PROFIT AT 6% OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND TRANSPORTATIO N AND HIRE RECEIPTS AND ALLOWED THE INTEREST INCOME TO BE PART OF BUSINESS INCOME TO BE TAXED SEPARATELY. THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THIS ORDER BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 112/RAN/14 , ITA NO. 34/RAN /14 AND CO 22/RAN/14 DATED 27.11.2014 DISMISSED BOTH THE APPEALS INCLUDING THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD AR ACCORDINGLY PRAYED FOR ADOPTION OF THE RA TIO LAID DOWN IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2009-10 , BUT FAIRLY STATED THAT IF IT IS SO ADOPTED (I.E. AT 6%) , THEN IT WOULD RESULT IN DETE RMINATION OF INCOME BELOW THE RETURNED INCOME ITSELF AS THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD R ETURNED NET PROFIT OF 6.86%. ACCORDINGLY, HE PRAYED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF RETURNED I NCOME AS FAR AS CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND TRANSPORTATION / HIRE CHARGES ARE CONCERNED. W ITH REGARD TO INTEREST INCOME, HE PRAYED FOR TREATING THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME AS AGAINST INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES TREATED BY THE LD AO. IN RESPONSE TO THIS , THE LD DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD AO. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND T HAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY REJECTED IN TERMS OF SECTION 145( 3) AND INCOME DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 OF TH E ACT, BASED ON THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSING ITS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS BEFORE THE LD AO. IN THIS SCENARIO, THE RIGHT WAY IS ONLY TO ESTIMATE THE NET PROFIT BASED ON COMPARABLE CASES / THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD BY WAY OF COMPARABLE CASES TO JU STIFY THE ADOPTION OF NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% . WE FIND THAT THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS ADOPTION OF 6% AS NET PROFIT WHICH HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASST YEAR 2009-10. WE FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL FOR ASST YEAR 2009-10 HAD HELD T HAT 6% OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND TRANSPORTATION RECEIPTS SHOULD BE ADOPTED AS NET PR OFIT FROM BUSINESS. BUT IF THE 7 ITA NO. 100/RAN/2015, AY 2011-12 ABHAY ENTERPRISES SAME IS ADOPTED, AS FAIRLY CONCEDED BY THE LD AR , IT WOULD RESULT IN DETERMINATION OF INCOME BELOW THE RETURNED INCOME. HENCE IN THES E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT THE PROFIT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOU LD BE ADOPTED BY THE LD AO AND WE DIRECT THE LD AO ACCORDINGLY. 7.1. AS REGARDS INTEREST INCOME IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE INTEREST INCOME IS DERIVED FROM FOLLOWING SOURCES :- INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS WITH BANKS - 10,67,56 0/- INTEREST ON INCOME TAX REFUND - 1,19,390/- ---------------- 11,85,950/- AS REGARDS INTEREST ON INCOME TAX REFUND, WE HOLD T HAT THE SAME IS TO BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AS REGARDS INTEREST INC OME ON FIXED DEPOSITS, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD AR THAT THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WERE HOLDING LIEN ON THE SAME TILL THE REVIEW OF THE SAT ISFACTORY PERFORMANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS CONTRACT JOB AND HENCE THE BUSINESS NEXUS HAS BEEN PROVED BEYOND DOUBT. HENCE THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 10,67,560/ - HAS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX ONLY UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AS AN INDEPENDE NT STREAM OF INCOME. 7.2. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS 1 TO 4 RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO GRANT OF TDS CREDIT BASED ON THE PHYSICAL TDS CERTIFICATES AVAILABLE WI TH THE ASSESSEE VIS A VIS WHAT IS MENTIONED AS TDS IN FORM 26AS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE LD CITA TO THE FILE OF THE LD AO TO GRANT THE NECES SARY CREDIT AFTER DUE VERIFICATION OF THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT SIMILA R DIRECTION TO THE LD AO WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WITH A DIRECTION TO THE LD AO TO GRANT TDS CREDIT BASED ON THE PHYSICAL TDS CERTIFICATES AFTER VERIFICATION WH ETHER TH RELATED INCOME IS OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FIND THAT CBDT HAD COME OUT WITH A CIRCULAR TO THIS EFFECT. THE LD AO IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE IMPUGN ED ISSUE ALSO IN THE LIGHT OF THE 8 ITA NO. 100/RAN/2015, AY 2011-12 ABHAY ENTERPRISES SAID CIRCULAR. ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND NO. 5 RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. THE LAST GROUND NO. 6 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.09.2016 SD/- SD/- (N. V. VASUDEVAN) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER DATED :16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT - M/S. ABHAY ENTERPRISES, PALAMAU 2 RESPONDENT - ACIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI 3 . THE CIT(A), 4. 5. CIT DR, ITAT, RANCHI / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .