Shashi Bhushan Kumar, V. I.T.O.,

ITA 108/PAT/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9141 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM BABU
• Assessee Lawyers: K N PRASAD
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Peak credit; Set aside
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PATNA SMC BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 108/PAT./2013 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ) SHASHI BHUSHAN KUMAR PROP. JAI KALI TRADERS BHAKARWA MORE DAUDNAGAR 824 113 DIST: AURANGABAD, BIHAR PAN AFHPK1397L APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), GAYA .... RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.N. PRASAD, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI RAM BABU, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 02.09.2016 DATE OF ORDER 02.09 .2016 O R D E R THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.3.2013, PASSED BY THE LEARN ED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), PATNA, FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 200809. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. F OR THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HERETO ARE WIT HOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 2.1. FOR THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN MAKING AN OVERALL ADDIT ION OF RS. 34,26,099/- BEING PEAK OF THE AGGREGATE BALANCES IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AS AGAINST RS.16,94,231/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS OUTSTANDING BALANCE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THEREBY THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN MAKING ENHA NCEMENT OF RS. 17,31,8681- IN RESPECT OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHASING PARTIES USED TO COME TO THE ASS ESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF THE GOODS FROM THE ASSESSEE WHO IS DIST RIBUTOR OF 2 SHRI BASUDEO KEJRIWAL HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. AND THE PURCHASING PARTIES WERE REQUIRED TO MAKE THE DEPOSITS. PART OF THE DEPOSIT WAS ADJUS TED TOWARDS THE SALE PROCEEDS AND REMAINING PART REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE AS DEPOSIT TILL SUCH TIME IT WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE SALE PROCEEDS. 2.2. FOR THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 34,26,099/- AS MADE 1 SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) BEING THE PEAK OF THE AGGREGATE BALANCES IN THE CASE OF THE S UNDRY CREDITORS AS AGAINST RS.16,94,231/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AS OUTSTANDING BALANCE AS AT THE CLOSE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR BEING THE RESULTANT ENHANCEMENT BY RS. 17,31,868/-, IS ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED, VOID AB-INITIO AND BAD IN LAW. IN ANY CASE THE ADDI TION OF RS. 34,26,099/- AS MADE 1 SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS FIT TO BE DELETED. 3. FOR THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWA NCE OF RS. 27,000/- OUT OF FUEL EXPENSES OF CAR ON THE ALLEGED GROUND O F PERSONAL USE. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT THE CAR HAS BEE N USED FOR THE PERSONAL PURPOSES. ENTIRE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURR ED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 27,000/- OUT OF BONA FIDE AND LEGITIMATE CLAIM OF EXPENSES UNDER THE HEA D 'FUEL EXPENSES' OF CAR AS CONFIRMED 1 SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. THE DISALLOWANCE AS SUST AINED IS FIT TO BE DELETED. 4. FOR THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE OVERALL D ISALLOWANCES OF RS. 20,0001- ON THE ALLEGED GROUND TO COVER POSSIBLE LEAKAGE IN RESPECT OF OTHER OVERHEAD EXPENSES. ENTIRE EXPENSES HAVE BE EN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. SUSTAINING THE AD-HOC 1 OVERALL DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 20,000/- IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUST. THE DISALLOWANCE AS SUSTAINED IS FIT TO BE DELETED. 2. APROPOS GROUNDS NO.2: ON THE ISSUE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO EXAMINE THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. LETTERS WERE WRITTEN TO ELEVEN SUNDRY CREDITORS AT THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF WHICH FOUR LETTERS WRITTEN WERE RETURNED BACK. FOUR CREDITORS APPEARED AND SAID THAT THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY ADVANCE TO TH E ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER ISSUED SUMMONS UNDER SECT ION 131 OF THE 3 SHRI BASUDEO KEJRIWAL INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ) TO SIX CREDITORS. NONE OF THEM RESPONDED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED, THE TOTAL CREDIT AMOUNTING TO ` 16,94,231 WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF SUNDRY CREDITOR S RATHER IT IS IN THE SHAPE OF CASH CREDIT INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FROM UNKNOWN SOURCES. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: THAT WITH RESPECT TO ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS AMOUNT ING ` 16,93,231, IT SHOULD BE APPRECIATED THAT THESE PART IES ARE PURCHASING GOODS ON REGULAR BASIS FROM ASSESSEE. TH E ADVANCE BY THE PARTIES HAS BEEN MADE TO PURCHASE THE GOODS. GO ODS SUPPLIED TO THEM IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR HAS BEEN ACTUALLY RECEIV ED BY THOSE PARTIES AND IN CONFIRMATION THEREOF THE PARTIES HAS ACCEPTED THE WRITING THAT THERE IS ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOODS. THE LEDGER COPY OF THESE PARTIES OF SUBSEQUENT YEAR HAS ALREADY BEEN F ILED. SINCE THE PARTIES PURCHASE THE GOODS AND THEY ADVANCE MONEY T O ENSURE THEMSELVES THAT GOODS SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO T HEM IN TIME. THE CONFIRMATION OF GOODS DELIVERED EXPLAINS THE GE NUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION & OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE ATTACHE D EXPLAINS THE GENUINENESS & IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS. VOLUME OF TRANSACTION COMPARED WITH THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE GIVEN WHICH CAN PROVE CAPACITY OF CREDITOR. THE AMOUNT GIVEN BY CREDITORS ARE NOT SO REMARKABLE THAT ANY DOUBTS CAN ARISE REGARDING THEI R CAPACITY EVEN IF THE CREDITORS ARE NOT FILING THEIR INCOME T AX RETURNS. AS A GENERAL MAN NOT FILING THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS CAN HAVE CAPACITY TO USE SAME LEVEL OF ADVANCE AMOUNT. THUS IT CAN NO T BE SAID THE AMOUNTS OF ADVANCE APPEARING IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AR E THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 3. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THIS PLEA AND HELD AS UNDER: THE SAID REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND FOUND COMPLETELY UNSATISFACTORY. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD GO ODS TO VARIOUS PARTIES AS ENUMERATED IN SERIAL (A) TO (K) AFORESAI D AND NO OCCASION RECEIVED THE SALE CONSIDERATION EITHER BY CHEQUE OR BANK DRAFT. THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF AFORESA ID IN ALL OCCASION RECEIVED PRIOR TO SALE. IT IS A CASE WHENEVER THE A SSESSEE IS IN SHORT OF CASH IN HIS CASH BOOK THE ASSESSEE INT RODUCED THE 4 SHRI BASUDEO KEJRIWAL CASH IN THE CASH BOOK IN THE NAME OF SAID PURCHASER SO THAT HIS CASH NEVER BEEN IN DEFICIT. SINCE NONE OF THE CREDI TORS CONFIRMED OR COME FORWARD TO SAY THAT AT END OF THE ACCOUNTIN G YEAR THAT IS ON 31032008, HE OR IT HAD GIVEN CASH TO BE ADJUST ED AGAINST FUTURE PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE WRONGLY AND FALSELY STATED THAT THE ADVANCE BY THE PARTIES HAS BEEN MADE TO PURCHAS E THE GOODS. THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THIS AVERMENT O F THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE THAT GOODS SUPPLIED TO THEM IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR HAS BEEN ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THOSE PARTIES AND IN CONFIRMATION THEREOF THE PARTIES HAS ACCEPTED IN WRITING THAT THERE IS ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOODS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR EVIDENCES TO SHOW THAT THERE IS CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTIES IN RESPECT O F THIS AVERMENT. FURTHER, NO LEDGER COPY OF PARTIES OF THE SUBSEQUEN T YEAR HAS BEEN FILED DULY CONFIRMED BY THE PARTIES CONCERNED. MERE VERBAL SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT HELP THE ASSESS EE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO TR EAT THE SO CALLED SUNDRY CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO ` 16,94,231 AS FICTITIOUS AND BOGUS. THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED AND ROUTED HIS O WN MONEY IN GRAB OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. ADD: ` 16,94,231. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (AP PEALS) HELD AS UNDER: 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. FROM T HE FACTS AS ABOVE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SHO WN SUBSTANTIAL ADVANCES FROM SUCH PERSONS WHENEVER HE NEEDED THE CASH IN HIS CASH BOOK. THESE PERSONS APP EAR TO BE SMALL RETAILERS HAVING NO CAPACITY, BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY OR COMPULSION TO GIVE SUCH SUBSTANTIAL ADVANCES. AS FAR AS NOT ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY TO CRO SS EXAMINE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT IT WAS THE APPELLANT W HO HAD SHOWN SUBSTANTIAL ADVANCES FROM THESE PERSONS. RESPONSIBILITY WAS CAST UPON HIM TO DISCHARGE HIS I NITIAL ONUS. NO CONFIRMATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED FROM THESE P ERSONS EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR IN THE APPE LLATE PROCEEDINGS. AS REGARDS MONEY RECEIPTS SHOWN ISSUED AGAINST SUCH ADVANCES, IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT T HE SIGNATURES OF THESE PERSONS ARE ALSO THERE ON SUCH RECEIPTS. THE SIGNATURES ARE STATED TO BE THERE ON THE INVOICES AT THE TIME OF RECEIVING OF THE GOODS. THE REFORE, SUCH MONEY RECEIPTS ARE UNILATERAL PAPERS ONLY AND CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. WHEN THE AO MADE ENQUIRY FROM THESE PERSONS, SOME OF THEM DID NOT REPLY, NOTICES WERE RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED IN SOME OTHER CASES AND SOME OF 5 SHRI BASUDEO KEJRIWAL THEM CLEARLY DENIED HAVING GIVEN ANY ADVANCES. THE SAME IS ALSO AGAINST THE PREVALENT BUSINESS PRACTICE WHE RE RETAILERS MAKE THE PAYMENTS AFTER RECEIPT OF GOODS THAT TOO IN INSTALLMENTS. RULES OF EVIDENCE HAVE NO STRI CT APPLICATION IN INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS. A REASONABLE VIEW CAN BE FORMED ON THE BASIS OF SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTA NCES. ONCE RESULTS OF THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE AO WER E COMMUNICATED TO THE APPELLANT, BURDEN SHIFTED UPON HIM TO EXPLAIN THE CREDITS AS IT WAS THE APPELLANT HIMS ELF WHO HAD SHOWN SUCH CREDITS IN HIS BOOKS. HOWEVER, EVEN CONFIRMATIONS COULD NOT BE FILED BY HIM EITHER DURI NG THE ASSESSMENT OR THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE INEVITABLE CONCLUSION WOULD BE THAT CASH ADVANCES H AVE BEEN SHOWN FROM SUCH PERSONS TO ACCOUNT FOR SHORTAG E OF CASH IN THE CASH BOOK FROM TIME TO TIME. 5. THEREAFTER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) PROC EEDED TO EXAMINE THE CREDIT BALANCE AND HELD AS UNDER: 9. THEREFORE, AN OVERALL ADDITION OF ` 34,26,099 BEING PEAK OF AGGREGATE OF BALANCES IN THESE ACCOUNTS AS ON 1108 2007 IS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AS AGAINST ADDIT ION OF ` 16,94,231 MADE BY THE A.O. AS OUTSTANDING BALANCES AS AT THE CLOSE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH WOULD RESULT IN EN HANCEMENT BY ` 17,31,868 BESIDES SUSTAINING OF ADDITION MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AS ABOVE. 6. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED, THE ASS ESSEE IS A SUPERDISTRIBUTOR OF HINDUSTAN UNILIVER LTD., IN RES PECT OF AURANGABAD AND ARWAL DISTRICTS. THAT THE PEAK AMOUNT OF PARTIE S WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ARE STO CKIEST OF THE ASSESSEE. THAT THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF TAKING SECU RITIES FROM THE STOCKIEST, THE ASSESSEE USED TO TAKE ADVANCE AGAINS T THE SUPPLY OF 6 SHRI BASUDEO KEJRIWAL GOODS TO THE STOCKIEST. THAT IN RESPECT OF ADVANCES GIVEN BY STOCKIEST, FOR MONEY RECEIVED, MONEY RECEIPTS WERE GRANTED AND SUBSEQUENTLY AGAINST THE ADVANCES SO GIVEN BY THE STOCKIEST, ADV ANCES ARE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE SALE PROCEEDS. THAT MERELY BECAUSE CERT AIN PURCHASING PARTIES WHO USED TO PURCHASE THE GOODS ON REGULAR B ASIS HAVE NOT CONFIRMED THE ADVANCES SO GIVEN BY THEM AGAINST THE PURCHASES MADE BY THEM DUE TO FEAR OF INCOME TAX OR OTHERWISE, THE ADDITION IS NOT AUTOMATIC. THAT THE SALES IN ADJUSTMENT OF SALE ADV ANCE HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. HENCE, THERE IS NO REASON TO CONSIDER THE ADVANCE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THAT AT THE ONE HAND, ADVA NCES HAVE BEEN TAXED ON ACCOUNT OF CREDITS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ON ANOTHER HAND, THE SALES BOOKED AGAINST ADJUSTMENT OF THESE ADVANCES HAS ALSO BEEN TAXED WHICH ARE ALSO CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, HENCE, THIS IS A CASE OF DOUBLE TAXATION. 8. PERCONTRA, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). 9. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. I FIND THAT IT IS THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AND THEIR PEAK BALANCES WHICH HAVE BEEN ADDED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND ENHANCED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS) ARE ACTUALLY IN THE NATURE OF ADVANCES TO ITS STOCKIEST S. SALES AGAINST THE 7 SHRI BASUDEO KEJRIWAL SAME HAVE ALSO BEEN BOOKED IN THE CURRENT AS WELL A S SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HENCE, IT IS THE ASSESSEES PLEA T HAT WHEN THE SALES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AGAINST THESE ADVANCES, THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE ADVANCES SHOULD ALSO TO BE TAXED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SOME OF THE STOCKIESTS MAY NOT HAVE RESPONDED OUT OF FEAR OR OTHERWISE OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. FUR THERMORE, I NOTE THAT NO OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSE E TO EXAMINE THE PERSONS WHOSE STATEMENT HAS BEEN USED AGAINST THE A SSESSEE. THIS, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF PRIN CIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT A LL THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND HE HAS NOT EXAMINED THE SAME. 10. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, I FIND THAT ASSESSEES P LEA HAS COGENCY THAT WHEN SALES AGAINST THESE ADVANCES / CR EDITS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AND THE SALES HAVE NOT BEEN TREATED AS BOG US, THE ADVANCES SO RECEIVED CANNOT BE AGAIN TAXED AS UNEXPLAINED CA SH CREDIT. HOWEVER, THIS AVERMENT OF LEARNED COUNSEL NEEDS FAC TUALLY EXAMINATION AND THE NECESSARY FACTS ARE NOT ON RECO RD, HENCE, I RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HA S BOOKED SALES AGAINST THOSE ADVANCES / CREDITS AND WHETHER THOSE SALES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE OR NOT. IF THE ADVANCES HAV E BEEN ADJUSTED 8 SHRI BASUDEO KEJRIWAL AGAINST SALES IN THE PRESENT OR SUCCEEDING ASSESSME NT YEAR, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. FURTHERMORE, IN THE CASE OF STATEMENT OBTAINED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE REVENUE TO PROVIDE THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTU NITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THOSE PERSONS. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, I SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ( APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DIRECT HIM TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. 11. APROPOS GROUND NO.3: ON THE ISSUE, THE ASSESSING O FFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BOOKED ` 1,85,894 UNDER FUEL EXPENSES OF CAR . 12. ON EXAMINATION OF LEDGER ACCOUNT, IN THIS REGARD, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED IN THE L EDGER ACCOUNT WITH ONE RECITAL AS TO CASH A/C ON AN AVERAGE INTERVAL OF TWO TO THREE DAYS VARYING FROM ` 1,000 TO ` 1,500. NO SUPPORTING VOUCHERS IN THIS REGARD WERE SUBMITTED, HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 27,000 TOWARDS PERSONAL USE OF CAR. 13. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (AP PEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 9 SHRI BASUDEO KEJRIWAL 14. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. I FIND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS BOOKED AN EXPENDITURE OF ` 1,85,894 TOWARDS FUEL EXPENDITURE OF CAR. EXPENSES HAVE BEEN BOOKED IN ROUND FIGURE OF ` 1,000 TO ` 1,500 AT REGULAR INTERVAL WITHOUT ANY EXTERNAL SUPPORTING VO UCHERS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, A SM ALL DISALLOWANCE OF ` 27,000 IN THIS REGARD IS QUITE REASONABLE AND THER E IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONE R (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE. HENCE, I UPHOLD THE DISALLOWANCE. GROUND NO. 3 IS DISMISSED. 15. APROPOS GROUND NO.4: THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE NOTED THAT AGAINST VARIOUS HEADS OF EXPENSES, THE ASSESSE E HAS BOOKED EXPENDITURE IN CASH WITHOUT PROPER SUPPORTING VOUCH ERS. EXPENDITURES HAVE BEEN BOOKED IN ROUND FIGURE AT REGULAR INTERVA LS. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE FOLLOWING SUMS: STAFF WELFARE ` 5,000 TRAVEL & CONVEYANCE ` 36,000 COOLIE / CARTAGE ` 10,000 PRINTING & STATIONERY ` 500 GENERATOR FUEL EXPENSES ` 15,000 16. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (AP PEALS) CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS THAT NO SPECI FIC DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT AND DISALLOWANCE ARE ARBITRARY AND UNJU STIFIED. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HELD THAT IT WILL BE REASONA BLE TO SUSTAIN THE 10 SHRI BASUDEO KEJRIWAL OVERALL DISALLOWANCE OF ` 20,000 TO COVER THE POSSIBLE LEAKAGES. HENCE, HE SUSTAINED ` 20,000 AND DELETED THE REST. AGAINST THIS ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 17. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. I FIND, THE ADDITION IN THIS REGARD HAS BEE N MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE EXPENDITURES ARE MADE IN C ASH. THEY WERE NOT BACKED BY PROPER EXTERNAL VOUCHERS AND THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH IN ROUND FIGURES AT REGULAR INTERVALS. AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LEARNED COMMISSI ONER (APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE SAME TO ` 20,000. I FIND, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THIS DISALLOWANCE DOES NOT CALL FOR AN Y INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, I UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02.09.2016 SD/ - SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PATNA, DATED: 02.09.2016 11 SHRI BASUDEO KEJRIWAL COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, PATNA CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, PATNA; (6) GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY A.R. / SR.P.S./P.S. ITAT, PATNA