ACIT, JHUNJHUNU V. M/S SAMPAT SCHIN SARRES PVT. LTD., SARDARSHAHAR

ITA 1099/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7777 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBHASH CHANDRA
• Assessee Lawyers: MADHUKAR GARG
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 148; 263

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1099//JP/2011 ACIT VS. SAMAPAT SACHIN SAREES (P) LTD. 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R. ME ENA) ITA NO. 1099/JP/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 PAN : AAJCS 0297 F THE ACIT VS. M/S. SAMPAT SACHIN SAREES (P) LTD. JHUNJHUNU, CIRCLE- JHUNJHUNU SARDARSHAHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.22/JP/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1099/JP/2011) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 PAN : AAJCS 0297 F M/S. SAMPAT SACHIN SAREES (P) LTD. VS. THE ACIT SARDARSHAHAR JHUNJHUNU CIRCLE- JHUNJHUNU (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MADHUKAR GARG DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI SUBHASH CHANDRA DATE OF HEARING: 27-07-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05-09-2014 ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-III JAIPUR DATED 06-092011 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS. ITA NO. 1099//JP/2011 ACIT VS. SAMAPAT SACHIN SAREES (P) LTD. 2 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR HAS NO T PRESSED THE C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE . HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED BEING N OT PRESSED. 3.1 THE SOLITARY GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER: - THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED PERVERSE ORDER IN THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEE, BY HOLDING THAT THE EXPENSES OF RS. 67.98 LAKHS CLAIMED FOR DISCOUNT GIVEN WAS I N ORDER EVEN WHILE THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD SURRENDERED 10% THER EOF IN ITS REVISED RETURN FILED ON 12-03-2009. 3.2 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE DEALS IN MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF SAREES. THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE A SSESSEES BUSINESS. IN PRECEDING YEAR, THE SAME BUSINESS WAS CARRIED ON BY THE FOLLOWING PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS. 1. M/S. SAMPAT SACHIN PROP. SHRI SACHIN BACHAWAT 2. M/S. SAMPAT SAROJ PROP. SAROJ DEVI BACHAWAT 3. M/S. SAMPAT MAL SACHIN KUMAR PROP. SHRI SAMPAT MAL BACHAWAT (HUF ) IN THIS YEAR, THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THESE C ONCERNS WERE TAKEN OVER BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE'S ORIGINAL INCOM E WAS ASSESSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, U/S 263 OF THE ACT, ACTION WAS TAKEN AND THE ASSESSEE'S ASSESSMENT WAS SET ASIDE TO BE FRAMED DE NOVO. IN DENOVO ASSESSMENT, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALLO WED HUGE DISCOUNT ON TWO TYPES OF DELIVERY OF GOODS. ITA NO. 1099//JP/2011 ACIT VS. SAMAPAT SACHIN SAREES (P) LTD. 3 (A) CREDIT SALES ON WHICH DISCOUNT ALLOWED RS. 57 ,41,794/- (B) SALES BY VALUE PAYABLE PARCEL RS. 10,56,846 /- RS. 67,98.640/- THE AO CONDUCTED ENQUIRY U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND ON THAT BASIS IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DISCOUNT IN SALE S WAS NOT CORROBORATIED AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF DISCOUNT OF RS. 67,98,640/ - WAS DISALLOWED . 3.3 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHERE THE REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE AO BY ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX R ULES. THE AO FILED HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 28-06-2011 WHERE THE REASONS FO R NOT ALLOWING CLAIMS OF THE DISCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE MENTIONED AS U NDER:- (A) THE FIGURE OF DISCOUNT ALLOWED IS NOWHERE MENTI ONED IN THE BILLS ISSUED. (B) IN MOST OF THE BILLS, ONLY NARRATION OF HANDLOOM S AREES IS WRITTEN IRRESPECTIVE OF THE VALUE, BE IT RS. 100 0/- OR RS. 15000/-. (C) THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF ASSESSEE IS 7.37% AND NET IS 0.82% WHICH HAS INCREASED TO 1.10% AFTER REVISED RE TURN. (D) THE MANUFACTURE AND DEALER ARE EARNING A PALTRY N.P. OF 0.82% WHICH DISCOUNT ALLOWED IS 5%. 3.4 APROPOS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, IT WAS CONTENDED T HAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN ADMITTING THE SAME INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT A ND NEITHER NON-COOPERATION ITA NO. 1099//JP/2011 ACIT VS. SAMAPAT SACHIN SAREES (P) LTD. 4 NOR THE ASSESSEE'S INABILITY TO FILE THE DETAILS/ E VIDENCE IS MENTIONED. HOWEVER, THE AO FURTHER SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT AS UNDER:- AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE, AT LEAST ONE THING WHICH APPEARS TO BE APPARENT IS THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY DOES FOLLOW A DEFINITE SYSTEM OF ALLOWING CASH DISCOUNT IN THE CREDIT BILLS AND THE VPP (DOD) WHICH APPEARS TO BE GENUINE. THE DISCRETION F OR ALLOWING OR NOT ALLOWING CASH DISCOUNT IS SOUGHT TO BE RETAINED UNTIL THE ACTUAL RECEIPT OF AMOUNT AND THE REBY THE INCENTIVE FOR THE DEALER TO MAKE TIMELY AND FUL L PAYMENT IS MADE AVAILABLE. PERUSAL OF THE P&L A/C D OES REVEAL THAT NO BAD DEBT OR SHORT PAYMENT EXPENSES H AVE BEEN CLAIMED. DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESS EE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THIS SYSTEM OF CASH DISCOUNT IS N OT NEW BUT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN ALL THE GROUP CONCERNS SIN CE INCEPTION OF THE BUSINESS. AS REGARDS THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AND NET PROFIT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS EXPLAINED TH AT NORMAL MARKET TREND OF NET PROFIT IN WHOLESALE SARE E BUSINESS RANGES FROM 0.50% TO 1.00% AS NET PROFIT. IT SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF HUGE TURNOVER HAS BEE N ACHIEVED ONLY BY KEEPING LOW MARGINS AND HIGH SERVI CE QUALITY. APPELLANT STATED THAT GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT RATES ARE ULTIMATELY DETERMINED BY MARKET FORCES AN D THE LANDED COST TO MANUFACTURER AS WELL AS DEALERS. PERCENTAGES LOSE THEIR IMPORTANCE AND RELEVANCE ONC E THE COSTS ARE DETERMINED. ON VERIFICATION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE YOUR HONOUR AND ALSO BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED, THE PERCENTAGE OF CASH DISCOUNT ALLOWE D AND THE CONTRA ACCOUNTS IN THE BOOKS OF APPELLANT A ND THE DEALERS STAND CONFIRMED. THE SYSTEM FOLLOWED BY DIF FERENT DEALERS AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS MAY BE DIFFERENT BUT THE DISCOUNT OF 5% STANDS ADDED IN THEIR RECEIPTS OR RE DUCED FROM THE PURCHASES. NO ANOMALY HAS BEEN NOTICED IN THE ITA NO. 1099//JP/2011 ACIT VS. SAMAPAT SACHIN SAREES (P) LTD. 5 CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND REPRODUCED AT SR. NO. (I) TO (VII) ABOVE AND SUBMISSIONS/ EXPLANATION S GIVEN DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS IN THE LIMI TED CONTEXT OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FURNISHED BEFORE YO UR KIND HONOUR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE COMMENTS/ REPORT, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED ON MERITS. 3.5 THE LD. CIT(A) ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS. 2.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATIONS CUM FINDINGS OF THE AO AND THE COUNTER SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. A.R. VIZ. THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF DISCOUNT, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD FILED CERTAIN ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCES UNDER REFERENCE. 46A OF THE ACT, THEREFOR E, THE REMAND REPORT CONTAINING COMMENTS OF THE AO TOWARDS ADMISSIBILITY8 AND MERIT ASPECT THEREOF WAS CALLED FOR. THE AO VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 28-06-2011, SUBMITTED HIS COM MENTS IN THIS REGARD AND SAME WERE CONSIDERED, AFTER ADMITTING TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES OF THE APPELLANT, AS MENTIONED ABOVE. 3.6 THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS. HAVING BEEN CONSIDERED ALL THE DIMENSIONS OF THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AO HAS, BRIEFLY AND UNREASONABLY, REJECTED THE CLAIM O F THE APPELLANT OF CASH DISCOUNT ALLOWED TO ITS CLIENTS, WITHOUT ADDUCING ANY RATIONAL OR CONVINCING GROUNDS OR EVID ENCES IN THIS REGARD. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS FOUND THAT TH E APPELLANT HAS PROVED HIS CLAIM WITH SUFFICIENT DETAILS AND SUPPOR TING DOCUMENTS, AS NARRATED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HE LD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF THE DISCOUNT ITA NO. 1099//JP/2011 ACIT VS. SAMAPAT SACHIN SAREES (P) LTD. 6 OF RS. 67,98,640/-, UNDER THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS ITSELF SURRENDERED THE 10% OF SUCH DI SCOUNT (I.E. RS. 6,79,864/-) IN ITS REVISED RETURN, THEREFORE, T HE AO IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO ALLOW BALANCE CLAIM OF SUCH DISCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 61,18,776/- (RS. 67,98,640 RS. 6,79,864), CON SEQUENTLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 3.7 AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. DR CONTENDS THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO HAS GIVEN POSITIVE FINDINGS TH AT IN THE SALE BILLS THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE DISCOUNT BEING GIVEN BY THE ASSES SEE. SIMILARLY, NO PLEADING HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW ANY CREDIT NOTE MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE CUSTOMERS WHO WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOU NT ON CASH PAYMENT OR VPP ORDER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM HAD NO L EGS TO STAND UPON AND THE ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY MADE. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE DEVISED THE SCHEME BY WHICH SOME DOCUMENTS WERE PREPARED AND FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. IN LD. CIT(A)S ORDER , THERE IS NO MENTION OF CONTENTS OF THE APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S AND AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN NOT F ILING THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT TH IS IS ALMOST THIRD ROUNDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS INASMUCH AS THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED, THE SAME WAS SET ASIDE U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT WAS CONSEQUENT UPON U/S 263 ORDER. THE ASSESSEE'S FINA NCIAL YEAR ENDED ON 31- 03-2006 AND IT IS THIRD ROUND OF THE PRESENT ASSES SMENT WHICH IS FRAMED ON 6-12-2010. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAD 4 YEARS WITH AL L THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ITA NO. 1099//JP/2011 ACIT VS. SAMAPAT SACHIN SAREES (P) LTD. 7 AND SUPPORTING VOUCHERS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CON SIDERED THE APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THE REASONS THEREOF. T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO UNDERSTAND AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN NOT FILING THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO AND HE MADE THE ASSESSEE'S APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS BASIS FOR GIVING RELIEF WITHOUT RECORDING ANY REASONS. THE REASONS FOR GIVING THE RELIEF BY THE L D. CIT(A) IS SKETCHY AND IT HAS NO OBJECTIVITY WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE FOLLO WING OBSERVATIONS. HAVING BEEN CONSIDERED ALL THE DIMENSIONS OF THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED O PINION THAT THE AO HAS, BRIEFLY AND UNREASONABLY, REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT OF CASH DISCOUNT ALLOWED TO ITS CLIENTS, WITHOUT ADDUCING ANY RATIONAL OR CONVINCIN G GROUNDS OR EVIDENCES IN THIS REGARD. ON THE OTHER H AND, IT IS FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PROVED HIS CLAIM WI TH SUFFICIENT DETAILS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, AS NAR RATED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF THE DISC OUNT OF RS. 67,98,640/-, UNDER THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES. SIN CE THE APPELLANT HAS ITSELF SURRENDERED THE 10% OF SUCH DI SCOUNT (I.E. RS. 6,79,864/-) IN ITS REVISED RETURN, THEREF ORE, THE AO IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO ALLOW BALANCE CLAIM OF SUC H DISCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 61,18,776/- (RS. 67,9 8,640 RS. 6,79,864), CONSEQUENTLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE LD. DR FURTHER PLEADED ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF TH E LD. CIT(A) THAT THE AO HAS BRIEFLY AND UNREASONABLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE LD. DR HAS REFERRED TO THE LD. CIT(A)S OBSERVATION S AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 1099//JP/2011 ACIT VS. SAMAPAT SACHIN SAREES (P) LTD. 8 (III) FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS ALSO EVIDE NT THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY POSITIVE AND COGENT INCR IMINATING MATERIAL/ EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE OR TO P ROVE THAT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF DISCOUNT EXPE NSES, WAS BOGUS OR INADMISSIBLE AS SUCH. ON THE CONTRARY, THE RESULT OF VERIFICATION MADE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT MADE BY HIM , RATHER SUGGESTED THAT THE DISCOUNT ALLOWED WAS DULY SHOWN/ CONFIRMED BY THE RECIPIENT OF THE SAME. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE BURDEN TO BRING ON RE CORD THE POSITIVE AND COGENT MATERIAL HAS BEEN PUT ON THE AO BY THE LD. C IT(A) WHICH IS AGAINST THE CANONS OF THE INCOME-TAX JURISPRUDENCE. IT BEIN G THE CLAIM OF THE EXPENDITURE, THE SOLE BURDEN LIES ON THE ASSESSEE A ND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BLATANTLY TWISTED THE LAW ON THIS SCORE. IT IS PLEA DED THAT THE MATERIAL PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN AFTER THOUGHT LOOKIN G AT THE PAST HISTORY AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THUS THE R ELIEF GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS UNJUSTIFIED. 3.8 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE SUMED UP AS UNDER:- (I) BY WAY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS AB LE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT DISCOUNT WAS GIVEN. (II) THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING THE PATTERN OF OFFERING THE DISCOUNT. (III) THE AO WAS WRONG IN PUTTING HIMSELF IN THE AR MS CHAIR OF BUSINESSMAN TO HOLD THAT THE DISCOUNT WAS NOT REQUI RED TO BE GIVEN THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOW ING CASE LAWS:- ITA NO. 1099//JP/2011 ACIT VS. SAMAPAT SACHIN SAREES (P) LTD. 9 (1) S.A. BUILDERS VS. CIT, 299 ITR 1 (SC) (2) CIT VS. DALMIA CEMENT (P) LTD., 254 ITR 377 (DE L.) THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS BEEN MENT IONED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT INTER ALIA THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT IS T HAT EVEN IN REMAND REPORT DATED 28-06-2011 THE PRESENT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONFIRMED THE GENUINENESS AND CORRECTNESS OF THE APPELLANTS CLAI M OF DISCOUNT AS ALLOWABLE EXPENSES, AS HE HAS FOUND ALL THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS, SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLANT ALSO UNDER RULE 46A OF THE ACT IN ORDER. HE HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N OT POINTED OUT ANY FAULT AND SERIOUS DISCREPANCY WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT AND THE CLAIM OF DISCOUNT WAS DISALLOWED IN SUMMARY AND CRYPTIC M ANNER WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE RELEVANT MATERIAL IN THIS RE GARD. THE LD. AR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COMPARATIVE DISCOUNT CHART GIV EN BY THE ASSESSEE AVAILABLE AT PAGE 43 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FROM THE PE RUSAL OF THE SAME IT IS CLAIMED THAT EARLIER BUSINESS WAS BEING CARRIED OU T BY THE THREE PROPRIETARY CONCERNS. THE TOTAL DISCOUNT ALLOWED ON THE SALES W AS RS. 58,91,307/- ON TURNOVER OF RS. 17.13 CRORES WHICH AMOUNTED TO 3.4 3%. AGAINST THIS, THE COMPANY HAS ALLOWED DISCOUNT OF RS. 67,98,640/- ON SALES OF RS. 24.22 CRORERS WHICH WORKS OUT TO 2.80% THE LD. AR FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, PROCEED INGS U/S 148 WERE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF ALL THREE PROPRIETARY CONCERNS AND ASSE SSMENT WAS MADE ITA NO. 1099//JP/2011 ACIT VS. SAMAPAT SACHIN SAREES (P) LTD. 10 DISALLOWING THE TOTAL DISCOUNT ALLOWED BY THE PARTI ES AND AMOUNT OF DISCOUNT AS GIVEN BY THE VARIOUS PROPRIETARY CONCERNS IS DET AILED ON PAGE 43 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN RESPECT OF ALL THE THREE PROPRIETAR Y CONCERNS APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A)-III, JAIPUR AND IT WAS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE AO HAS BRIEFLY AND UNREASONABLY REJECTED THE CL AIM OF THE APPELLANT OF CASH DISCOUNT ALLOWED TO ITS CLIENTS, WITHOUT ADDUC ING ANY RETURN OR CONVINCING GROUNDS OR EVIDENCES IN THIS REGARD. THU S IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE AO HIMSELF AND PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAK ING DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE DISCOUNT CLAIM AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% OF THE DISCOUNT CLAIMED AS THE SAME WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IN ITS REVISED RETURN. 3.9 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTE NTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THIS ALMOST THIRD ROUND OF THE ASSESSMENT AND A PER IOD OF 4 YEARS HAS ELAPSED BETWEEN THE ASSESSMENT AND THE END OF THE A CCOUNTING PERIOD. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NEITHER REFERRED TO THE DATE OF FILI NG OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE NOR THE CONTENTS THEREOF. THE REMAND REPORT WAS SUB MITTED BY THE AO VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 28-06-2011. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DETAILS AS TO APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, EVEN THREE MO NTHS TIME IS GIVEN FOR ITA NO. 1099//JP/2011 ACIT VS. SAMAPAT SACHIN SAREES (P) LTD. 11 APPLICATION AND RECEIPT OF THE REMAND REPORT AND IT CAN BE ASSUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE SOMEWHERE IN MARCH 2011 I.E. AFTER FIVE YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINA NCIAL YEAR. THUS IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THERE IS NO MENTION AS TO WHAT EVI DENCE WAS FILED AND THE FILING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUFFERS LATCHES OF TI ME GAP OF FIVE YEARS AND THERE IS NO MENTION OF REASON FOR ACCEPTING THE DEL AY OF FILING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE THUS ASSUMES SUSPICION AS TO WHY IT TOOK FIVE YEARS FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH IS PA RT OF REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN THE REMAND REPORT ALSO, THE AO HAS BEH AVED IN BLUE HOT AND BLUE COLD MANNER. ON ONE HAND, THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE IS QUESTIONED ON THE BASIS OF INDOLENT BEHAVIOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN REM AND ALSO, THE AO HAS GIVEN SHAKY OBSERVATIONS THAT IT APPEARS THAT THE A SSESSEE FOLLOWS THE SYSTEM OF GIVING DISCOUNT TO THE CUSTOMERS. IN OUR CONSID ERED VIEW, THE FINDINGS OF THE REMAND REPORT CONTAIN LOT OF CONTRADICTIONS. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. DR THAT IT WAS THE BURDEN ON T HE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH AND FILE THE COGENT MATERIALS INSTEAD THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS UNTENABLY FASTENED ON THE AO. SIMILARLY, THE RELIEF HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY WRONGLY OBSERVING THAT THE AO HAS BRIEFLY AND UNREASONABLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF DISCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, B OTH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) SUFFER FROM UNTENABILITY AND FINDINGS FROM V AGUENESS LOOKING AT THE ITA NO. 1099//JP/2011 ACIT VS. SAMAPAT SACHIN SAREES (P) LTD. 12 ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . THUS WE SEE NO TENABLE JUSTIFICATION IN THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER GRANTING REL IEF BASED ON FANTASTIC ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY SWEEPING OBSERVATIONS AND IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATION. 3.10 APROPOS ASSESSEE'S ARGUMENTS ABOUT PAST HISTOR Y OF DISCOUNT, WE SEE NO MERIT AS EACH IT IS THE FIRST YEAR OF THIS COMPA NY. EACH AND EVERY YEAR IS A SEPARATE UNIT OF ASSESSEE AND PRINCIPLES OF RES JUD ICATA DO NOT APPLY ON SUCH CASES. HENCE, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) AND UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE AO. THUS THE SOLITARY GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 4.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALL OWED AND THE C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05 -09-2014 SD/- SD/- (T.R. MEENA) (R.P. TOLANI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED: 05 TH SEP. 2014 *MISHRA COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE ACIT, CIRCLE- JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU 2. M/S. SAMPAT SACHIN SAREES (P) LTD., SARDARSAHAR 3. THE LD. CIT 4. THE LD. CIT(A), JAIPUR BY ORDER 5..THE LD. DR 6.THE GUARD FILE (IT NO. 1099/JP/2011) AR ITAT, JAIPUR ITA NO. 1099//JP/2011 ACIT VS. SAMAPAT SACHIN SAREES (P) LTD. 13 ITA NO. 1099//JP/2011 ACIT VS. SAMAPAT SACHIN SAREES (P) LTD. 14 ITA NO. 1099//JP/2011 ACIT VS. SAMAPAT SACHIN SAREES (P) LTD. 15