ACIT, V. M/s. Badri Prasad Brijesh Kumar,

ITA 116/JAB/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5621 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K UPADHYAY
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY SETH
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Loose papers
• Section: 133A; 37(1); 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.113/JAB/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 M/S BADRI PRASAD BRIJESH KUMAR VS. DY. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX, VIDISHA, SAGAR ITWARA BAZAR, NARSINGHPUR. (PAN AAHFB 2326 F). ITA NO.116/JAB/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS. M/S BADRI PR ASAD BRIJESH KUMAR CIRCLE, SAGAR. VIDISHA, ITWARA BAZAR, NARSINGHPUR. (PAN AAHFB 2326 F). ITA NO.112/JAB/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 M/S BADRI PRASAD ASHOK KUMAR, VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HOSHANGABAD, SAGAR ITWARA BAZAR, NARSINGHPUR. (PAN AAAAB 4909 J). ITA NO.118/JAB/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS. M/S BADRI PR ASAD ASHOK KUMAR, CIRCLE, SAGAR. HOSHANGABAD, ITWARA BAZAR, NARSINGHPUR. (PAN AAAAB 4909 J). (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) ITA NOS.113, 116, 112 & 118 /JAB/2012 A.YS. 2004-05 2 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANJAY SETH, C.A. REVENUE BY : SHRI K.K. UPADHYAY, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 24.03.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.03.2014 ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS A GROUP OF 4 APPEALS FILED BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES BELONGING TO THE SAME GROUP. BOTH THE ASSESSEES AND REVENUE ARE AGG RIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 08.02.2008 AND 28.02.2008 RESPECTIVELY IN THE CASES OF M/S BADRI PRASAD BRIJESH KUMAR AND M/S BADRI PRASD ASHOK KUMA R. SIMILAR ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS AND THESE WERE HEARD TOGE THER. THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, A COMMON ORDER IS BEING PASSED. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASES ARE THAT DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE REVEN UE FOUND CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FROM WHICH IT ARRIVED AT TH E CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAKING ILLEGAL PAYMENTS TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHICH WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT WERE FOUND AND RECORDED IN THE FORM OF A ROUGH CASH BOOK. SURVEY TEAM ALSO FOUND OTHER DISCREPANCIES A ND, THEREFORE, DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED AND CERTAIN ADDITIONS WERE MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ITA NOS.113, 116, 112 & 118 /JAB/2012 A.YS. 2004-05 3 FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT( A) GAVE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON CERTAIN ADDITIONS AND WITH RESPECT TO OTHER ADDITIO NS HE CONFIRMED THE SAME. OUT OF DELETIONS MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT PREFERRED APPEAL ON SOME ISSUES WHEREAS IN FEW ISSUES THE DEPARTMENT HAS FIL ED APPEALS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEALS AGAINST ADDITION UPHELD BY THE LD. CI T(A). THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING ISSUES ARE BEFORE US:- ITA NO.113/JAB/2008 M/S BADRI PRASAD BRIJESH KUMAR (APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE) 1) CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.37,52,702/- ON AC COUNT OF ILLEGAL PAYMENT ON THE BASIS OF MONTHLY CASH BOOK IMPOUNDED ON THE DAT E OF SURVEY. 2) RS.14,00,000/- ADDITION ENHANCED BY THE LD. CIT( A) ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF ILLEGAL EXPENSES FROM THE PERIOD 11.12.2003 TO 3 1.03.2004. ITA NO.116/JAB/2008 M/S BADRI PRASAD BRIJESH KUMAR (BY REVENUE) (1) DELETION OF RS.5,89,722/- MADE BY LD. CIT(A) (2) DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.10,90,686/- WHICH WA S MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER BY ALLOWING 50% OF EXPENSES ON TRAVELLING, RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE OF VEHICLES AND SHOP EXPENSES. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THESE ISSUES GIVIN G RELIEF AND UPHOLDING THE ADDITIONS AS UNDER:- ITA NOS.113, 116, 112 & 118 /JAB/2012 A.YS. 2004-05 4 3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON RECORD AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR. AS REGARDS THE CON TENTION AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.43,42,424/- OF ITS BEING THE EXP ENDITURE INCURRED MAINLY IN CONNECTION WITH PROVIDING BACK-UP ASSISTA NCE AND HELP TO THE LAW ENFORCING AGENCIES, THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE VOUCHERS IN RESPEC T OF THESE EXPENSES. IT IS PERTINENT TO STATE THE FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS CLAIMED THAT MOST OF THESE E XPENSES ARE ON SALARY PAID TO THE STAFF ENGAGED FOR KEEPING A VIGI L ON THE ILLEGAL TRADE ACTIVITIES. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER STATED THAT NO VOUCHERS ARE AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF ANY OF THESE EXPENSES. THU S WHEN IT IS SO, THEN THESE EXPENSES EVEN OTHERWISE ARE NOT ALLOWABLE FOR THE REASON THAT THESE ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. 3.1 REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT SOME OF THESE ENTRIES ARE OF THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO GOVT. OFFICIALS FOR THE PURPOSE O F DEPOSITING THAT AMOUNT AGAINST THE EXCISE DUTY PAYMENTS, THE ASSESS EE WAS ASKED TO FILE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THOSE OFFICIALS WHO ACTED AS ASSESSEES AGENTS. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER COULD NOT FURNISH ANY CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND IN THIS REGARD STATED IN A LETTER FILED DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THAT MOST OF THESE OFFICIALS HAVE SINCE THEN BEEN TRANSFERRED AND THUS ARE NOT APPROACHABLE. 3.2 IF THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF SOME OF THESE PAYMEN TS TO BE OF THE NATURE OF ADVANCE AGAINST EXCISE DUTY PAYMENT IS CO NSIDERED FOR A MOMENT, THEN THESE ENTRIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN REVERSE D AS AND WHEN THOSE AMOUNTS WERE PAID TOWARDS THE EXCISE DUTY. BU T IN THE IMPOUNDED CASH BOOK, WHICH IS FOR A PERIOD OF ABOUT 9 MONTHS, THERE IS NO SUCH REVERSE-ENTRY WHICH MEANS THAT THI S AMOUNT WAS NEVER UTILIZED TOWARDS EXCISE DUTY PAYMENT. IN THIS CASH BOOK, THE OUT-GOINGS ON ACCOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY PAYMENTS HAVE SEPARATELY BEEN RECORDED AND THE OUT-GOINGS ON ACCOUNT OF PAYM ENTS MADE TO THE GOVT. OFFICIALS ARE IN ADDITION TO THE CASH UTI LIZED TOWARDS EXCISE DUTY PAYMENT. IT SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO TRUTH IN TH E ASSESSEE'S CLAIM. 3.3 DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT WAS AS KED TO STATE WHETHER IN THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO THE SURVEY ACTI ON, THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE COMPUTERIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAD INCURR ED SUCH EXPENSES WHICH ON AN AVERAGE COMES TO RS.4 LACS TO RS.5 LACS PER MONTH, THE ID. AR IN RESPONSE STATED THAT IN THAT P ERIOD, NO SUCH ITA NOS.113, 116, 112 & 118 /JAB/2012 A.YS. 2004-05 5 EXPENSES HAD BEEN INCURRED. THIS FACT BY ITSELF LEA DS TO AN INESCAPABLE INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF THESE EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH PROVIDING BACK-UP AS SISTANCE FOR CONDUCTING RAIDS IS NOTHING BUT A BOGUS ONE, SINCE IN CASE EXPENSES OF SUCH A MAGNITUDE WERE REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED OU T OF BUSINESS EXIGENCY, THEN SO MUCH EXPENSES OUGHT TO HAVE ALSO BEEN INCURRED IN THE SUBSEQUENT PERIOD TOO. THIS FACT ALSO CONFIR MS THE A.O'S FINDING THAT THESE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE G OVT. OFFICIALS ONLY BUT IN THE COMPUTERIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THESE HAVE BEEN CLAIMED AS 'DABEESH' EXPENSES. OBVIOUSLY IN THE COM PUTERIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THESE ARE CLAIMED AS 'DABEESH' EXP ENSES OUT OF COMPULSION TO PROTECT THOSE OFFICIALS. 3.4 . 3.5 . 3.6 . 3.7 THUS IN NUTSHELL, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE N OMENCLATURES USED TO REPRESENT THESE EXPENSES BY THEMSELVES SHOW THAT TH ESE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN PAID TO THE GOVT. OFFICIALS. THESE ARE NO T 'DABEESH' EXPENSES SINCE SUCH EXPENSES ARE ACCOUNTED FOR SEPA RATELY. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM IS CONSIDERED FOR A MOMENT, TH EN THESE AMOUNTS CAN ALSO NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AS THESE ARE N OT SUPPORTED BY ANY BILLS OR VOUCHERS. FURTHER IF THE BUSINESS EXIG ENCIES ARE SUCH THAT ONE HAS TO INCUR AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.4 LACS T O RS.5 LACS PER MONTH THEN SUCH AN EXPENDITURE SHOULD HAVE ALSO BEE N INCURRED IN THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO THE SURVEY ACTION, BUT WHI CH IS NOT THE CASE. THESE EXPENSES HAVE RIGHTLY BEEN DISALLOWED I N VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) BUT WITH AN OBSERVATIO N THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.5, 89,722/- REPRESENTING THE 'JAKHAD ' ENTRIES, AS LYING RECORDED IN BF-10 HAS WRONGLY BEEN MADE AS THESE AR E PART OF THE EXPENSES OF RS.8,16,433/- WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN CO NSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE. THE ASSESSEE THUS GETS A RELIEF OF RS .5,89,722/-. REMAINING ADDITION OF RS.37,52,702/- THEREFORE IS C ONFIRMED. ITA NOS.113, 116, 112 & 118 /JAB/2012 A.YS. 2004-05 6 4. REGARDING ENHANCEMENT OF ILLEGAL EXPENSES OF RS. 14,00,000/-, THE LD. CIT(A) ENHANCED THE AMOUNT OF ILLEGAL PAYMENT BY RS .14,00,000/- BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 4.1 ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE' ID. A.R. I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ASS ESSEE'S STAND. THE ISSUE WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED IS THAT THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT SURELY FOR THE POST SURVEY PERIOD ARE NOT RELIABLE AS THERE IS NO ENTRY OF ANY OUT-GOING ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO THE GOVT. OFFICIALS WHICH AS A MATTER OF ROUTINE, AS EVIDENT FROM THE IMPOUND ED CASH BOOK ARE MADE AMOUNTING TO ABOUT RS.4 LACS PER MONTH AND WHEN IN THE PRE-SURVEY PERIOD THESE ARE REGULAR OUT-GOINGS THEN IN THE SUBSEQUENT PERIOD TOO THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE AS SESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE MADE SUCH PAYMENTS. IT ONLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECORD THESE PAYMENTS LEADING TO THE INFERENCE THAT THIS EXPENDITURE WAS MADE FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES AND W HICH GIVES THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE RECEIPTS TO THIS EXTENT OU GHT TO HAVE BEEN UNDER-STATED. THE ADDITION THUS ON ACCOUNT OF ILLEG AL PAYMENTS IS REQUIRED TO BE ENHANCED BY RS.14 LACS OR IN THE ALT ERNATIVE, THIS ADDITION CAN ALSO BE VIEWED AS MADE TO THE TRADING RESULTS IN VIEW OF THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE UNDER-STATED THE RECEIPTS AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT OF RS.14 LACS AND W HICH AMOUNT WAS UTILIZED FOR MAKING PAYMENTS TO GOVT. OFFICIALS. TH ERE ARE THUS TWO WAYS TO LOOK AT THE ADDITIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN CONFI RMED. THE FIRST SITUATION IS WHEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR A MOMENT ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE NOT RELIABLE STILL THEN THE EXPENS ES TOTALING TO RS.37,52,702/- CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN VI EW OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1). BUT IN THIS CASE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE NOT RELIABLE AND THE TOTAL ADD ITION WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED IS OF RS.51,52,702/- (RS.37,52,702/- + RS.14 LACS). THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RETURNED AN INCOME OF ABOUT R S.10 LACS. THUS ON REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE INCOME WHICH BECOMES ASSESSABLE WOULD WORK TO ABOUT RS.61 LACS WHICH GIV ES A N.P. RATE OF ABOUT 2.5%. IT IS TO POINT OUT THAT A LARGE NUMB ER OF LIQUOR CONCERNS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE FIRM ARE CONTROLLED BY A SYNDICATE OF LIQUOR CONTRACTORS. SIMULTANEOUS SEARCH/SURVEY A CTION IN ALL ITA NOS.113, 116, 112 & 118 /JAB/2012 A.YS. 2004-05 7 THOSE CASES WERE CARRIED OUT IN DECEMBER, 2003 AND IN ALMOST ALL CASES THE INCOME OF THE PAST YEARS WAS REVISED BY A DOPTING A N.P. RATE O 1.25%. HOWEVER FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, FOR WHI CH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE FOUND IN SOME CASES, THE INCOME RETURN ED IN THOSE CASES GAVE A N.P. RATE OF ABOUT 2% NAMELY THE FOLLO WING: (A). M/S ASHOK TRADERS, SAGAR A.Y. 2004-05 (N.P. RA TE 2.32%) (B) M/S MAHAKALESHWAR WINE TRADERS,SAGAR AY 2004-05 (N.P.RATE 1.89%) (C) M/S SAGAR WINE SHOP, SAGAR - AY 2004-05 (N.P. R ATE 1.50%) THE N.P. RATE WHICH GETS WORKED OUT IN THE ASSESSEE 'S CASE ON CONSIDERING THESE ADDITIONS IS ABOUT 2.5% WHICH IS VERY MUCH IN THE VICINITY OF THE RATE DECLARED BY THESE CONCERNS. 5. THE DELETION OF RS.10,90,686/- REGARDING DISALLO WANCE OF 50% OF THE EXPENSES ON TRAVELLING, RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE OF VEHICLE ETC. HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS UNDER:- 5.1 THE ID. A.R. HAS STATED THAT THE EXPENSES TOTA LING TO ABOUT RS.20 LACS ON TRAVELING, DIESEL AND SHOP MAINTENANC E CANNOT BE HELD TO BE EXCESSIVE ON HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING 47 LIQUOR VENDS. HE HAS ALSO POINTED OU T TO THE FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE LYING RECORDED IN THE IMPOU NDED CASH BOOK AND WHICH HAS TO BE TAKEN AS THE TRUE RECORD OF THE EXPENSES SINCE THIS CASH BOOK WAS FOUND MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF THE BUSINESS. IT IS NOT THE AO'S CASE THAT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, THESE EXPENSES WERE INFLATED O R WERE CLAIMED BY POSTING UNDER A DIFFERENT HEAD. THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE THEREFORE IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THUS THIS ADDITI ON BE DELETED. 5.2 ON HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS ON RECORD AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ID. A.R. I TEND TO AGREE WITH HIM. THE CASH BOOK, AS A ITA NOS.113, 116, 112 & 118 /JAB/2012 A.YS. 2004-05 8 MATTER OF FACT, HAS TO BE TAKEN AS SACROSANCT WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OR DISALLOWABILITY OF ANY EXP ENSES. THE EXPENSES ON TRAVELING, VEHICLE RUNNING & MAINTENANC E AND SALARY HAVE BEEN CLAIMED AS PER THE ENTRIES LYING RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK AND THEREFORE NO PART OF THIS EXPENDITURE CAN BE HELD TO BE DISALLOWABLE. THIS ADDITION THEREFORE IS DELETED. ITA NO.112/JAB/2008 M/S BADRI PRASAD ASHOK KUMAR (APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE) 6. IN THE CASE OF THIS ASSESSEE I.E. M/S BADRI PRAS AD ASHOK KUMAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ONLY ONE GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH IS UPHOLD ING OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ILLEGAL PAYMENTS TO GOV ERNMENT OFFICIALS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON THE SAME BASIS AS IN THE CASE OF M/S BADRI PRASAD BRIJESH KUMAR AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS D EALT WITH THIS ISSUE BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 2.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON RECO RD AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. A.R. AS REGARDS THE PAP ERS CONTAINING DETAILS OF MONTHLY PAYMENTS TO BE MADE TO GOVT. OFF ICIALS, IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY SUCH PAYMENTS. THE FACT THAT THESE PAPERS CONTAIN THE DETAILS OF THE PAYMEN TS MADE TO THE VARIOUS GOVT. OFFICIALS IN THE FIRST FOUR MONTHS OF THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENT ON MONTHLY BASIS TO T HE GOVT. OFFICIALS WAS BEING MADE. IN FACT, SOME OF THE ENTRIES IN TH E LOOSE PAPER CONTAINING DETAILS OF RS.26,10,528/- ARE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO GOVT. OFFICIALS. HERE IT IS PERTINENT TO ST ATE THE FACT THAT DURING SURVEY, ENVELOPES CONTAINING A TOTAL CASH OF RS.87,790/- WERE FOUND. THESE ENVELOPES WERE ADDRESSED TO VARI OUS GOVT. OFFICIALS WHOSE NAMES ARE APPEARING IN THE LIST OF MONTHLY PAYMENT. FURTHER THE DETAILS OF RS.25,800/-ARE ALSO IN RESPE CT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO THE GOVT. OFFICIALS. ALL THESE FACTS SHOW T HAT ON REGULAR ITA NOS.113, 116, 112 & 118 /JAB/2012 A.YS. 2004-05 9 BASIS THESE PAYMENTS WERE BEING MADE AND THUS IN SU CH CIRCUMSTANCES THE A.O. WAS JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE PAYMENTS SO MADE THROUGH OUT THE YEAR AT RS.44,65,5007-. HOWEVE R, THESE PAYMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT AND WHEN IT IS SO, THEN THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) IS NOT ATTRACTED. THE ASSESSEE THEN WAS POSED WITH A QUESTION THAT THIS A MOUNT IN FACT, CONSTITUTED TO BE AN EXPENDITURE MADE FROM UNEXPLAI NED SOURCES AND IN VIEW OF SECTION 69-C WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE ADDED. FURTHER HIS ATTENTION WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE FACT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE REGARDED TO BE RELIABLE FOR THE R EASON THAT THOSE WERE NOT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION A ND MOREOVER THE BOOKS DO NOT CONTAIN THESE ENTRIES OF PAYMENTS. ON THIS, THE ID. A.R. STATED THAT THE SALES ARE VERIFIABLE AS A COMPLETE RECORD OF THE SALES FOR THE FIRST EIGHT AND A HALF MONTHS WAS FOUND DUR ING SURVEY. THE A.O. HAS NOT POINTED TO ANY ANOMALY IN ACCOUNTING F OR THE FIGURES OF SALES IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND WHEN I T IS SO, THEN IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SIPHONED OF F A PART OF THE RECEIPTS TO MEET THESE EXPENSES. THE INCOME THUS HA S BEEN DETERMINED BY FULLY ACCOUNTING FOR THE RECEIPTS AND HENCE NO FURTHER ADDITION EVEN U/S 69-C IS CALLED FOR. 2.5 THE ID. A.R'S REPLY HOWEVER IS NOT TENABLE. THE FACT IS THAT A COMPLETE RECORD OF THE PAYMENT OF MORE THAN RS.10 L ACS MADE IN THE FIRST FOUR MONTHS WAS FOUND. THE ENVELOPES CONTAINI NG CASH, ADDRESSED TO THE GOVT. OFFICIALS EVEN SHOW THAT THE SE PAYMENTS WERE BEING MADE ON REGULAR BASIS. HOWEVER, THESE PAYMENT S HAVE NOT BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SUCH PAYM ENTS ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 69-C. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SUCH PAYMENTS WORKS TO RS.44,65,500 /-. THE ADDITION OF RS.44,65,500/- THEREFORE IS CONFIRMED. 2.6. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.26,10,528/-, IT IS NOTED THAT THE MAJOR ENTRY OF RS.21,00,8497- IS NOT IN RESPECT OF ANY EXPENDITURE. SOME OF THE| ENTRIES DO SUGGEST THAT THOSE ARE OF P AYMENTS MADE TO GOVT. OFFICIALS. HOWEVER THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SUCH P AYMENTS HAS BEEN ESTIMATED AT RS.44,65,500/- AND WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. WHEN IT IS SO, THEN NO SEP ARATE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE PART-RECORD OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE GOVT. ITA NOS.113, 116, 112 & 118 /JAB/2012 A.YS. 2004-05 10 OFFICIALS CAN BE MADE. THE ADDITION O RS.26,10,528/ - THEREFORE IS DELETED AND LIKE-WISE THE ADDITION OF RS.25,800/- A LSO. ITA NO.118/JAB/2008 M/S BADRI PRASAD ASHOK KUMAR (BY REVENUE) 7. THE REVENUE IN THIS CASE IS AGGRIEVED ON ACCOUNT OF DELETION OF ADDITIONS BY LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: (1) ADDITION OF RS.49,07,070/- ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS PROFIT. (2) ADDITION OF RS.58,94,690/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPL AINED INVESTMENT MADE FOR UNRECORDED SALES. (3) ADDITION OF RS.54,325/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS PA YMENT OF SEALING CHARGES. (4) ADDITION OF RS.11,10,800/-, RS.3,00,000/- , RS. 38,66,265/-, RS.44,65,500/- & RS.26,10,528/- AS PER LOOSE PAPERS. (5) ADDITION OF RS.25,800/- BEING ILLEGAL PAYMENTS. (6) ADDITION OF RS.1,05,465/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FO UND DURING SEARCH. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THESE ADDITIONS BY HO LDING AS UNDER :- ADDITION OF RS.49,07,070/- ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS PROF IT 3.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON RECO RD AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ID. A.R. FIRST OF ALL IT IS TO OBSERVE THAT A TRADING ADDITION CAN ONLY BE MADE WHEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE ITA NOS.113, 116, 112 & 118 /JAB/2012 A.YS. 2004-05 11 NOT RELIABLE. THE ISSUE WHICH THUS IS REQUIRED TO B E DECIDED FIRST IS WHETHER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE RELIABLE OR NOT? A S A MATTER OF FACT, THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED AGAINST T HE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT DURING SURVEY, THESE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT WERE NOT FOUND. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WERE PRODUCED DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE CERTAINLY CON STRUCTED AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT FOR THE REASON THAT THESE DID NOT CONT AIN THE ENTRIES WHICH WERE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO VARIOUS G OVT. OFFICIALS AND THE DETAILS OF WHICH WERE FOUND DURING SURVEY. THE ASSESSEE OMITTED TO ACCOUNT FOR THOSE ENTRIES OSTENSIVELY WI TH A VIEW TO PROTECT THOSE OFFICIALS, BUT THIS FACT BY ITSELF MA KES THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO BE NOT RELIABLE. 3.3 REGARDING ESTIMATION OF SALES IN RESPECT OF THE REGIONS ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE AT RS.27.63 CRORES, THE SAME IS NOT ED TO BE MADE NOT ON ANY RATIONALE BASIS. IN ANY CASE I FIND THAT THE ESTIMATION TO BE QUITE EXCESSIVE. AS REGARDS THE ESTIMATION OF SALES IN RESPECT OF BUDHANI REGION, THE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION, THOUGH LOOKS PLAUSIBLE BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY PROOF/EVIDENC E CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AT ITS FACE VALUE. HOWEVER ON CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS I FIND THAT THE ADDITION MADE IS REQUIRED TO BE REDUCED QUITE SUBSTANTIVELY. BUT STILL IT WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SEPARATE ADDITION IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IT WILL GO TO COVER THE ADDIT ION OF RS.44,65,500/-. THIS ADDITION OF RS.44,65,500/- HAS BEEN MADE U/S 69-C AS BEING THE AMOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE . A TRADING ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF THIS AMOUNT WOULD GET COV ERED OR SAY IS TO BE GIVEN SET OFF ON ACCOUNT OF THIS ADDITION, SINCE IT CAN BE ASSUMED THAT THE SOURCE OF THE UN-EXPLAINED EXPENDITURE WAS THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS, WHICH HAS BEEN SUPPRESSED. IN VIEW O F THIS FACT NO SEPARATE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING RESULT IS C ALLED FOR. THE ADDITION OF RS.49,07,070/- THEREFORE IS DELETED. ADDITION OF RS.58,94,690/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT MADE FOR UNRECORDED SALES 5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON RECO RD AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. A.R. FIRST OF ALL, IT IS NOTED THAT FOR MAKING THE ADDITION U/S 69, IT IS UPON THE A.O. TO IDENTIFY THE ASSET WHICH REMAINED TO BE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT. IN THE ITA NOS.113, 116, 112 & 118 /JAB/2012 A.YS. 2004-05 12 ASSESSMENT ORDER THERE IS NO FINDING THAT DURING SU RVEY, ANY EXCESS STOCK WAS FOUND OR THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE MAK ING PURCHASES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. WHEN IT IS SO, THEN IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN STOCK OUTSIDE THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ADDITION SO MADE THUS IS AGAINST LAW AND THEREF ORE IS DELETED. ADDITION OF RS.11,10,800/-, RS.3,00,000/-, RS.38,66 ,265/-, RS.44,65,500/- & RS.26,10,528/- AS PER LOOSE PAPERS 7. GROUND NO.5 IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.11,1 0,800/- WHICH HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF A LOOSE PAPER FOUND D URING SURVEY, AND IN WHICH DETAILS OF FOUR TRANSACTIONS AMOUNTING TO RS.11,10,800/- HAVE BEEN RECORDED. THE A.O. HAS MAD E THE ADDITION FOR THE REASON THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS HAVE NOT BEE N FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ID. A.R.IN THIS REGARD HAS STATED THAT DUE EXPLANATION ON THESE TRANSACTIONS WAS SUBMITTED BUT WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED. TWO OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF RS.4 LA CS AND RS.1.80 LACS IN THIS PAPER ARE FOR TRANSFER OF CASH FROM HA RDA TO HOSHANGABAD. THESE ENTRIES ARE FOR TRANSFER OF CASH BY THE PARTNER, SHRI BRIJESH KUMAR JAISWAL FROM THE FIRM M/S BADRI PRASAD BRIJESH KUMAR IN WHICH TOO HE WAS A PARTNER DURING THE F.Y. 2003-04. THIS CONCERN WAS AWARDED THE LIQUOR CONTRACT FOR HARDA R EGION AND CASH ON TWO OCCASIONS OF RS.4 LACS AND RS.1.80 LACS WAS TRANSFERRED FROM HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT WITH M/S BADRI PRASAD BRIJ ESH KUMAR TO HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT WITH THE APPELLANT FIRM. COPY O F HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT HAS BEEN FILED IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM. AS REGARDS THE ENTRY OF RS.3,65,000/-, WHICH AS PER THE NOTING IS TRANSF ER OF CASH FROM PIPARIA TO HOSHANGABAD, IT IS STATED THAT IT WAS A BRANCH TRANSFER. AS REGARDS, THE FIRST ENTRY OF RS.1,65,800/-, IT IS STATED THAT IT DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE F.Y. IN QUESTION BUT TO THE FINA NCIAL YEAR 2002-03. 7.1 AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS ON REC ORD AND THE SUBMISSION MADE I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION BY THE ID. A.R. IN FACT, THE A.O. HAS NOT MENTIONED UNDER WHICH SEC TION THIS ADDITION CAN BE MADE, SINCE THIS AMOUNT CANNOT BE C ONSIDERED FOR ADDITION U/S 68 AS IT IS NOT A CASH CREDIT WHICH HA S BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND FOR MAKING THE ADDITION U/ S 69, IT HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED THAT IT WAS THE UNEXPLAINED MONEY BUT W HICH FACT HAS ITA NOS.113, 116, 112 & 118 /JAB/2012 A.YS. 2004-05 13 NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. MOREOVER, I FIND THE ASSESSEE 'S EXPLANATION TO BE QUITE PLAUSIBLE. THIS ADDITION THEREFORE IS DELE TED. 8.1 THE LD. AR HAS STATED THAT THE AO DISMISSED T HE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION BUT WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON. HE HOWE VER STATED THAT EVEN IF THIS RECEIPT CONSIDERED TO BE PERTAINING TO THIS YEAR STILL NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. IN THIS REGARD IT IS STATED T HAT FIRST OF ALL, THE CONTENT OF THE RECEIPT AS SUCH HAS TO BE ACCEPTED A S TRUE AND AS PER WHICH, AN AMOUNT OF RS.3 LACS BELONGING TO DEO, HOS HANGABAD WAS RECEIVED FROM SHRI RAKESH JAISWAL. THUS AS PER THE RECEIPT, THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY ACTED AS AN AGENT OF DEO AND BY N O STRETCH OF IMAGINATION IT COULD BE REGARDED TO BE THE ASSESSEE 'S ASSET OR CASH CREDIT AND HENCE NO ADDITION EITHER U/S 68 OR 69 CA N BE MADE. 8.2 SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH THE CONTEN TION OF THE ID. A.R. IF AN ADDITION IS TO BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF ANY LOOSE PAPER, THEN THE CONTENTS OF THAT PAPER HAS TO BE TAKEN AS TRUE BUT AS PER WHICH, THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.3 LACS ON BE HALF OF THE DEO I.E. HE HAS ACTED AS AN AGENT OF THE DEO AND WHEN I T IS SO THEN THIS AMOUNT CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT. THIS ADDITION THEREFORE IS DELETED. 9.2 ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS ON RECO RD I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.35,66,2657- HAS BEEN WRONGL Y MADE U/S 69-A. ADDITION UNDER THIS SECTION CAN ONLY BE MADE WHEN S OME UNEXPLAINED CASH IS FOUND DURING SURVEY BUT SUCH IS NOT THE CAS E. IN FACT, IT IS A CASE OF LIABILITY/DEBT AND NOT OF ANY ASSET. A LIAB ILITY CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX U/S 69-A. THIS ADDITION THEREFORE IS DELETED. HOWEVER, AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.3 LACS THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THAT THIS PAPER PERTAINS TO SHRI BADRI PRASAD JAISWAL IS NOT ACCEPTABLE SINCE WHEN A PAPER CONTAINING DETAILS OF SOME TRANSACTION S HAS BEEN FOUND, THEN THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE S AME. THE EXPLANATION THAT IT PERTAINS TO SHRI BADRI PRASAD J AISWAL WITHOUT ADDUCING ANY EVIDENCE OF THOSE TRANSACTIONS HAVING BEEN OWNED IN HIS PERSONAL CASE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THIS PAPER SHOWS THAT A SUM OF RS.50,000/- TOWARDS INTEREST HAD ALREADY BEEN PAID AND FURTHER AMOUNT OF RS.2,50,000/- WAS STILL TO BE PAID. THIS AMOUNT OF RS.3 LACS THUS CONSTITUTES TO BE AN UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE W HICH HAS BEEN RIGHTLY BROUGHT TO TAX U/S. 69-C. THUS ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3 LACS IS ONLY CONFIRMED. REST OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.35 ,66,265/- IS HEREBY DELETED. ITA NOS.113, 116, 112 & 118 /JAB/2012 A.YS. 2004-05 14 10.2 ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ID. A.R. EVEN IF A PART OF THE CA SH FOUND DURING SURVEY IS HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED, STILL NO SEPARATE ADDITION ON THAT COUNT CAN BE MADE. IT IS FOR THE REASON THAT IT WIL L GO TO REDUCE THE ADDITION MADE U/S 69-C OF RS.44,65,500/-. SINCE THE N IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT THIS CASH, FOR WHICH THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MAD E WAS AVAILABLE. THUS THE SOURCE OF ANY UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE TO T HE EXTENT OF RS.1,05,465/- COULD BE DEEMED TO BE THE EXCESS CASH FOUND DURING SURVEY FOR WHICH A SEPARATE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE ADDITION OF THIS EXCESS CASH OF RS.1,05,465/ - IS MADE, THEN CORRESPONDINGLY THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 69- C WILL GET REDUCED BY THE SAME AMOUNT AND THEREBY NOT RESULTIN G IN BRING ANY ADDITIONAL AMOUNT TO TAX. IN ANOTHER WORDS, THIS AD DITION OF RS.1,05,465/- IS TO BE REGARDED AS PART OF THE ADDI TION OF RS.44,65,500/- MADE U/S 69-C AND BECAUSE OF WHICH T HIS ADDITION OF RS.1,05,465/- CANNOT BE SEPARATELY MADE. ACCORDINGL Y, THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 9. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING SUBMITTED THAT WITH THE ADDITIONS UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) THE NET PROF IT RATIO COMES TO 2.5% AS HELD BY LD. LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF M/S BADRI PRASAD B RIJESH KUMAR WHEREAS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE NET PROFIT RATIO OF 1.25% I N VARIOUS CASES AND IN SUPPORT FILED A LIST CONTAINING VARIOUS CASES WHEREIN THE N ET PROFIT RATE WAS ACCEPTED TO BE 1.25%. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO IN THE SAME LINE OF BUSINESS, THEREFORE, ONLY SO MUCH OF ADDITION SHOULD BE CONFIRMED SO AS TO MAKE NET PROFIT OF 1.25%. IN RESPECT OF A DDITIONAL GROUND OF RS.3,00,000/- CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND, THEREFORE, SHOULD B E DELETED. ITA NOS.113, 116, 112 & 118 /JAB/2012 A.YS. 2004-05 15 10. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTH ER HAND, MAINTAINED THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE RELATES TO THE YEARS 1999-2000 & 2000-01 WHEREAS THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE B ASIS OF NET PROFIT RATIO FOR A.Y. 2004-05 HAS HELD THAT AFTER MAKING ADDITIONS T HE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE COMES INTO LINE WITH THE EXISTING NET PROFIT RATIO IN THE CASES OF ASSESSEE IN THE SAME TRADE IN THE SAME YEAR. THEREFORE, HE HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONS AND CONFIRMATIONS WHEREAS IN RESPECT OF DELETIONS MADE BY LD. CIT(A), HE HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF A.O. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND GONE THROUG H THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE COMMON GROUND TAKEN BY T HE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS REGARDING CONFIRMATION OF AMOUNT SPENT BY ASSESS EES ON ILLEGAL PAYMENT TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS VERY ELAB ORATELY DEALT WITH THE ISSUE AND HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS AS THERE WAS SUFFICIENT AND DEFINITE MATERIAL BEFORE THE A.O. FROM WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ARRIVED A T THE CONCLUSION THAT REGULAR PAYMENTS WERE BEING MADE TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WH ICH WERE OUT OF UNEXPLAINED SOURCES AND WHICH NEEDED TO BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF BADRI PRASAD BRIJESH KUMAR AR RIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT AFTER MAKING THE ADDITIONS THE NET PROFIT RATIO OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS WITHIN THE NET PROFIT RATIO OF OTHER ASSESSEES WHO WERE IN THE SAM E TRADE IN THE SAME F.Y. AND THEREFORE ON THAT BASIS ALSO THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION AND ARRIVED AT THE ITA NOS.113, 116, 112 & 118 /JAB/2012 A.YS. 2004-05 16 CONCLUSION THAT THE NET PROFIT RATIO WAS IN LINE WI TH THE OTHER ASSESSEES. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF ENHANCEMENT OF RS.14,00,000/- MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT ADDITION WAS MADE ONLY ON ESTIMATION BASIS AND NO M ATERIAL WHATSOEVER WAS FOUND DURING THE SURVEY. REGARDING THIS ADDITION, THE LD . CIT(A) ENHANCED THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT IN THE REMAINING PE RIOD UPTO CLOSE OF F.Y. THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE SPENT FURTHER EXPENSES IN THE FO RM OF PAYMENTS TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT FIND THE ADDITION BY JUST ESTIMATING AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENT CAN BE HELD TO BE BASED UPO N FACTS AND LAW. THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.14,00,000/- WHEREAS WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.37,52,702/-. 12. AS REGARDS THE APPEAL OF REVENUE, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS AND HE HAS ELABORATELY DEALT WITH THE ISSUES WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER AND WE DO NOT WANT TO INTER FERE WITH THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, ITA NO.113/JAB/2008 IS PARTLY ALLOWED WH EREAS ITA NO.116/JAB/2008 IS DISMISSED. 13. NOW COMING TO THE ITA NO.112/JAB/2008 & 118/JAB /2008. IN ITA NO.112/JAB/2008, THE ISSUE IS REGARDING PAYMENTS TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHICH IS SIMILAR AS IN ITA NO.113/JAB/2008 AND OUR CONCLUSIO N REMAINS THE SAME. THE ITA NOS.113, 116, 112 & 118 /JAB/2012 A.YS. 2004-05 17 ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR DELETION OF RS.3,00,000/- ALS O DO NOT HOLD ANY GROUND. THEREFORE, ITA NO.112/JAB/2008 IS DISMISSED. 14. AS REGARDS ITA NO.118/JAB/2008, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT THE ENTIRE ISSUE IN A FAIR AND REASONABLE MANNER AND HAS PASSED A SPEAK ING ORDER TO WHICH WE ARE IN AGREEMENT AND DO NOT WANT TO INTERFERE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, ITA NO.118/JAB/2008 IS ALSO DISMISSED. 15. APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DECIDED AS STATED ABOVE. 16. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO.113/JAB/2008 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED, ITA NO.116/JAB/2008 FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED, ITA NO.112/JAB/2008 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AND ITA NO.118/J AB/2008 FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.03.2014) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 28 TH MARCH, 2014 PBN/* ITA NOS.113, 116, 112 & 118 /JAB/2012 A.YS. 2004-05 18 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4) CIT CONCERNED 5) D.R., ITAT, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CAMP AT JABALPUR