M/S JMD Developers, Pune V. DCIT, Pune

ITA 1182/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1085 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Retrospective amendment; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 69C; 68; 139

Judgement Text

] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS IQ.KS IQ.KSIQ.KS IQ.KS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE , . . , # BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM . / ITA NO.1182/PN/2012 % % / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S. J.M.D. DEVELOPERS, BHAGYA, IST FLOOR, 1202/32, APTE ROAD, NEXT TO SANTOSH BAKERY, SHIVAJINAGAR, PUNE PAN NO. AADFD7237K . / APPELLANT V/S DCIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUHAS KULKARNI, ADDL.CIT / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 30-01-2012 OF THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS EARLIER DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR NON - APPEARANCE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE M.A.NO.95/PN/2 014 ORDER DATED 29-12-2014 RECALLED THE ORDER. HENCE, THIS IS A RECALLED MATTER. / DATE OF HEARING :20.07.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:17.08.2016 2 ITA NO.1182/PN/2012 3. AFTER THE APPEAL WAS RECALLED THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR H EARING ON DIFFERENT DATES AND IT WAS GETTING ADJOURNED AT THE R EQUEST OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IT W AS SEEN THAT FROM 16-03-2016 ONWARDS THERE WAS NO APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS A LSO FILED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE AP PEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION A CTIVITY. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31-10-2015 DECLARING TOTA L INCOME OF RS.25,16,016/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS THE AO NOTED FROM THE BALANCE SHEET FILED THAT IT HAS RAISED UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.90,28,000/- FROM VARIOUS PARTIES. THE AO ASKED T HE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE CONFIRMATION FOR LOAN OF RS.4,25,000/- TAKEN FROM SHRI RAJAN AHUJA. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PROVE T HE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.4,25,000/ - U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT. SIMILARLY, THE AO NOTED FROM THE DE TAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD CLAIMED PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION FEE OF RS.11,32,988/-. FROM THE ARTIC LES OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF BUNGALOWS THE AO NOTED THAT THE SAID PAYMENT WAS TO BE BORNE BY THE PURCHASER AND NOT TH E ASSESSEE. IN ABSENCE OF FURNISHING ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION THE A O DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.11,32,988/- AND ADDED BA CK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IN ABSENCE OF DEDUCTION OF TDS OR WHERE THE TDS NOT PAID TO THE CREDIT OF THE G OVERNMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD CONSTRU CTION, 3 ITA NO.1182/PN/2012 ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES, SITE EXPENSES ETC. WHICH HAS BEE N CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.79,88,548/- U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE AO FURTHER NO TED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,50,000/- HAS BEEN CREDITED TO THE SUSPENSE ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO FURNISH ANY SAT ISFACTORY EXPLANATION TO THE SAME. THE AO, THEREFORE, MADE ADDITION OF RS.4,50,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEX PLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT. SIMILARLY, AN AMOUNT OF RS.15,38,250/- WHICH WAS APPEARING IN ANOTHER SUSPENSE AC COUNT WITH A DEBIT BALANCE WAS ALSO DISALLOWED BY THE AO FOR WANT OF EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD. 5. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.11,32,988/- ON ACCOUNT OF STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES AND RS.4,50,000/- AND RS.15,38,250/- APPEARING IN THE SUSPE NSE ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.79,88,548/- MAD E BY THE AO U/S.40(A)(IA) HE SUSTAINED AN AMOUNT OF RS.58,62,018/- AND DELETED OTHER AMOUNTS. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE & IN LAW , THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE, MADE BY T HE A.O., OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.11,32,988/- REPRESENTING STAMP DUTY & RE GISTRATION CHARGES, INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT, IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASE OF A PLOT OF LAND & IN THE SALE OF THREE BUNGALOWS, IN COMPLIAN CE OF A COURT ORDER, TOTALLY IGNORING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE & IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY T HE A.O., OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 58,62,018/- BY WRONGLY INVOKING THE PR OVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, TOTALLY IGNORING & DISREGARDIN G THE FACTS OF THE CASE & SUBMISSIONS MADE. 3. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE & IN LAW T HE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY TH E A.O. OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4,50,000/- WHICH WERE ACTUALLY RECEIVE D FROM SISTER 4 ITA NO.1182/PN/2012 CONCERNS, THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS & KEPT UNDER 'SUSPE NSE ACCOUNT', TILL THE FINALIZATION OF ACCOUNTS & THEIR FINAL ALLO CATION; TREATING & ADDING THIS SUM TO THE RETURNED INCOME U/S 68 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT 1961, DESPITE CLEAR PROOF & SUBMISSIONS MADE. 4. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE & IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE / ADDITI ON MADE BY THE A.O., OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 15,83,250/- WHICH AMOUNT W AS SHOWN UNDER SUSPENSE ACCOUNT ON THE ASSETS SIDE OF THE BALANCE-SHEET, FOR NON FINALIZATION OF ACCOUNTS, BECAUSE OF SOME LITIGATION, TOTALLY IGNORING THE FACTS & THE SUBMISSIONS MADE. THE ADDITION OF THIS SUM, SO- CALLED UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE, IS BAD-IN-LAW, ESPECIALLY WH EN THE SAME WAS NOT DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C. 5. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND / OR DELETE FROM ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL A VAILABLE ON RECORD. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS.11,32,988/- MADE BY T HE AO AS PER GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) IS CONC ERNED, WE FIND THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION BY OBSERV ING AS UNDER : 4. IN GROUND NO.2, THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED REG ARDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,32,988/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ON ACCOUNT OF STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES WHICH WAS ACTUALLY APPELLANT'S LIABILITY TO PAY. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT A SUM OF RS. 11,32,988/- WAS INCURRED TO WARDS STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES FOR THE LAND PURCHASED B Y THE FIRM AND ON TRANSFER OF THREE BUNGALOWS AS PER THE ORDER OF THE COURT. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED 'THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 9,68,1 28/- WAS PAID AS STAMP DUTY/REGISTRATION FOR THE THREE BUNGALOWS WHICH WERE TRANSFERRED AS PER COURT ORDER AND WAS IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,64,860/- AS STAMP D UTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES TOWARDS LAND PURCHASED. DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAS STATED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL D ISALLOWANCE OF RS.11,32,988/- AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,64,860/- COMPRISED OF STAMP DUTY CHARGES FOR LAND PURCHASED AND RS. 9,68,128/- PERTAINE D TO THE STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES FOR 3 BUNGALOWS WHICH WE RE TRANSFERRED TO ONE LENDER AS PER COURT'S ORDER. THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF THE SAID BUNGALOWS, THE STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES WERE TO BE BORNE BY THE PURCHASER AND NOT THE APPELLANT AND THE AO DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS HAS CONCURRED WITH THE DISALLOWANC E MADE BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5 ITA NO.1182/PN/2012 4.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELL ANT AND ALSO THE COMMENTS OF THE AO DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 11,32,988/-, RS. 1,64,860/- PERTAI N TO STAMP DUTY CHARGES PAID BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE LAND PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM AND THE SAME IS SHOWN AS WIP IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT. THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD ALSO AGREED TO THE FACT THAT 1,64,860/- PERTAINED TO THE STAMP DUTY CHARGES, HOWE VER THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED IN THE ABSENCE OF RELATING EVIDENCE. AS THE APPELLANT HAS ONLY PRODUCED THE STATEMENT SHOWING DETAILS OF STAMP DU TY DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND, THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION RAISED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 1,64,860/- PERTAINED TO THE STAMP D UTY ON THE LAND PURCHASED BY THE FIRM AND WHICH HAD BEEN SHOWN AS WIP IN THE BOOKS DOES NOT GET SUBSTANTIATED WITH THE CONTENTION RAISED B Y THE APPELLANT FOR LACK OF PROPER EVIDENCE AND, THEREFORE, THE DISA LLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. IS UPHELD. SO FAR AS THE STAMP DUTY AND REGIST RATION CHARGES OF RS.9,68,128/- IS CONCERNED, THE A.O. DURING THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS HA S STATED THAT THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF THE SAID BUNGALOWS, THE STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES WERE TO BE BORNE BY THE PURCHASER AND NOT THE APPELLANT. THIS FINDING OF FACT HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE APPELLANT WITH PROPER PROOF AND EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND, THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. IS UPHELD. 4.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO OF RS.11,32,988/- (RS. 1,64,860/- + 9,68,128/-) IS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD AND GROUND OF APPEAL NO 2, RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS DISM ISSED. 8. FROM THE ABOVE WE FIND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED AN ELABORATE AND SPEAKING ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE SAME ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD AND T HE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 9. SO FAR AS GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 IS CONCERNED, THE ASSES SEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE A DDITION OF RS.58,62,018/- U/S.40(A)(IA). 10. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : 6 ITA NO.1182/PN/2012 5.2 ON PERUSAL OF THE FACT AND MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE DEDUCTION OF TDS MADE BY THE APPELLANT RATHER THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 33,47,278/- WITH RESPEC T TO THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE NAME OF M/S DURRANI CONSTRUCTION WAS ON AC COUNT OF CHALLAN OF PAYMENT MADE OF THE TDS DEDUCTED BEFORE THE AO FOR HAVING DEPOSITED THE AMOUNTS SO DEDUCTED AS CLAIMED BY THE APP ELLANT HAVING NOT BEEN FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT EITHER AT THE STA GE OF ASSESSMENT OR REMAND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED A CHART INDICATING THE DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE LABOUR PAYMENTS TO M/S DURRANI CONSTRUCTIONS. HOWEVER, THE APP ELLANT HAS NOT YET FURNISHED THE CHALLAN OF PAYMENT OF TDS THRO UGH WHICH THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT AS CLAIMED BY HIM. SIMILARLY, THE APPELLANT HAS ONLY PRODUCED THE CHART INDICATING THE DEDUCTION OF TDS ON ARCHITECT EXPENSES, CONSULTING CH ARGES AND ALSO THE DETAILS OF THE ADVERTISING EXPENSES INDICATING NON DEDUCTION OF TDS EXCEPT ON ROHAN ADVERTISING ON WHICH RS. 496/- HAS BEE N DEDUCTED. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PRODUCED THE REQUISITE PROOF IN THE FORM OF CHALLAN WHICH COULD INDICATE THAT THE AMOUN T DEDUCTED HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. THE DISALL OWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS PRECISELY ON THE ISSUE OF NON PRODUCTION OF C HALLAN AS PROOF OF HAVING DEPOSITED THE TDS AMOUNT. THE PROVISION OF SEC TION 40(A)(IA) IS VERY CLEAR AND THE SAME IS BEING REPRODUCED BELOW : 40. AMOUNTS NOT DEDUCTIBLE : NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN SS, 30 TO 38, THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS SHALL NOT BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS O F BUSINESS OR PROFESSION',- (IA) ANY INTEREST, COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE, [RENT, ROY ALTY,] FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OR FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVI CES PAYABLE TO A RESIDENT, OR AMOUNTS PAYABLE TO A CONTRA CTOR OR SUB-CONTRACTOR, BEING RESIDENT, FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK (INCLUDING SUPPLY OF LABOUR FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WOR K), ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE UNDER CHAPTER XVII- B AND SUCH TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED OR, AFTER DEDUCTION, HAS N OT BEEN PAID DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, EXPLANATION.- FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-CLAUSE,- (A) IN A CASE WHERE THE TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE AND WAS SO DEDUCTED DURING THE LAST MONTH OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED FOR SUCH SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 OR PREVIOUS YEAR. (B) IN ANY OTHER CASE, ON OR BEFORE THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THUS IN VIEW OF THE WORDINGS OF THE PROVISION U/S 40(A) (IA) BEING CLEAR AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01.04.2005 CAN BE UNDERSTOO D AS UNDER: (I) THE AMENDMENT ALLOWS DEDUCTION OF PAYMENT, WHERE A PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE FOR P AYMENTS 7 ITA NO.1182/PN/2012 MADE DURING THE FIRST ELEVEN MONTHS DEDUCTS TAX BUT DE POSITS THE TAX BEYOND THE DUE DATE DURING THE SAME YEAR. (II) THE OTHER AMENDMENT ALLOWS DEDUCTION FOR THOSE WHO HAVE DEDUCTED TAX IN THE LAST MONTH OF THE YEAR AND DEPOSITS THE TAX BEFORE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF THE RETURN. THUS, THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE DEDUCTED THE TAX, HOWEVER, THE PROOF OF THE TAX DEDUCTED HAVING DEPOSITED HAS NOT BE EN FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT OR THE REMAN D PROCEEDINGS. EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS NO SUCH DETAILS OR PROOF OF TAX DEDUCTED HAVING DEPOSITED IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM MADE. 5.3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF R S. 58,62,018/- (RS.79,88,548/- BEFORE RECTIFICATION U/S 154) MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA) IS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD AND GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. 11. IN OUR OPINION, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) IS A REASONED ONE. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 12. SO FAR AS GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 IS CONCERNED, THE SAME RELATES TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,50,000/- WHICH WAS APPEARING IN THE SUSPENS E ACCOUNT. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE SUSTAINING THE ADDITION HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AND CAME TO THE CONCLUS ION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME WITH EVIDE NCE. HE HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST ON HIM TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CASH CREDIT FOUND IN HIS BOOKS. SINCE THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO CONTRADICT THE FACTUAL FINDING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8 ITA NO.1182/PN/2012 13. IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,38,250/- MADE BY THE AO WHICH WAS SHOWN UNDER SUSPENSE ACCOU NT ON THE ASSET SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET. 14. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING THE ABOVE ADDITION HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED TH E ISSUE WHICH READS AS UNDER : 8.2 THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CARE FULLY CONSIDERED AND MATERIAL ON RECORD HAS BEEN PERUSED. I T IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 15,38,250/- WAS APPEARING AS 'SU SPENSE ACCOUNT' IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT, H OWEVER, THE NATURE AND SOURCES OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE HAD NOT BEEN EXPLA INED BY THE APPELLANT EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT OR REMAND PROCEE DINGS BEFORE THE AO. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IT HAS NOW B EEN CONTENDED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS APPEARING UNDER CURRENT ASSET AND THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 15,38,250/- WAS PAID BY THE APPELLA NT TO ITS SISTER CONCERN AND THE SAME WAS NOT CLAIMED AS AN EXPENSE EXC EPT FOR THE SUBMISSION MADE NO OTHER DETAIL OR ANY PROOF OR EVIDEN CE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AND, THEREFORE, IT BECOMES DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE C ONTENTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN TAKING A SHIFT ING STANCE WITH RESPECT TO EXPLANATION OF RS. 15,38,250/-. 8.3 SECTION 69C PROVIDES THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE INCURS IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR ANY EXPENDITURE ABOUT THE SOURCE OF WHICH HE OF FERS NO EXPLANATION OR WHERE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS FOUND NOT SATISFACTORY, THE AMOUNT COVERED BY SUCH EXPENDITURE SH ALL BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF Y.H, DALMIA V S CIT (1980) 126 ITR 48 (DEL) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IT IS A NORMAL RUL E OF PRESUMPTION AND EVIDENCE THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT INCURRED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE AND IS NOT ABLE TO ACCOUNT SATISFACTORILY FOR THE SAME, AN INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN THAT THE EXPENDITURE OR THE UNACCOUNTED PART THEREOF MUST HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF THE INCOME UNDISCL OSED. SECTION 69C PROVIDES FOR INFERENCE OF INCOME WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION AS TO THE SOURCE OF ANY EXPEND ITURE INCURRED BY HIM. THE APPELLANT HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO EXPLAIN THE EXPENDITURE SHOWN AS 'SUSPENSE ACCOUNT' BUT APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCHAR GED THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM BY FURNISHING COGENT AND APPROPRIATE E XPLANATION ALONG WITH THE EVIDENCES. IT IS FOR THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AND EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTION, HOWEVER, THE AP PELLANT HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION WITH PROPER PROOF AND COGENT MATERIAL. 8.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. IS UPHELD AND GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 6 RAISED BY THE APPE LLANT IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 9 ITA NO.1182/PN/2012 15. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO CONTRADICT THE FACTUA L FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. IN OUR OPINION, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS A REASONED ONE WHICH DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17-08-2016. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IQ.KS PUNE ; DATED : 17 TH AUGUST , 2016. LRH'K ' (*+ ,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. % ( ) - THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE 4. % S / THE CIT-II, PUNE 5. ( ++, , , , IQ.KS / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; 6. 0 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , ( + //TRUE COPY// //TRUE COPY// 23 + , / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ,, IQ.KS / ITAT, PUNE