DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Lispo India Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 1201/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74086 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 11-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S N BHATIA
• Assessee Lawyers: R S ADLAKHA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Depreciation; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 133A; 68; 144

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. S REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1201 /DEL/ 2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 ) DCIT CIRCLE - 4(1), NEW DELHI VS. LISPO INDIA LTD., 1396, DUPLEX HOUSE, SECTOR - 31, GURGAON PAN AAACL0202C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S. N. BHATIA , DR RESPONDENT BY: R.S. ADLAKHA , ADV. O R D E R PER A. T. VARKEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - VII, NEW DELHI DATED 18.01.2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS FOLLOWS: - 01. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS & CONTRARY TO FACTS & LAW. 02. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,00,12,658/ - MADE BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT BEING UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 2. 1 THE LD. CIT( A) IGNORED THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF FILING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CREDITS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DESPITE HAVING BEEN PROVIDED AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES. 03. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,53,281/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION OF NEW FIXED ASSETS. 3.1 THE LD. CIT(A)IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE ADDITIONS MADE TO FIXED ASSETS DURING THE YEAR. 0.4 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,30,998/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND MA NUFACTURING EXPENSES. PAGE NO. 2 4.1 THE LD CIT(A) IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED AND DID NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 05. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 75,00,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT SURRENDERED DURING THE SURVEY OPERATION UNDER SECTION 133A. 5.1 THE LD. CIT(A) IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF HAVING INCLUDED THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT IN THE RETURN INCOME. 06. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER, OR AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. APROPOS DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,00,12,658/ - U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT (HEREINAFTER THE ACT) BEING UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF KITCHEN CABINETS, WARDROBES AND PANEL DOORS WHICH ARE MADE OF WOOD . 5. IN THIS CASE, A SURVEY OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT, WAS CARRIED OUT AT 1 ST FLOOR, JMD REGENT PLAZA, MG ROAD, GURGAON AND AT VILL. NAHARPUR, KASSAIN, MANESAR DISTT. GURGAON ON 29.11.2005. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATIONS, THE FOLLOWING INCONSISTENCIES WERE FOUND: - 1. EXCESS CASH RS. 9,41,557/ - 2. EXCESS STOCK RS. 40,69,990/ - 3. UNCLAIMED ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMER RS. 19,87,001/ - 4. UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR CONSTRUC TION OF OFFICE RS. 5,00,000 / - CUM FACTORY RS. 74,98,548/ - 6 . DURING THE SURVEY, SHRI SANDEEP ANAND, A DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD SURRENDERED A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 75,00,000/ - IN LUMP SUM AS ADDITION AL INCOME OF THE COMPANY RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, WHICH WAS OVER AND ABOVE THE REGULAR INCOME AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE . 7 . THEREAFTER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 27.11.2007 DECLARING NET INCOME OF RS. 73,70,087/ - . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE N THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT ON 17.11.2008 ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,71,67,024/ - , WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: - PAGE NO. 3 I) UNE XPLAINED CREDIT RS. 1,00,12,658/ - II) DEPRECIATION ON NEW FIXED ASSETS RS. 3,53, 281/ - III) MANUFACTURING, ADMINISTRATIVE & OTHER EXPENSES RS. 19,30,998/ - IV) ADDITIONAL INCOME SURRENDERED RS. 75,00,000/ - RS. 1,97,96,936/ - 8 . AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). DURING THE SAID APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS TO EXPLAIN ITS BONA - FIDE TRANSACTIONS : - I. CONFIRMATION FROM TH E UNSECURED LOAN CREDITORS INDICATING THE MODE OF PAYMENT, CHEQUE NO, NAME OF THE BANK, PAN AND WHERE THEY WERE ASSESSED ETC. II) COPIES OF ACCOUNTS OF SIX CREDITORS HAVING OUTSTANDING BALANCE MORE THAN ONE LAC DULY CONFIRMED BY THE CREDITORS; III) STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF OTHER SUNDRY CREDITORS AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE; IV) DETAILS OF THE ADVANCES ALONGWITH THE ADDRESSES OF THE CUSTOMER; V) STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT OF THE FIXED ASSETS IN WHICH ADDITIONS TOOK PLACE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALONGWITH THE SUPPORTING COPIES OF INVOICES IN RESPECT OF THE NEW ASSETS ACQUIRED DURING THE YEAR; AND VI) THE DETAILS UNDER VARIOUS HEADS OF EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF A COMPARATIVE CHART OF MANUFACTURING, ADMINISTRATIVE & OTHER EXPE NSES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. 9 . THE RECORDS REVEALS THAT THE LD CIT(A) FORWARDED THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER RECEIVING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER TAKING IN TO CONSIDERATION THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD CIT(A) PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY WHICH HE PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 10 . THE LD DR RELIED ON THE ASSESSI NG OFFICERS ORDER AND THE LD AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 11 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. 12 . FROM A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WE NOTE THAT T HE UNEXPLAINED CREDITS OF RS. 1,00,12,658/ - CONSISTS OF THE FOL LOWING: I) UNSECURED LOANS RS. 62,27,800/ - II) SUNDRY CREDITORS RS. 30,63,807/ - III) ADVANCE FROM CUSTOMERS RS. 7,21,051/ - 13 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 62,27,800/ - BEING DIFFERENCE OF CLOSING AND OPENING BALANCE I.E. RS. 1,53,87,607/ - AND RS. 91,59,807/ - UNDER THE HEAD PAGE NO. 4 UNSECURED LOANS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 30,63,807/ - IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE EXPLANATION RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT RS. 7,21,051/ - AS ADVANCE COLLECTED FROM CUSTOMERS ON FIRM ORDER FOR THE GOODS FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR . THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REM AND REPORT HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE COMMENT AGAINST THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM FOR ADVANCE COLLECTED FROM CUSTOMERS. IN RESPECT TO UNSECURED LOANS WE FIND THAT IN THE REMAND REPOR T SUBMITTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER, HE HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE LENDERS WAS ESTABLISHED AND THAT THE LENDERS HAD DISCLOSED THEIR BANK ACCOUNT AND THEIR PAN ALSO . SO FAR AS THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS ARE CONCERNED , THE LENDERS HAD FILED THEIR INCOME TAX RETURN ALSO. MOREOVER, A PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE - SHEET OF THE LENDERS REVEALS THAT THEY HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO MAKE THE AFORESAID INVESTMENT AND HAVE THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO ADVANCE LOANS AND THE SAID INVESTMENTS/L OANS HAD BEEN DULY DISCLOSED IN THEIR BALANCE - SHEET. THESE DETAILS OF THE LENDERS SHOW THAT THEY WERE PERSONS OF MEANS WITH THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO ADVANCE THE LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE . 14 . THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY MADE A FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENC E OR MATERIAL THAT THE MONEY DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY EMANATED FROM THE ASSESSEE SO THAT IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN MONEY WAS BROUGHT IN THE GUI S E OF LOANS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY ESTABLISHED THE THREE REQUI REMENTS OF SECTION 68 WHICH ARE IDENTITY OF CREDITORS; CAPACITY OF SUCH CREDITORS TO ADVANCE MONEY ; GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. 15 . WHEN ALL THE AFORESAID THREE CONDITIONS ARE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS IN THIS CASE, THEN THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT AMOUNT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE . IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS AND WAS ABLE TO SHOW THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND COULD DEMONSTRATE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. THEREFORE W E FIND THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,00,12,658/ - . 16 . AS A RESULT GROUND NO. 2 AND 2.1 OF THE REVENUE FAILS AND IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 17 . APROPOS DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 3,53,281/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION OF NEW FIXED ASSETS. PAGE NO. 5 18 . THE LD DR POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE ADDITION MADE TO FIXED ASSETS DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY COMPLETE D THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION ON NEW FIXED ASSET S . ON THE OTHER HAND, ACCORDING TO THE LD AR, ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT NEW FIXED ASSETS WERE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THUS THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION FOR THE NEW FIXED ASSETS. ACCORDING TO THE LD AR , SINCE THE PARTICULARS FOR CLAIMING DEPRECIATION , WERE ALREADY AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , IT WAS WRONG TO DISALLOW THE DEPRECIATION ON THE NEW FIXED ASSET. THE LD AR ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT THE COPIES OF THE INVOI CES IN RESPECT OF THE NEW ASSETS ACQUIRED DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) WHO HAD FORWARDED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS REMAND REPORT AND IN THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE WAS NO ADVERSE COMMENTS AGAINST THE EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RESPECT. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO THE LD AR, THE LD CIT(A) RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON THE NEW FIXED ASSETS. 19 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE RECORD. THE LD CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOUND ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY IT REGARDING THE ACQUISITION AND INSTALLATION OF THE NEW FIXED ASSETS DURING THE RELEVANT YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT HE HAS VERIFIED THE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE NEW FIXED ASSETS ACQUIRED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT TO THE DEPRECIATION IS VALID IN LAW. IN THIS SAID CIRCUMSTA NCES WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE LD CIT(A) S DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION FOR THE NEW FIXED ASSET AS PER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND , THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE ALSO FAILS. 20 . APROPOS DELETION OF ADDITION OF R S. 19,30,998/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANUFACTURING EXPENSES. 21. THE LD DR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED AND DID NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND THEREFORE THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE SAID FACT AND ORDERED TO DELETE THE SAID ADDITION WHICH IS LEGALLY UNTENABLE. THE LD AR ON THE OTHER PAGE NO. 6 HAND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED TH E EXPENSES OF RS. 19,30,998/ - UNDER BOTH HEADS OF EXPENDITURE WHICH IS PATENTLY WRONG AND IT WAS DONE WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR WITHOUT FINDING ANY FAULT IN THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ARBITRARILY DISALLOWED 10% AD - HOC DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE TO TAL EXPENSES AND THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. 22 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LD CIT(A) HAS RECORDED A FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF WHIC H HE COULD HAVE ESTIMATED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF SUCH EXPENSES . THE LD CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY NEW FACT OR EVID ENCE TO PROVE THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF RS. 96,29,207/ - AND MANUFACTURING EXPENSES OF RS. 96,80,782/ - WERE NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. 23 . WE WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THAT IT IS A WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT , WHEN A JUDICIAL OR QUASI - JUDICIAL AUTHORITY ARE DECIDING A QUESTION OF FACT, THAT HAS TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS AND EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT THE SAME AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AS LAID DOWN IN A CATENA OF DECISION S OF HONB LE APEX COURT AND THAT SUSPICION , HOWSOEVER , STRONG CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF PROOF. HERE WE FIND THERE WAS NO MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO, TO SUPPORT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE AT AN AD - HOC RATE OF 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSE . 24 . LD CIT(A) HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAID AD - HOC DISALLOWANCE, SMACKS OF ARBITRARINESS AND IS DEVOID OF ANY LOGIC. THEREFORE, IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A) AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FAILS ON THIS GROUN D ALSO. 25 . APROPOS DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 75,00,000 / - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT SURRENDERED DURING THE SURVEY OPERATION UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT . 26 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF KITCHEN CABINETS, WARDROBES, PANEL DOORS MADE OF WOOD ETC. PAGE NO. 7 2 7 . IN THIS CASE, SURVEY OPERATION UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CARRIED OUT AT 1, 1 ST FLOOR, JMD REGENT PLAZA, MG ROAD, GURGA ON AND AT VILL. NAHARPUR, KASSAIN, MANESAR DISTT. GURGAON ON 29.11.2005. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATIONS, THE FOLLOWING INCONSISTENCIES WERE FOUND: - 1. EXCESS CASH RS. 9,41,557/ - 2. EXCESS STOCK RS. 40,69,990/ - 3. UNCLAIMED ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMER RS. 19,87,001/ - 4. UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF OFFICE RS. 5,00,000 / - CUM FACTORY RS. 74,98,548/ - 2 8 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE INCONSISTENCIES/ DISCREPANCIES, SHRI SANDEEP ANAND, A DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD SURRENDERED A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 75,00,000/ - IN LUMP SUM AS ADDITIONAL INCOME OF THE COMPAN Y RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, WHICH IS OVER AND ABOVE THE REGULAR INCOME AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THUS, ADDI TIONAL INCOME OF RS. 75,00,000/ - WAS ADDED TO THE REGULAR INCOME OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2 9 . LD DR SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DELETION OF THE SAID SUM WHICH WAS SURRENDERED DURING THE SURVEY OPERATION CONDUCTED U/S 133A OF THE ACT. 30 . LD AR POINTED OUT THAT IN HIS REMAND REPORT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CANDIDLY ADMITTED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 75,00,000/ - STANDS EXPLAINED , AS THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ALREADY INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD OTHER INCOME AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ACCORDINGLY. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD AR THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. 31 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE LD CIT(A) HAVE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IN ALL FAIRNESS HAS ADMITTED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 75,00,000/ - STANDS EXPLAINED AS THE SAID AMOUNT HA S BEEN ALREADY INCLUDED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD OTHER INCOMES AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ACCORDINGLY. UNDER THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A) DELETING THE SAID ADDITION. 32 . AS A RESUL T THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE ALSO FAILS. PAGE NO. 8 33 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND WE CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A). ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 8 . 01 . 2014 . - S D / - - S D / - ( J. S REDDY) (A. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 2 8 / 01 / 2014 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI