ACIT, Jaipur V. DELTA PRIME MARKETING PVT. LTD., Jaipur

ITA 127/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99362 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: P C PARWAL CA DHK
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Retraction
• Section: 143(3); 133A

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF; D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 127/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. M/S DELTA PRIME MARKETING PVT. LTD., C-195, BAN MARG, BEHIND L.B.S. COLLEGE, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AADCD 1134 A VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH (JCIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 08/10/2015. MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/10/2015. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER T.R. MEENA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/12/2013 OF THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A)-IIL, JAIPUR FOR A.Y. 2010-11. THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 80,99,430/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFEREN CE 2 ITA NO. 127/JP/2014 ACIT VS DELTA PRIME MARKETING P. LTD. BETWEEN INCOME ADMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S 133A AND RETURN INCOME. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTORSHIP OF SPICE MOBILE HANDSET. THE ASSESSEE FILED E-RETURN ON 11/10/2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 4,81,00,570/-. THE CASE WAS SCRUTINIZE D U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS CASH BOOK, LEDGER ETC., WHICH WAS TEXT CHE CK BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THER E WAS A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMIS ES OF THE ASSESSEE AT 244, FRONTIER COLONY, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR ON 11 /3/2010. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, STATEMENT OF SHRI DILIP KALRA, ON E OF THE DIRECTOR OF ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS RECORDED. IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 12, SH. DILIP KALRA, DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ADMITTED TO TAL ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 1,62,81,065 BEING CASH RECEIPTS FROM VARIOUS PARTIES. SH. DILIP KALRA ALSO ADMITTED REGULAR INCOME OF RS. 4 CRORES. THUS T OTAL DISCLOSURE WAS RS. 5.62 CRORES AS ON 12/3/2010 BUT IN THE RETURN O F INCOME FILED ON 11/10/2010, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 4,81,00,570/- ONLY, WHICH WAS SHORT BY RS. 80,99,430/-. THE LD ASSES SING OFFICER GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, WHICH WAS REP LIED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 01/2/2013, THE SAME HAS BEEN REPR ODUCED BY THE 3 ITA NO. 127/JP/2014 ACIT VS DELTA PRIME MARKETING P. LTD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT O RDER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT IN THE STATEMENT OF SH. DILIP KALRA, DIRECTOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RECORDED ON 12/3/2010 HAD ADMITTED THAT THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE COMPANY IN THE CURRENT YEAR WAS LIABLE TO BE ABOUT 5.62 CRORES INCL UDING SURRENDERED AMOUNT OF RS. 1,62,81,065/-. FOR FURTHER CLARIFICAT ION, STATEMENT OF SHRI DILIP KALRA IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- IZ'U 18- D`I;K CRK;S FD DEIUH DH PKYW FOR OKZ DH V UQEKFUR VK; D;K GKSXH\ MRRJ& DEIUH DH PKYW FOR OKZ DH FU;FER VK; YXHKX : I;S 4 DJKSM+ GKSUS DH LEHKKOUK GSA BLDS VFRFJDR LOSZ DH DK;ZOKGH DISALLOWANCE NKSJKU IKBZ XBZ MK;JH ANN-A-1 DS VK/KKJ IJ LEFIZR DH XBZ :I;S 1]62]81]065 DH VK; VFRFJDR GSA VFKKZR PKYW FOR OKZ ESA :I;S 5]62]00]0 00 DH 'KQ} VK; GKSUS DH MEEHN GSA DEIUH }KJK VHKH RD EK= :I;S 50]00]000 :I ;S IPKL YK[K VFXZE DJ TEK DJK;K X;K GSA VHKH EKPZ 2010 DS EKG ESA CKDH DK VFXZE DJ VFKKZR :I;S 2]00]00]000 DEIUH EKPZ 2010 ESA TEK DJK NSXHA IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT ADDITIO NAL INCOME OF RS. 5.62 CRORES DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS WHEREAS THE AS SESSEE FILED DECLARED INCOME OF RS. 1,81,00,570/-. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTI ON THAT THE REGULAR INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT BASED ON TH E BOOKS OF 4 ITA NO. 127/JP/2014 ACIT VS DELTA PRIME MARKETING P. LTD. ACCOUNT, HAD NOT FOUND CONVINCING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED ON 12/3/2010 WHICH WAS NEARBY END OF THE FI NANCIAL YEAR. MOST OF THE SALES AND PURCHASES OF ANY COMPANY MUST HAVE BEEN BOOKED BY MONTH OF MARCH. BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ANY COMPANY ARE WRITTEN DAY TO DAY BASIS AND BEING THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY HE MUST HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE COMPANY. THERE WERE ONL Y 20 DAYS LEFT IN THE YEAR ENDING 2009-10. THUS THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT TH AT REGULAR INCOME WAS DISCLOSED ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION, DID NOT FI ND CONVINCING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEES PLEA WAS FOUND TO T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AN AFTERTHOUGHT TO RELEASE THE TAX LIABILITY ONLY. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF DR. S.C. GUPTA VS. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 782 (ALL), AIR 1963 S.C. 1094, PULLAN CODE RUBBER PRODUCT COMPANY LTD. VS STATE OF KERALA 91 ITR 18, HIRALAL MAGANALAL & COM VS. DCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-52 I TAT MUMBAI D- BENCH. 2.1 IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SAID RETRACTION WAS AFTERTH OUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO AVOID PAYING TAXES RATHER EVADING THE T AX PAYMENT DUE TO HIM. THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED WITHOUT ANY COERCION AND UN DUE INFLUENCE OR THREAT, WHICH WAS READ OVER AND SIGNED BY THE ASSESSE E IN FULL 5 ITA NO. 127/JP/2014 ACIT VS DELTA PRIME MARKETING P. LTD. CONSCIOUSNESS. THE RETRACTION WAS AFTER SEVERAL MONTH S FROM THE DATE OF SURVEY. THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY HAD ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT THAT HE HAD GIVEN STATEMENT VOLUNTARILY WITHOUT ANY INFLU ENCE, THREAT OR COERCION, WHO HAS ALSO CERTIFIED THAT HE READ OVER S TATEMENT AND SAME WAS FOUND TO BE CORRECT RECORDED. THE STATEMENT WAS GI VEN BY THE DIRECTOR IS ALSO CLEAR AND WITHOUT ANY CONFUSION. THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 133A HAS EVIDENTIARY VALUE. HE FURTHER RELIED O N THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SURJEET SINGH CHHARBA VS. UNION OF INDIA 19 97 (89) E.L.T. 646 WHEREIN CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CUSTOM OFFICIALS THOUGH RETRACTED WITHIN 60 DAYS, THE ADMIS SION IS BINDING ON THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF HIRALAL MAGANLAL & CO. VS. DCIT 96 ITD 113 AND DHUNJIBHOY STUD & AGRIC ULTURAL FARM VS. DCIT 82 ITD 18 AND THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DEC ISION IN THE CASE OF MEGHRAJ JAIN VS. UOI (2009) ON FERA ADMISSION. TH EREFORE, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED RS. 80,99,430/- IN THE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAD DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6 ITA NO. 127/JP/2014 ACIT VS DELTA PRIME MARKETING P. LTD. 2.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE; ASSES SMENT ORDER AND APPELLANTS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. DURING THE COUR SE OF SURVEY, DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 1,62,81,065 FOR OF THE CUR RENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. APART FROM THIS DIRECTION ALSO STA TED THAT THE REGULAR INCOME FOR THE YEAR IS LIKELY TO BE RS. 4 CRORES. APPELLANT DISCLOSED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 1,62,81,065/- SEPARATELY AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THIS. HOWEVER, REGULAR INCOME WAS DISCLOSED AT RS. 3,18,19,505/- AS AGAINST LIKELY INCOME OF RS. 4 CRO RES AS PER STATEMENT GIVEN DURING SURVEY. ASSESSING OFFICER MA DE THE ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REGULAR INCOME MENTIO NED IN THE STATEMENT AND REGULAR INCOME AS PER RETURN OF I NCOME. THE BASIS FOR A.OS ADDITION IS THAT STATEMENT RECOR DED DURING SURVEY HAS EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND APPELLANT D ID NOT RETRACT THE STATEMENT WITHIN REASONABLE TIME AND THE REFORE DIFFERENCE WAS TAXABLE. A.O. ALSO RELIED UPON CERTAI N JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN WHICH STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SURVEY WAS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT EVIDENCE AND A.O. CAN RELY ON THE SAID STATEMENT UNLESS PROVED OTHERWISE BY THE APPELLANT. APPELLANT ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT WHAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENT DURING SURVEY WAS THE LIK ELY REGULAR INCOME. IT WAS NOT CONFIRMED REGULAR INCOME SINCE THERE WERE 20 DAYS LEFT BEFORE THE END OF ACCOUNTING YEAR. APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT WHILE GIVING STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF 7 ITA NO. 127/JP/2014 ACIT VS DELTA PRIME MARKETING P. LTD. THE ESTIMATION OF REGULAR INCOME, CLAIM OF DEPRECIA TION AS PER IT ACT, INTEREST TO DIRECTORS AND OTHER PROVISIO N AND EXPENSES TO BE PROVIDED AT THE YEAR END WERE NOT CONSIDERED. IF ALL THESE ARE CONSIDERED THEN THE RE GULAR INCOME FOR THE YEAR WOULD BE AROUND RS. 4 CRORES. THE REFORE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT STATEMENT WAS NOT RETRACTED ALTHOUGH IT WAS ONLY ABOUT LIKELY REGULAR INCOME WHI CH NEED NOT BE SAME ON FINALIZATION OF ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT. APPELLANT ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE LATEST HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT DECISION, STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SURVEY HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND THEREFORE THE SAME ALONE CANN OT BE RELIED UPON FOR MAKING ADDITION. ON CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND AP PELLANTS SUBMISSION, IT IS FOUND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SURV EY. EVEN THE STATEMENT DID NOT GIVE CATEGORICAL DISCLOSURE O F INCOME FOR THE YEAR. IT WAS ONLY TALKING ABOUT LIKELY REGUL AR INCOME FOR THE YEAR. WHEN ESTIMATION OF INCOME WAS MADE 20 DAYS BEFORE THE END OF ACCOUNTING YEAR, IT IS BOUND TO B E DIFFERENT. APPELLANT EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE ON AC COUNT OF HIGHER DEPRECIATION UNDER INCOME TAX ACT, INTEREST P AID TO DIRECTORS AND OTHER YEAR END PROVISIONS ETC. WHICH T OTALS UP TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O.. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND FAULT WITH ANY OF THE EXPENSE CLAIMED BY THE AP PELLANT. WHEN THERE WAS NO DEFECT FOUND IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF 8 ITA NO. 127/JP/2014 ACIT VS DELTA PRIME MARKETING P. LTD. ACCOUNTS AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF A STATEMENT GIVEN DURI NG SURVEY THAT ESTIMATED INCOME FOR THE YEAR WOULD BE R S. 4 CRORES. IF APPELLANT DEVIATES FROM SUCH ESTIMATION, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO FIND OUT WHETHER IT IS ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF RECEIPT OR CLAIM OF BOGUS EXPENSES. IF RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES ARE FOUND TO BE CORRECT THEN ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT WHI CH IS ALSO OF LIKELY ESTIMATED INCOME. CONSIDERING THE FA CTS, I DO NOT FIND ANY BASIS IN A.OS CLAIM THAT APPELLANT RE TRACTED THE STATEMENT. CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT REGARDING REGULAR INCOME, THERE IS NO RET RACTION SINCE DEPRECIATION, DIRECTORS INTEREST AND OTHER P ROVISIONS ARE YEAR-END ADJUSTMENTS PERMITTED UNDER INCOME TAX ACT. THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KADARKHAN REPORTED IN 352 ITR 480 WILL NOT ALLOW ASSES SING OFFICER TO MAKE ADDITION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF STA TEMENT RECORDED DURING SURVEY. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS, I DO NOT FIND ANY BASIS FOR MAK ING ADDITION TO THE REGULAR INCOME WITHOUT FINDING ANY MISTAKE JU ST OF THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF LIKELY INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, A DDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS DELETED. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AT TH E OUTSET, THE LD AR OF 9 ITA NO. 127/JP/2014 ACIT VS DELTA PRIME MARKETING P. LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE ARGUMENTS MADE BEFO RE THE LD CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN STATEMENT, ASSESSEE ONLY STATED THAT IN CURRENT YEAR REGULAR INCOME IS EXPECTED TO BE RS.4 CRORES. AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY A PERIOD OF 20 DAYS WERE STILL LEFT FOR CLOSE OF THE ACCOUNTS AND AT THE YEAR-END VARIOUS INCOMES/EXPENDITURES ARE TO BE PROVIDED. THEREFORE ON A BROAD BASIS ASSESSEE STATED THE PROBABLE REGUL AR INCOME FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AT RS.4 CRORES. HOWEVER ON FINALIZATION OF THE ACCOUNTS, THE REGULAR INCOME AS PER BOOKS IS ARRIVED AT RS.3,53 , 41,847/- (IN COMPUTATION SUCH INCOME IS WORKED OUT AT RS.3,18,19, 505/- BECAUSE OF DEPRECIATION FACTOR). THE VARIATION BETWEEN THE PROB ABLE REGULAR INCOME STATED IN COURSE OF SURVEY AND THAT ACTUALLY WORKED OUT ON FINALIZATION OF THE ACCOUNT IS MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING FA CTORS:- (I) IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED AT RS.3,70 ,449/- WHEREAS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME DEPRE CIATION AS PER INCOME TAX ACT IS CLAIMED AT RS.38,93,445/-. THE DEPRECIATION WAS NOT PROVIDED IN THE BOOKS AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY, IT WAS PROVIDED ONLY AT THE END OF THE YEAR WHILE FINALIZATION OF ACCOUNTS. THIS WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY ASSESSEE WHILE STATING THE PROBABLE REGULAR INCOME FOR THE YE AR AT RS.4 CRORES. 10 ITA NO. 127/JP/2014 ACIT VS DELTA PRIME MARKETING P. LTD. (II) THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED INTEREST OF RS.29,4 9,623/- ON THE LOANS TAKEN FROM THE DIRECTORS WHICH WAS PROVIDED IN THE BOOKS ON 31-03-2010. THIS AMOUNT WAS ALSO NOT CONSIDE RED WHILE STATING THE PROBABLE REGULAR INCOME AT THE TIM E OF SURVEY. (III) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE TWO AMOUNTS, OF RS.68,43,068/- (3893445 + 2949623) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROBA BLE REGULAR INCOME AS STATED IN COURSE OF SURVEY AND TH AT ACTUALLY WORKED OUT REMAINS AT RS.12,56,362/- (8099430 - 6843 068). THIS DIFFERENCE IS FOR THE REASON THAT AT THE YEAR-E ND VARIOUS EXPENDITURES LIKE AUDIT FEES, DIRECTOR'S REMUNERATI ON, PROVISIONS FOR OUTSTANDING LIABILITIES, CLAIMS ETC. ARE PROVIDED. (IV) IN THE STATEMENT ASSESSEE HAS ONLY STATED THE PROBABLE REGULAR INCOME AS PER BOOKS AT RS.4 CRORES. THIS CAN 'T BE CONSIDERED AS SACROSANCT. AFTER FINALIZATION OF THE ACCOUNTS, THE REGULAR INCOME AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS DETE RMINED AT RS.3,53,41,847/-. IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NO DEFEC T IS POINTED OUT BY THE AO. HENCE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF T HE STATEMENT WHERE REGULAR INCOME IS ESTIMATED, ADDITIO N CAN'T BE MADE BY CONSIDERING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PR OBABLE INCOME AND ACTUAL INCOME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 11 ITA NO. 127/JP/2014 ACIT VS DELTA PRIME MARKETING P. LTD. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. S. KADARKHAN SON 352 ITR 480 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HE LD THAT STATEMENT U/S 133A DOES NOT EMPOWER ANY IT AUTHORITY TO EXAMINE ANY PERSON ON OATH AND THEREFORE STATEMENT RECORDED IN SURVEY HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: (I) PULLANGONE RUBBER PRODUCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER 91 ITR 18 (SC) (II) ITO VS. VIJAY KUMAR KESAR (2010) 36 DTR 13 (CHA TTISGARH). (II) SURENDRA PAL VERMA VS. ACIT 89 ITD 129 (CHD)(T M). HE HAS FURTHER DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON CBDT INSTRUCTI ON NO. 286/2003 (IT) DATED 10/3/2013, THEREFORE, HE ARGUED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNCALLED FOR AND DESERVED TO B E DELETED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE STATEM ENT RECORDED U/S 133A AS HELD BY THE VARIOUS COURTS INCLUDING HON'BL E SUPREME COURT THAT STATEMENT RECORDED HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND ALS O REBUTTABLE. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED RS. 4 CRORES DURING THE SURVEY ES TIMATED REGULAR INCOME BUT BOOKS HAD NOT BEEN COMPLETED AS DATE OF SURVEY WAS 11/3/2010. THE STATUTORY DEDUCTION SUCH AS DEPRECIAT ION, INTEREST ON LOAN, 12 ITA NO. 127/JP/2014 ACIT VS DELTA PRIME MARKETING P. LTD. SALARY TO THE DIRECTOR AND OTHER STATUTORY LIABILIT Y COULD NOT ASCERTAIN AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, WHICH HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE LD AR. THE LD DR HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD CIT(A), THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/10/2015. SD/- SD/- YFYR DQEKJ VH-VKJ-EHUK (LALIET KUMAR) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 21 ST OCTOBER, 2015 RANJAN* VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- M/S DELTA PRIME MARKETING PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.127/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR