The ITO, Ward-5(3), Ahmedabad V. Riddhi Pharma Machinery Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1284/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6010 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: G C PIPARA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , ! ' #$ #$ #$ #$ %, ' BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER $./ I.T.A. NO.1284/AHD/2011 ( ( )( ( )( ( )( ( )( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1996-97) ITO WARD-5(3) AHMEDABAD / VS. M/S.RIDDHI PHARMA MACHINEY LTD. PLOT NO.334/2/A, RIDDHI ESTATE GULABNAGAR AMRAIWADI AHMEDABAD '* ! $./+, $./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACR 5642 Q ( *- / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ./*- / RESPONDENT ) *- 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.L. KUREEL, SR.DR ./*- 1 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.C. PIPARA, AR 2 1 ! / / / / DATE OF HEARING 30/06/2014 34) 1 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25/07/2014 5 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XI AHMEDABAD (CIT(A) IN SHORT) IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-XI/981/09-10 DATED 18/02 /2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 1996-97. THE REVENUE HAS RAIS ED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 5,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE APP LICATION MONEY I.E. ` 25,000/- EACH FROM 20 AGRICULTURALISTS. ITA NO.1284/AHD /2011 ITO VS. M/S.RIDDHI PHARMA MACHINEY LTD. ASST.YEAR 1996-97 - 2 - 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN D ELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MO NEY OF ` 6,00,000/- FROM MRS. J.K. SONI (DIRECTOR). 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MO NEY OF ` 5,33,000/- FROM J.K.ENTERPRISES (PROP. MRS. J.K.SONI). 4. THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 55,793/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENSES. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. THIS IS SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION. IN EARLIER ROUND, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.4433/AHD/2003 HAD RESTORED THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT DE NOVO AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. THE AO, YET AGAIN FAMED THE ASSESSMENT MAKING THE SAME ADDITIONS AS W ERE MADE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE FEELING AGGRIEVE D BY THE ORDER, PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL, THEREBY THE LD.CIT(A) DE LETED THE ADDITION(S) OF RS.16,33,000/-, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.55,793/- AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.22,000/-. NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN AP PEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). ITA NO.1284/AHD /2011 ITO VS. M/S.RIDDHI PHARMA MACHINEY LTD. ASST.YEAR 1996-97 - 3 - 3. FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.5 LACS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY R ECEIVED FROM 20 AGRICULTURALISTS. THE LD.SR.DR SHRI P.L.KUREEL V EHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELE TING THE ADDITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES WERE NOT SUBM ITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY SUBMITTED COMPLETE LIST OF PERSON S FROM WHOM SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HAD BEEN RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF 2 0 AGRICULTURISTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS OF ALL THE PARTIES WERE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD AND PARTICULARS OF NAME, ADDRESS AND AMOUNT AND PAYMENT MODE WERE ALSO SUBMITTED. HE SUBMITTED THAT COPY OF 7/1 2 EXTRACT OF SAID AGRICULTURISTS IN SUPPORT OF SOURCE OF THEIR INCOME IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION RECEIVED FROM THEM. IT IS SUBMITTED TH AT SUMMONS ISSUED TO ALL 20 PERSONS WERE DULY SERVED UPON THEM AND, HENC E, IT ESTABLISHES THAT THE SAID PERSONS WERE EXISTING AND THEIR IDENTITY S TOOD ESTABLISHED. THE PERSONS WERE NOT FICTITIOUS. HE SUBMITTED THAT FRO M THE DETAILS FURNISHED IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT AGRICULTURISTS ARE OF THE SAM E VILLAGE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE AO OF 13 PARTIES WERE GIVEN, BUT THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER THE SUBMISSION. HE SUB MITTED THAT THE RECEIPTS OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WERE THROUGH BA NKING CHANNEL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS, GE NUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHAREHOLDER S ARE ALSO PROVED. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, THE AO WAS NOT JU STIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF H ONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. STELLER INVESTMENT LTD. REPORTED AT 251 ITA NO.1284/AHD /2011 ITO VS. M/S.RIDDHI PHARMA MACHINEY LTD. ASST.YEAR 1996-97 - 4 - ITR 263(SC) AND THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIG H COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOPHIA FINANCE LTD. REPORTED AT 251 ITR 98 (DELHI). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE JUDGEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE AO MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE CREDITWO RTHINESS OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE CAPITAL WAS INTRODUCED. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FINDINGS IN HIS ORDER AT PAGE NOS.21 TO 23, WHICH A RE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- (A) CONTRIBUTION OF RS.25,000 EACH FROM 20 AGRICU LTURISTS TOTALING TO RS.5,00,000. IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THE SAID SUM HAS BEEN A DDED ON THE GROUND THAT ONLY ONE PERSON FILLED UP ON BEHALF OF ALL THE 20 PERSONS ONE PAY-IN- SLIP IN BANK TO DRAW A DD OF RS.5,00,000 AND RETURN OF INCOME OF ALL THE 20 PERSONS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED. IN APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS BEFORE CIT(A) THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED ON THE BASIS OF N ON PRODUCTION OF PERSONS. THE APPELLANT HAD PROVIDED CONFIRMATIONS OF ALL 20 PERSONS ALONG WITH THEIR 7/12 EXTRACTS. I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE AR OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FULFILLED THE REQUIREMENT OF PROVING IDENTITY O F THE PERSONS BY PRODUCING THEIR CONFIRMATIONS. THE FACT THAT SUM MONS WERE SERVED ON ALL THE PERSONS PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SAID PERS ONS. THAT THE SAID PERSONS DEPOSITED CASH IN TO BANK TO DRAW THE DD IS NOT SURPRISING, LOOKING TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE AGRICULTURISTS AN D THE NATURE AND MODE OF THEIR INCOME AND MATERIALLY OF THE SUM INVOLVED I.E. RS.25,000 EACH. FURTHER, IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO TEAT ALL THE 19 P ERSONS AS BOGUS ON THE BASIS OF DENIAL BY ONE PERSON TO HAVE GIVEN MONEY T O THE COMPANY. IN SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS A.O. REQUIRED THE APPELLANT T O PRODUCE 9 PERSONS. IT IS ALSO SEEN BY ME THAT DURING THE COURSE OF BOT H ASSESSMENT ITA NO.1284/AHD /2011 ITO VS. M/S.RIDDHI PHARMA MACHINEY LTD. ASST.YEAR 1996-97 - 5 - PROCEEDINGS, COMPLETE DETAILS OF AMOUNT CONTRIBUTED BY THESE 20 PERSONS OF RS.25,000/- EACH HAS BEEN FURNISHED BEFO RE THE AO WHICH INTERALIA INCLUDES CONFIRMATION, COMPLETE NAME AND ADDRESS, COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF 7/12 WHICH ARE THE RECORDS OF RIGHT AND PROOF OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING, HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. F URTHER DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, MY ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN BY T HE LEARNED AR TO THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO DATED 25/7/2003 AS OBTA INED DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL APPEAL HEARING WHEREIN THE AO HA D STATED THAT PURSUANT TO SUMMONS ISSUED, ONE PERSON VIZ. SHRI NA TWARBHAI R.PATEL HAS DENIED ABOUT HAVING INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.25 ,000/- BY HIM IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY. MY ATTENTION HAS FURTHER BEEN DRAWN AND STATED THAT O AMOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL IS IN FAC T BEEN RECEIVED FROM NATWARBHAI R.PATEL. IN FACT IT IS NATUBHAI RANABHA I PATEL AS CONFIRMED AND DETAILS SUBMITTED. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT IN THE SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 04-02-2011 ARE TENABLE. IN THE SET-ASIDE PROCEEDINGS A.O. DID NOT CAUSE ANY INQUIRY NOR DID HE ISSUE SUMMONS. NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN BY APPELLANTS NON PRODUCTION OF PARTIES. ONCE THE C ONFIRMATION WITH ADDRESS ARE FURNISHED, ONUS SHIFTS TO THE A.O. TO M AKE INQUIRIES/SUMMON THEM AND RECORD STATEMENTS. A.O. HAVING NOT DONE S O, THE ADDITION OF RS.5 LAKHS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 4.1. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE REQUISITE DETAILS AND THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE MADE ENQUIRIES BY SUMMONING THE PERSONS AND RECORDING TH EIR STATEMENTS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN REQUISITE DETAILS ABOU T THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE SHAREHOLDERS, THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWI NG THE JUDGEMENTS OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. STELLER INVESTMENT LTD. REPORTED AT 251 ITR 263(SC) AND THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOPHIA F INANCE LTD. REPORTED AT 251 ITR 98 (DELHI), WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, THIS GROUN D OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. ITA NO.1284/AHD /2011 ITO VS. M/S.RIDDHI PHARMA MACHINEY LTD. ASST.YEAR 1996-97 - 6 - 5. GROUND NOS.2 & 3 ARE INTER-CONNECTED, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST DELETI ON OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF R S.6 LACS FROM MRS.J.K.SONI (DIRECTOR) AND GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MO NEY OF RS.5,33,000/- FROM J.K.ENTERPRISES (PROP.MRS.J.K.SO NI). THE LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JU STIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN A FI NDING THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT GENUINE AND THE CREDITWORTHINES S OF THE PARTIES WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. 5.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM MRS.J.K.SONI AND M/S.J.K.ENTERPRISES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CON FIRMATION FROM MRS.J.K.SONI AND M/S.J.K.ENTERPRISES ALONGWITH PANS WERE SUBMITTED. RETURNS OF INCOME FOR AY 1994-95 AND 1997-98 WITH A NOTE THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO TAXABLE INCOME FOR AY 1995-96 AND 1996 -97 NO RETURN FOR SAID YEARS WERE FILED. COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF MR S.J.K.SONI & M/S.J.K.ENTERPRISES, AND COPY OF CONFIRMATION, BANK STATEMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME OF THE PERSON F ROM WHOM LOAN TAKEN BY MRS.J.K.SONI FOR INVESTING IN SHARE APPLIC ATION MONEY OF THE APPELLANT-COMPANY WERE ALSO FILED. IN SUPPORT OF T HIS CONTENTION, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWA RDS PAGE NOS.39 TO 55 OF THE PAPER-BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1284/AHD /2011 ITO VS. M/S.RIDDHI PHARMA MACHINEY LTD. ASST.YEAR 1996-97 - 7 - 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE AO MADE ADDITION(S) ON THE BASIS T HAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AN D THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES IN WHOSE NAMES THE ASSESSEE INTRODU CED CASH CREDITS. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) IN PARA-23 OF HIS ORDER HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- (B) CONTRIBUTION OF RS.6,00,000 BY MRS.J K SONI A ND RS.5,33,000 BY J.K. ENTERPRISE (PROP. J.K. SONI) I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, REMAND REPORT IN ORIGINAL CIT(A) PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RE SPECT OF SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS AND APPELLANTS SUBMISSION. COMING TO THE AMOUNT OF RS.6,00,000/- BEING THE INVESTMENT MADE BY J.K.SONI AND RS.5,33,000/- BEINGINVESTMENT MADE IN THE NAME OF J.K.ENTERPRISES PROP. J.K.SONI, I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND SINCE THE RE IS NO DISCUSSION IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT ORDER, I HAVE GONE THROUGH T HE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE REMAND REPORT OF TH E AO DATED 25/7/2003 WHEREIN FOR THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SHARE CA PITAL OF RS.11,33,000/-, CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FURNISHED. M RS.J.K.SONI IS ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND INCOME TAX RETURN IS SUB MITTED TO AO. SOURCES OF THE SAID SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.11,33,000/- WERE FURNISHED WHICH INTER ALIA INCLUDES LOANS FROM 3 RD PARTIES BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THE SAID AMOUNT OF LOAN HAS BEEN UTILIZ ED BY HER IN THE SAID SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF THE COMPANY. THE C ONFIRMATION FROM ALL THESE PERSONS WHO GAVE LOANS TO MRS. J.K.SONI W AS SUBMITTED AND THEY ARE ALSO IN TURN ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AS PER THE CONFIRMATION LETTER SUBMITTED TO THE AO. COPIES OF THE BANK STA TEMENT WERE ALSO MADE AVAILABLE AS WELL AS COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RE TURN INCLUDING TAX AUDIT REPORT UNDER SECTION 44AB IN THE CASE OF FEW OF THE DEPOSITORS, COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, COPIES OF ACKNOWLEDGEME NT OF HAVING FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THESE PERSONS WHO HAVE GIVE N LOANS TO THE SHAREHOLDERS ETC. HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE AND IN V IEW OF ALL THESE EVIDENCES, I FIND NO LOGIC IN CONSIDERING THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AS UNEXPLAINED AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE SAID AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ITA NO.1284/AHD /2011 ITO VS. M/S.RIDDHI PHARMA MACHINEY LTD. ASST.YEAR 1996-97 - 8 - IT IS TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY TOWARDS SHARE APPLICATION MON EY (AND NOT BY WAY OF LOANS). TO THAT EXTENT THE ONUS ON THE APPE LLANT IS LESS RIGOROUS. THE PRONOUNCEMENT BY APEX COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORT(P.) LTD. (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 195 LAID DOWN THAT SHARE A PPLICATION MONEY CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF CO MPANY. FURTHER IN CIT VS ORBITAL COMMUNICATION (P) LTD. (2010) 327 IT R 560, THE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS PRO DUCED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHI NESS OF CREDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE APPLICATION WAS ALSO MANIF EST FROM THE RECORDS, NON PRODUCTION OF CREDITOR WOULD NOT NEGAT E THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE REST OF THE MATERIAL AND HENCE TRIBUNA L WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF REVENUE. THEREFORE, CONSI DERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE LEGAL POSITION, THE ADDITIO N OF RS.16,33,000/- IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6.1. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE EVIDENCES WITH REGARD TO THE IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS; NAMELY, MRS. J.K.SONI & M/S.J.K.ENTERPRISES. EVIDE NCES OF INCOME-TAX RETURNS WERE ALSO SUBMITTED. WE FIND THAT THE LD.C IT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS (P.) LTD. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC ) AND THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. ORBITAL COMMUNICATION (P) LTD. (2010 327 ITR 560 (D ELHI). THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE H ONBLE APEX COURT AND HIGH COURT OF DELHI, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, GROUND NOS .2 & 3 OF REVENUES APPEAL ARE REJECTED. ITA NO.1284/AHD /2011 ITO VS. M/S.RIDDHI PHARMA MACHINEY LTD. ASST.YEAR 1996-97 - 9 - 7. GROUND NO.4 IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF R S.55,793/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENSES . THE LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE DET AILS IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENDITURE. 7.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED FOR A WORKING CAPITAL LOAN FRO M BANK. HOWEVER, TO ARRANGE FOR A SHORT TERM FINANCE IN THAT INTERVENIN G PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE TOOK LOANS FROM SOME PARTIES. HE SUBMITTED THAT TD S HAS BEEN DEDUCTED WERE INTEREST PAYMENT HAS EXCEEDED THE LIMIT SPECIF IED U/S.194A. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NOS.90 TO 92 OF THE PAPER-BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON FACT THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE SAID PAYME NT OF INTEREST WAS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. IT IS ALSO OBSER VED BY THE LD.CIT(A) THAT TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED IN ONE CASE WHERE INTEREST PA YMENT HAS EXCEEDED THE LIMIT SPECIFIED U/S.194A. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL BY THE LD .COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THU S, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. ITA NO.1284/AHD /2011 ITO VS. M/S.RIDDHI PHARMA MACHINEY LTD. ASST.YEAR 1996-97 - 10 - 9. REST OF THE GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE REQUIR E NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( ) ( %) ! ' ' ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 25/ 07 /2014 8.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS 5 1 .9 : 9) 5 1 .9 : 9) 5 1 .9 : 9) 5 1 .9 : 9)/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./*- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $$ ; / CONCERNED CIT 4. ;() / THE CIT(A)-XI, AHMEDABAD 5. 9%< . , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. <=( >2 / GUARD FILE. 5 5 5 5 / BY ORDER, /9 . //TRUE COPY// ? ?? ?/ // / $+ $+ $+ $+ ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 16.7.14(DICTATION-PAD 15-P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 16/17.7.14 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.25.7.14 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 25.7.14 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER