ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR V. LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED , NEW DELHI

ITA 132/JPR/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7673 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRISH BEDI
• Assessee Lawyers: P C PARWAL CA A
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 13

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,A JAIPUR JH LAANHI XKSLKBZ] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 132/JP/2020 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1998-99 THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR. CUKE VS. M/S LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED, FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S MODI ALKALIES & CHEMICALS LIMITED, A-264, 1 ST FLOOR DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI, LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AABCM 3981 C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI AMRISH BEDI (CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (C.A.) A LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 21/12/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18/01/2021 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 07.11.2019 PERTAINING TO ASSESS MENT YEAR 1998-99 WHEREIN IT HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEA L:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS. 4,24,27,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF OWN MONEY RECE IVED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT, DESPITE THE FACTS THAT SUCH ADDITION DU TY ITA NO. 132/JP/2020 ACIT VS. M/S LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED 2 DETERMINED BY CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN CO NFIRMED BY THE CESTAT, NEW DELHI. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVE D ON MARGIN MONEY AT LOWER RATE THAN IT HAD TO PAY THE BORROWER S. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTED THAT THIS IS THE SECO ND ROUND OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHERE THE MATTER WAS SET-ASIDE TO THE F ILE OF THE AO WITH CERTAIN SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS. DURING THE SET-ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, RELEVANT FACTS AND FINDINGS OF THE AO AS CONTAINED IN ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R/W 254 READ AS UNDER: WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 31-01-20 01 AN ADDITION OF RS. 4,24,27,000/- WAS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH PREMIUM RECEIVED WHICH WAS FOUND OUT OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS ISSUE WAS DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT VARIOUS LEVELS OF APPEALS AND FINALLY THE ITAT, JAIPUR HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ITATS OBSER VATION IS AS UNDER:- '41. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. F OR AY 1996- 97, SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA 382 & 420/JP/2011 DATED 19.08.2016 WHEREIN IT WAS H ELD AS UNDER: 'WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD THE LD . AR HAS CONFIRMED THAT THE MATTER BEFORE CESTAT IS STILL PE NDING FOR ITA NO. 132/JP/2020 ACIT VS. M/S LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED 3 ADJUDICATION AND HE HAS GIVEN AN ASSURANCE THAT AS SOON AS THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED BY CESTAT AND A COPY IS MADE AV AILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE SHALL FORTHWITH SHARE A COPY OF THE CESTAT ORDER WITH THE AO WITHOUT ANY UNDUE DELAY IN LIGHT OF THAT, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND S ET-ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFR ESH AS PER LAW AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DECISION OF CES TAT. FURTHER WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PAYMENTS OF EXCISE DUTY OF RS. 60 LACS, CLAIMED TO BE PAID BEFORE THE DUE D ATE OF FILLING OF RETURN OF INCOME, SUBJECT TO DUE VERIFICATION BY TH E AO.' 42. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO HAS PLACED HIS RELI ANCE ON THE FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 1996-97 AND GIVEN THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS ALREADY TAKEN VIEW IN THE MATTER REFERRED SUPRA, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON FOR US TO DEVIATE FROM THE SAID VIEW TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. NOTHIN G HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH IN RESPECT OF WH ETHER CESTAT ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED OR NOT SINCE THE DATE OF PASSING OF ORDER BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN AUGUST 2016. ONCE THE CESAT ORDER IS PRONOUNCED, THE NATURE OF IMPLICATIONS AS WELL AS THE YEARS INVOLVED WOULD BE CLEAR AND THE REVENUE AS WE LL AS THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO PUT FOREW ORD THEIR RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS. HENCE, THE FINDINGS AND DIR ECTIONS CONTAINED IN COORDINATE BENCH DECISION FOR A.Y 1996 -97 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THE IMPUNGED ASSESSMENT Y EAR AS WELL. HENCE, GROUND NO. 7 OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 132/JP/2020 ACIT VS. M/S LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED 4 A/R OF THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS REPLY ON 26.12.2017, WHICH IS RE-PRODUCED AS UNDER:- WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR NOTICE DATED 28.08.2017 ON T HE SUBJECT CITED ABOVE AND IN CONTINUATION TO OUR EARLIER SUBM ISSION, WE RESPECTFULLY WOULD LIKE TO FURTHER SUBMIT OUR REPLY FOR POINT NO.2 OF YOUR ABOVE REFERRED NOTICE AS UNDER :- 1. THAT AGAINST THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R THE AY 1998- 99, HON'BLE ITAT, JAIPUR VIDE THEIR ORDER DATE 17.1 7.2016, HAD SET ASIDE THE MATTER OF ADDITIONS OF RS.4242700/- TO YO UR GOODSELF WITH MENTION IN CONCLUDING PARA(PAGE NO. 35)AS UNDE R :- 'NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENC H IN RESPECT OF WHETHER CESTAT ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED OR NOT SINCE THE DATE OF PASSING OF ORDER BY THE CO-ORDINA TE BENCH IN AUGUST -2016. ONCES THE CESTAT ORDER IS PRONOUNCED, THE NATURE OF IMPLICATION AS WELL AS THE IMPLICATION AS WELL AS THE YEAR INVOLVED WOULD BE CLEAR AND THE REVENUE AS WEL L AS THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO PUT FORWA RD THEIR RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS. HENCE THE FINDING AND DIREC TIONS CONTAINED IN CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION FOR AY 1996-97 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUNTADIS TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AS. WELL. HENCE GROUND NO. 7 OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES.' AS PER THE ABOVE MENTION/DIRECTIONS, THE PERIOD INV OLVED IS TO BE ASCERTAINED FROM THE ORDER OF CESTAT. 2. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FIELD APPEAL BEFORE CUSTOM S, EXCISE & SERVICES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (CESTAT) AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED ITA NO. 132/JP/2020 ACIT VS. M/S LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED 5 19.02.2009 OF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUD ICATION) DELHI. THE CESTAT HEARD THE APPEAL AND PASSED THE ORDER ON DATED 17.02.2017. (A COPY OF THE ORDER IS ENCLOSED HEREWI TH FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE AND RECORD) THE ASSESSEE THEN FILED APPEAL IN HON'BLE SUPERME COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF CESTAT . THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 25.08.2017 HAS DISMI SSED THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN THE PROCESS OF FILIN G A REVISION PETITION BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. 3. THAT IN THE ORDER CESTAT (PAGE NO.2), IT IS CLEA RLY MENTIONED THAT THE DEMAND OF ADDITIONAL DUTY ON ALLEGED CASH PREMI UM WAS COVERING THE PERIOD OF APRIL, 95 TO AUGUST, 1996 AND THE TOT AL DEMAND FOR, THE PERIOD AS PER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS RS. 1,45,61,753/ -. 4 THAT AS PER THE ORDER OF CESTAT, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE PERIOD OF APRIL, 97 TO MARCH, 98(A.Y 1998-99) WAS NOT COVERED AND THERE WAS NO CASE OR DEMAND FOR THE ADDITIONAL DUTY ON ACCOUNT O F ALLEGED CASH PREMIUM FOR THIS PERIOD. 5. THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS EARLIER REPLY HAD SUBMI TTED A COPY OF LETTER DATED 15.07.2014 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL EXCIS E DEPARTMENT IN WHICH THE DEPARTMENT HAD CLEARLY REPORTED THAT THER E WAS NO CASE BOOKED FOR UNDER VALUATION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE COM PANY REGARDING FINANCIAL YEAR 1997-98. 6. THAT EARLIER THE LETTER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DEPAR TMENT AND NOW THE ORDER CESTAT HAS CLEARED THE DOUBTS FOR THE COVERAG E OF PERIOD FOR THE ALLEGED CASH PREMIUM/ UNDER VALUATION ISSUE. ITA NO. 132/JP/2020 ACIT VS. M/S LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED 6 7. AS MENTIONED IN OUR EARLIER SUBMISSION THAT ONCE THE DEPARTMENT CONVINCED THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH ALLEGED CASH PREMI UM PRACTICE AFTER 27.08.1996 AND ACCORDINGLY PASSED THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER ON 24.01.2000 FOR THE A.Y. 1997-98 IN WHICH ADDITIONS WERE MADE AGAINST SALES UPTO 27.08.1996 ONLY. HOWEVER IN THE NEXT ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 1998-99 PASSED ON 31. 01.2001, THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.424.27 LACS WITHOUT ANY BA SIS OR INFORMATION OR CASE OR ANY OTHER THING IN HAND AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE HONBLE ITAT, JAIPUR HAD MENTIONED IN THEIR ORDER THAT THE PERIOD INVOLVED WOULD BE CLEAR WHEN THE ORDER OF CE STAT IS PRONOUNCED. SINCE NOW, AS PER THE PRONOUNCED ORDER OF CESTAT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PERIOD OF 01.04.97 TO 31.03.98 WAS NOT COVERED, THEREFORE THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 4,24,27,000 /- EARLIER MADE IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WERE WITHOUT ANY BASIS BUT ONLY ON SURMISES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SUBMIT YOUR GOODSELF THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH CASE OF ALLEGED CASH PREMIUM/ UNDER VALUATION DURING THE PERIOD 01.04.1997 TO 31.08.1998 AGAINST THE ASSESSE E, THEREFORE REQUEST TO PLEASE NOT TO MAKE ADDITIONS ON THIS MAT TER. THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED SYMPA THETICALLY BUT NOT FOUND TENABLE BECAUSE DURING THE COURSE OF SET-ASID E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI'S SAID ORDER DATED 17-02-2017 PASS ED IN. EXCISE APPEAL NUMBER 1605 OF 2009. THE CESTATS ORDER HAS D ECIDED THE ISSUE REGARDING QUANTIFICATION OF DIFFERENTIAL DUTY ON EXTRA AMOUNT ITA NO. 132/JP/2020 ACIT VS. M/S LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED 7 COLLECTED IN CASH FROM BUYERS AND THE OUTCOME IS AG AINST THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CONCLUSIVE PARA OF THE CESTATS ORDER NUMBER 51801/2017 DATED 17-02-2017 ARISING OU T OF CCE(ADJ.), NEW DELHI'S ORIGINAL ORDER NUMBER CCE/AD J/PKJ/01/2009 DATE 19/02/2009 IS REPRODUCED BELOW - '7. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CA SE AND THE ADJUDICATION IN TERMS OF DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL , WE F IND NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAID FINDINGS OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHORITY. THE DIFFERENTIAL DUTY HAS BEEN CALCULATED BASED ON WEIGHTED AVERAGE AND IT IS PERT INENT TO NOTE THAT THE ORIGINAL AUTHORITY HAS COMPLIED WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANTS THAT THE PRES ENT IMPUGNED ORDER IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DENOVO DIRECTION BY THE TRIB UNAL IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. NO OTHER ISSUE WAS PRESSED DURING SUBMISSI ON MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT. AS SUCH WE FIND NO M ERIT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THE SAME.' FURTHER CESTATS ORDER WAS APPEALED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN CIVIL APPEAL NUMBER 8364/017. THI S APPEAL WAS HEARD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ON 25-8-2017 WHICH WAS DI SMISSED AS BELOW - 'WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT AN D PERUSED THE RECORD, WE DO NOT SEE ANY COGENT REASON TO ENTERTAI N THE APPEAL. THE JUDGMENT IMPUGNED DOES NOT WARRANTY ANY INTERFERENC E. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.' IN ASSESSEE OWN CASE IN A.Y 1996-97 DIFFERENTIAL DU TY OF RS. 1,45,61,753/-RAISED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ON 08.12.1998 STANDS UPHELD BY THE CESTAT, NEW DELHI A ND ON THE BASIS ITA NO. 132/JP/2020 ACIT VS. M/S LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED 8 OF ABOVE INFORMATION ADDITION WAS MADE IN AY 1996-9 7. THEREFORE IT APPEARS THAT THIS TYPE OF PRACTICE OF RECEIVING ON MONEY HAS BEEN IN GENERAL AND IT IS HELD THAT SAME TYPE OF PRACTICE O F RECEIVING UNACCOUNTED CASH OVER AND ABOVE THE INVOICE PRICE I S EXISTING IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT LD. CIT(A), ALWAR VIDE HIS ORDER NO. 201/2000/01 DATED 30.09.2014 CONFIRMED TH E ADDITION. SINCE THIS AMOUNT OF DIFFERENTIAL DUTY FORMED BASIS OF AD DITION OF RS. 4,24,27,000/- IN THE ASSESSEES INCOME-TAX ASSESSME NT COMPLETED ON 31.01.2001, THE SAME CONSEQUENTLY STANDS UPHELD. HENCE, ADDITION OF RS. 4,24,27,000/- IS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS ALSO BEING INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR FU RNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE CONCEALING IN COME. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND HIS FINDINGS ARE REPRODUC ED AS UNDER:- 6.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O AND SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT. FOLLOWING FACTS HAVE EMERGED; 1. THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURI NG AND SALE OF VARIOUS CHEMICALS LIKE CAUSTIC SODA, FLAKES, CSS, F BB ETC. 2. THAT A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED BY THE DIRECTORATE G ENERAL ANTI EVASION, CENTRAL EXCISE ON 27/08/1996 WHERE DUTY EV ASIONS HAVE BEEN FOUND AND CONSEQUENTLY ADDITIONS WERE MADE DUR ING A.Y: 1996-97 & 1997-98. 3. THAT THE A.O ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONS MADE FOR A.Y: 1996-97 & 1997-98 HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.4,24,27,000/- FO R A.Y 1998-99. ITA NO. 132/JP/2020 ACIT VS. M/S LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED 9 4. THAT THE MATTER TRAVELLED TO HON'BLE ITAT, JAIPU R BENCH. HON'BLE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED: 17/11/2016 HAS RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.0 WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION:- '41. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. FOR A Y 1996-97, SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN LTA 382 & 420/JP/2011 DATED 19.08.2016 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 'WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE ID. AR HA S CONFIRMED THAT THE MATTER BEFORE CESTAT IS STILL PENDING FOR ADJUDICAT ION AND HE HAS GIVEN AN ASSURANCE THAT AS SOON AS THE ORDER IS PRO NOUNCED BY CESTAT AND A COPY IS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSEE SHALL FORTHWITH SHARE A COPY OF THE CESTAT ORDER WI TH THE AO WITHOUT ANY UNDUE DELAY. IN LIGHT OF THAT, WE CONFIRM THE O RDER OF THE ID. CIT (A) AND SET-ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION T HE DECISION OF CESTAT. FURTHER WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT (A) TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PAYMENTS OF EXCISE DUTY OF RS. 60 LACS, CLAIMED TO BE PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILLING OF RETURN OF INCOME, SUBJECT TO DUE VERIFICATION BY TH E AO.' 42. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO HAS PLACED HIS RELI ANCE ON THE FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 1996-97 AND GIVEN TH AT THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS ALREADY TAKEN VIEW IN THE MATTER REFERRED SUPRA, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON FOR US TO DEVIATE FROM THE SAID VIEW TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE N OTICE OF THE BENCH IN RESPECT OF WHETHER CESTAT ORDER HAS BEEN P RONOUNCED OR ITA NO. 132/JP/2020 ACIT VS. M/S LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED 10 NOT SINCE THE DATE OF PASSING OF ORDER BY THE COORD INATE BENCH IN AUGUST 2016. ONCE THE CESAT ORDER IS PRONOUNCED, TH E NATURE OF IMPLICATIONS AS WELL AS THE YEARS INVOLVED WOULD BE CLEAR AND THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE IN A BETTE R POSITION TO PUT FORWARD THEIR RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS. HENCE, THE FI NDINGS AND DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN COORDINATE BENCH DECISION F OR A.Y. 1996-97 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THE IMPUNGED ASSESS MENT YEAR AS WELL. HENCE, GROUND NO. 7 OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT TH E SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT WOULD BE DECIDED ON THE OUTCOME OF THE C ESTAT ORDER WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE OF IMPLICATIONS AS WELL A S THE YEAR INVOLVED. 6. THAT HONBLE CESTAT HAS PASSED THE ORDER ON 17/0 2/2017 IN THE SAID ORDER, HON'BLE CESTAT HAS STATED IN THE OPENIN G PARA ITSELF THAT THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE DEMAND IS APRIL 1995 TO AUGUS T 1996.THAT FURTHER IMPLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT TO MY MIND IS NOT RELEV ANT TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS THE MATTER INVOLVED IS METHOD OF V ALUATION OF THE OUT OF BOOK STOCKS FOUND DURING THE PERIOD IN ORDER TO DET ERMINE THE DUTY EVADED ON SUCH STOCKS. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE CESTAT ORD ER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST BLOCK NO. 2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI - 110 066. PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW D ELHI COURT NO. III ITA NO. 132/JP/2020 ACIT VS. M/S LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED 11 DATE OF HEARING : 10/02/2017. DATE OF DECISION : 17/02/2017. EXCISE APPEAL NO. 1605 OF 2009 [ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER-IN- ORIGINAL NO. CCE/ADJ/ PKJ/01/2009 DATED 19/02/2009 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CENT RAL EXCISE (ADJ.), NEW DELHI.] M/S LORDS CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED APPELLANT VERSUS CCE, NEW DELHI RESPONDENT APPEARANCE SHRI A.K. PRASAD, ADVOCATE- FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI G.R. SINGH, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE RESPONDENT. CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE SHRI B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO. 51801/2017 DATED 17/02/2017 PER. B. RAVICHANDRAN:- THE APPEAL IS AGAINST ORDER DATED 19/02/2009 OF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION), DELH I. THE SAID ORDER WAS PASSED IN LINE WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE FINAL ORDER NO. 195/2002-A DATED 24/05/2002. THE BRIEF FA CTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLANTS ARE ENGAGED IN THE MAN UFACTURE OF LIQUID CHLORINE AND CAUSTIC SODA FLAKES LIABLE TO C ENTRAL EXCISE DUTY. THE REVENUE INVESTIGATED A CASE AGAINST THE APPELLA NT AND INITIATED PROCEEDINGS FOR DEMANDING DIFFERENTIAL DUTY ON THE EXTRA AMOUNT COLLECTED IN CASH FROM THE BUYERS OVER AND ABOVE TH E INVOICE VALUE. THE DEMAND WAS COVERING THE PERIOD APRIL 1995 TO AU GUST 1996. ITA NO. 132/JP/2020 ACIT VS. M/S LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED 12 THE CASE WAS ADJUDICATED BY THE COMMISSIONER VIDE O RDER DATED 08/1 2 / 1 998. HE CONFIRMED A TOTAL DUTY DEMAND OF RS. 1,45,6 1,753/-. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE CHARGE OF UNDER VALUATION. HOWEVER, THE MATTER WAS REMANDED FOR QUA NTIFICATION OF DIFFERENTIAL DUTY BASED ON COMPARABLE VALUE OF SIMI LAR PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED AND CLEARED BY OTHERS. THE PRESENT IMP UGNED ORDER IS CONSEQUENT OF SUCH DIRECTION FOR A DENOVO QUANTI FICATION OF DUTY. 7. THAT THE A.O HAS ISSUED LETTER TO THE CENTRAL EX CISE DEPARTMENT VIDE LETTER DATED 08/07/2014 TO ENQUIRE WHETHER THERE WA S ANY INSTANCE OF UNDER VALUATION OF STOCKS WITH REGARD TO FINANCIAL YEAR 1 997-98 RELEVANT FOR A.Y: 1998-99. THAT THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT VIDE LE TTER DATED 15/07/2014 HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH CASE OF U NDER VALUATION BOOKED AGAINST M/S MODI ALKALIES & CHEMICALS LTD (NOW LORD S CHLORO LTD) REGARDING F.Y: 1997-98. THE COPY OF THE LETTER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, RANGE-1, ALWAR C. NO. GL-13/32/LCAL/MISC/447 15 TH JULY, 2014 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALWAR. SIR, SUB : PROVIDING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE M/S LOR DS CHLORO ALKALI & CHEMICALS LTD. FOR F.Y. 1997-98-REG. PLEASE REFER YOUR LETTER C. NO. ACIT/C-1/ALW/2014-1 5/302 DATED 08.07.2014 ON THE SUBJECT CITED ABOVE. IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER REC ORD AVAILABLE THERE WAS NO SUCH CASE OF UNDER VALUATION BOOKED AGAINST M/S MOD I ALKALIES & CHEMICALS LIMITED, SP-460, MATASYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, ALWAR (RA JASTHAN) (NOW M/S LORDS ITA NO. 132/JP/2020 ACIT VS. M/S LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED 13 CHLORO ALKALI & CHEMICALS LTD.) REGARDING FINANCIAL YEAR 1997-98 AND THEREAFTER, SO FAR. THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION AND NECESSARY ACTION PLEA SE. YOURS FAITHFULLY (SUPERINTENDENT) CENTRAL EXCISE, RANGE-1, ALWAR (RAJASTHAN) THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN CONSEQUENT T O THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS THE A.O HAS AGAIN ADDED THE AMOUNT OF R S.4,24,27,000/- GIVING FOLLOWING REASONS; IN ASSESSEE OWN CASE IN A.Y 1996-97 DIFFERENTIAL DU TY OF RS. 1,45,61,753/- RAISED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ON 08.12.1998 STANDS UPHELD BY THE CESTAT, NEW DELHI A ND ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE INFORMATION ADDITION WAS MADE IN A.Y 1996-97. THEREFORE IT APPEARS THAT THIS TYPE OF PRACTICE OF RECEIVING ON MONEY HAS BEEN IN GENERAL AND IT IS HELD THAT SAME TYPE OF PRACTICE OF RECEIVING UNACCOUNTED CASH OVER AND ABOVE THE IN VOICE PRICE IS EXISTING IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS ALS O NOTED THAT LD. CIT (A) ALWAR VIDE HIS ORDER NO. 20 1 / 2 000-01 DATED 30.09.2014 CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. SINCE THIS AMOUNT OF DIFFER ENTIAL DUTY FORMED BASIS OF ADDITION OF RS. 4,24,27000/- IN THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME-TAX ASSESSMENT COMPLETED ON 31-01-2001, THE SAME CONSEQUENTLY STANDS UPHELD. HENCE ADDITION OF RS. 4,24,27,000/- IS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 132/JP/2020 ACIT VS. M/S LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED 14 6.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS OF THE CASE. HONBLE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH HAS CLEARLY DIRECTED THAT THE SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT WOULD BE BASED ON THE OUTCOME OF THE CESTAT ORDER W ITH REGARD TO INVOLVEMENT OF THE YEAR AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE CESTAT ORDER. IT IS TO BE CONSIDERED THAT THE BASIS OF ADDITION WAS MAD E OUT OF CONSEQUENCES OF A SEARCH CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES BY THE DIRECTORATE OF ANTI EVASION, CENTRAL EXCISE ON 27/0 8/1996 WHERE AS THE CURRENT CASE PERTAINS TO F.Y:1997-98. IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT THE HON'BLE ITAT HAD DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE PERIOD IN VOLVED AS PER THE OUTCOME OF THE CESTAT ORDER. IN THE CESTAT ORDER IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE OPENING PARA ITSELF THAT THE PERIO D INVOLVED WAS APRIL 1995 TO AUGUST 1996. I HAVE ALSO TAKEN INTO C ONSIDERATION DURING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O HAS SOUGHT INFORMATION ABOUT ANY IMPLICATION OF UNDERVALUATION FOR THE F.Y : 1997-98 RELEVANT TO A.Y: 1998-99. CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT HAS CATE GORICALLY STATED IN ITS LETTER DATED15/07/2014 THAT NO CASE OF UNDERVAL UATION BOOKED AGAINST THE APPELLANT W.R.T F.Y: 1997-98. I HAVE ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT A.O IN THE SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT HAS AGAIN ADDED THE SAME AMOUNT ON MERE PRESUMPTIONS THAT THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF PAST PRACTICE MA Y HAVE EARNED ON MONEY. HOWEVER, THE ADDITIONS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED M ERELY ON PRESUMPTIONS, CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. THE A.O HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY INSTANCES OR EVIDENCES OF EARNING OF THE ON MONEY ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OR OTHERWISE RELEVANT FO R THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF THE DIRECTION OF THE ITAT AND ALSO THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE CESTAT ORDER WAS APRIL 1995 TO AUGUS T 1996 AND EVEN THE DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE HAS NOT FOUND ANY ITA NO. 132/JP/2020 ACIT VS. M/S LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED 15 UNDERVALUATION FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS.4,24,27,000/-IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS HE NCE DELETED. APPELLANT'S GROUND OF APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IS ALLOW ED. 4. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PURUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS DULY CONSID ERED THE DIRECTIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE FIRST ROUND, THE FIN DINGS OF THE CESTAT AS LIMITED TO A SPECIFIED PERIOD AND NOT PERTAINING TO PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION, CONFIRMATION FROM CENTRAL EXCISE DEP ARTMENT THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE FOR UNDERVALUATION FOR P ERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE FACT THAT THE AO HAS MERELY R ELIED ON PAST YEARS FINDINGS AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE AND ONLY ON PRESUMPTIONS, CONJECTURES AND SURMISES HAS MADE THE ADDITIONS. THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE SAID FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) BEFORE US. WE THEREFORE AFFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) WHEREIN HE HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS 4,27,27,0 00/- AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL SO TAKEN IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 5. NOW, COMING TO THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL RELA TING TO DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS 25 LACS, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS AGAIN SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO IN THE FIRST ROUND WITH CERTAIN SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS AND THE RELEVANT FACTS AND FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THE SET-ASIDE PROCEEDINGS ARE AS UNDER: WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 31-01-20 01 AN ADDITION OF RS. 25,00,000/- WAS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST OF MARGIN MONEY. THIS ISSUE WAS DISPUTED BY THE ASS ESSEE AT VARIOUS LEVELS OF APPEALS AND FINALLY THE ITAT, JAIPUR HAS RESTORE D THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ITAT'S OBSERVATION IS AS UND ER:- ITA NO. 132/JP/2020 ACIT VS. M/S LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED 16 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT THE INTEREST PAID ON ICD IS ONLY RS. 13, 72,144/- AND THERE IS NO FRESH ICD AND IT IS COMING FROM LAST YE AR WHERE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN AY 1996-97 WAS DELETED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT IN ITA NO. 387/JP/1 DATED 19-08-2016. THE MATTER IS SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ABOVE SAID CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHERE THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE NECESSARY RELIEF TO THE ASSES SEE FOLLOWING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH FOR A.Y. 1996- 97. THE GROUND NO. 10 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING A/R OF THE ASSESSE E FILED HIS REPLY WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- THE AO MADE AN AD-HOC ADDITIONS OF RS.25,00,000/- D UE TO THE DIFFERENCE IN INTEREST RATES AS REPORTED IN THE INS PECTION REPORT OF DEPARTMENT OF COMPANY AFFAIRS. SIMILAR ADDITIONS WE RE ALSO MADE IN EARLIER YEAR IN THE A.Y. 1996-97 WHICH HAS BEEN DEL ETED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THEIR ORDER DATED 19.08.2016. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS PASSED TH E ORDER AS FOLLOWS:-' WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A/R THAT THE INTEREST PAID ON ICD IS ONLY R S. 13,72,144/- AND THERE IS NO FRESH ICD AND IT IS COMING FROM LAS T YEAR WHERE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 WA S DELETED ITA NO. 132/JP/2020 ACIT VS. M/S LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED 17 BY THE HON'BLE ITAT IN ITA NO.387/.IP/1 DATED 19.08 .2016. THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMIN E THE ABOVE SAID CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHERE THE SAME IS FO UND TO BE CORRECT, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE NECESSARY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH FOR A.Y. 1996-97. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE; WE ARE ENCLOSING HEREWITH THE DETAILS OF INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE YEAR. FURTH ER, WE ARE ENCLOSING HEREWITH SCHEDULE `D' OF FINAL ACCOUNTS W HICH SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO INCREASE IN UNSECURED LOANS AND INTER-C ORPORATE DEPOSITS. SINCE, THERE IS NO ADDITION IN ICD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT IS REQUESTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION AS PER OBSERVAT ION OF HONBLE ITAT. THE REPLY OF THE A/R OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS CON SIDERED SYMPATHETICALLY BUT NOT FOUND TENABLE BECAUSE THE D EPARTMENT OF COMPANIES AFFAIRS MADE AN INSPECTION U/S 209A. IN T HE REPORT IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE COMPANY HAS EITHER CHARGED LOWER RATE OF INTEREST OR GAVE INTEREST FREE LOANS. ASSESSEE HAS CHARGED INTE REST AS MARGIN MONEY AT RATE OF 9.30% WHEREAS HE PAY INTEREST ON T ERM LOAN, FDR, BANKS FROM 14.36% TO 21.62%. THIS PRACTICE IS APPLY TO REDUCE HIS PROFIT. IT IS ALSO MENTIONED HERE THAT ORDER OF HON 'BLE ITAT IN ITA NO. 387/JP/1 DATED 19-08-2016 PERTAIN TO A.Y 1996-97 HA S BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT A ND NOW THE MATTER IS PENDING TO FILE SLP. LOAN RAISED AT HIGH RATES O F INTEREST AND ADVANCED THEM ON A LOWER RATE WAS TO SUPPORT, THE S ISTER CONCERNS AND OTHER GROUP COMPANIES SATISFIED THE TEST OF COMMERC IAL EXPEDIENCY ITA NO. 132/JP/2020 ACIT VS. M/S LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED 18 BECAUSE IN THE GUISE OF SUCH SUPPORT THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY HAD MINIMIZED ITS PROFIT. IT NEED NOT TO SUPPORT ITS SI STER CONCERNS OR OTHER GROUPS COMPANIES AT THE COST OF ITS LOSS. IT SHOULD CHARGE AT LEAST INTEREST AT THE RATE WHICH IT HAD TO PAY TO THE BOR ROWERS. MOREOVER, IF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS AS SHARE CAPITAL, THEN WHERE WAS THE NEED TO BORROW FUNDS ON SUCH HIGH RATE OF I NTEREST? FROM THIS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IN THIS WAY, US ED THE FUNDS FOR ITS OWN PURPOSES AND REDUCED THE PROFIT IN THE NAME OF SUPPORT TO GROUP COMPANIES. IT IS ALSO MENTIONED HERE THAT LD. CIT (A) ALWAR VI DE HIS OFFICE ORDER NO. 201/2000-01 DATED 30.09.2014 CONFIRMED THE ABOVE AD DITION. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING A/R OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY SUBMIT CHART OF INTEREST. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE FAIL TO SUBMIT THE DE TAILS OF INTEREST PAID AND INTEREST RECEIVED WITH CORROSIVE EVIDENCE, THE COMPANY ALSO FAIL TO SUBMIT THE REASON AS WHY HE TAKEN MONEY AT HIGHER R ATE AND GIVE TO SOMEONE LOWER RATES, IF THE COMPANIES HAS SUFFICIEN T FUNDS. HENCE ADDITION OF RS. 25,00,000/- IS MADE TO THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 IS ALSO BEING INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR FURNISHING I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONCEALING INCOME. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND HIS FINDINGS ARE REPRODUCED AS U NDER:- 7.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. AND SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT. IN THIS REGARD, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE ITAT HAS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE THAT HON'BLE ITAT ON THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE HAS DELETED THE ADD ITION ON THE ITA NO. 132/JP/2020 ACIT VS. M/S LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED 19 SIMILAR GROUND WHILE DISPOSING APPEAL FOR A.Y: 1996 -97. THE A.O HAS AGAIN MADE THE ADDITION ON THE REASON THAT THE ITAT ORDER FOR A.Y: 1996-97 WHERE THE RELIEF WAS GRANTED ON SIMILAR ISS UE HAS BEEN CHALLENGED IN THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND FINAL OR DER HAS YET TO COME. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND AS PER THE DI RECTION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT THAT IF THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION IS F OUND TO BE CORRECT VIS-A-VS RELIEF ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE IN A.Y: 1996-9 7 THEN THE BENEFIT IS TO BE GRANTED TO ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 25 LAKHS IS DELET ED WITH THE DIRECTION THAT IF A CONTRARY JUDGMENT COMES FROM HON'BLE RAJA STHAN HIGH COURT FOR THE AY: 1996-97 IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN THEN IT WILL APPLY FOR THE AY 1998-99 ALSO. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE FIRST ROUND, THE TRIB UNAL HAS SET-ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO FRESH ICD PLACED DURING T HE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION AND WHERE THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT, ALLOW THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE TRIB UNALS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 WHEREIN SIMILAR ADDITION WA S DELETED. DURING THE SET-ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILS WHICH SHOW THAT THERE IS NO I NCREASE IN UNSECURED LOANS AND INTER-CORPORATE DEPOSITS DURING THE PERIO D UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE EARLIER DE CISION, THE MATTER IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, WE FIN D THAT THE TRIBUNAL DECISION FOR A.Y 1996-97 HAS SINCE BEEN CONFIRMED B Y THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN IN D.B APPEAL NO. 38/2017 DATED 20.11.201 7, A COPY OF WHICH ITA NO. 132/JP/2020 ACIT VS. M/S LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED 20 WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD CIT DR BEFORE THE BENCH. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/01/2021. SD/- SD/- LANHI XKSLKBZ FOE FLAG ;KNO ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 18/01/2021. *SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- ACIT, CIRLCE-1, ALWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- M/S LORD CHLORO ALKALI LIMITED, NEW DELHI. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE { ITA NO. 132/JP/2020} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR