DCIT, Nashik V. B.M. Chaphalkar & Sons, Nashik

ITA 1490/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6767 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 19 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: 23-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 133A; 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE: SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1490 /PN/20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 1, NASHIK VS. B.M. CHAPHALKAR AND SONS, 26, DEHBANOO COMPLEX, PUNE ROAD, NASHIK ROAD, NASHIK (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AADFB5084C APPELLANT BY: SHRI S.P. WALIMBE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE DATE OF HEARING : 10 - 0 7 - 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 - 07 - 2014 ORDER P ER R.S. PADVEKAR , JM : - IN THIS APPEAL , THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED T HE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - I, NASHIK DATED 30 - 04 - 2012 FOR THE A.Y. 200 9 - 10. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND S IN THE APPEAL: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) - I, NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.99,82,000/ - AND RS.3,45,511/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUBLET WORK CHARGES AND CARTING CHARGES RESPECTIVELY ? 2. WHETHE R ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) - I, NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SUB - LET WORK CHARGES AND CARTING CHARGES AS GENUINE ? 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) - I, NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.30 LACS, OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.44.50 LACS MADE BY AO, BY HOLDING 2 ITA NO. 1490/PN/2012, B.M. CHAPHALKAR AND SONS, NASHIK THAT THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE DISCLOSURE OF RS.30 LACS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ACTION . 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) - I, NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.37,637/ - WHICH WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF NON PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION OF PF WITHIN DUE DATE AS PRESCRIBED IN THE INCOM E TAX ACT. 2. SO FAR AS THE GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE CONCERNED , T HE FACTS WHICH ARE REVEALED FROM THE RECORD AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 DECLA RING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,70,20,730/ - ON 24 - 09 - 2009. THERE WAS A SURVEY ACTION U/S. 133 A OF THE ACT CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 06 - 08 - 2009. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION, STATEMENTS OF THE PARTNERS AND ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASS ESSEE FIRM WERE RECORDED U/S. 133A OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS WERE ALSO IMPOUNDED U/S. 133A(3)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM SHRI SANDEEP SHANKAR CHAPHALKAR HAS DISCLOSED AD DITIONAL INCOME RS.30 LACS FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCIES FOUND IN BILLS AND PAYMENTS MADE TO SUB - CONTRACTORS. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED RS.6,44,81,640/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SUBLET WORK AND RS.63,71,873/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CARTING CHARGES IN THE P & L ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD OTHER EXPENSES . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED FOR CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF SUBLET WORK AND CARTING CHARGES PAID TO THE SUB - CONTRACTORS/CARTING AGENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUED THE NOTICES U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO SOME OF SUB - CONTRACTORS/CARTING AGENTS/SUPPLIERS/TRADE CREDITORS ETC. TO CONFIRM BALANCE/TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE. THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM NOTICES U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED ARE GIVEN ON PAGE NOS. 6 TO 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3 ITA NO. 1490/PN/2012, B.M. CHAPHALKAR AND SONS, NASHIK AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , MOST OF THE PARTIES CONFIRM BALANCE/TRANSACTION BUT IN FEW CASES LETTERS WERE NOT SERVED AS WELL AS THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE PARTIES. THE DETAILS OF SAID PARTIES ARE GIVEN ON PAGE NO. 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON WHOM THE NOTICES WERE NOT SERVED AND IN SOME CASES COMPLIANCE WAS NOT MADE. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED SOME OF THE CONFIRMATIONS. HOWEVER HE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN /COMPLY IN THE CASES WHEREIN NOTICES WERE RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITES AS NOT SERVED. AS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE HAS INFLATED THE EXPENDITURE UNDER THE GUISE OF PAYMENT TO SUB - CONTRACTOR S AND CARTING AGENTS. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, THEREFORE, MADE THE ADDITION TOWARDS THE ALLEGED INFLATED EXPENDITURE OF RS.99,82,060/ - TOWARDS THE PAYMENT MADE TO SUB - CONTRACTOR S AND CARTING AGENT S AND RS.3,45,511/ - ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESSIVE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE (PAYMENT TO CREDITORS) THEREBY MAKIN G THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.1,03,27,571/ - . T HE SAID ADDITION IS IN RESPECT OF THE PARTIES ON WHOM THE LETTERS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 133(6) WERE NOT SERVED AND ALSO THE PARTIES WHO DID NOT RESPOND. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE S AID ADDITION B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2008 - 09. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE A.Y. 2008 - 09 WAS CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL AND THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE LD. COUNSEL FILED THE COPY OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2008 - 09 IN ITA NO. 687/PN/2012 DATED 31 - 07 - 2013 WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ON THE IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 687/PN/2012 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2008 - 09 AND HAS HELD AS UNDER: 4 ITA NO. 1490/PN/2012, B.M. CHAPHALKAR AND SONS, NASHIK 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MA DE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT (A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE NAMES OF THE SUB - CONTRACTORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) TO VARIOUS PARTIES BY REGISTERED POST WHICH WERE RETUR NED BACK UNDELIVERED WITH THE POSTAL REMARK INCOMPLETE ADDRESS . IN CERTAIN OTHER CASES THE PERSONS WHO RECEIVED SUCH NOTICES DID NOT CONFIRM THE PAYMENT OF SUBLET WORK CHARGES. WHEN THE ASSESSEE FILED THE COPIES OF SOME OF THE CONFIRMATIONS THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE MODE OF RECEIPTS OF SUCH CONFIRMATION AND THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MODE OF RECEIPT. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRODUCED THE ENVELOPE NOR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE MODE OF RECEIPT OF CONFIRMATION. ALTH OUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AS PER ORDER SHEET ENTRY, THE ASSESSEE NEVER PRODUCED THE REQUISITE INFORMATION BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT NOR ASKED THE AO TO ISSUE SUMMONS TO THE PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION OF TH E GENUINENESS OF SUCH PAYMENTS. MERELY BECAUSE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AND PAN NUMBERS ARE GIVEN TO THE DEPARTMENT THE SAME IN OUR OPINION CANNOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE FROM SUBSTANTIATING THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE. 9.1 IT IS THE SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT FOR CLAIMING ANY EXPENDITURE AS GENUINE THE ONUS IS ALWAYS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE IS WHOLLY AND EXC LUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DO SO. FURTHER, AS OBSERVED EARLIER, THE ASSESSEE AT NO POINT OF TIME HAS REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE SUMMONS U/S.131 TO THE SUB - CONTRACTORS. UNDE R THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT (A) WHOSE POWERS ARE COTERMINOUS WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUS TICE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE TO HIS SATISFACTION 5 ITA NO. 1490/PN/2012, B.M. CHAPHALKAR AND SONS, NASHIK REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF THE SUB - CONTRACT EXPENDITURE AND CARTING CHARGES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS AND DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2008 - 09. ACCORDINGLY, GROU ND NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE ALLOWED FOR THE STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. GROUND NO. 3 IN RESPECT OF PARTLY DELETING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.30 LACS, OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.44.50 LACS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE FACTS WHICH ARE REVEALED FROM THE RECORD AS UNDER. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION U/S. 133A VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND ACCOUNTS WERE IMPOUNDED. IN PARA NO. 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND AFTER VERIFICATION OF THOSE DOCUMENT S . THE STATEMENTS OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM NAMELY SHRI SANDEEP CHAPHALKAR AND SHRI SHA N KAR B . CHAPALKAR AS WELL AS ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM SHRI ASHOK D. TAMBE WERE RECORDED ON OATH. IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS FOUND IN THE SEIZED D OCUMENTS AND DIARIES THE CLARIFICATION AND EXPLANATION WAS SOUGHT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPRODUCED Q. NO S . 8, 11, 12, & 14 OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SANDEEP CHAPHALKAR AND SAME IS ALSO REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER , THE ASSESSEE HAS INFLATED THE EXPENDITURE UNDER THE GUISE OF PAYMENT TO SUB - CONTRACTOR AND REDUCED THE PROFIT OF FIRM. ON THE SAID CHARGE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.44.50 LACS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REASONS GIVE N BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE SAID ADDITION ARE AS UNDER: 6 ITA NO. 1490/PN/2012, B.M. CHAPHALKAR AND SONS, NASHIK 7.1. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE REPLIES GIVEN BY THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM TO THE VARIOUS QUESTIONS DEPOSED TO HIM THAT HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY CONCRETE REPLIES. HE SIMPLY SHIFTED THE BURD EN ON THE ACCOUNTANT MR. TAMBE. HOWEVER IN REPLY TO Q. NO. 17 HE HAS DISCLOSED AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.30,00,000/ - IN REPLY TO Q. 8 ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCIES IN BILLS REGARDING PAYMENT TO SUBCONTRACTORS FOR SUBLET WORKS TO COVER UP THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE SAID EXPENDITURE. THUS IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE DISCREPANCIES ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD OF SUBCONTRACTORS. 7.2. THE STATEMENT ON OATH OF SHRI ASHOK TAMBE, ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS RECORDED DUR ING THE SURVEY ACTION. THE ACCOUNTANT WAS CONFRONTED WITH DOCUMENT AT BUNDLE NO. 10 PAGE NO. 134 IN Q. NO. 10 & 11 WHEREIN TRANSACTION OF RS.11,50,000/ - WITHDRAWAL OF CASH HAS BEEN INVOLVED. THE SIMILAR QUESTION WAS ASKED TO SHRI CHAPHALKAR IN Q. NO. 14 M ENTIONED ABOVE. THE ACCOUNTANT HAS GIVEN EVASIVE REPLY TO THE ABOVE QUESTION. IN Q. NO. 20, MR. ASHOK TAMBE, ACCOUNTANT WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE PAGE NO. 180 OF THE 'CLASSMATE' POCKET DIARY WHEREIN TRANSACTION OF RS.5 LACS IS MENTIONED FOR HANDING OVER THE CASH TO SETH. HE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN 'SHETH' MEANS WHO? IN REPLY TO THAT HE HAS STATED THAT SHETH MEANS MADAN SAHANI. IN Q. NO. 21, MR. ASHOK TAMBE, ACCOUNTANT WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE PAGE NO. 181 BACK SIDE WHEREIN TRANSACTION REGARDING SELF WITHDRAWAL O F RS.150,000/ - HAS BEEN WRITTEN. THE ACCOUNTANT WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTION. IN THE REPLY HE HAS STATED THAT SOME OF THE AMOUNT WERE PAID TO THE PARTNERS AND SOME AMOUNT WAS EXPENDED ON ACCOUNT OF MSEB BILLS, MISC EXPENSES ETC. HOWEVER THE RECORDI NG OF SAID TRANSACTIONS IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ACCOUNTANT. IN Q. NO. 22 AND 23, MR. ASHOK TAMBE, ACCOUNTANT WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE PAGE NO. 181 WHEREIN TRANSACTION OF RS.15, 00,000/ - WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN FROM FIRMS ACCOUN T HAS BEEN NOTED. THE DETAILS ARE MENTIONED IN QUESTION NO. 12 OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SANDEEP CHAPHALKAR. IN REPLY TO THE ABOVE SHRI ASHOK TAMBE HAS STATED THAT HE HAS WITHDRAWN THE AMOUNT FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF VARIOUS SUBCONTRACTORS AND GIVEN THE AM OUNT TO RESPECTIVE SUBCONTRACTORS AND BALANCE AMOUNT PAID FOR SITE EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. IN REPLY TO Q. NO. 25 WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE WITHDRAWAL OF CASH OF RS.1 LAC AND ITS DISBURSEMENT , SHRI A SHOK TAMBE HAS 7 ITA NO. 1490/PN/2012, B.M. CHAPHALKAR AND SONS, NASHIK STATED THAT RS.50,000/ - WAS PAID TO 'SHETH'. 'SHETH' MEANS SHANKAR BHIMA CHAPHALKAR. IN REPLY TO Q. NO. 26 TO 31 SHRI ASHOK TAMBE HAS CONFIRMED THAT 'SHETH' MEANS SHRI SHANKAR BHIMA CHAPHALKAR. 7.3. .. 7.4. THE ASSESSEES ABOVE S UBMISSION IS VAGUE IN MANNER TO THE COMPLIANCE CALLED FOR. IT IS FOUND FROM VARIOUS QUESTIONS AS MENTIONED ABOVE ASKED TO SHRI ASHOK TAMBE, ACCOUNTANT THAT HE HAS WITHDRAWN THE AMOUNT FROM THE BANK IN CASH AND HANDED OVER TO (SHETH), SHRI SHANKAR BHIMA CH APHALKAR, PARTNER OF THE FIRM. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF SUBCONTRACTOR, THE PAYMENT OF WHICH WAS MADE IN CHEQUE AND SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN BY THE ACCOUNTANT IN CASH AND HANDED OVER THE CASH TO THE PA RTNER OF ASSESSEE FIRM. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS INFLATED THE EXPENDITURE UNDER THE GUISE OF PAYMENT TO SUBCONTRACTORS AND REDUCED THE PROFIT OF THE FIRM. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AS MENTIONED IN REPLY TO Q. NO .11 ( RS.13 LACS), Q. NO. 12 (15 LACS) & Q. NO. 14 (11 ,50,000) OF SHRI SANDEEP CHAPHALKAR MENTIONED ABOVE AND Q. NO. 20 (5 LACS) OF SHRI ASHOK TAMBE, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.44,50,000/ - IS DISALLOWED OUT OF EXPENDITURE DEBITED UNDER THE GUISE OF PAYMENT TO SUBCONTRACTOR AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE. PE NALTY PROCEEDING U/S 271( 1 )(C) IS BEING INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 8. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) ON PRINCIPLES CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BUT GAVE THE RELIEF TO T HE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.30 LACS AF TER CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.30 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF NON - GENUINE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED TOWARDS PAYMENT TO SUB - CONTRACTOR S . NOW THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE GRIEVANCE FO R GIVING THE PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ON PRINCIPLES 8 ITA NO. 1490/PN/2012, B.M. CHAPHALKAR AND SONS, NASHIK CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDER ATION T HE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.30 LACS AND IN HIS OPINION THE SAID ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS OFFERED TO COVER UP THE NON - GENUINE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWING THE PAYMENTS TO THE SUB - CONTRACT ORS . THE SAID FINDING OF T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BEFORE US. IN OUR OPINION THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.30 LACS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(A). ACCORDINGLY, SAME IS CONFIRMED. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND NO. 3 IS DISMISSED. 10. GROUND NO. 4 IS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE FOR NON - PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEE S CONTRIBUTION OF PF WITHIN DUE DATE STIPULATED U/S. 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT( A) HAS GIVEN THE CHART ON PAGE NO. 3 WHERE FROM IT IS SEEN THAT EXCEPT THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2009 ALL THE PAYMENTS ARE DEPOSITED BEFORE 31 - 03 - 2009 AND THE DEDUCTION MADE FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2009 WAS DEPOSITED ON 05 - 06 - 2009. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIE S. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS 319 ITR 306 (SC) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AIMIL LT D. 321 ITR 508 (DEL) AND THIS LEGAL POSITION WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE LD. DR. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE GROUND NO. 4. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 - 07 - 201 4 SD/ - SD/ - ( R.K. PANDA ) ( R .S. PADVEKAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RK /PS PUNE , DATED : 25 TH JULY, 2014 9 ITA NO. 1490/PN/2012, B.M. CHAPHALKAR AND SONS, NASHIK COPY TO 1 ASSESSEE 2 DEPARTMENT 3 THE CIT(A) - I , NASHIK 4 THE CIT - I, NASHIK 5 THE DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE . 6 GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE