ACIT, Pune V. Diplomat electricals Pvt Ltd, Pune

ITA 1518/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 151824514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S NAIK
• Section: 143(3); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1518/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 8, PUNE. . APPELLANT VS. DIPLOMAT ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD., CONQUIESTA, S.NO.105/1/1, BANER, MUMBAI-BANGALORE EXPRESS, PUNE 411 045. PAN : AACCD1678G . RESPONDENT ITA NO.1566/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) DIPLOMAT ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD., CONQUIESTA, S.NO.105/1/1, BANER, MUMBAI-BANGALORE EXPRESS, PUNE 411 045. PAN : AACCD1678G . APPELLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 8, PUNE. . RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY : MR. P. S. NAIK ASSESSEE BY : MR. NIKHIL PATHAK DATE OF HEARING : 13-08-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-08-2014 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM THE CAPTIONED ARE CROSS-APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE AS SESSEE AND THE REVENUE AND SINCE THEY RELATE TO THE SAME ASSESSEE AND INVOLVE A COMMON ISSUE, THEY HAVE BEEN CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AN D A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVIT Y. ITA NO.1518/PN/2012 ITA NO.1566/PN/2012 2. BOTH THE CAPTIONED CROSS-APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, PUNE DATED 20.04.2012 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 28.12.2010 PAS SED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 145 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 3. IN BRIEF, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE I S A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND IS, INTER-ALIA, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING. ASSESSEE U NDERTAKES CONTRACT FOR INTERNAL AND EXTERIOR ELECTRIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,72,15,440/- WHICH WAS SUBJECTE D TO A SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. IN THE ASSESSMENT FINALIZED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 28.12.2010 THE TOTAL INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT RS .2,08,26,237/- WHICH, INTER-ALIA, INCLUDED AN ADDITION OF RS.37,15,687/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW NET PROFIT (N.P.) IN COMPARISON TO THE AVERAGE N.P. RATE OF TH REE YEARS, INCLUDING THE PAST TWO YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO INVOKED SECT ION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASS ESSEE. THE PRIMARY REASON PREVAILING WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REJ ECT THE ACCOUNT BOOKS WAS NON-MAINTENANCE OF DAY TO DAY QUANTITATIVE STOCK RE CORDS. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED A GROSS PROFIT (G.P.) RATE OF 21.78% AND A NET PROFIT (N.P.) RATE OF 16.3 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AVERAGE N.P. RATE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 WAS COMPUTED AT 1 9.34% AND AFTER ALLOWING A DISCOUNT .05% FOR INCREASED SALES IN THE CURRENT YEAR ASSESSING OFFICER COMPARED IT TO THE CURRENT YEARS N.P. RATE AND DETERMINED A DIFFERENCE OF 2.58%. ACCORDINGLY, AN ADDITION OF RS.37,15,687 /- WAS DETERMINED, AND ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME. 4. THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN REJECTING THE ACCOUNT BOOKS U/S 145 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, HE SCAL ED DOWN THE ESTIMATION OF ITA NO.1518/PN/2012 ITA NO.1566/PN/2012 DIFFERENCE IN N.P. RATE TO 1.50% INSTEAD OF 2.58% C ONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.37,15,687/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED IT TO RS.2 1,60,283/-, THUS ALLOWING A RELIEF OF RS.15,55,404/-. NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) RETAINING PART ADDITION, WHEREA S REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN ALLOWING PART RELIEF. 5. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE ACCOUNT BOOKS MERELY BECAUSE OF THE NON- MAINTENANCE OF QUANTITATIVE STOCK REGISTER. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ENTIRE SALES/PURCHASES ARE VOUCHED AND THAT ALL THE SALE P ROCEEDS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. IT HAS ALSO BEE N POINTED OUT THAT THE PURCHASES AND SALES ARE SUBJECT TO VAT ASSESSMENT A ND THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WERE DULY AUDITED. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE MARGINAL DECLINE IN THE PROFIT RATE FOR THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION WAS EXPLAINED BY A DETAILED REASONING GIVEN BY THE ASSE SSEE DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN THIS CONTEXT, OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE TO THE LOWER AUT HORITIES, COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGES 76 TO 80 IN THE PAPER BOOK AND ALSO THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS THEREOF, COPIES OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 81 TO 163. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID, LE ARNED COUNSEL HAS ASSERTED THAT THE DECLINE IN THE N.P. RATE IN COMPARISON TO THE EARLIER YEARS WAS FOR JUSTIFIABLE REASONS. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDGEMENTS IN THE CASES OF (I) K ACHWALA GEMS VS. JCIT, (2007) 288 ITR 10 (SC); (II) HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS VS. CIT, (1994) 207 ITR 901; (III) BASTIRAM NARAYANDAS VS. CIT, (1994) 210 ITR 438; AND, (IV) ASHOK REFACTORIES PVT. LTD. VS. CIT, (2005) 279 ITR 457 ( CAL.) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS O F THE PRESENT CASE AND THEREFORE, THE ACCOUNT BOOKS HAVE BEEN UNJUSTLY REJ ECTED. IN-FACT, LEARNED ITA NO.1518/PN/2012 ITA NO.1566/PN/2012 COUNSEL HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE : (I) CIT VS. SUPERIOR CRAFTS (2013) 353 I TR 101 (DEL); AND, (II) MALANI RAMJIVAN JAGANNATH VS. ACIT, 316 ITR 120. A CCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION, INSTEAD OF RETAINING A PART OF IT. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE HAS JUSTIFIED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY POI NTING OUT THAT NOT ONLY THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE JUSTLY REJECTED BUT THE ESTIM ATION OF INCOME MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO FAIR AND PROPER. TH E LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) GRANTING PARTIAL RELIEF. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT EMPOWERS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE AN A SSESSMENT TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGEMENT IN TERMS OF SECTION 144 OF THE ACT AN D DISREGARD THE BOOK RESULTS, IF HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNES S AND COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE OR IF HE FINDS THAT THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OR THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS IN SUB-SECTIONS PRESCRIBED (1) AND (2) OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY HAVE NOT BEEN REGULARLY FOLLOW ED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SO FAR AS THE PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED, THE CHARGE MA DE OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ON ACCOUNT OF CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENES S OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE HE HAS REJ ECTED THE ACCOUNT BOOKS. IT IS A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT IN ORDER TO JU STIFY REJECTION OF ACCOUNT BOOKS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE TH AT PROPER INCOME CANNOT BE DEDUCED ON THE BASIS OF THE ACCOUNT BOOKS MAINTAINE D. THE EFFICACY OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINE D, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE B EEN REJECTED MERELY BECAUSE OF ABSENCE OF MAINTENANCE OF DAY TO DAY STO CK REGISTER. IN THIS ITA NO.1518/PN/2012 ITA NO.1566/PN/2012 CONTEXT, THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KACHWALA GEMS (SUPRA) HAS BEEN RELIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE SAID JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT CANNOT BE STRAIGHTWAY APPLIED BECAUSE IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, APART FROM NON-AVAILABILITY OF STOCK RECORDS THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN A FINDING THAT PURCHASES WERE NON-PROVED. IT WAS A C UMULATIVE EFFECT OF ALL THE FACTORS, WHICH PREVAILED WITH THE COURT TO UPHOLD R EJECTION OF ACCOUNT BOOKS AND NOT MERELY NON-MAINTENANCE OF STOCK RECORDS. I N THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS REPEATEDLY ASSERTED THAT ALL ITS RAW MATERIAL PURCHASES AS WELL AS SALES ARE LIABLE FOR VAT ASSESSMENTS; AN D, THAT ALL THE PURCHASES MADE ARE DULY SUPPORTED BY VOUCHERS. IN-FACT, IN T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE MADE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, WHI CH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 4.2 OF HIS ORDER WHICH REVEALS THAT ASSESSEE CLARIFIED THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DE SIRED ASSESSEE WAS IN A POSITION TO FURNISH ALL THE PURCHASE BILLS OF THE I TEMS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS MAINTAINING COMPLETE RECORD A ND DETAILS OF THE SALES AND PURCHASES MADE AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE CLOSING STOCK POSITION COULD NOT BE VERIFIED. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS PUT-FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN MERELY BRUSHED ASIDE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN-FACT, ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT N ON-MAINTENANCE OF STOCK REGISTER ON DAY TO DAY BASIS WAS FOR THE REASON THA T IT WAS EXECUTING THE CONTRACTS FOR VARIOUS COMPANIES AT THE RESPECTIVE S ITES AND THE RAW MATERIALS, VIZ. CABLES, TRANSFORMERS, HT & LT CONTROL PANELS, FLEXIBLE WIRES, SWITCHES, SOCKETS, MCB DBS, ETC. WERE SMALL ITEMS WHICH WERE NUMEROUS IN NUMBER. THEREFORE, IT WAS PRACTICALLY VERY DIFFICULT TO MAI NTAIN AN ITEM-WISE DAY TO DAY STOCK REGISTERS FOR EACH ITEM. 9. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE AFORESAID ASSERTI ONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN MERELY DISBELIEVED. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE CLOSING STOCK REFLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NON-VERIFIABLE ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ITA NO.1518/PN/2012 ITA NO.1566/PN/2012 AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN OVERTLY INFLUENCED BY THE FACTUM OF NON-MAINTENANCE OF QUAN TITATIVE STOCK REGISTER ON DAY TO DAY BASIS TO REJECT THE BOOKS RESULTS WITHOU T APPRECIATING THAT THE STOCK POSITION COULD BE VERIFIABLE ON THE BASIS OF ASSERT IONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. AS SEEN EARLIER THE JUDGEMENT OF THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KACHWALA GEMS (SUPRA) DOES NOT JUSTIFY REJECTION OF BOOKS MERELY IN THE ABSENCE OF STOCK REGISTER. SIMILARLY, THE JU DGEMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BASTIRAM NARAYANDA S (SUPRA) IS ALSO ON SIMILAR LINES AS IN THE CASE OF KACHWALA GEMS (SUPR A). IN-FACT, THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF A SHOK REFACTORIES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) INDEED SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND MAINTAINING AN ITEM- WISE STOCK REGISTER AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE ACCOR DINGLY REJECTED BY INVOKING OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO FINDING THAT INCOME COULD NOT BE DEDUCED FROM THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFOR E THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY INVOKING SECTION 145 OF THE ACT WAS SET- ASIDE. COMING BACK TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICEABLE THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO VERIFY THE MATERIAL SOUGHT TO BE REFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN-FACT THERE IS NO FINDING THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE NON-MAINTENANCE OF STOCK REGISTER ON DAY TO DAY BASIS, THE INCOME COUL D NOT BE VERIFIED OR APPROPRIATELY DEDUCED. THUS, IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ERRED IN INVOKING SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND REJECTING TH E BOOK RESULTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE OTHER ASPECT OF THE MATTER BEFORE US IS WIT H REGARD TO THE VARIATION IN N.P. RATE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AT 16.3% AS AGAINST 20.28% IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THIS CONTEXT, ASSESSEE HAS MADE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE ON THE FOLLOWIN G LINES. FIRSTLY, ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT ITS TURNOVER HAS INCREASED MORE THAN 50% AND DUE TO THIS THERE ITA NO.1518/PN/2012 ITA NO.1566/PN/2012 IS BOUND TO BE A DECLINE IN N.P. RATE BECAUSE IN OR DER TO PROCURE MORE ORDERS COMPETITIVE PRICING WAS ESSENTIAL. SECONDLY, ASSES SEE EXPLAINED THAT DURING THE YEAR, PRICES OF THE RAW MATERIAL FLUCTUATED WID ELY WHICH RESULTED IN LESSER PROFITS. IN THIS CONTEXT, APART FROM MAKING AFORES AID ASSERTION ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO A CHART PLACED AT PAGE 89 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN THE PRICES OF RAW MATERIAL DURING THE YEAR HAVE BEEN COMPARED WIT H THEIR PRICES IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH SHOWED INCREASE IN THE RAW MATERIAL PRICES. ON THIS ASPECT, IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS AROUND 5% INCREASE IN THE COST OF RAW MATERIAL WHICH LEAD TO A FALL IN PR OFIT MARGINS. THIRDLY, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE PROCURED MAJOR CONTRACTS FROM NEW CUSTOMERS, LIKE BY M/S SUNGARD AND M/S SYNTEL. SIN CE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CONTRACTS FOR THE FIRST TIME, ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT HAD MADE COMPETITIVE BIDS WHICH RESULTED IN LOWER MARGINS. FOURTHLY, ASSESSE E POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE EXECUTED 9 CO NTRACTS OUTSIDE PUNE WHEREAS IN THE EARLIER YEAR ONLY 3 CONTRACTS WERE E XECUTED OUTSIDE PUNE, AND THE OVERHEADS INCURRED FOR EXECUTING CONTRACTS OUTS IDE PUNE WERE HIGHER THAN THAT INCURRED WITHIN PUNE. FIFTHLY, THERE WAS AN I NCREASE IN WAGES AND SALARY COSTS WHICH HAS RESULTED IN LESSER PROFITS. ASSESS EE EXPLAINED THAT IT HAD GIVEN SUBSTANTIAL INCREMENTS TO EMPLOYEES DURING TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SIXTHLY, ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IT HAD DEBITED A BAD DEBT CLAIM OF RS .21.40 LAKHS IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS AGAINST RS. NIL IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. FOR ALL THE ABOVE REASONS, ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE MARGIN AL LOWER N.P. RATE WAS JUSTIFIED. AT PAGE 156 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS PLACED A WORKING WHEREIN ASSESSEE HAS QUANTIFIED EACH OF THE ABOVE SIX FACTO RS TO SHOW THE RESPECTIVE IMPACT ON THE N.P. RATE VARIATION DURING THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION. IN TERMS OF THIS CHART, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE N.P. DECLARED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS IN FACT FAVOURABLY COMPARABLE WIT H THE PRECEDING YEARS. ITA NO.1518/PN/2012 ITA NO.1566/PN/2012 11. THE AFORESAID DETAILED REASONS, WHICH WE HAVE R EFERRED TO ABOVE, WERE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE CIT(A). APART FROM PARTIALLY ACCEPTING THEM BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT MADE OUT ANY CREDIBLE ARGUMENT AS TO WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED IN TOTTO . IN-FACT, THERE IS NO REPUDIATION OF ANY OF THE POINTS EXPLAINED BY TH E ASSESSEE, WHICH HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE DECLINE IN N.P. FOR THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION. 12. IN THIS BACKGROUND OF THE MATTER, IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MERELY IN THE ABSENCE OF NON-MAINTENANCE OF STOCK R EGISTER ON DAILY BASIS ESPECIALLY WHEN HE HAS NOT RECORDED ANY FINDING AS TO HOW IN THE ABSENCE OF DAY TO DAY STOCK RECORDS DEDUCTION OF APPROPRIATE I NCOME WAS NOT POSSIBLE. IN-FACT, THE DETAILED REASONS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE MARGINAL DECLINE IN THE N.P. RATE CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE BOOK S RESULTS DECLARED AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE JUSTIFIED AND IN-FACT, DID NO T CARRY ANY INFIRMITY OF BEING UNRELIABLE. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE CIT(A) O UGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION INSTEAD OF ALLOWING PARTIAL RELIEF. IN CONCLUSION, WE THEREFORE, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.21,60,283/-. 13. IN THE RESULT, WHEREAS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH AUGUST, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 28 TH AUGUST, 2014. SUJEET ITA NO.1518/PN/2012 ITA NO.1566/PN/2012 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-V, PUNE; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., PUNE