The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Jalandhar V. M/s. MBD Enterprises P.Ltd., Jalandhar

ITA 162/ASR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5821 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-12-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SSH PREM SINGH; GUNJEET SIN GH SYAL ITP

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.L. KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 137(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004-05 PAN :AAEFM2480N M/S. MBD ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VS. ASSTT. COMMR. O F INCOME-TAX, JALANDHAR. RANGE IV, NOW DCIT, CCII, JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.162(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2004-05 DY. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, VS. M/S. MBD ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. C.C.II. JALANDHAR. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: S/SH. PREM SINGH, ADV. & GUNJEET SIN GH SYAL, ITP DEPARTMENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM, THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ANOTHER BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ), JALANDHAR, DATED 30.12.2010, PASSED UNDER SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 2 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), JALANDHAR, HAS ERRED IN SU STAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,75,183/- IN STIPEND ACCOUNT WITHOU T PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS PER PARA 2.5. OF THE ORDER. 2. THAT THE ARBITRARY ADDITION OF RS.50,000/- IN CL OSING STOCK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED. 3. THAT THE UPHOLDING OF THE ADDITION OF RS.60,000/ - IN RESPECT OF DEBIT NOTES WAS WRONG IN VIEW OF FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE CASE. 4. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.15,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF M ISC. EXPENSES IS UNJUSTIFIED. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO SUSTAI N THE SAME. 5. THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROPERLY APPRECIATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BEFORE FINAL IZING HIS FINDINGS. 6. THAT THE SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS OF APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED PROPERLY. 7. THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER IS AGAINST LAW AND FACT S OF THE CASE FOR WANT OF PROPER ADJUDICATION. 8. ANY OTHER GROUND PRESSED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. IN THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONT ENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A), WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,75,183/- ON ACCOUNT OF STIPEND PAID. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT A PPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A CASE OF COMPANY IN WHICH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE DULY AUDITED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE VOUCHERS ALONGWITH DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. H E FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE STIPEND EXPENSES RELATES TO TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES WHO WERE NOT FULLY TRAINED AND ALSO NOT REGULAR EMPLOYEES. HE ALSO STA TED THAT STIPEND IS PART OF SALARY, WAS NEVER DISALLOWED SINCE INCEPTION OF ASS ESSEE-COMPANY. THE LD. COUNSEL, FURTHER, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION O F THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. MALHOTRA BOOK DEPOT, JALANDHAR IN ITA NO.35(ASR)/2005. 3 3. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERING TH E RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE CAME FOR HEARING BEFORE THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. MALHOTRA BOOK DEPOT, JALANDHAR, IN ITA NO. 35(ASR)/2005, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS O RDER DATED 25.01.2008 DISMISSED THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE RELEVANT FINDING PART OF THE IMPUGNED ITAT ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FO R THE APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE: 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY CO NSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE FIND THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED ONLY IN SHAKARPUR OFFICE IN THE STATE OF U.P. CONSIDERING THE MAGNITUDE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY AND THE PAYMENTS HAVING BEEN MADE TO TEMPORARY UNTRAINED EM PLOYEES, WHO WERE NOT IN REGULAR SERVICE AND THE EXPENDITURE BEI NG LOWER THAN LAST YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS UPHELD AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMI SSED. 4.1. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 25.01.2008, PASSED IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. MALHOTRA BOOK DEPOT, JALANDHAR, IN ITA NO.35(ASR)/2005, THIS GROUND OF A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. IN GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.50,000/- IN CLOSING STOCK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN S USTAINED. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSIONS, AS WERE MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ). 5.1. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 4 5.2. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FACT SITUATION OF THE CASE AND OTHER RELEVANT MATER IAL PLACED ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. CIT(A), HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AT LENGTH IN HIS ORDER AND WHILE GIVING H IS FININGS HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT THE GOODS WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON TH E DATES MENTIONED IN THE BILLS. HENCE, THE DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING STOCK OF RS .1,91,000/- ADDED BY THE AO WILL BE REDUCED IF THE BILLS OF 27.3.2004, 24.3. 2004, 23.3.2004 AND 19.3.2004 ARE NOT CONSIDERED IN THE COMPUTATION MA DE BY THE AO ONCE IT IS CONSIDERED THAT THESE RAW MATERIAL WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSUMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE PURCHASES IN THE LAST TWO DA YS ITSELF TOTAL TO RS.4,19,841/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE DE TAILS OF CLOSING STOCK TO VERIFY WHETHER THESE PURCHASES ARE ACCOUNTED FOR OR NOT IN THE CLOSING STOCK AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND THAT THESE GOODS WERE CONSUMED AND SOLD OUT IN THE LAST TWO DAYS OF THE YEAR ITSELF. THE DI FFERENCE BETWEEN THE BILLS OF LAST TWO DAYS AND OF THE CLOSING STOCK BEING RS.48, 355/- AND THE INABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO RECONCILE THE CLOSING STOCK WITH TH E BILLS, ADDITION OF RS.50,000/- IS SUSTAINED ON ESTIMATE AS UNDERSTATE MENT OF CLOSING STOCK . THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE BASED ON FACTS A ND COGENT MATERIAL AND DO NOT SUFFER FROM ANY INFIRMITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE UPHELD AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN GROUND NO.3, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.60,000/- IN RESPECT OF DEBIT NOTES. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ALL THE VOUCHERS ALONGWITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. HE FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT THE DEBIT 5 NOTE WAS ISSUED OF HOLY FAITH INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD. AND THE AMOUNT WAS CREDITED TO REPAIR & MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT OF HOLY FA ITH INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED. THUS, IT CAN BE SAID THAT HOLY FAITH INTER NATIONAL HAS NOT CLAIMED EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.60,000/-. 6.1. THE LD. DR, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUT HORITIES BELOW. 6.2. AFTER PERUSING AND CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMI SSIONS, FACTS OF THE CASE AND OTHER RELEVANT MATERIAL, INCLUDING THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A), WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.60,000/- , AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE NATURE OF EXPENSE AND MODE OF PAYMENT ETC. THEREFORE, WE CON CUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS GIVEN IN PARA 3.4 & 3.5 OF THE ORDER, AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITIO N OF RS.15,000/- BY THE CIT(A). IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE B EFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE FURTHER STATED THAT MISC. EXPENSES RELATI NG TO POOJA ETC. ARE IN THE NATURE OF LABOUR WELFARE AND HENCE ARE ALLOWABLE EX PENDITURE. IN THIS REGARD, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIO NS: (A) ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT (1989) 79 CTR 92 (P&H) (B) JCTI VS. PANKAJ OXYGEN LTD. (2003) 78 TTJ 119 (NAGPUR) (C) MINWOOL ROCK FIBRES LTD. VS. JCIT (2004) 84 TT J 1133 (NAGPUR) THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, FURTHER, SUBMITT ED THAT AS REGARDS TELEPHONE EXPENSES NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE IN CASE OF A COMPANY. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 6 (A) SAYAJI IRON & ENGG. CO. VS. CIT 253 ITR 749 (GUJ) (B) DINESH MILLS LTD. VS. CIT 268 ITR 502 (GUJ.) 7.1. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7.2. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CAS E, RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS, INCLUDING THE CASE L AWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT SITUATION OF TH E CASE, WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND REASONABLE TO SUSTAIN THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS.7 500/- INSTEAD OF RS.15000/-. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. NOW, WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FILED IN I TR. NO.162(ASR)/2010, WHERE THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLL OWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN REDUCING ADDITION OF RS.75,000/- MADE UNDE R THE HEAD TELEPHONE AND MISC. EXPENSES TO RS.15,000/-, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAI N THE EXPENSES AND THAT COMPLETE BILLS/VOUCHERS WERE NOT MAINTAIN ED BY HIM. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND O N FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING AN ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1, 41,355/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.1,91,355/- MADE BY THE AO O N ACCOUNT OF UNDERSTATEMENT OF CLOSING STOCK, WITHOUT APPRECIATI NG THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE STOCK AND CONSUMPTIO N REGISTERS. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND O N FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,18,348/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND O N FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM PROOF READING FOR OUTSIDE RS, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT NO EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THIS IN COME WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSE D OFF. 7 6. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BET SE T-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED. 9. IN GROUND NO.1, THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT THAT THE LD. CIT(A), ERRED IN REDUCING AN ADDITION OF RS.75,000/- MADE UNDER THE HEAD TELEPHONE AND MISC. EXPENSES TO RS.15,000/-, WITHOUT APPRECIATI NG THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE EXPENSES 9.1. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED AND DECIDED THE ISSUE, IN QUESTION, WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN PARA 7 TO 7. 2 (SUPRA) , WHEREBY THE ADDITION HAS FURTHER BEEN REDUCED TO RS.7500/- U NDER THE HEAD TELEPHONE AND MISC. EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF AP PEAL OF THE REVENUE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND IS DISMISSED. 10. IN GROUND NO.2, THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A), ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,41,355/ - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.1,91,355/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERSTA TEMENT OF CLOSING STOCK. 10.1 WE HAVE ALREADY DEALT AND DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE WHILE THE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE (SUPRA), WHEREBY WE HAVE CON FIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF T HE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. IN GROUND NO.3, THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A), ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,18,348/- MADE ON ACCO UNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 11.1. THE LD. DR HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11.2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHE R HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. 8 11.3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER CLEARLY REVEALS THAT THE LD. CIT(A), HAS CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE, IN QUESTION, AFTER APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCES AND MATERIAL ON RECOR D. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER IS WELL REASONED AND B ASED ON THE COGENT AND CREDIBLE MATERIAL AND FACTS OF THE CASE. HOWEVER, I T WOULD PERTINENT TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PART OF THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE SAME: 4.4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CARE FULLY. WHILE THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF EXP ENSES AND DEDUCTIONS, THE ONUS TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED INCOME MORE THAN WHAT IT HAS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS IS ON THE AO. THE AO HAS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE SOLD MORE WA STE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ASSESSES EXPLANATION THAT WASTAGE WOULD VARY FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND THE RATE OF SALE OF SCRAP COULD ALSO BE DIFFERENT. THE SCRAP IS NOT GENERATED ONLY FROM THE PAPER USED BUT ALSO FROM TH E MACHINERY MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY. THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THAT THE MACHINERY MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE DECLINED BY SIGNIFICANT VAL UE DURING THE YEAR. WHILE THE LOWER SCRAP SALES SHOWN IN THE BOOK S WOULD CERTAINLY BE AN ISSUED PROMPTING AN INVESTIGATION, I DO NOT THINK THAT ANY ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT CAN BE SUSTAINED UNLESS TH E AI IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT ACTUALLY MORE SCRAP WAS SOLD THAN THAT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE. THE MERE FACT THAT THE SALE OF SCRAP HAS BEEN DON E IN CASH CANNOT SUPPORT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, BECAUSE SCRAP SALES WOULD NORMALLY BE IN CASH. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE T HAT GP RATE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS INCREASED OVER THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS BASED ON PRESUMPTION WITHOUT SUFFICIENT S UPPORTING EVIDENCE. THE ADDITION IS, THEREFORE, DELETED. 11.4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFI RMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), AS THE SAME ARE BASED ON PROPER APPREC IATION OF THE LEGAL AND 9 FACTUAL POSITION OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GRO UND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. GROUND NO.4, RAISED BY THE REVENUE RELATES TO D ELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM PROOF READI NG FOR OUTSIDERS. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), AND REI TERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. 12.1 THE LD. DR, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 12.2 HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, CONSIDERING T HE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, INCLUDING T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A), HAS CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE, IN QUESTION, AFTER APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDE NCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, AS ALSO THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL POSITION OF THE CASE . NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER IS WELL REASONED AND BASED ON THE COGENT AND CREDIBLE MATERIAL AND FACTS OF THE CASE. HOWEVER, I T WOULD PERTINENT TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A), FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE SAME: 6.4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CARE FULLY. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED PROOF READING FROM OUTSIDERS (OTHER THAN SISTER CONCERNS) AT RS.12,00,100/- AND ANOTHER INCOME UNDER THE HEAD PRINTING AND COMPOSING AT RS.5,693/- . THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH TDS CERTIFICATES/DETAILS OF THESE INCOMES. HOWEVER, NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED. THE AO, THEREF ORE, ADDED ON ESTIMATE A SUM OF RS 1 LAC UNDER THIS HEAD. 6.5. I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS ADDITION CAN BE SUSTA INED. AS NOTED ABOVE, IN RESPECT OF INCOME FROM SALE OF SCRAP, IT IS THE ONUS OF THE AO TO SHOW THAT ANY PARTICULAR AMOUNT OF INCOME SOU GHT TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX WAS ACTUALLY EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE PARTICULARS AS TO THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE INCOME WAS RECEIVED WHICH WAS CREDITED INN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS, IT ALSO DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE ASSESSEE EAR NED MORE INCOME 10 THAN THAT DECLARED IN THE P & L A/C. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, NOT SUBMITTING DETAILS IN RESPECT OF INCOME CAN BE A ST ARTING POINT FOR ENQUIRIES, BUT CANNOT LEAD TO A CONCLUSION THAT ASS ESSEE ACTUALLY EARNED MORE INCOME THAN THAT CLAIMED. THE ESTIMATED ADDITI ON OF RS.1 LAC MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, IS THEREFORE, DELETED. 12.3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFI RMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), AS THE SAME ARE BASED ON PROPER APPREC IATION OF THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL POSITION OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GRO UND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14TH JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA) (MEHAR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14 TH JUNE, 2011 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. MBD ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. JALANDH AR. 2. THE DCIT, CC.II. JALANDHAR. 3. THE CIT(A), JLR 4. THE CIT, JLR 5. THE SR DR, ASR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH : AMRITSAR.