ACIT, Circle-1, Nashik V. M/s. Jyoti Paper Udyog Ltd., Nashik

ITA 1658/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84919 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S NAIK
• Keywords: Depreciation; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1658 & 1659/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, NASHIK. . APPELLANT VS. M/S JYOTI PAPER UDYOG LTD., B-87, NICE, SATPUR, NASHIK 422 007. PAN : AAACJ7288E . RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY : MR. P. S. NAIK ASSESSEE BY : MR. NIKHIL PATHAK DATE OF HEARING : 21-08-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-08-2014 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM THE TWO CAPTIONED APPEALS BY THE REVENUE RELATE TO THE SAME ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THEY HAVE BEEN CLUBBED AND H EARD TOGETHER AND A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 2. ITA NO.1659/PN/2013 IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I , NASHIK DATED 07.06.2013 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 24.10.2006 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 3. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING T HE ADDITION OF RS.12,26,194/- IN RESPECT OF INCENTIVE OF OCTROI RE FUND RECEIPT. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ITA NOS.1658 & 1659/PN/2013 A.Y. : 2004-05 LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.35,87,870/- IN RESPECT OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.3,00,000/- IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. IN BRIEF, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE I S ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF EXERCISE BOOKS, NOTE BOOKS, REG ISTERS AND OTHER PAPER STATIONERY ITEMS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION, IT FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.45,38,952/- WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO A SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE TOTAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT RS.7,40,285/-. AFTER SETTING-OFF OF THE BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS/DEPRECIATION LOSS THE RE REMAINED NIL INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND BALANCE OF THE UNA BSORBED BUSINESS LOSS/DEPRECIATION LOSS HAS SINCE BEEN ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD. HOWEVER, CERTAIN ADDITIONS WERE MADE WHILE COMPUTING THE INC OME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN DELETED BY THE C IT(A) AND AGAINST SUCH DECISION OF THE CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US BY WAY OF AFORESTATED GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 5. THE FIRST ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO A SUM OF RS.12 ,26,194/- REPRESENTING INCENTIVE OF OCTROI REFUND RECEIPT. IN THIS CONNEC TION, BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN IN ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT A R ECEIPT OF RS.12,26,194/- AS INCENTIVE RECEIVED FROM DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENT RE, NASHIK ON ACCOUNT OF REFUND OF OCTROI UNDER THE PACKAGE SCHEME OF INCENT IVES (1993 SCHEME) OF DISPERSAL OF INDUSTRIES. HOWEVER, IN THE COMPUTATI ON OF INCOME ANNEXED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS NOT OFFER ED FOR TAX. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT SUCH INCENTIVE WAS OF REVENUE NAT URE AND THUS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE FINALIZATION OF ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SAID INCENTIVE HAS SINCE BEEN REJECTED BY THE DISTRICT I NDUSTRIES CENTRE, NASHIK VIDE THEIR COMMUNICATION DATED 29.08.2008. THE CIT(A) H AS REPRODUCED IN PARA ITA NOS.1658 & 1659/PN/2013 A.Y. : 2004-05 5.3 OF HIS ORDER THE COMMUNICATION FROM DISTRICT IN DUSTRIES CENTRE, NASHIK IN THIS REGARD. ON ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEE N DENIED THE ENTITLEMENT FOR THE INCENTIVE OF RS.12,96,194/- IN QUESTION, TH E CIT(A) PROCEEDED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. AGAINST SUCH ACTION OF THE CIT(A), R EVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US BY WAY OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE FACT THAT THE INCENTIVE BY WAY OF REFUND OF OCTROI IN QUESTION AMOUNTING TO RS.12,96,194/- HAS NOT BEEN F OUND TO BE PAYABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO COGENT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE LEAD BY THE REVENUE TO NEGATE THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) AND AS A RESULT, W E AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN. THUS, ON TH IS ASPECT REVENUE FAILS. 7. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENU E IS WITH RESPECT TO AN AMOUNT OF RS.35,87,870/- DELETED BY THE CIT(A) W HICH REPRESENTED DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 8. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT IN THE BALANCE-SHEET, ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE OF RS.63,62,385/- OUT OF WHICH IT WROTE-OFF ONLY A SUM OF RS.27,74,515/- IN ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, WHILE COMPU TING ITS INCOME FOR THE PURPOSES OF INCOME TAX, ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE OF RS.63,62,385/- ON THE GROUND THAT TH E SAME CONSTITUTED REVENUE EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DISAGREED WITH THE ASSE SSEE AND HELD THAT DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWABLE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF EXPENSES ACTUALLY WRITTEN-OFF BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT I.E. R S.27,74,515/- ONLY AND THE BALANCE OF RS.35,87,870/- WAS ACCORDINGLY ADDED BAC K TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID DISALLOWANCE HAS SINCE BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A) BY UPHOLDING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENDI TURE IN QUESTION IS A ITA NOS.1658 & 1659/PN/2013 A.Y. : 2004-05 REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS FULLY SUPPORTED BY TH E VOUCHERS AND THAT THE SAME WAS ALLOWABLE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DEBIT IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IN THIS BACKGROUND, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARIN G FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT FOLLOWING THE TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BALANCE- SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT THE AFORESAID EXPEN DITURE WAS TO BE TREATED AS A DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND ITS ALLOWABIL ITY IS REQUIRED TO BE AMORTIZED OVER THE PERIOD CORRESPONDING TO THE CLAI M MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. 10. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE RES PONDENT-ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE DETAILS OF SUCH EXPENDITURE WHICH H AVE BEEN ENUMERATED BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 6.2 OF HIS ORDER. ON THAT BASIS IT IS SUBMITTED THAT EXPENSES ARE OF REVENUE IN NATURE AND THAT THE ACCOUNTING TR EATMENT OF AN ITEM IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF ITS ALLOWABILITY UNDER THE ACT. 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. A PERUSAL OF THE DETAIL OF SUCH EXPENDITURE BROUGHT OUT BY THE CIT(A ) IN PARA 6.2 OF HIS ORDER REVEALS THAT THE SAME ARE OF REVENUE IN NATURE. ON THIS BASIS, THE CIT(A) FURTHER RECORDS A FINDING THAT SUCH REVENUE EXPENDI TURE IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY VOUCHERS AND THAT THE NOMENCLATURE GIVEN IN THE ACC OUNT BOOKS AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE THE BASIS TO DISALLO W THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDING BEFORE US, T HE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT LEAD ANY MATERIAL TO DISTRAC T US FROM AFFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) TO THE EFFECT THAT THE EXPEN SES IN QUESTION ARE OF REVENUE IN NATURE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID BACKGR OUND, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ULTIMATE DECISION OF THE CIT( A) WHICH WE HEREBY AFFIRM. THUS, ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL ALSO REVENUE FAILS. ITA NOS.1658 & 1659/PN/2013 A.Y. : 2004-05 12. THE LAST GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD T O AN ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/- IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO SPECIF IED PERSONS U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT( A). 13. IN THIS BACKGROUND, IT WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A DEPOSIT OF RS.1,50,00,000/- FROM M/S JYOTI STORES, A SISTER CONCERN, WHICH CARRIED AN INTEREST RATE OF 14%. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PAYING INTE REST OF 12% ON LOANS RAISED FROM OTHER NON-INTERESTED PERSONS AND THEREF ORE ACCORDING TO HIM THE HIGHER INTEREST PAID TO THE SISTER CONCERN WAS DISA LLOWABLE IN TERMS OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF R S.3,00,000/-. THE CIT(A) HAS DIFFERED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOTED T HAT THE GENERAL RATE OF LENDING DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION RANGED FROM 12% TO 24% AND THEREFORE INTEREST PAID TO THE SISTER CONCERN @ 14% COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE IN TERMS OF SECTION 40 A(2)(A) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED. 14. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE HAS REITERATED THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EFFECT THA T ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST @ 14% TO ITS SISTER CONCERN WHEREAS DEPOSITS RECEIV ED FROM NON-RELATED PARTIES BEAR AN INTEREST @ 12%. 15. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR T HE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT 14% RATE OF INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SISTER CONCERN COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNREASONA BLE OR EXCESSIVE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HOLD SO. MOREOVER, IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. 2004-05, IN ANOTHER CASE OF ALPHA FOAM LTD. VS . DCIT (ITA NO.1617/PN/2008 DATED 24.03.2011) THE TRIBUNAL HAD FOUND PAYMENT OF INTEREST @ 18% AS NOT BEING EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONAB LE IN TERMS OF SECTION ITA NOS.1658 & 1659/PN/2013 A.Y. : 2004-05 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT. IN THIS MANNER, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SOUGHT TO BE DEFENDED. 16. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. NO DOUBT, SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT EMPOWERS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF PAYMENTS TO RELA TED PARTIES SPECIFIED IN SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT, WHICH ACCORDING TO HI M IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE, HAVING REGARD TO THE PREVAILING MARKE T RATES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, INTEREST PAID TO THE SISTER CONCERN @ 14% HAS BEEN HELD TO BE EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE IN TERMS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF T HE ACT. SO HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO TO BE APPRECIATED THAT THE ONUS IN THIS REGARD IS ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE INTEREST PAID TO A SISTER CONCERN IS EXCES SIVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE MARKET RATES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, T HE ONLY POINT MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT ON OTHER DEPOSITS RAISED FROM NON-RELATED PARTIES, ASSESSEE WAS PAYING A LOWER RATE OF INTEREST I.E. 1 2%. FIRSTLY, A VARIATION OF 2% IN THE RATE OF INTEREST BY ITSELF DOES NOT JUSTI FY THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT. IT HAS ALSO BEEN BROUGHT OUT BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE RATE OF LENDING DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION GE NERALLY RANGED FROM 12% TO 24%. EVEN IF, ONE MAY ACCEPT THAT THE AFORESAID OB SERVATION OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT SACROSANCT, BUT THERE IS NO MATERIAL OR EVIDENC E LEAD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT PAYMENT OF INTEREST @ 14% IS UNREASONABLE OR EXCESSIVE IN TERMS OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT, HAVING REGARD TO THE COMMERCIAL PRACTICES PREVAILING IN THE MARKET. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN ITS ENTIRETY WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT AND ACCORDINGLY, REVENUE FAILS. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1659/PN/2013 IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS.1658 & 1659/PN/2013 A.Y. : 2004-05 18. NOW, WE MAY TAKE-UP APPEAL VIDE ITA NO.1658/PN/ 2013, WHICH IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, NASHIK DATED 19.06.2013 WHI CH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 29.03.2012 PASSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-0 5. 19. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE DELETION OF PENALTY BY THE CIT(A) OF RS.13,82,130/- IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 20. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAD IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE VARIOUS ADD ITIONS MADE IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT FINALIZED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATE D 29.03.2012. 21. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF : (I) INCENTIVE OF OCTROI REFUND RS.35,87,870/ -; AND, (II) DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE RS.35,87,870/-, BECAUSE SUCH ADDITION S WERE DELETED BY HIM VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 07.06.2013 (SUPRA). THE AFORE SAID ACTION OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITIONS HAS SINCE BEEN AFFIRMED BY U S IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1659/PN/2013 IN EARLIER PARAGRAPH S. THEREFORE, SO FAR AS THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE PENALTY IM POSED WITH RESPECT TO THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS IS CONCERNED THE SAME IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. 22. THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF PENALTY IMPOSED IS WITH RESPECT TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,45,553/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISI ON FOR PAYMENT OF GRATUITY AND RS.19,620/- ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR WELFARE FUND. THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE PENALTY ON THIS TWO ADDITIONS ALSO BY MAKING TH E FOLLOWING DISCUSSION :- 7.1 PENALTY ON THE AMOUNTS OF RS.1,45,553/- ON ACC OUNT OF PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF GRATUITY AND RS.19,620/- O N ACCOUNT OF LABOUR WELFARE FUND. THESE ARE LEGAL DISALLOWANCES. THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN THESE EXPENSES IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAD FILED AN ITA NOS.1658 & 1659/PN/2013 A.Y. : 2004-05 APPEAL AGAINST THESE ADDITIONS BUT DID NOT PRESS TH ESE ADDITIONS DURING THE APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT HAS AGREED FO R THESE ADDITIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BHI MJI BHAMJI & CO. 146 ITR 145 (BOM.), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED TO AN ADDITION DOES NOT IMPLY THAT HE AGREES THAT THE INC OME WAS CONCEALED. 7.2 IN THIS CONNECTION, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE APE X COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) WITH REGARD TO THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) MERIT ATTE NTION. IN THE SAID DECISION THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED THAT 'MERELY BEC AUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE, WHICH CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPT ED OR WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE REVENUE, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT, IN OUR OP INION, ATTRACT THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). IF WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVE NUE THEN IN CASE OF EVERY RETURN WHERE THE CLAIM MADE IS NOT ACCEPTED BY AO F OR ANY REASON, THE ASSESSEE WILL INVITE PENALTY UNDER S. 271(1)(C). T HAT IS CLEARLY NOT THE INTENDMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE. 7.3 THE FACTS OF THIS CASE DO NOT LEAD TO ANY CONCE ALMENT OF INCOME BY THE APPELLANT BECAUSE THE EXPLANATION OFF ERED BY THE APPELLANT WAS BONAFIDE AND THE SAME IS NOT FOUND FALSE. ON THESE FACTS, THEREFORE, IT IS FOUND THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSING A PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C). THIS VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ASK ENTERPRISES 230 ITR 48 (BOM.). 23. AFTER HAVING PERUSED THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CIT(A) AND CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US, W E FIND NO REASONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). BOTH THE A DDITIONS IN QUESTION DO NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACC URATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT. AS A RESULT, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. 24. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1658/PN/2013 IS ALSO DISMISSED. 25. RESULTANTLY, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AR E DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH AUGUST, 2014. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (G . S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED : 28 TH AUGUST, 2014. SUJEET ITA NOS.1658 & 1659/PN/2013 A.Y. : 2004-05 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK; 4) THE CIT-I, NASHIK; 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