NAVITA SABLOK, Jamshedpur V. ITO WARD-1(4), Jamshedpur

ITA 166/RAN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9612 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MONDAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K CHOUDHARY
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Additional evidence
• Section: 69C; 142(1); 234B; 143(1); 69; 10

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO S . 166 &167 /RAN/ 20 16 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 166 /RAN/201 6 A.Y. : 2009 - 2010 SMT. NAVITA SABLOK, 4 I.C.ROAD, BESIDE BANK OF INDIA, C.H.AREA, BISTUP UR, JAMSHEDPUR - 831001 V S ITO, WARD - 1(4), JAMSHEDPUR P AN NO. : A OYPS 1564 H (APPELLANT ) . RESPONDENT AND ITA NO.16 7 /RAN/2016 A.Y. : 2009 - 2010 SHRI SANJEEV SABLOK, 4 I.C.ROAD, BESIDE BANK OF INDIA, C.H.AREA, BISTUPUR, JAMSHEDPUR - 831001 V S ITO, WARD - 1(4 ), JAMSHEDPUR P AN NO. : ADKPS 4050 M (APPELLANT ) . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K.CHOUDHARY REVENUE BY :SHRI P.K.MONDAL , JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 2 8 . 05 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 . 05 .201 8 O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : TH ESE ARE THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEE S AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT ( A ) , JAMSHEDPUR , DATED 26.02.2016 & 10.02.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010 . 2 ITA NO S . 166 &167 /RAN/ 20 16 2. SINCE BOTH THE APPEALS ARE INTERCONNECTED AND THE SIMI LAR ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE CONSIDER THE FACTS AND GROUNDS NARRATED IN ITA NO.166/RAN/2016, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - 1 . THAT, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED RS.10,07,700/ - UNDER SECTI ON 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), JAMSHEDPUR IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 2 . THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED RS.22,020/ - AS UNDISCLOSED INTEREST AND THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), JAMS HEDPUR IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 3 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM PETTY TRADING ACTIVITIES AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 2009 ON 31.03.2010 WITH TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,11,140/ - AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS DULY PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT AND THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS . SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S.143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN COMPLIANCE, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIM E TO TIME AND CASE WAS DISCUSSED . THEREAFTER THE AO COMPLETED THE ASS ESSMENT AND MADE VARIOUS ADDITION S AND ASSESSED TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 12 , 40 , 860 / - AND PASSED ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 29.11.2011 . 4 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSES SEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE CIT(A). IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THE GROUNDS AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AND THE FINDINGS OF AO, DISMISSED THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. 3 ITA NO S . 166 &167 /RAN/ 20 16 5 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6 . LD. AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S. 69 OF THE ACT . LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT UNR ECORDED SALE DEPOSITED INTO BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. TO ESTIMATE THE DISPUTE OF RATE OF NET PROFIT, THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF OFFERED THE RATE OF THAT PROFIT U/S.44AF OF THE ACT. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE DETAILS OF TRANSPORTER THROUGH WHOM TRADING OF BUILDING MATERIALS WAS CARRIED OUT DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE DETAILS OF TRANSPORTER THROUGH WHOM THE ASSESSEE CARRIED HER BUSINESS OF SUPPLY OF BUILDING MATERIALS, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AT PAGE 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SAME WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE AO AND MADE THE ADDITION AND THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME. IN REGARD TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INTEREST, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED TO TAX THE INCOME , THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS REQUIRED AND LD. AR PRAYED FOR ALLOWING THE APPEAL. 7 . CONTRA, L D.DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES . 8 . WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. PRIMA FACIE, ON THE FIRST DISPUTED ISSUE OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT , WE FIND THAT THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS FOUND THAT NO EVIDENCE OF ANY RETAIL TRADE BEING CARRIED OUT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALSO THE FACT THAT NO 4 ITA NO S . 166 &167 /RAN/ 20 16 SUCH DECLARATION WAS MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE CLAIM OF PROVISIONS IN TERMS OF SECTION 44AF OF THE ACT IS UNTENABLE. ON APPEAL, THE CIT( A) OBSERVED THAT THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM BEFORE THE AO, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO. LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THERE IS ADMITTEDLY UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT IN WHICH DEPOSIT OF CASH WAS MADE AND SUBSEQUENTLY D URING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED TRADE RECEIPTS WHICH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. HOWEVER, BEFORE US LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE TRADING BUSINESS OF SAND, BRICKS, CHIPS ETC., THERE IS SUCH HIGH COMPETITIVE MARKET THAT THE PERSONS WHO ARE SUPPLIERS OF THESE ITEMS ARE VERY MENTALLY READY TO SUPPLY THEIR GOODS ON CREDIT BASIS. ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 3, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HERSELF DISCLOSED 5% PROFIT ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS.13,31,716/ - . WE IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND FAIRPLAY, PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) , WHO SHALL EXAMINE AND VERIFY THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE AND PASS AN ORDER AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO SUBMIT THE INFORMATION AND SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM WITH PROPER EVIDENCE, SO AS TO ENABLE THE CIT(A) TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5 ITA NO S . 166 &167 /RAN/ 20 16 9. SO FAR AS THE SECOND GROUND WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INTEREST IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUB STANTIATE ITS CLAIM EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE CIT(A). HENCE, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS GROUND AND ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. THUS, ITA NO.166/RAN/2016 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE SHRI SANJEEV SABLOK IN ITA NO.167/RAN/2016, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. FOR THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 42,28,147/ - REPRESENTING THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH RELATES TO BUSINESS OF BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLY AND CONSTRUCTION. THE DEPOSITS MADE ARE EXPLAINED. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPE LLANT. 2. FOR THAT AS PER LD. CIT(A) HIMSELF THERE WAS CLOSING BALANCE OF RS. 23.28 LACS, AS SUCH, ADDITION FOR ENTIRE DEPOSITS MADE IS INCORRECT, UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. CLOSING BALANCE REPRESENTS, THE AMOUNT DUE TO BE PAID TO THE SUPPLIERS FROM WHOM GO ODS WERE PURCHASED. THE ADDITION MADE IS THEREFORE UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. 3. FOR THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 LACKS ON PROTECTIVE BASIS TOWARDS THE SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS UNJUSTIFIED, SINCE M/S CRYSTAL CONSTRUCTION HAD DISCLOSED A PROFIT OF RS. 3 L ACS IN THEIR REGULAR RETURN AND THEY THE SAME STOOD ACCEPTED IN ORDER U/S 143(1) ON THE RETURN FILED. AS SUCH THE ADDITION MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS BE DELETED. 4. FOR THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 80,000/ - MADE U/S 69C IS UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED JOINTLY BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE AND EXPENSES ON THE SAME WAS ALSO INCURRED JOINTLY. THE EXPENSES INCURRED WAS INCLUDED IN THE DRAWING OF BOTH THE PERSONS SEPARATELY. AS SUCH, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. 6 ITA NO S . 166 &167 /RAN/ 20 16 5. FOR THAT THE INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B SHOULD BE CHARGED ON RETURNED INCOME AND NOT ON ASSESSED INCOME FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT. 6 . FOR THAT OTHER GROUNDS IN DETAIL WILL BE ARGUED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 12. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INC OME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010 ON 31.03.2010 WITH TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,39,460/ - . THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT AND THE SAME WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICES U/S.14 3(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE I SSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN COMPLIANCE, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND CASE WAS DISCUSSED. THEREAFTER THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AND MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS AND ASSESSED TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 49,93,470 / - AND PASSED ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 23.12.2011 . 13 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE CIT(A). IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THE GROUNDS AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDE RING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AND THE FINDINGS OF AO, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 14 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 15. LD. AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.42,28,147/ - REPRESENTING THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH RELATES TO BUSINESS OF BUILDING M ATERIAL SUPPLY AND CONSTRUCTION AND THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE DEPOSITS. FURTHER LD. 7 ITA NO S . 166 &167 /RAN/ 20 16 AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.3 LACKS MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) ON PROTECTIVE BASIS TOWARDS THE SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPE RTY IS UNJUSTIFIED. WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION MADE U/S.69C OF THE ACT, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT T HE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED JOINTLY BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE AND EXPENSES ON THE SAME WAS ALSO INCURRED JOINTLY. THE EXPENSES INCURRED WAS INCLUDED IN THE DRAWING OF BOTH THE PERSONS SEPARATELY , THEREFORE PRAYED OF ALLOWING THE APPEAL . 16. CONTRA, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 17. WE HE ARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. PRIMA FACIE, ON THE FIRST DISPUTED ISSUE OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH RELATES TO BUSINESS OF BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLY AND CONSTRUCTION , LD. AR SUBMI TTED THAT THERE WAS CLOSING BALANCE OF RS. 23.28 LACS. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT C LOSING BALANCE REPRESENTS, THE AMOUNT DUE TO BE PAID TO THE SUPPLIERS FROM WHOM GOODS WERE PURCHASED. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADD ITION OF RS.42,28,147/ - ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SMT.NAVITA SABLOK . HOWEVER, WHILE CONSIDERING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE SMT. NAVITA SABLOK IN ITA NO.166/RAN/2016, WE HAVE REMITTED THE DISPUTED ISSUE TO THE FILE OF CIT( A) FOR E XAMINATION AND VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS. THEREFORE, THE REASONING GIVEN BY US IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE SMT. NAVITA SABLOK WILL BE APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY WE REMIT THE DISPUTED ISSUE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) , WHO SHALL EXAMINE AND V ERIFY THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE AND PASS AN ORDER AFTER PROVIDING 8 ITA NO S . 166 &167 /RAN/ 20 16 ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO SUBMIT THE INFORMATION AND SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM WITH PROPER EVIDENCE, SO AS TO ENABLE THE CIT(A) TO PA SS A SPEAKING ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 18. WITH REGARD TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PROTECTIVE BASIS TOWARDS THE SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY , LD.ARS CONTENTION THAT SINCE M/S CRYSTAL CONST RUCTION HAD DISCLOSED A PROFIT OF RS. 3 LACS IN THEIR REGULAR RETURN AND THE SAME STOOD ACCEPTED IN ORDER U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT ON THE RETURN FILED. WE FIND THAT THE AO WHILE DEALING WITH THE DISPUTES ISSUE HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DE TAILS OF WITHDRAWALS MADE, THEREFORE, MADE THE ADDITION. WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.3 LACS MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROFIT ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY HAS BEEN TAKEN IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF M/S CRYSTAL CONSTRUCTION. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED THIS GROUND BEFORE THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND MADE A REQUEST TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 18.01 .2013, WHEREIN IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE PROFIT OF RS.3 LACS FOR TAXATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THE MATTER NEEDS VERIFICATION AT THE END OF CIT(A) AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE PROFIT ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AT RAIPUR FOR TAXATION. IF THE CIT(A) FINDS THAT THE PROFIT HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION AS ENVISAGED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE SAME MAY BE DELETED. HENCE, WE REMIT THE DISPUTED ISSUE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) , 9 ITA NO S . 166 &167 /RAN/ 20 16 WHO SHALL VERIFY AND EXAMINE THE DETAIL S AND PASS ORDER AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO COOPERATE IN SUBMITTING THE INFORMATION. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 19. NEXT GROU ND IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS.80 , 000/ - U/S.69C OF THE ACT, THE CONTENTION OF LD. AR IS THAT WHEN T HE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED JOINTLY BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE AND EXPENSES ON THE SAME WAS ALSO INCURRED JOINTLY, T HE EXPENSES INCURRED WAS INCLUDED I N THE DRAWING OF BOTH THE PERSONS SEPARATELY. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DEALT ON THE DISPUTED ISSUE AND DELETED THE ADDITION. THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) IS AS UNDER : - 5.3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO AS WELL AS THE REMAND REPORT AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SUBMISSION DATED 24.08.2012 STATED THAT IF THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. RS. 80,000/ - INCURRED OUT OF DRAWING IS NOT ACCEPTED. THE UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE SHOULD NOT BE ADDED AND BE EXEMPTED U/S 10(2A). THE ASSESSEE HAS MIS - PRESENTED THE FACTS. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE AS TO HOW IT IS EXEMPTED U/S 10(2A) WHEN THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE FOR UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. THE STATED PROPERTY FOR WHICH UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE H AS BEEN ADDED BY AO IS PURCHASED IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. HOW WITHDRAWAL WILL BE CONSIDERED FROM THE FIRM. THE ASSESSEE EVEN FAILED TO FURNISH THE PARTNERS ACCOUNT IN FIRM TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM. ALSO ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBSTAN TIATE THE SAME BEFORE THE AO. HOWEVER IN ASSES SEES CASE THE AO HAS' DETERMINED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 42,28,147/ - WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD, IT CAN BE CONSTRUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT FUND THEREAFTER TO MEET THE EXPENSES OF RS. 80,000/ - . HENCE R ELYING ON THIS FACT ADDITION OF RS. 80,000/ - MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY DELETED. FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF 69C OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE REMIT THE DISPUTED ISSUE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) , WHO SHALL PASS ORDER ON THIS 10 ITA NO S . 166 &167 /RAN/ 20 16 DISPUTED ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES. 20. NEXT GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S.234A&234B OF THE ACT, WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL, AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CALCULATE THE INTEREST U/S.234A & 234B OF THE ACT AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF AJAY PRAKASH VERMA IN ITA NO.38 OF 2010 REPORTED IN 2013(1) TMI 140. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 21 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE (SMT. NAVITA SABLOK) IN ITA NO.166/RAN/2016 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND ITA NO.167/RAN/2016 (SHRI SANJEEV SABLOK) IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 / 05 /201 8 SD/ - SD/ - ( N.S.SAINI ) ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RANCHI, DATED 30 / 05 /201 8 PRAKASH KUMAR MISHRA , SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// SR.PS, ITAT, RANCHI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT ITO, WARD - 1(4), JAMSHEDPUR 3. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT , CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE.