ACIT CIR-1, Jamshedpur V. M/s Bravo Security P Ltd, Jamshedpur

ITA 175/RAN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7785 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Bogus Share capital; Business expenditure; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 142(1); 234B; 133(6); 131; 148

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 301 /RAN/ 201 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 175 /RAN/201 6 A .Y. : 20 11 - 201 2 ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, 47 C.H. AREA, JAMSHEDPUR V S M/S BRAVO SECURITY SERVICE PVT. LTD. M - 11, OLD ADITYAPUR, JAMSHEDPUR - 831013 P AN NO. : A ABCB 2346 Q (APPELLANT ) . RESPONDENT REVENUE BY :SHRI A.K.MOHANTY, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL, CA DATE OF HEARING : 2 2 . 05 .201 8 D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.05 .201 8 O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : TH IS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), JAMSHEDPUR , DATED 28.03.2016 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12, WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - (1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED ON FACT AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.43,43,805/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES. (2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED ON FACT AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,01,703/ - MADE BY THE AO U/S.69 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961, ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF INVESTMENTS IN FIXED DEPOSITS AS PER BANK AND AS PER BALANCE SHEET OF TH E ASSESSEE. 2 ITA NO. 301 /RAN/ 201 6 (3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED ON FACT AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.52,82,611/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASE. (4) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE, LD. CIT (A) JAMSHEDPUR, GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE TENETS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B AS AMENDED IN THE YEAR 2006. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN PROVISION OF SECURITY SERVICES AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 2012 ELECTRONICALLY ON 30.09.2011 SHOWING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,10,11,140/ - . THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS DULY PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT AND THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY CONSEQUENT TO THE SURVEY OPERATION CONDUCTED O N ITS BUSINESS PREMISES ON 07.02.2012. STATUTORY NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. 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 TIME TO TIME AND FILED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. THEREAFTER THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSED TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,58,56,650/ - . 3 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE CIT(A). IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THE GR OUNDS AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AND LD.CIT(A) HAVING CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DEALT ON THE DISPUTED ISSUES AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3 ITA NO. 301 /RAN/ 201 6 5 . BEFORE US, LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION WITHOUT CALLING FOR ANY DETAILS AND ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE AO IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE, LD. DR PRAYED FOR ALLOWING THE APP EAL. 6 . CONTRA, LD. A R SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) . 7 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. PRIMA FACIE, ON THE GROUND RAISED BEFORE US WITH RESPECT TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES BY THE AO, LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE C IT(A) HAS NOT PROPERLY DEALT ON THE ISSUE AND FURTHER LD. DR IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE COULD NOT POINT OUT WITH ANY NEW MATERIAL FACT S FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) NOR CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF TH E CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER : - 4.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. HAVING REGARD TO WIDE POWERS AVAILABLE U/S 148, VERY INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS MADE UNDER SAID SECTION BY ISSUING NOTICE C ANNOT BE HELD TO BE INVALID MERELY STATING THAT IT WAS ISSUED AFTER PASSING OF 7 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SURVEY OPERATION. FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO IT IS NOT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO ISSUE OF NOTICE WHICH NEEDS TO BE DISPOSED OFF IN THE LIGHT OF D ECISION OF HON TALE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S GKN DRIVESHAFT CO. LTD. BUT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ATTENDED THE COURSE OF RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE OBJECTION TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IS OVER RULE AND APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 3 AND 4 PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 43,43,805/ - . 5.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO HAS DEALT THIS FACT WHICH IS BEING REPRODUCED AS BELOW: IN THE ACCOUNTS AS SUBMITTED TO THIS OFFICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SH OWN PROFITS AS UNDER: GROSS RECEIPTS: RS.22,81,72,081/ - NET PROFIT : RS. 1,09,81,908/ - I.E. NET PROFIT IS AT 4.81% OF TOTAL RECEIPTS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN EXPENSES AT RS. 21,71,90,173/ - . 4 ITA NO. 301 /RAN/ 201 6 AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPT ABLE. FROM FIELD ENQUIRIES AT SOME OF THE MESS LOCATIONS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, NO MESS WAS FOUND TO EXIST. AT PLACES, WHERE IT WAS FOUND, IT WAS A SMALL SELF OPERATED KITCHEN. BESIDES, THE TRAINING CENTERS WERE ALSO NON - EXISTENT. IN CASES WHERE MES S - OWNERS WERE SUMMONED U/S 131 OF THE I.T. ACT, THEY DID NOT APPEAR AND HENCE, THE EXPENSES COULD NOT BE VERIFIED AT ALL. THE A.R. WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE BILLS & VOUCHERS FOR VERIFICATION. HE PRODUCED THEM. BUT THEY APPEARED TO BE SELF - MADE BILLS & VOUCHERS . THIS WAS CROSS VERIFIED FROM STATEMENT TAKEN ON OATH U/S 131 FROM A DOG - SUPPLIER AND ESCORT SERVICES PROVIDER. THEY STATED THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED BILLS FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 IN JANUARY 2014 ONLY. THIS PROVES THAT ALL THE BILLS & VOUCHERS WERE SELF - MADE. BESI DES AS FOUND IN SURVEY OPERATION, NO BILLS OR VOUCHERS WERE PRESENT AT THE OFFICE OF THE COMPANY. HENCE, THE EXPENSES COULD NOT BE VERIFIED AND JUSTIFIED BEYOND DOUBT EITHER FROM BILLS & VOUCHERS AS PRODUCED BY A.R. OR FROM ENQUIRIES U/S 133(6) AND SUMMO NS U/S 131. IN SUM, MOST EXPENSES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD BE VERIFIED BEYOND DOUBT. AS THE EXPENSES ARE NOT ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT, THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE UNDER - STATED. IT IS, HOWEVER NOT POSSIBLE TO VERIFY THE EXPENSES OF RS. 21,71,90,173/ - IN TOTO. HENCE, DISALLOWANCE IS MADE ON AN ESTIMATED BASIS KEEPING IN VIEW THE RESULT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSED ENQUIRIES, IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES. 2% OF THE EXPENSES AT RS. 43,43,804/ - ARE DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. 5.2 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING, THE APPELLANT CONTENTION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - FOR THAT THE LEARNED A.O DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 43,43,805/ - AS AD - HOC DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON T HE GROUND THAT THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE UNDERSTATED. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO VERIFY THAT TOT AL EXPENSES INCURRED OF RS. 21, 71, 90,173/ - ON TOTO. HENCE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ON ESTIMATED BASIS ON THE GROUND TH AT THE RESULT OF THE SAID ENQUIRY OF THE SOME PERSONS TO WHOM EXPENSES WERE PAID WERE NOT FOUND CORRECT AND IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES 2% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE DEBITED INTO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF RS. 21,71,90,173/ - OF RS. 43,43,804/ - ARE DISALLOWED ON CAS UAL MANNER. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IS UNJUSTIFIED, ILLEGAL AND MOST INCORRECT. 5 ITA NO. 301 /RAN/ 201 6 FOR THAT THE APPELLATE HAS MAINTAINED PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS U/S 44AB OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS WELL AS UNDE R STATUTORY COMPLIANCE OF COMPANIES ACT. EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT ARE FULLY VERIFIABLE, ALL BILLS AND VOUCHERS ARE PROPERLY KEPT BY THE APPELLANT. EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY BANKING CHANNEL IN MOST OF THE CASES. NO LUMP SUM DISALLOWANCE AS SUCH IS CALLED FOR OR CAN BE MADE OUT OF THE VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED WHICH WERE FULLY VERIFIABLE. FOR THAT PAYMENT OF SALARY & WAGES, EPF, ESIC, FILING FEES PAID TO ROC, BANK INTEREST ON CAR LOAN, TELEPHONE EXPENSES, VEHICLE HIRE CHARGES, AUDIT FEES, BONUS, DE PRECIATION, DIRECTOR'S REMUNERATION, DOG HANDLING CHARGES ARE FULLY VERIFIABLE AND CANNOT BE DISALLOWED ON AD - HOC BASIS. MOST OF THE EXPENSES WERE MADE THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNEL. 5.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO AS WELL AS THE WRIT TEN SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE THE AO HAS STATED AS UNDER: AS THE EXPENSES ARE NOT ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT, THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE UNDER - STATED. IT IS, HOWEVER NOT POSSIBLE TO VERI FY THE EXPENSES OF RS. 21,71,90,173/ - IN TOTO. HENCE, DISALLOWANCE IS MADE ON AN ESTIMATED BASIS KEEPING IN VIEW THE RESULT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSED ENQUIRIES, IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES. 2% OF THE EXPENSES AT RS. 43,43,804/ - ARE DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS NOT POINTED ANY DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE SAID ADDITION. THE AO FAILED TO ONUS CAST UPON HIM TO CONCLUSIVELY ARRIVE AT THE FACTS AS TO WHICH EXPENSES ARE NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO BUSINESS EXPENSES OR WHICH VOUCHERS ARE NOT AMENABLE TO VERIFICATION. BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER, THE AO ALSO FAILED TO SHIFT THE ONUS ON ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ANY CLAIM FOR WHICH AO OPINED THAT THE EXPENSES ARE DOUBTFUL OR NOT ATTRIBUTABL E TO BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. MOREOVER THE ACCOUNT HAS BEEN AUDITED BY A QUALIFIED CA AND NO SPECIFIC FAULT IN AUDIT ACCOUNT HAS BEEN FOUND BY AO. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS BASED ON CONJECTURE AND SURMISES WHICH IS BAD IN LAW. BASED ON ABOVE, THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO RS. 43,43,805/ - IS HEREBY DELETED. 6. GROUND NO. 7 PERTAINS TO ADDITION OF RS. 3,01,703/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN FDR AS PER BANK AND AS PER BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT. 6 ITA NO. 301 /RAN/ 201 6 6.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO HAS DEALT THIS FACT WHICH IS BEING REPRODUCED AS BELOW: FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY HAS INVESTMENTS IN F.D. IN STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR AT RS.3,22,03,486/ - . WHEREAS IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN IT AT RS. 3,19,01,783/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER NO. ACIT/JSR/CIR - 1/2013 - 14/2023 DATED 06.03.2014 TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCES. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 10.03.2014 IS PLACED ON RECORD. THE REPLY OF THE A.R. THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 3,01,703/ - IS INCLUDED IN THE OPENING BALANCE OF F.D., IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 6.2. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING, THE APPELLANT CONTENTION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - FURTHER LEARNED A.O HAS MADE ADDITION OF R S. 3,01,703 / - ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN FDR AS PER BANK AND AS PER BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT WAS EXPLAINED PROPERLY, AS SUCH ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED A.O BY OBSERVING THAT EXPLANATION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IS MOST ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY. IT IS NOT UN DERSTOOD UNDER WHICH PROVISION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THIS ADDITION WAS MADE. THE LEARNED A.O HAS ISSUED QUESTIONNAIRE IN THIS REGARD VIDE LETTER NO: - ACIT/JSR/CIR - L/2013 - 14/2013 DATED 6 TH MARCH, 2014, THIS LETTER WAS SERVED ON 6 TH MARCH 2014 AT 01:30 P.M A ND ASKED TO COMPLY THE QUERY ON THE SAME DATE BY 05:00 P.M. YOUR HONOUR MAY UNDERSTAND HOW THE LEARNED A.O HAS GIVEN PRESSURE TO THE ASSESSEE. APPELLANT HAS TO PROVIDE A REASONABLE TIME TO EXPLAIN THE QUERY ON NATURAL JUSTICE. WE ARE ENCLOSING HEREWITH COP Y OF LETTER ISSUED BY LEARNED A.O AND EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT ON THE QUERY VIDE LETTER DATED 10 TH MARCH 2013, WHICH WERE SELF EXPLANATORY ON THE ISSUE. THUS APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THE QUERY PROPERLY. HENCE ADDITION OF RS. 3,01,703/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN FDR IS MOST ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED, HENCE ARE LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 6.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THIS ISSUE RELATES TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF R S. 3,01,703/ - WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE AO. IT SEEMS THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING THE LETTER DATED 06.03.2014 WHICH WAS RECEIVED AT 01:30PM AND THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS BY 05.00 PM ON SAME DATE ITSELF. THE APPELLANT HAVE EXPL AIN THE DIFFERENT VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 10.03.2016 WHICH IS FOUND TO BE IN ORDER. BASED ON THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY DELETED. 7 ITA NO. 301 /RAN/ 201 6 7. GROUND NO. 8 PERTAINS TO ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/ - ON THE GROUND THAT THE SHA RES WERE HELD BY A NON - EXISTENT COMPANY. 7.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO HAS DEALT THIS FACT WHICH IS BEING REPRODUCED AS BELOW: FROM THE ANNUAL RETURN WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILES WITH THE MCA, IT IS SEEN THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE COMPANY INCLUDE ANJANI PUTRA SALES PVT. LTD. THIS COMPANY HOLDS 2000 EQUITY SHARES OF RS. 100/ - EACH IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY. HOWEVER, FROM ENQUIRY ON MCA AND OTHER SITES, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE COMPANY, 'ANJANI PUTRA SALES PVT. LTD.', IS NON - EXISTENT. THE RE IS NO SUCH COMPANY. A COMPANY WHICH IS NON - EXISTENT ON MCA DOES NOT EXIST AS PER THE COMPANIES ACT. IT ACT RECOGNIZES ONLY THOSE COMPANIES WHICH ARE EXISTENT UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. SHARES CANNOT BE HELD BY A COMPANY WHICH DOES NOT EXIST. HENCE, THE 2000 SHARES ARE TREATED AS BOGUS AND THE SHARE MONEY AT RS. 2,00,000/ - IS TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED TO TOTAL INCOME. 4 . DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING, THE APPELLANT CONTENTION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - FOR THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/ - ON THE GROUND THAT THE SHARE WERE HELD BY A NON - EXISTENT COMPANY AND ARE TREATED AS BOGUS SHARE MONEY. MERELY BECAUSE AS SAID, ENQUIRY ON MCA AND OTHER SITES, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE COMPANY 'ANJANI PUTRA SALES PVT LTD.' IS NON - EXISTENT. T HERE IS NO SUCH COMPANY. WE ARE ENCLOSING HEREWITH COMPANY MASTER DATA OBTAINED FROM THE MCA SITES WHICH IS SELF EXPLANATORY THE EXISTENCE OF THE COMPANY WHICH SHARE APPLICATION HAS MADE. AS PER LOVELY EXPORT LIMITED CASE HON'BLE S.C OBSERVED IF THE ASSES SEE HAS DISCLOSE THE IDENTITY AND EXISTENCE OF THE CREDITORS/INVESTORS THEN ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE ON THIS COUNT. THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED BY THEM, ALLOTTED TO THEM AND THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED FROM THE COMPANY THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THE ADDITION MADE, T HEREFORE, IS ILLEGAL AND INCORRECT. ON THE ABOVE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS PRAY BEFORE YOUR HONOUR, THAT ADDITION WERE MADE IN MOST ARBITRARY AND INCORRECT WAY, HENCE IS LIABLE FOR DELETED IN TOTO. 7.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAVE ENCLOSED THE COMPANY MASTER DATA IN HIS SUBMISSION, BUT FAILED TO PROVIDE THESE REQUISITE DETAILS AT THE TIME OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO. AS SUCH AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADD ING RS. 2 ,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE CAPITAL. 8 ITA NO. 301 /RAN/ 201 6 8. GROUND NO. 10 RELATES TO CHARGEABLE OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE IT ACT. 8.1 THE AO IS DIRECTED TO MODIFY THE INTEREST CALCULATION U/S 234B OF THE IT ACT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF AJAY PRAKASH VERMA IN TA NO. 38 OF 2010 REPORTED IN 2013(1) TMI 140. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE OVERALL ASPECTS THAT THE CIT(A) HAVING CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FINDINGS OF AO AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDICIAL DECISION, HAS PASSED A REASONED ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND WE UPHELD THE SAME AND DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF R EVENUE. 9 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 / 05 /201 8 SD/ - SD/ - ( N.S.SAINI ) ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RANCHI , DATED 24 / 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 3. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT , CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE.