Hotel Yogendra, Jharsuguda V. ITO, Jharsuguda

ITA 176/CTK/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58392 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A BHATTACHARJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: J M PATTNAIKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INC O ME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE : SHRI K.K.GUPTA, AM , AND SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JM ITA NO. 176/CTK/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08) KISHAN MOTORS , PLOT NO.56/A, SAHARA COMPLEX, RASULGARH, PAN:AAGFK 7438 J VERSUS ASS T.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX , CIRCLE 2(2), BHUBANESWAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI J.M.PATTNAIK,AR FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI A.BHATTACHARJEE, DR DATE OF HEARING : 12.01.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.01.2012 ORDER SHRI K.K.GUPTA, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON THE SOLITARY ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THE CONFIRMATION OF UNSECURED LOANS BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT,1961 AMOUNTING TO 22,01,000 TWO GRO UNDS HAVE BEEN FURTHER ENHANCED IN THE MODIFIED GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGITATING THE ISSUE OF THE ACTION OF DISALLOWANCE OF DISCOUNT CLAIMED IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ON ESTIMATE AT 4 LAKHS OUT OF 28,08,226. DISALLOWANCE OF DONATION AMOUNTING TO 40,870 HAS ALSO BEEN BROUGHT AS A GROUND IN THE MODIFIED GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 10.1.2012. THE LEARNED DR HAD NO OBJECTIONS TO DELIBERATE UPON THESE TWO GROUNDS ALSO WHICH ARE ADMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION HEREINAFTER. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS AS HAVE BEE N BROUGHT ON RECORD ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, IS A DEALER OF TRACTORS AND SPARE PARTS MANUFACTURED BY MAHINDRA TRACTORS. I N THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS IT FILED RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING INCOME OF 41,751. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3),THE AO VERIFIED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND SOUGHT EXPLANATION FOR THE AMOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN S AMOUNTING TO 25,01,000 WHEN THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATIONS OF THE UNSECURED LO AN CREDITORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNT HAD BEEN RECEIVED ITA NO.176/CTK/2011 2 BY DEMAND DRAFTS WHEN HE SOUGHT TO DELETE THE SUM OF 3 LAKHS AS PERTAINING TO THE EARLIER YEAR. WITH RESPECT TO TWO LOAN CREDITORS NAMELY, SHRI HAZI HAMID AHMED AND S.FAZLUR RAHMAN, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSES SEE THAT THESE TWO ARE THE LOAN CREDITORS WHO HAD ADVANCED MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE AS FRIENDLY LOANS WITHOUT BEARING ANY INTEREST. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS WHEN THE ASSESSEE EXPLA INED THAT THE SUM OF 18, 23 ,000 REPRESENTED ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THE BUYERS OF THE TRACTORS FROM THE ASSESSEE HAVING SPECIFIC COLOUR, UTILITY AND SPARE PARTS REQUIREMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT RECEIPT OF MONEY MERELY THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE D EMAND DRAFT IS NOT SACROSANCT NOR THE MONEY TRANSACTION GENUINE. HE TAXED THE SAME U/S.68. HE ALSO, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, VERIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DISCOUNT ALLOWED TO ITS CUSTOMERS AMOUNTING TO 28,08,226 WHEN THE ASSESSEE FILED THE DETAILS OF THE DISCOUNT MADE TO THE CUSTOMERS WHO HAD PURCHASED THE TRACTORS INSCRIBED IN THE SALE BILLS. THE CASH VOUCHERS SUPPORTED OF HAVING GRANTED THE DISCOUNT AGAINST THE ADVANCE RECEIVED OR THE PAYMENT RECEIVED OTHERWISE WAS PREPARED BY T HE ACCOUNTANT WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AS SELF MADE VOUCHERS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON ESTIMATION , HE HAS DISALLOWED A SUM OF 4 LAKHS THERE FROM WHICH WAS ALSO APPEALED AGAINST BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED A SUM OF 40,870 CLAIMED AS DONATION IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH WAS EXPLAINED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR LOCAL POOJA COMMI TTEES ON VARIOUS FESTIVE OCCASIONS. LEGALLY UNTENABLE THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THESE TWO ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDED IN THE MODIFIED GROUNDS OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE RETAINING THE ORIGINAL GROUND BEING THE CONFIRMATION OF UNSECURED LOA N U/S.68 AMOUNTING TO 22,01,000. ITA NO.176/CTK/2011 3 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INITIATING HIS ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS APPRISED OF THE FACT THAT ALL SIX PARTIES HAD ADVANCED AGAINST PURCHASE OF TRACTORS TO BE BILLED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR CANNOT BE TERMED AS UNSECURED CASH CREDITS IN THE LITERAL MEANING THEREOF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING APPRISED OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD TRACTORS BEING A DEALER OF MAHINDRA TRACTORS AMOUNTING TO 4.8 CRORES OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE SUM OF 18,23, 000 WHICH HAD BEEN ADVANCED FOR PURCHASE OF TRACTORS FOR THEIR OWN CULTIVATION HAD PAID AMOUNT BY ACCOUNT PAYEE DEMAND DRAFTS WERE TO BE VERIFIED ON THE BASIS OF THEIR CONFIRMATIONS ALONE FOR HAVING ADVANCED THE AMOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF TRACTORS. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE REMAINING TWO LOAN CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO 3,78,000 AS IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS NOT EXPLAINED INSPITE OF HAVING FURNISHED THEIR PAN AND CREDITWORTHINESS BY FILING THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF I.T.RETURNS WHICH WERE MORE THAN 10 LAKHS INCOME EACH. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE LE ARNED COUNSEL HAS FILED THE SUBSEQUENT BILLS RAISED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007 - 08 IN THE CASE OF BIJAY KUMAR KHUNTIA ( PAGE 44), B.B.NAYAK (PAGE 40), AZIZ KHAN ( PAGE 47), P.PRADHAN (PAGE 500, SUSAMA DALAI ( PAGE 53) AND SANTOSH TARANI (PAGE 58). THESE BI LLS INDICATE THAT THESE SALES BILLS HAVE ADJUSTED THE ADVANCE RECEIVED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE REMAINING TWO LOAN CREDITORS NAMELY S.FAZLUR RAHMAN AND HAJI HAMID AHMED HA D FURNISHED THEIR COPIES OF RETURNS ALONG WITH THE BANK ACCOUNTS INDICATI NG THE CREDITWORTHINESS FOR THE AMOUNT ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE AS A FRIENDLY LOAN. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFINING HIMSELF TO THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 DID NOT CONSIDER THESE EXPLANATION SATISFACTORY WHICH THE LEARNED CIT(A) CON SIDERED IN DETAIL BUT SUSTAINED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS EXAMINATION WHEN THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LOAN CREDITORS AND CUSTOMERS TO ITA NO.176/CTK/2011 4 PERSONALLY APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HELD AS THE ASSESSEES INABILITY TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM FOR DENYING ADDIT ION U/S.68. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ARGUED THAT IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEPT NON - PRODUCTION OF THESE PERSONS WHEN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT INSCRIBED TH E PURPORTED LOAN CREDITORS AS UNSECURED LOANS DULY AUDITED U/S.44AB BY A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS RECORD WERE ALSO AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HE OUGHT TO HAVE VERIFIED ON THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM THEREFORE CANNOT BE HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION U/S.68. HAVING OBSERVED THAT THE SUM OF RS.3 LAKHS AS UNSECURED LOAN WAS BROUGHT FORWARD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE VERSION THAT THE SAME WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST SALES IN THE IMPUGNED A SSESSMENT YEAR OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE SAME FOR ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE CREDITORS WHO AE ACTUALLY CUSTOMERS WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO CONFIRM THE SAME IF WERE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE MERELY CUSTOMERS WHO HAD PURCHASED THE GOODS ON THE BASIS OF BILLS DRAWN ON THEM WERE NOT REQUIRED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS LOAN CREDITORS. IT IS MANDATORY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS OTHER THAN AS SUNDRY CREDITORS AND NOT CASH CREDITORS. SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR EXPENSES WERE ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT FINDING ANY INFIRMITY THEREIN. HE THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE SUM OF 18,23,000 CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE SAME IS AGAINST BILLS DRAWN IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND ARE NOT CREDITORS IN THE LITERAL SENSE OF ITS MEANING INSOFAR AS THEY CANNOT HAVE BEEN VERIFIED FOR THEIR IDEN TITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS. IT WAS NOT THE CASE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SOURCE OF SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ITA NO.176/CTK/2011 5 CUSTOMERS . THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO 39,29,734 WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DULY CONFIRMED AS TRADE CREDITORS. 4. WITH RESPECT TO THE NEXT ISSUE REGARDING ESTIMATE D DISALLOWANCE OF DISCOUNT CLAIMED, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD INDICATE THAT THE SALES WERE ACCOUNTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING WHEN THE DI SCOUNT WAS GIVEN AFTER THE SALE AMOUNT ARE INSCRIBED FOR PAYMENT FROM THE CUSTOMERS. THIS DISCOUNT WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF DEALERSHIP COMMISSION WHICH T HE ASSESSEE EARNED AND RENDERED TO TAX. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THEREFORE NOT TO DISALLOW ON ESTIMATION JUST BECAUSE THE VOUCHERS, WHICH WERE OBTAINED FROM THE CUSTOMERS AT THE TIME OF FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THEIR BILLS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER VERIFIED THAT THE CUSTOMERS ON WHOSE NAMES THE BILLS WERE DRAWN WERE THE PERSONS WHO HAD RECEIVED THE DISCOUNT WERE SAME THEREFORE COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED MERELY ON ESTIMATION OUT OF 28LAKHS A SUM OF 4 LAKHS WITHOUT IDENTIFYING THE PARTICUL AR CUSTOMER WHO COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE AVAIL ED SUCH DISCOUNT. 5. WITH RESPECT TO LAST GROUND REGARDING THE DONATION, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DONATIONS WERE MADE TO LOCAL POOJA COMMITTEES ON FESTIVE OCCASIONS WERE MANDATORILY REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WAS ENTITLED TO THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS WHICH MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED. 6. THE LEARNED DR OPPOSED THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO 22,01,000 WHEN ONLY THE CONFIRMATIONS WERE PRODUCED. MERELY FURNISHING OF DETAILS OF THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED AGAINST DEMAND DRAFTS WAS NOT SACROSANCT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS WELL AS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLA INED UNDER ITA NO.176/CTK/2011 6 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 INSOFAR AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE LOAN CREDITORS IN PERSON BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE DETAILS GIVEN WITH RESPECT TO THE BILLS RAISED IN THE SUB SEQUENT YEAR WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLEARLY NOTED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE LOANS WERE NOT TRADE CREDIT OR S. 7. WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE ON ESTIMATE DISALLOWANCE OF DISCOUNT, THE LEARNED DR PRODUCED THE ORDER SHEET COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER WHERE THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAD AGREED TO THE ESTIMATE DISALLOWANCE OF DISCOUNT CLAIMED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON CAREFULLY CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT HAVING CALLED FOR THE DETAILS AND THE CONFIRMATIONS IT BECAME CLEAR TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THESE PERSONS WHO HAD PAID THE A MOUNT IN DEMAND DRAFTS ON VARIOUS DATES HAD PAID THE AMOUNTS FOR PURCHASE OF TRACTORS WHICH WERE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE ADVANCE OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MERELY DENIED THESE CONFIRMATIONS FOR ACCEPTANCE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT S HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE DEMAND DRAFTS WITHOUT IDENTIFYING AS TO HOW ADVANCE RECEIVED AGAINST SALES CAN BE DENIED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE IDENTIFIED THAT SHRI HAJI HAMID AHMED AND S.FAZLUR RAHMAN WERE PURELY LOAN CREDITORS WHEN THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ONLY THE COPIES OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF I.T. RETURN S OF THESE TWO PERSONS WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THEIR PRESENCE A S WELL . WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE APPROPRIATE TO THE EXTENT THAT A CUSTOMER CANNOT BE SUMMONED ITA NO.176/CTK/2011 7 TO JUSTIFY THE AMOUNT PAID BY HIM FOR THE PURCHASE OF TRACTOR AS AFTER HAVING PURCHASED THE GOODS HE HAD NO RELATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE WAS ONLY TO CONSIDER THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PURPORTED LOAN CREDITORS ON THE BASIS O F CONFIRMATIONS AND INCOME TAX DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE HIM WHICH WERE SELF SUFFICIENT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFORE DID NOT INDICATE AS TO WHAT OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE REQUIRED FOR SUBSTANTIATING THAT THE SIX PARTIES WERE LOAN CREDITORS WHEN THE SALE BILLS DRAW N WERE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE CONFIRMATION S FURNISHED BY THE SIX PERSONS WHO HAD PURCHASED THE TRACTORS. THE INCOME FROM SALE OF TRACTORS HAD BEEN RENDERED TO TAX IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WAS NOT DISPUTED. THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AND THE STOC K OF TRACTORS LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS NOT CHALLENGED AND THE BANK LOAN AGAINST HYPOTHECATION OF THE STOCK OF TRACTORS LYING WITH TH E ASSESSEE WERE NOT CHALLENGED. ALL THESE CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TO BE BURDENED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 IN RESPECT OF THE SIX PARTIES WHO HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED FROM THEIR ADVANCE I N THE SUBSEQUENT SALES AND FURTHER MORE THE TWO PERSONS WHO COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADEQUATELY ESTABLISHED THE IR IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS AS PER THE NOTINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D DISCHARGED THE ONUS WHICH LAY UPON HIM AND IT WAS NOT THE CASE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE PERTINENT NOTE OF THE DISCLOSURE IN THE BALANCE SHEET THAT THE TRADE CREDITORS WERE TO BE SEPARATELY INDICATED OTHER THAN SUNDRY CREDITORS AND UNSECURED LOANS. THE DEDUCTION OF ADVANCE FROM THE CUSTOMERS FROM THE SUNDRY DEBTORS AMOUNTING TO 21,27,420 WO ULD HAVE GIVEN A LOPSIDED STATE OF AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2007. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION OF 22,01,000 MADE BY THE ITA NO.176/CTK/2011 8 ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.68 AND SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) CANNOT BE ACCEPTED , WHICH IS HEREBY DEL ETED. 9. ON THE ISSUE OF ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF DISCOUNT OF 4 LAKHS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF CLAIM OF SUCH DISCOUNT WAS SELF - SUFFICIENT MORE SO BECAUSE THE SALE BILLS WERE ALSO DRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE HAVING SATISFIED ON TOTAL DISCOUNT, DISALLOWED ON ESTIMATION WITHOUT IDENTIFYING CUSTOMERS WHO COULD NOT HAVE AVAILED SUCH DISCOUNT BUT WERE SHOWN AS HAVING RECEIVED THE DISCOUNT FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESS EE HAS DECLARED THE SALES TO EARN THE DEALERSHIP COMMISSION FROM MAHINDRA TRACTORS AND THEREFORE CLAIMED THE DISCOUNT IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT BY FOREGOING THE PART OF THE DEALERSHIP COMMISSION AS IS PREVALENT IN SUCH KIND OF BUSINESS. MERELY BECAUSE T HE RECEIPT VOUCHERS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAK E AD HOC DISALLOWAN CE OUT OF THE CLAIM OF DISCOUNT . IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, SUCH AD HOC DISALLOWANCE AS MADE IN THE INSTANT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED FOR LEGAL SCRUTINY EVEN IF SUCH AD HOC DISALLOWANCE WAS ADMITTED BY THE THEN LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WITHOUT IDENTIFYING A PARTICULAR CUSTOMER WHO COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE AVAILED SUCH DISCOUNT. FURTHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS VERIFIE D THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK ON THE BASIS OF ISSUE RAISED WHEN THE SALES TAX HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE TOTAL SALE VALUE WHEREVER DISCOUNT HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE CUSTOMERS THEREFORE REQUIRES NO FURTHER SCR UTINY INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING SELF - VOUCHERS. IN ANY CASE, THE DISCOUNT FOR DISALLOWANCE HAS TO BE IDENTIFIED ON SPECIFIC FINDING WHICH IS LACKING IN THE INSTANT CASE. THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF 4 LAKHS MADE ON THIS COUNT. ITA NO.176/CTK/2011 9 10. ON THE LAST ISSUE AS REGARDS TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF DONATIONS MADE TO POOJA COMMITTEES, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT SUBSTANTIATED SUCH CLAIM EITHER BEFORE THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW NOR THE TRIBUNAL. THE GROUND RAISED IN THIS REGARD THEREFORE IS DISMISSED . 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. S D/ - S D/ - (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER (K.K.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 13.01.2012 H.K.PADHEE, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT: KISHAN MOTORS , PLOT NO.56/A, SAHARA COMPLEX, RASULGARH, 2. THE RESPONDENT: ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX , CIRCLE 2(2), BHUBANESWAR. 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A), 5. THE DR, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLICATE) TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY.