Oerlikon Balzers Coating India Ltd., Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1832/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1776 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K RASTOGI
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS IQ.KS IQ.KSIQ.KS IQ.KS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE , . . , # BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM . / ITA NO.1832/PN/2014 % % / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 OERLIKON BLAZERS COATING INDIA LTD., EL-22, J-BLOCK, MIDC, BHOSARI, PUNE 411026 PAN NO. AAACI3916N . / APPELLANT V/S DCIT, CIRCLE-10, PUNE . / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI / REVENUE BY : SHRI S.K. RASTOGI / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 20-08-2014 OF THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE RELATING TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE APPEAL ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITIO NS MADE BY THE AO. AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONTRADICTORY TO LAW AND HENCE WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IT BE SET ASIDE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF L OSS OF RS.15,28,270/- ON ACCOUNT OF EMBEZZLEMENT BY THE EMPLOYEE ON PURELY TECHNICAL GROUNDS ACCEPTING / DATE OF HEARING :16.05.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:20.05.2016 2 ITA NO.1832/PN/14 THAT THE CLAIM OF EMBEZZLEMENT WAS OF RS. 40,28,270/- OUT OF WHICH SUM OF RS . 25 LAKHS WAS RECOVERED. THE CLAIM WAS SUPPORTED BY VARI OUS LEGAL PRECEDENTS. IN THE PROCESS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,28,270/- WHICH WAS NEVER REACHED TO THE ASSESSEE AS I NCOME AS IT WAS DIVERTED AT SOURCE ONLY. THE LD . CIT(A)'S FINDING BE QUASHED ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE . 3. ON THE FACTS AND CI R CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.1,78,77,487/- ON THE PARITY OF REASONING THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FAILED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE INCOME COMPRISED IN TDS CE RTIFICATES WHICH REASONING WAS UPHELD BY LD. CIT(A) OBSERVING 'THOUGH T DS CREDIT IS APPEARING IN F. NO. 26AS STATEMENT CORRESPONDING INCO ME IS NOT SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT.' THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS PLACED BEFORE HIM. THE ADDIT ION CONFIRMED BY HIM BE QUASHED . 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W IN THE PROCESS THE INCOME WHICH WAS NOT REAL INCOME GOT TAXED BEC AUSE OF ORDER OF THE LD .CIT(A). IT BE HELD ACCORDINGLY. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S .234A, 234B AND 234C IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES/LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL . 3. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUND S OF APPEAL RELATE TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.15,28,270/-. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FULLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF OC O ERLIKON CORPORATION AG. BLAZERS IS A MULTINATIONAL GROUP RENOWNED ALL OVER THE WORLD FOR HIGH TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS IN THE FIELD OF HIGH VACUUM EQUIPMENT AND THIN FILM COATINGS. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RET URN OF INCOME ON 31-10-2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.16,27,190/ - WHICH WAS REVISED ON 11-08-2010 BY DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.16,15,380/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED LOSS OF RS.15,28,270/- AS ONE OF THE EX- EMPLOYEES HAD DEFRAUDED THE COMPANY TO THE TU NE OF RS.40,28,270/-. ON BEING QUESTIONED BY THE AO IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT THE COMPANY DISCOVERED THE ACCOUNTING IRREGULARITIES AND OTHER IRREGULARITY BY THE EX-EMPLOYEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION 3 ITA NO.1832/PN/14 AND COULD RECOVER RS.25 LAKHS FROM HIM. THEREFORE, THE BALA NCE HAS BEEN CHARGED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE THE D ETAILS OF BIFURCATION OF THE SAME AND TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS IT PERTAINS TO EARLIER YEARS. THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THE DETAILS FROM WHICH THE AO NOTED THAT THE IRREGULARITY WAS STARTED IN F.Y. 2003-04 AND CONTINUED UPTO F.Y. 2006-07. IT WAS S UBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMPANY CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE FRAUD ONLY IN THIS YEAR AND THEREFORE AFTER RECOVERY OF AMOUNT OF RS .25 LAKHS THE BALANCE WAS CHARGED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 4. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS.15,28,270/-. WHILE DOING SO, HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT PROVIDED THE DATES OF RECOVERY AND TERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYEE. THERE FORE, THE SAME CANNOT HE ALLOWED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BEING EXPENDITURE OF PRIOR YEARS. 5. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 9. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS REPLY OF THE APPELLANT . IN THIS CASE , IT IS SEEN THAT EMBEZZLEMENT WAS CAUSED BY ONE SHR I . E. SRINIVAS, AN EMPLOYEE OF BANGALORE BRANCH. IT IS SE EN FROM THE RECORDS SUBMITTED THAT POLICE COMPLAINT IN THIS REGARD WAS MADE BY SHRI . M. R. KARNATH CENTRE MANAGER OF BANGLORE BRANCH OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY VIDE LETTER DATED 02.09 . 2009 WHICH WAS R ECEIVED BY THE POLICE AUTHO R ITIES ON 03.09.2009 AS PER NOTINGS MADE IN KANNADA LANGUAGE AT HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION AT BANGALORE. IN THIS COMPLAINT, IT H AS BEEN CLAIMED THAT EX- EMPLOYEE SHRI E. SRINIVAS HAS CHEATED THE COMPANY TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 25 LACS DURING THE F . Y. 2003 - 2006 . THEREAFTER , DEED OF SETTLEMENT WAS ARR I VED AT ON 08 . 09 . 2009 AS PER WHICH RS. 25 LACS WAS PAID BY SHRI . E. SRINIVAS TO THE COMPANY AS STATED I N THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT . THE APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT EMBEZZLEMENT WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 40 , 28,270/ - OUT OF WHICH RS. 25,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED AND THEREFORE BALANCE AMOUN T OF RS. 15,28,270/- WAS BUSINESS LOSS WHICH SHOULD BE ALLOWED . THE APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT THE MATTER CAME INTO NOTICE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY IN A . Y . 2009 - 10 I . E. F . Y. 2008-09 IS ALSO NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACT AS THE RECON CILIATI O N SHOWS 4 ITA NO.1832/PN/14 RECEIPT OF RS. 25,00,000/ - WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT IN A.Y. 2010- 11 I . E BY DEED OF SETTLEMENT DATED 08.09.2009. ACCORDINGL Y, FROM THE ANALYSIS OF FACT IT EMERGES THAT (I) CLAIM OF EMBEZZLEMENT OF RS.40,28,270/- IS NOT SUBSTANT IATED AS POLICE COMPLAINT WAS MADE ONLY FOR RS.25 LACS WHICH WA S RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE DEED OF SETTLEMENT DATED 08-09 -2009 (II) THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THE ISSUE CAME INTO KNOWLEDGE O F THE APPELLANT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2009 -10 EVEN THOUGH THE MATTER REMAINS OF ACADEMIC IMPORTANCE ONL Y SINCE POLICE COMPLAINT WAS MADE ONLY IN RESPECT OF RS.25 LAC S AND NOT RS.40,28,270/-. 10 . THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT POLICE COMPLAIN T WAS MADE VIDE LETTER DATED 02 : 09.2009 FOR EMBEZZLEMENT OF RS. 25 LACS ONLY WHICH WAS RETURNED TO THE APPELLANT VIDE DEED OF SETTLEMENT DATED 08.09.2014, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CLAIM OF EMBEZZLEMENT OF RS. 15, 28,270/- REMAINS UNSUBSTANTIATED. THIS BEING SO, I DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIF ICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, ADDI TION OF RS.15,28 , 270/- IS UPHELD . THUS, THE GROUND IS DISMISSED. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HAS LODGED A COMPLAINT BEFORE THE POLICE AUTHORITIES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.25 LAKHS ONLY. AFTER THE SETTLEMENT WAS ARRIVED ON 08-09-2009 SHRI E. SRINIVAS , EX- EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE PAID RS.25 LAKHS TO THE ASSESSE E COMPANY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF E MBEZZLEMENT OF RS.40,28,270/- AND HAS FILED POLICE COMPLAINT ONLY TO THE E XTENT OF RS.25 LAKHS, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF RS.15,28,270/- WHICH REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US ALSO COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) NOR COULD HE GIVE THE PROOF OF EMBEZZLEMENT OF RS.15,28,270/-. WE THERE FORE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND UPHOLD THE S AME. THE 5 ITA NO.1832/PN/14 FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS IS ACCO RDINGLY DISMISSED. 8. THE SECOND ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATE TO TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,78,77,487/-. 9. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ON VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS AND T HE RECONCILIATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, NOTED THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ITS DATA AND DETAILS IN FORM 26AS. HE, THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHETHER THE INCOME RECEIVED AS PER FORM 26AS HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT AND IF NOT THE REASON FOR THE SAME. FROM THE VARIOUS DE TAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO NOTED THAT THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE IS SHORT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,78,77,487/- IN COMPARISON TO THE FIGU RES IN FORM26AS. HE, THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE THE REASONS FOR THE HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THE INCOME CREDITED AS PER FORM 2 6AS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AND ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. T HE ASSESSEE GAVE ONLY THE COMPARISON BUT NO EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT OFFERED WAS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT STATED IN FORM 26AS. THE AO, THEREFORE, AGAIN ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE PROPER R EASONS EXPLAINING THE DIFFERENCE WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 10. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SOME OF THE CUSTOMERS HAVE V ERBALLY INFORMED THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE MIGHT BE MISTAKE FROM T HEIR SIDE IN FEEDING SALES VALUE AGAINST PAN NUMBERS OF CUSTOMERS AND SAME MIGHT HAVE BEEN UPLOADED FOR WHICH THE TDS RETURN MIGHT HAVE GONE WRONG. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE COMP ANY ARE AUDITED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AND UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT WITH CONFIRMATION FROM CUSTOMERS ON TEST CHECK BASIS EVERY YE AR. IT WAS 6 ITA NO.1832/PN/14 SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENCE OF BOTH SIDES, I.E. SOME CUSTOMERS SHOW HIGHER SALES AMOUNT AND SOME CUSTOMERS SHOWS LESS SALE VALUE IN FORM 26AS AS COMPARED TO COMPANIES SALE VALUES. THER EFORE, ADDING DIFFERENTIAL SALE VALUE TO INCOME OF THE COMPANY IS NOT CORRECT. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE COMPANY IS READY TO ACCEPT TH AT THE CLAIM FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL TDS MAY NOT BE GIVEN TO A COMPANY IN SUCH CASES WHERE SALES VALUES ARE HIGHER THAN COMPANY SALES VALUES. FURTHER, THE YEAR END SALE INVOICES ARE ACCOUNTED BY CUSTOMERS IN FIRST WEEK OF APRIL OF THE NEXT YEAR. HENCE, NORMALLY THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN SALE AND TDS AMOUNTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPANY IS RE ADY TO GIVE RECONCILIATION OF ACCOUNT WITH CUSTOMERS WHERE THERE IS BIG DIFFERENCE IN HIGHER SALES AMOUNT SHOWN BY CUSTOMERS AS COMPARED TO COMPANYS SALES VALUE BUT ADDITION OF SUCH SALES VALUE IS NOT CORRECT. FURTHER, THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AUDITED FOR THE YEAR 31 -03-2009 ARE ACCEPTED BY EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX AUTHORITIES, VAT AUTHO RITIES AND OTHER GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR. THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ON I TS MOTION VS. CIT IN WRIT PETITION NO.2659/2012 ORDER DATED 31-08- 2012 WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO. 11. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ABOVE EXP LANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ONLY A GENERAL REPLY BUT COULD NOT GIVE PROPER RECONCILIATION. THE AO N OTED THAT IT MAY BE POSSIBLE IN SOME CASES THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT H AVE OFFERED THE INCOME IN PREVIOUS YEAR OR SUBSEQUENT YEAR BASED ON BOOKING OF BILLS. THE SAME CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY ON PRODUCTION OF P ROPER RECORDS FOR VERIFICATION AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,78,77,487/-. IN ABSENCE OF ANY PROPER RECONCILIATION, TH E AO 7 ITA NO.1832/PN/14 TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ACCORD INGLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,78,77,487/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE REITERATED MORE OR LESS TH E SAME ARGUMENTS AND CERTAIN CASE LAWS WERE BROUGHT TO HIS NO TICE. HOWEVER, HE WAS ALSO NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 15. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS FILED IN THIS REGARD. IN THIS CASE IT IS SEEN T HAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR CORRESPONDING INCOME IN ITS BOOK S OF ACCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF TDS CREDIT SHOWN IN 26AS STATEMENT MEANING THEREBY THAT TDS CREDIT HAS BEEN CLAIMED WITHOUT SHOWING CORRESPONDING INCOME. THIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AS CREDIT OF TDS CAN BE CLAIMED ONLY I N THE YEAR, INCOME IS OFFERED. THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE CREDIT FOR TDS BUT ADDED THE CORRESPONDING INCOME IN ABSENCE OF PROPER RECONCILIAT ION. THE GENERAL EXPLANATION FOR SUCH DISCREPANCY FILED BY THE APPELLA NT CAN BE APPRECIATED IN RESPECT OF MINOR DISCREPANCIES BUT NOT IN RESPECT O F AMOUNT OF RS.1,78,77,487/- WHICH IS QUITE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT. THEREFORE, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. TH E APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON CERTAIN CASE LAWS. THE SAME ARE DISTINGUI SHABLE IN THE SENSE THAT THE SAME PERTAINS TO ALLOWING CREDIT OF TDS ON T HE BASIS OF TDS CERTIFICATES IN CASE OF MISMATCH. IN THIS CASE THE ISSUE IS DIFFERENT. THOUGH TDS CREDIT IS APPEARING IN FORM 26AS STATEMENT, CORRE SPONDING INCOME IS NOT SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, RELIANCE ON THE ABOVE CASE LAWS IS MISPLACED AND THE GROUND IS DISMISSED. 13. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 14. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THER E ARE MORE THAN 2500 CUSTOMERS AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GIVE THE RECONCILIATION REGARDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN FORM 26AS AND THE SALES FIGURE DECLARED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF VARSHA G. SALUNKE VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 98 ITD 147 AND THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM OF CBDT DATED 11-03-2016 HE SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY ON 8 ITA NO.1832/PN/14 ACCOUNT OF MISMATCH IN THE AMOUNTS IN THE FORM 26AS AND THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 15. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HA ND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED TH AT DESPITE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY THE AO AND THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSE E WAS UNABLE TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE. THE AO WAS VERY GENEROUS IN STATING THAT IF THE SALES HAVE BEEN CREDITED EITHER IN THE PRECEDING YEA R OR SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THEN ALSO THE ASSESSEE CAN GET THE C REDIT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT REFLECTED IN THE FORM 26AS HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX EITHER IN THE IMPUGNED ASSE SSMENT YEAR OR IN THE PRECEDING OR SUBSEQUENT YEAR. HE SUBMITTED T HAT THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AR E NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SID ES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIO US DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED THAT THERE IS HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIGURE REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS AND THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,78,77,487. WE FIND DESPITE OPPORTUNITIES G IVE BY THE AO THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GIVE ANY RECONCILIATION FOR WH ICH THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAME WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD.CIT(A). WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. ADMITTEDLY, THE AO HAS HELD THA T IF THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE INCOME EITHER IN THE PRECEDING Y EAR OR SUBSEQUENT YEAR ALSO THE ASSESSEE CAN GET CREDIT FOR THE AMOUNTS REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS AND NO ADDITION TO THIS EXTENT CAN BE MADE. 9 ITA NO.1832/PN/14 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS NOT RECO NCILED THE DIFFERENCE EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE CIT(A) OR EV EN BEFORE US REGARDING CREDIT OF THE AMOUNTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS ON WHICH TDS HAS BEEN MADE AND THAT THE SA ME HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX. MERELY BY STATING THAT THE NUMBER OF AC COUNTS ARE MORE THAN 2500 AND IT WILL TAKE SUBSTANTIAL TIME FOR RECONC ILIATION CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR DELETING THE ADDITION. THE ASSESS EE HAS TO CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT THE AMOUNTS REFLECTED IN FORM 26 AS HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE EITHE R DURING THE CURRENT YEAR OR IN THE PRECEDING OR SUCCEEDING YEAR. H E COULD HAVE ALSO FILED CONFIRMATION FROM THE CONCERNED PARTIES THAT THE AMOUNT ENTERED BY THEM IN FORM 26AS IS INCORRECT AND THE CORR ECT AMOUNT IS SOMETHING ELSE. ONLY WHEN PROPER RECONCILIATION IS MADE TH EN ONLY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CAN CONSIDER THE SAME AND TAKE PROPER DECISION. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST ON IT DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED AT VARIOUS LEVELS, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAIN ED BY THE CIT(A) HAS TO BE UPHELD. 17. THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF VARSHA G. SA LUNKE (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN TH AT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED THE RECEIPTS PERTAINING TO SERVICE S RENDERED IN MARCH 1997 IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AS PER THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY HIM. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THA T THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADDING THE RECEIPTS IN THE RELEVANT AS SESSMENT YEAR AND GIVING THE CREDIT OF TDS. SIMILARLY, THE OFFICE MEM ORANDUM OF CBDT DATED 11-03-2015 RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE. IN THE SAID CIRCULAR THE B OARD HAS 10 ITA NO.1832/PN/14 ISSUED DIRECTIONS TO THE FIELD OFFICERS THAT IN CASE OF AN ASS ESSEE WHOSE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BUT NOT DEPOSITED TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT BY THE DEDUCTOR, THE DEDUCTEE ASSESSEE SHALL N OT BE CALLED UPON TO PAY THE DEMAND TO THE EXTENT OF TAX THAT HA S BEEN DEDUCTED FROM HIS INCOME. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE ALTHOUGH THE DEDUCTOR HAS STATED TO HAVE PAID MORE AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THAT SUCH INCOME HAS BEE N OFFERED TO TAX EITHER IN THIS YEAR OR IN THE PRECEDING OR SUCCEEDING YEA R, THEREFORE, THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM OF THE CBDT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE UPHOLD THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20-05-2016 SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IQ.KS PUNE ; DATED : 20 TH MAY , 2016. LRH'K ' (*+ ,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. % ( ) - THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE 4. % S / THE CIT-V, PUNE 5. ( ++, , , , IQ.KS / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; 6. 0 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // ( + //TRUE COPY //// 23 + , / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ,, IQ.KS / ITAT, PUNE