Shri Mahesh Kumar Kumawat, Dewas V. The ITO, Dewas

ITA 203/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70006 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S S DESHPANDE
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Depreciation; Additional evidence
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, J.M. AND SHRI R.C.SHARM A, A.M. PAN NO. : AVEPK0808Q I.T.A.NO. 203 /IND/201 3 A.Y. : 2006-07 MR.MAHESH KUMAR KUMAWAT, DEWAS. VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, DEWAS APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.S.DESHPANDE, C. A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. A. VERMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 01 . 0 8 .201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 . 0 8 .201 3 O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) DATED 10.01.2013, FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 143( 3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORDS PERUSED. -: 2: - 2 3. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE : - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 4,15,907/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FIXED ASSETS U/S 69 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. FACTUALLY THERE IS NO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHARGE DEPRECIATION IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND CLAIMED THE DEPRECIATION IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED IN HIS REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), UJJAIN THAT THERE IS NO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN FIXED ASSETS. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER FOR ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FIXED ASSETS U/S 69 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, MADE BY LD.COUNSEL MAY KINDLY BE -: 3: - 3 DELETED AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE LD.AO MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMI NG THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 1,14,321/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S 69 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, REGARDING DIFFERENCE IN BALANCES OF DEBTORS IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND CONFIRMATION LETTERS FILED BY THE DEBTORS. 4. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND RECORDS PERUSED. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, AN ADDITI ON WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT IN FIXED ASSETS OF RS. 4,15,907/-. THE A SSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE VALUE OF THE FIXED ASSETS AT RS. 24,39,83 1/- IN THE BALANCE SHEET, WHEREAS AS PER THE DEPRECIATION CHAR T VALUE OF THE FIXED ASSETS COMES TO RS. 20,23,923/-. A.O. HEL D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INFLATED THE VALUE OF THE FIXED ASSETS AT RS. 4,15,907/-, WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IN THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. -: 4: - 4 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 1. THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO ADDITION OF RS. 4,15,907/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF THE DEPRECIATION AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN FIXED ASSETS. HON'BLE SIR, THE ASSESSEE CHARGED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 4,15,907/- ON THE FIXED ASSETS HAVING WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF RS. 24,39,831/- A SON 1.4.2005 AND AFTER DEPRECIATION THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE SAME BECAME RS. 20,23,923/- AS ON 31.03.2006 AS PER INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEBITED THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 4,15,907/- IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE SHOWED THE VALUE OF THE FIXED ASSETS OF RS. 24,39,831/- WITHOUT DEDUCTING THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECATION. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION AS INFLATED VALUE OF THE ASSETS AND MADE ADDITION AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. IF THE -: 5: - 5 ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE DEBITED THE PROFIT AND LOSS AND THEN KEPT THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF 31.03.2005 IN FIXED ASSETS AS IT IS IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.20065 THEN IT COULD BE A CASE OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. UNDER THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES, BY ANY ANGLE OF LAW THE DEPRECIATION AMOUNT OF RS. 4,15,907/- CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HON'BLE SIR, ON THE SAME MATTER THIS HON'BLE OFFICE HAS SENT THE MATTER TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REMAND REPORT. IN THE REMAND REPORT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER VERIFIED THE MATTER AND CONFIRMED THAT THERE IS NO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE FIXED ASSETS OF THE CONCERN AND STATED THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IS NOT FAIR. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT ASSES SEES CONTENTION AND ADDED THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION IN ASSESSEES INCOME. -: 6: - 6 6. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED TH E ADDITION AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 3.2.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. APPELLANT HAS SHOWN DEPRECIATION OF RS. 4,15,907/-ON THE FIXED ASSETS HAVING WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF RS. 24,39,831/- AS ON 31.03.2005 AND AFTER DEPRECIATION THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE ASSETS WERE RS. 20,23,923/- AS ON 31.03.2006. THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN VALUE OF FIXED ASSETS IN THE BALANCE SHEET AT RS. 24,39,831/- IN PLACE OF RS.20,23,923/-. APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AT THE TIME OF BALANCE SHEET. AS PER CORRECT ACCOUNTING METHOD HE HAS TAKEN THE VALUE OF FIXED ASSETS ON WRITTEN DOWN VALUE. IN HIS EXPLANATION APPELLANT HAS ALSO ADMITTED THAT IF THE APPELLANT WOULD HAVE DEBITED THE DEPRECIATION IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THEN KEPT THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF 31.03.2005 IN FIXED ASSETS AS IT IS I N -: 7: - 7 BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2006 THEN IT COULD BE A CASE OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 3.2.2 THE APPELLANT HAS TO TAKE THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE FIXED ASSETS IN THE BALANCE SHEET. WHETHER, HE IS DEBITING DEPRECIATION IN PROF IT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OR CLAIMING IT DIRECTLY IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE BALANCE SHEET O F THE APPELLANT AS ON 31.03.2005 AND 31.3.2006 AND THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE FIXED ASSETS IN BOTH THE YEARS WERE SHOWN AT RS. 24,39,631/-. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,15,907/-AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THEREFORE, ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 69 OF RS. 4,15,907/- IS CONFIRMED. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) ONLY ON THE PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEBITED THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION IN THE -: 8: - 8 PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCO ME, WHICH WAS FILED ALONGWITH RETURN. THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIAT ION IS NOT IN DISPUTE AND AFTER REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECI ATION, THE VALUE OF THE FIXED ASSETS WORKS OUT TO RS. 20,23,92 3/-. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ACTION OF LOWER AUT HORITIES FOR MAKING ADDITION U/S 69 MERELY ON THE PLEA THAT THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION WAS NOT DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BY PASSING ACCOUNTING ENTRY, WHEN THE CLAIM OF DEPRECI ATION IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED ALONGWITH RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT IN DISPUTE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION SO MADE. 8. AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,14,321/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT O F UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S 69, WHICH PERTAINS TO DIFFER ENCE OF BALANCES OF DEBTORS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND CON FIRMATION LETTERS FILED BY THE DEBTORS. IN THIS REGARD, SUBMI SSION OF ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS AS UNDER :- HONORABLE SIR, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUNDRY DEBTORS FOR GOODS OF RS. 1564435/-. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NON -: 9: - 9 CONFIRMATION OF DEBTORS FOR GOODS TAKING IT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. NO ADDITION VIS 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 CAN BE MADE OF SUNDRY DEBTORS WHO ARE WELL DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. AS PER SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 'WHERE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IF ANY. MAINTAINED BY HIM JAR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE O F THE INVESTMENTS OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM I S NOT IN OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SATISFACTO RY, THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENTS MAY BE DEEMED TO BE TH E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR'. HONORABLE SIR, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUNDRY DEBTORS SUNDRY DEBTORS IN REGULAR AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHILE JAR THE ADDITION U/S 69 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 THERE SHOULD BE INVESTMENT WHICH ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HENCE IN THE -: 10: - 10 CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDITION OF SUNDRY TRADE DEBTORS CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE. ACCORDINGLY NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. HONORABLE SIR, FURTHER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND LATER ON THE ASSESSES SUBMITTED PAN AND ADDRESS OF SOME OF THE DEBTORS BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSES ALSO PRODUCED THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE DEBTORS FROM HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSES SUBSEQUENTLY OBTAINED THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNTS CERTIFIED FROM THE DEBTORS. THE COPY OF THE SAME AR E ENCLOSED TOGETHER WITH COPY OF ACCOUNTS IN OUR BOOKS. THERE ARE MINOR DEFERENCE'S BETWEEN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE DEBTORS IN ASSESSES BOOKS AND IN THE BOOKS OF DEBTORS IN ASSESSEE ACCOUNTS. THE DEFERENCE IS DUE TO THE CLAIM, DISCOUNT, AND DRAFT COMMISSION. ALL ACCOUNTS ARE RECONCILED. THE ABOVE CONFIRMATION FROM THE DEBTORS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HENCE THE -: 11: - 11 ASSESSES REQUEST BEFORE YOUR HONOR TO CONSIDER THE ABOVE EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962 FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL. HONORABLE SIR, ALL THE DEBTORS ACCOUNTS ARE CONFIRMED BY THE RESPECTIVE DEBTORS AND COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF DEBTORS ARE BEING PRODUCED AS EXPLAINED ABOVE. HONORABLE SIR, ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE THIS HONORABLE OFFICE ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULES 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. 1962 AND SENT IT FOR THE VERIFICATION TO THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER VERIFIED ALL THE BALANCE CONFIRMATIONS, COPY OF ACCOUNTS OF THE TRADE DEBTOR S IN OUR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND COPY OF OUR ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF THE TRADE DEBTORS. AFTER VERIFICATION THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED HIS REPORT IN WHICH MINOR DIFFERENCE OF RS. 41333. 00 }VAS THERE IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE BOOKS OF TRADE DEBTORS. THE DETAIL WORKING IS WORKED AS -: 12: - 12 UNDER :- S. .NO. NAME OF THE TRADE BALANCE AS PER BALAN A PER TRAD DIFFERENCE ASSESSEE 'S DEBTOR'S 1. M/S. GOVIND CORPORATION, MUMBAT 190815.0 175900.00 14915.00 2 M/S SHRI HARISH KUMAR LAXMICHAN 92250. 91880 370.00 MUMBAI 3. M/S JINESH KHINJI, 199800.0 194100.00 5400.00 4 MRS KANHAIYA CORPORATION. 203760.0 198000.00 5760.00 5, M/S. SHRI LALJI HIRAJI, MUMBAI 203353.0 198000.00 735300 6. SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAWAT, 21000.00 21000. - 7. M/S NATIONAL TRADERS, MUMABI 40483.00 40483. - 8. M/S. PAYAL INTERNATIONAL 384185.0 376650.00 7535.00 MUMBAI 9. M/S. P. N COMPANY, AMRITSIR 40040.00 40040. 0.00 10. M/S SATKRIPAL TRADERS, MUMABI 186750.0 18675 0.00 - HONORABLE SIR, THE DIFFERENCE IN SOME OF THE ACCOUN TS IS DUE TO DRAFT COMMISSION, CLAIM, QUALITY DIFFERENCE, BROKERAGE ETC. THE DIFFERENCE IS VERY MINOR. IN THE ACCOUNTS OF M/S. NATIONAL TRADERS MUMBAI AND M/S. P. N. COMPANY AMRI TSAR, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT DIFFERENC E OF THE WHOLE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT FOR NON RECEIPT OF THE CON FIRMATION FROM THE ABOVE PARTIES FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005- 06 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. BUT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CONFIRMATION FROM THE ABO VE PARTIES FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 IN WHICH BOTH THE AS SESSEE HAVE SHOWN THE ABOVE BALANCE AS OPENING BALANCE, HENCE I T CANNOT BE TAKEN AS DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNTS. OTHERWISE THE L EARNED -: 13: - 13 ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONVINCED ABOUT THE GENUINENE SS OF THE DEBTORS FOR THE GOODS. HONORABLE SIR, ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S 69 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE SUNDRY DEBTORS FOR GOODS WHICH AR E WELL DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AS 'WELL AS BALANCE OF THE SUNDRY DEBTORS, HENCE IN EITHER WAY ADDITION MADE B Y LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT IN THE NAME OF THE DEBTORS NEEDS TO BE DELETED AND THE ASS ESSES REQUEST BEFORE YOUR HONOR TO KINDLY DELETE THE ADDI TION MADE. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,14,3 21/- AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 3.4.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN SUNDRY DEBTORS OF RS. 15,64,435/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT -: 14: - 14 FURNISHED THE COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE DEBTORS OF RS. 13,64,636/-, THEREFORE A.O. COULD NOT VERIFY THESE DEBTORS AND ADDED RS. 13,64,636/- IN THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THE A.O. HAS TREATED IT AS UNEXPLAINED U/S 69 AS APPELLANT FAILS TO FURNISH THE PROOF THE GENUINENESS OF THESE DEBTORS. 3.4.2 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE FILED THE CERTIFIED COPY OF ACCOUNT FROM THE DEBTORS. THE ABOVE CONFIRMATION FROM THE DEBTORS WERE NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. THEREFORE, HE HAS MADE THE REQUEST TO CONSIDER THE ABOVE EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES 1962 FOR DECIDING APPEALS. REMAND REPORT UNDER RULE 46A OF IT.RULES, 1962, WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE A.O. A.O. HAS SUBMITTED HIS REPORT AFTER VERIFYING THE CONFIRMATIONS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. IN HIS REPORT A.O. HAS FOUND THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 1,14,321/- IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE DEBTORS AND BALANCE DEBTORS HAVE -: 15: - 15 BEEN VERIFIED; AND FOUND CORRECT AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. REMAINING DIFFERENCE OF RS. 1,14,331/- APPELLANT HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN DUE TO THE CLAIM, DISCOUNT AND DRAFT COMMISSION. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED, THEREFORE DIFFERENCE RELATED TO THE DEBTORS ACCOUNT RS. 1,14,321/- IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S 69 AND ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED TO THAT EXTENT. APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS. 12,50,315/-. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AN D FOUND FROM RECORD THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER ON THE PLEA THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN THE CONFIRMATION FILED BY SUNDRY DEBTORS VIS--VIS SUND RY DEBTORS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ADDITION TO THE EXTE NT OF RS. 1,14,321/- WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE PL EA THAT DEBTORS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE STOOD AT A HI GHER FIGURE BY RS. 1,14,321/- AS COMPARED TO THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE DEBTORS. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE -: 16: - 16 IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER MORE AMOUNT FROM THE DEBTORS . WHEN THE DEBTORS HAD WRITTEN SOME OF THE AMOUNT IN THEIR BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS AND CLAIMED THE SAME ON ACCOUNT OF DISCOUN T AND DRAFT COMMISSION, THE SAME CANNOT BE MADE THE REASO N FOR MAKING ADDITION U/S 69. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE R EVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF AMOUNT OF DEBTORS IN I TS BOOKS WITHOUT ANY REASON, ON THE CONTRARY, THE ASSESSEE H AD SHOWN ACTUAL DEBTORS IN ITS BOOKS WHEREAS THE DEBTORS HAV E CONFIRMED LOWER AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF CLAIM OF DISCO UNT AND DRAFT COMMISSION. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY M ERIT IN THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) FOR CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 1,14,321/-. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH AUGUST, 2013. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (R. C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 12 TH AUGUST, 2013. CPU* 256 8 -: 17: - 17