Dy. C.I.T., Circle-3(1), Etah V. M/s Kaiser Constructions Engineers & Contractors, Etah

ITA 212/AGR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0387 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GAURV GOYAL
• Section: 143(3); 263; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.211 & 212/AGR/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A.O.) VS. M/S. KAIS ER CONSTRUCTIONS CIRCLE 3(1), ETAH. ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS, NEW CIVIL LINES, POST OFFICE ROAD, ETAH. (PAN: AAJFM 3559 M). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GAURV GOYAL, C.A. DATE OF HEARING : 08.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 22.02.2013 ORDER PER A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TWO DIFFERENT ORDERS, BOTH DATED 09.03.2012, PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), GHAZIAB AD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2008-09. 2. COMMON GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE I N BOTH THE APPEALS BASED ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS. THEREFORE, FOR TH E SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DECIDED BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA NOS.211 & 212/AGR/2012 A.YS. 2006-07 & 2008-09 2 3. LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THA T THE FACTS LEAD IN A.Y. 2006- 07, THEREFORE, THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.211/AGR/2012 FOR A.Y. 2006- 07 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.45,46,166/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENSES CLAIMED AT A TIME OF AS SESSMENT. THEREFORE, THE EXPENSES REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND A. O. RIGHTLY DISALLOWED @ 50% OF TOTAL EXPENSES. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNCONFIRMED CREDITORS OF RS.1,26,51,811/- TO 40,998/-, SINCE THE GENUINENESS OF THESE CREDITO RS COULD NOT BE PROVED BEYOND DOUBT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. 4. IN ITA NO.212/AGR/2012 FOR A.Y. 2008-09, THE AMO UNT INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.1 IS RS.23,34,020/- AND IN GROUND NO.2 THE AMOUN T IS RS.84,60,000/-. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE NOTICED FROM THE A.O .S ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2006- 07 ARE THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE UNDER SECT ION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) ON TOTAL INCOME O F RS.3,81,780/- AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.1,87,201/-. SUBSEQUENTLY ORD ER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED BY THE CIT. THE A.O. MADE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT. THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE CA SE WAS ADJOURNED TO 27.12.2010. ON THIS DATE NONE APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO SAY AND AS T HE CASE IS GOING TO BE TIME ITA NOS.211 & 212/AGR/2012 A.YS. 2006-07 & 2008-09 3 BARRED ON 31.12.2010, THE A.O. LEFT WITH NO OTHER A LTERNATIVE BUT TO ASSESS THE CASE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THE A.O. DISALLOWED 50% OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED. 6. THE A.O. HAS ALSO MADE ADDITION OF SUNDRY CREDIT ORS AS UNDER:- (PARAGRAPH NOS.3 & 4) FROM THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT IT IS DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE ON RECORD THE MATE RIAL IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIM. IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DESPITE REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO HI M THROUGH VARIOUS DATES AS MENTIONED ABOVE. ASSESSEE CAN NOT BE ALLO WED TO CHOOSE THE FORUM AT WHICH TO GET THE ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, I N VIEW OF ABOVE I REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DISALLOW OF 50% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTR ARY. ASSESSEE HAS FILED AUDIT REPORT PREPARED BY RAKESH VARSHNEY & CO ., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT REPORT U/S 44AB IN FORM NO.3CB, PERUSAL OF TRADING ACCOUNT AND P&L A/C IT IS NOTICED THAT TOTAL EXPENS ES CLAIMED IN TRADING ACCOUNT AND P&L A/C ARE RS.1,00,92,332/- AN D 50% OF THESE TOTAL EXPENSES COMES TO RS.50,46,166/-. THEREFORE IN VIEW OF ABOVE RS.50,46,166/- IS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE. 4. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 16.11.2010, NAME & ADDRESS WITH PAN/AO NAME, OF ALL THE CREDITO RS DURING THE YEAR. AS ASSESSEES HAS NOT PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOW THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN REJECTED UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT HENCE SUNDRY CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,26,51,811/- ARE NOT RELIABLE ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE MENTIONED JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT ON WHICH I AM RELYING. THEREFORE SUNDRY CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO R S.1,26,51,811/- IS BEING TAKEN AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED BAC K TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BEING UNEXPLAINED. 7. THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EX TENT OF RS.5,00,000/- AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.45,46,166/- AS UNDER :- (PAGE NOS.36 & 37) ITA NOS.211 & 212/AGR/2012 A.YS. 2006-07 & 2008-09 4 DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AO HAS CATEGORICALLY RECORDING A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE BOOK OF ACCOUNTS INCLUDING LEDGER AND CASH BOOK ALONG WITH ORIGINAL VOUCHERS, BANK STATEMENT ETC. WHICH ARE EXAMINED BY HIM ON TEST BA SIS. SOME EXPENSES ARE FOUND TO BE INCURRED IN CASH AND IN SO ME CASES VOUCHERS ARE NOT SIGNED BY RECIPIENT. AFTER CONSIDERING THI S REPORT IT IS NOBODYS CASE THAT BOOK OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT PRODUCE D OR NOT EXAMINED. PAYMENT IN CASH CAN NOT BE FAULTED WITH, IF SUPPORTED BY VOUCHERS. FEW SUPPORTS ON LETTER HEAD ETC. IS ALSO JUSTIFIED. THOUGH UN-SUPPORTED PAYMENT CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED FULLY WHIC H DEPEND ON FACTUAL VERIFICATION BUT EVEN AFTER EXAMINATION AO FAILED TO INDICATE ANY SPECIFIC EXAMPLE IN SUPPORT OF HIS GENERAL OBSE RVATIONS. FROM THE ABOVE, I FIND THAT THE BOOK OF ACCOUNTS AN D RECORDS ARE PROPERLY MAINTAINED WHICH ARE BACKED BY VOUCHER S GENERALLY. HOWEVER, AS PER THE ORIGINAL ORDER DT. 18.03.08 BOO K OF ACCOUNTS ARE PRODUCED AND EXAMINED WHERE SPECIFIC I TEMS OF EXPENSES ARE CONSIDERED AND DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,94,580/- WA S ADDED TO THE INCOME. THOUGH THE SAID ORDER IS CANCELLED U/S 263 BUT STILL MAY PROVIDE A BASIS FOR DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES. ASSE SSEE IS RIGHT IN HIS ARGUMENT THAT OUT OF THE SAID DISALLOWANCE A SUM OF RS.1,00,105/- ARE TAXED UNDER ACCEPTED FBT RETURN. BALANCE AMOUNT RE MAINS RS.94,475/-. CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND OBSERVATIONS OF THAN AO AND NOW IN REMAND, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT AN ADDI TION OF AROUND 5 TIMES OF THE SAID AMOUNT SHALL MEET BOTH THE ENDS O F JUSTICE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THE REJECTION OF ACCOUNTS AND ADDITION MADE BY AO IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOK OF ACCOU NTS IS WRONG. I AM ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT A ROUNDED OFF ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- SHALL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND HOLD THAT AN ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- IS SUSTAINED AND THE BALANCE IS DELETED. AO IS DIRECT ED TO GIVE THE CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF. (RELIEF OF RS.45,46,166) ITA NOS.211 & 212/AGR/2012 A.YS. 2006-07 & 2008-09 5 8. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDIT , THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.40,998/- AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,25,69,815/- AS UNDER :- (PAGE NOS.37 & 38) AS PER PARA 5 OF REMAND REPORT, AO HAS ACCEPTED TH E PAGES OF PAPER BOOK FROM 50 TO 131 AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT THE SAID PAGES ARE ALSO CONTAINING COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS A ND CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN FACT THE SAME ARE CERTIFIED BY AO HIMSELF AN D SO THE VERACITY OF THE SAME CANNOT BE DOUBTED. IN PARA 6 OF HIS REPOR T, HE HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE STATEMENTS OF ALMOST ALL THE CREDITORS RECORDED ON 27.12.10 EXCEPT CREDITOR FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.40,99 8/-. IN THEIR STATEMENTS ALL THE CREDITORS HAS ACCEPTED THE TRANS ACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE AND SPELT THE PENDING BALANCE AT THE YEAR END. ADDRESSS ARE ALSO STATED. MOST OF THE CREDITORS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND THOUGH FEW OF THE CREDITORS ARE NOT ASSESSED TO TAX BUT NO ADD ITION CAN BE SUSTAINED ON THAT GROUND, AS THE REASON FOR ADDITIO N WAS PRODUCTION OF CREDITORS ONLY AND BESIDE THERE ARE AMPLE OF EVIDEN CES IN SUPPORT OF CREDIT BALANCES. AO ALSO HAS NOT FOUND ANY EVIDENC E AGAINST THE ASSESSEE EVEN AFTER EXAMINING BANK STATEMENTS, PURC HASE BILLS ETC. THUS, EXCEPT FOR A SUM OF RS.40,998/- TOTAL ADDITI ON OF RS.1,26,10,813/- IS DELETED. HOWEVER IN CASE OF DO UBT ABOUT THE CREDITORS WHO ARE NOT ASSESSED TO TAX AO IS FREE TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE SAID CREDITORS. (RELIEF OF RS.1,25,69,815/-) 9. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT O N ONE HAND THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED RS.5,00,000/- AND ON THE OTHER HAND HELD THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS WRONGLY REJECTED BY THE A.O. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE A.O. AS THE ASSESSEE H AS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPE NDITURE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE FILED COPY OF REMAND ITA NOS.211 & 212/AGR/2012 A.YS. 2006-07 & 2008-09 6 REPOT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODU CE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DETAILS BEFORE THE A.O. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE SUBMITTED THAT MERELY NON-MENTIONING OF SECTION REGARDING REJECTION OF BO OKS OF ACCOUNT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE A.O. DID NOT INVOKE THE RELEVANT PROVISION S FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMI TTED THAT THAT A.O. HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTIMATI ON OF INCOME. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTE NTION RELIED UPON A DECISION OF I.T.A.T., MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF WAL STREET CO NSTRUCTION LIMITED VS. DCIT, 87 ITD 47 (MUMBAI) (TM). LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DETAILS BEFORE THE A.O. AND THE SAME WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE A.O. HAS THEREFORE DID NOT GET OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH ALL THE DETAILS AND HENCE THE MATTER MAY BE SENT TO THE FILE OF A.O. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN SU PPORT OF HIS CONTENTION RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. GILBERT & BARKER MANUFACTURING CO., 111 ITR 529 (BOM). 10. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAN D, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE REQUIRED DETAILS INC LUDING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE A.O. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IN SUPP ORT OF HIS CONTENTION REFERRED COPIES OF THE ORDER SHEET WHICH HAS BEEN FILED BY T HE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN DEPARTMENTS PAPER BOOK. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ITA NOS.211 & 212/AGR/2012 A.YS. 2006-07 & 2008-09 7 SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. IS NOT CORRECT IN MENTIONIN G THAT NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE HEARING DATED 27.12.2 010 WHEREAS THE CORRECT FACT IS THAT THE A.O. HIMSELF RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF VAR IOUS PARTIES ON 27.12.2010. IN RESPECT OF CASH CREDIT, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE FILED A DETAILED CHART OF SUNDRY CREDITORS REFERRING THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PA PER BOOK WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE A.O. FOR THE PURPOSE OF READY REFERENCE , THE DETAILS FILED FOR A.Y. 2006- 07 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED AT PAGE NO. OF PAPER BOOK FILED AS ON DT. 20.11.2012 ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS RS.1,26,51,811/- 1. COPY OF B/S AS ON DT. 31.03.06 2. COPY OF P&L FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2006 3. COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED DURING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) DT.26.12.2007 SHOWING DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS 4. COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED DURING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) DT.12.03.08 ALONG WITH LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AS ON DT. 31.03.2006. 5. COPY OF CONFIRMATIONS FROM SUNDRY CREDITORS 6. COPY OF ORDER U/S 143(3) MENTIONING PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF A/CS FOR KIND PERUSAL. 7. COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED DURING SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) DT. PG.NO.9 PG. NO.10 PG. NO.12 PG. NO.79 & 80 PG. NO.81 TO 91 PG. NO.94 PG. NO.107 & 108 ITA NOS.211 & 212/AGR/2012 A.YS. 2006-07 & 2008-09 8 14.12.2010 ALONG WITH LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WITH THEIR ADDRESS AS ON DT. 31.03.2006. 8. COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH OF SUNDRY CREDITORS PG. NO.109 TO 118 COPY OF CONFIRMATION COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH PG. NO.81 PG. NO.109 COPY OF CONFIRMATION COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH PG. NO.82 PG. NO.118 COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH PG. NO.116 COPY OF CONFIRMATION COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH PG. NO.83 PG. NO.115 COPY OF CONFIRMATION COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH PG. NO.84 PG. NO.117 COPY OF CONFIRMATION COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH PG. NO.85 PG. NO.114 COPY OF CONFIRMATION COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH PG. NO.86 PG. NO.113 COPY OF CONFIRMATION COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH PG. NO.87 PG. NO.110 COPY OF CONFIRMATION COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH PG. NO.88 PG. NO.110 COPY OF CONFIRMATION COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH PG. NO.89 PG. NO.112 COPY OF CONFIRMATION PG. NO.90 COPY OF CONFIRMATION COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH PG. NO.91 PG. NO.111 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PA RTIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. WE DO NOT FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE L D. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF A.O. AS THE DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). WE NOTICE THAT THE A.O. HAS WRO NGLY RECORDED THE FACT THAT ON THE DATE OF HEARING DATED 27.12.2010 THE ASSESSEE/A UTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE DID ITA NOS.211 & 212/AGR/2012 A.YS. 2006-07 & 2008-09 9 NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE A.O. WHEREAS THE FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE/AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O. AND THE A.O . HIMSELF RECORDED STATEMENT OF SOME PARTIES WHICH ARE FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE A.O. HAS RECORDED BLIND IN CORRECT FACT WHICH IS NOT APPRECIABLE. MERELY MENT IONING THAT THE CASE IS GOING TO BE BARRED BY LIMITATION ON 31.12.2010 THE A.O. HAS TAKEN SHELTER AND ON THE BASIS OF INCORRECT FACT MADE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. SUCH A PRACTICE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, THEREFORE, SUCH ACTION OF THE A.O. IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. AS REGARDS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE OF SENDING BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF A.O., WE FIN D THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE A.O. ALSO AND THE A.O . HAS FILED THE REMAND REPORT. COPY OF REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE A.O. HAS ALSO BE EN FURNISHED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE US. THE CIT(A) BEFORE COMING TO THE CONCLUSION CONSIDERED THE REMAND REPORT OF THE A.O. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A), AFTER A DETAILED DISCUSSION ON EACH AND EVERY ASPEC T OF THE MATTER INCLUDING THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE AND AFTER EXAMINING THE DETAIL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE, CAME TO A REASONABLE CONCLUSION AND ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,00,000/- HAS BEEN SUSTAINED FOR WANT OF VERIFI CATION OF EXPENDITURE AND OTHERS AND HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED RELIEF OF RS.45,46,166/- AS SUSTAINING 50% OF EXPENSES AND RUNNING A BUSINESS WITH REMAINING 50% EXPENSES IS I MPOSSIBLE. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) APPEARS TO BE FAIR AND REASONABLE. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES. ITA NOS.211 & 212/AGR/2012 A.YS. 2006-07 & 2008-09 10 12. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CREDITORS , WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE DOCUMENT FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE CONTAINING COPY OF BANK STATEMENT AND CONFIRMATION AND THE A.O. DID NOT DOU BT ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THOSE PARTIES. THE A.O. HIMSELF RECORDED THE FACT IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT HE HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE STATEMENT OF ALMOST ALL THE CREDI TORS RECORDED ON 27.12.2010 EXCEPT CREDITOR FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.40,998/-. WHE N THE A.O. HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDITORS BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN T HE REMAND REPORT AND THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.1,25,69,815/-. THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY CONTRARY MA TERIAL TO THE FINDING OF CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWED AMOUNT AS WELL AS ON ACCOU NT OF CREDITORS BEING THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68. IN THE LIGHT OF TH E FACT, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). ITA NO.212/AGR/2012 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 13. LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES SUBMITTED TH AT THE GROUNDS AND THE ISSUES RAISED FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 ARE SIMILAR TO A.Y. 200 6-07. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DETAILED DISCUSSION MADE IN A.Y. 2006-07 ABOVE AND FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN A.Y. 2008-09 ALS O. ITA NOS.211 & 212/AGR/2012 A.YS. 2006-07 & 2008-09 11 14. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE RE VENUE ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY