ACIT-1(2), RAIPUR (CG) V. M/S SUNIL RE-ROLLERS PVT. LTD., RAIPUR (CG)

ITA 213/BIL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2423 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: R B DOSHI
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Commercial expediency

Judgement Text

, RA IPUR IN THE INCOME TA X A PPELLA TE TRIBUNA L, RA IPUR BEFORE S/SHRI MUKUL SHRAW AT ( JM) SHAMIM YAH Y A (AM) , , ./ I.T.A. NO. 213/BLPR/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 ) ACIT, - 1(2), RAIPUR / VS. M/S. SUNIL RE - ROLLERS PVT LTD., 650, URLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, URLA, RAIPUR ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AADCS 5044 I ( / AP PELLANT ) .. ( / R ESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.K.MISHRA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.B.DOSHI / DATE OF HEARING : 12 - 02 - 2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 - 02 - 2016 / O R D E R PER MUKUL SHRAWAT, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE EMANATING FROM AN ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), RAIPUR DATED 18.8.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AND THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE HEREBY DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: 2. GROUND NO .1 IS AS UNDER: WH ETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,05,92,,220/ - MADE BY THE AO BY REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSE SSEE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GP RATE. 2 I.T.A. NO.213/BLPR/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 3. FACTS IN BRIEF AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2010 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING OF RE - ROLLING MILL. T HE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING AN I NDUCTION F URNACE. AT THE OUTSET, AS PER THE AO, THERE WAS DECLINE IN GROSS PROFIT R A TE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS PER THE AO, THE G.P. RATE FOR THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS 1.85 % AS AGAINST GROSS PROFIT RATE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR DECLARED AT 5.36%. T HIS W AS THE MAIN REASON IN VIEW OF THE AO TO START INVESTIGATION IN RESPECT OF CORRECTNESS OF BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.1 THE AO HAS ALSO COMPARED THE PRODUCTION OF FINISHED GOODS AND MADE A REMARK THAT THE SAME WAS NOT IN LINE WITH SIMILAR TYPE OF INDUS TRY. HE HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS VARIATION IN ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION. 3.2 ON THE OTHER HAND THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN MA INTAINED WHICH WERE SUBJECT TO EXCISE D EPARTMENT SURVEILLANCE . IT HAS ALSO BEEN PLEADED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF UNRECORDED SALES AS WELL AS UNRECORDED CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY. T HE AO HAS REJECTED ALL SUCH CONTENTIONS AND FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS DECLINE IN G.P. RATE, HENCE, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT DEPENDA BLE. HE HAS THEREAFTER ESTIMATED THE G.P. RATE AT 4.5%. T HE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS MADE AS PER THE FOLLOWING CALCULATION: THEREFORE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND GIVING DUE CREDIT TO THE ASSSSEES EXPLANATION G.P. IS 3 I.T.A. NO.213/BLPR/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 LENI ENTLY ESTIMATED AT 4.5 AS AGAINST 5.36% SHOWN IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AND G.P. COMES TO RS.1,99,54,334/ - AND AFTER DEDUCTING THE G.P. SHOWN AT RS.82,23,809/ - THE RESULTANT ADDITION WORKS OUT AT RS.1,17,30,525/ - . H OWEVER, THIS ADDITION WOULD BE FU RTHER REDUCED BY RS.11,38,305/ - BEING THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION WORKED OUT ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERVALUATION OF STOCK. T HUS, THE NET ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW G.P. IS MADE AT RS.1,05,92,220/ - . 4. BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), IT WAS PLEADED AT THE OUTSET THAT THE AO HAS ERRONEOUSLY AND INCORRECTLY MENTIONED THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE PAST YEAR AS 5.36%. THE CORRECT GROSS PROFIT RATE OF THE PAST YEAR WAS 1.88%. BECAUSE OF THIS REASON, IT WAS VEHEMENTLY PLEADED THAT THE GROSS PROFIT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS N OT LOW AND INSIGNIFICANT VARIATION OF 0.03% WAS IGNORABLE. BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), THERE WAS A REFERENCE OF A LETTER TO AO DATED 30.12.2010 THROUGH WHICH IT WAS SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF LAST YEAR WAS 1.88%. I T WAS ALSO INFORME D THAT THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT DECLINE IN GROSS PROFIT OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION COMPARING THE PRECEDING Y EAR RATE OF PROFIT. IT WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT THE CORRECT GROSS PROFIT RATE WAS VERIFIABLY FROM THE STATUTORY AUDIT REPORT PERTAINING TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AVAILABLE WITH THE AO. C ERTAIN OTHER ARGUMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN RAISED THAT WITHOUT ANY BASIS, THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 4.5%. T HERE WAS NO COMPARABLE INSTANCE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE AO TO JUSTIFY THE SAID ESTIMATIO N. T HE AO WAS CONFRONTED WITH ALL THOSE FACTS. V IDE PARA 4.4., LD CIT(A) HAS COMMENTED THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT BY T HE AO ON RECORD TO DISPROVE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. L D CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD NOR COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE GROSS PROFIT ESTIMATION. A FTER PLACING RELIANCE ON FEW CASE LAWS, LD 4 I.T.A. NO.213/BLPR/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 CIT(A) FINALLY HELD THAT THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE AO WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE AD DITION WAS MADE ON WRONG APPRECIATION OF FACTS. T HE ADDITION IN QUESTION WAS DELETED. 5. WI TH THIS FACTUAL BACKGROUND, WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. F ROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, SHRI SHRI P.K.MISHRA, LD CIT DR APPEARED AND SUPPORTED THE VIEW TAKEN BY T HE AO, HOWEVER, DID NOT PLACE BEFORE US ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE AO. R ATHER THE WRONG MENTION OF THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF THE PRECEDING YEAR COULD NOT BE SERIOUSLY OBJECTED. O N THE OTHER HAND, FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI SHRI R.B.DOSHI, LD AR APPEARED AND DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE PAST YEARS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE WAS INCORRECTLY MENTIONED BY THE AO. H OWEVER, THE CORRECT GROSS PROFIT RATE WAS 1.8 8 %. OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO A LETTER DATED 30.12.2010 FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , WHEREIN, THE CORRECT GROSS PROFIT RATE PERCENTAGE WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE AO. L D A.R. HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO AN ORDER OF ITAT, BILASPUR BENCH, CAMP AT RAIP UR IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. A.C.STEEL (ITA NO.344/NAG/09 FOR A.Y. 2003 - 04) O RDER DATED 14.9.2009, WHEREIN, IT WAS OPINED THAT MERE EXCESSIVE CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY COULD NOT BE THE SOLE GUIDELINES FOR MAKING THE ADDITION MERELY ON SUSPICION. L D A.R. HA S ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON THE AUDIT REPORT, WHEREIN, THE AUDITOR HAS CERTIFIED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 1.886%. 5 I.T.A. NO.213/BLPR/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 6. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION SPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS NO ADVERSE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE VERY PR EMISE ON THE BASIS OF W HICH THE AO HAS INITIATED THE INVESTIGATION WAS AB - INITIO INCORRECT. D UE TO THIS REASON, SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION LEADING TO THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. I T IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESS EE WERE SUSPECTED ONLY BECAUSE OF THE ALLEGED FALL IN THE GROSS PROFIT IN COMPARISON TO THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR. H OW EVER, THE EVIDENCES ARE RECORD HAVE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF GROSS PROFIT RATE WAS 1.88 6 %, WHIC H WAS WRONGLY ASSUMED BY THE AO AT 5.36%. S INCE THE VERY FOUNDATION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH, THE INVESTIGATION WAS T RIGGERED AND THE ESTIMATE WAS MADE WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT, HENCE, THE ENTIRE ADDITION HAS BECOME REDUNDANT. A PART FR OM THE ABOVE CORRECT FACTUAL POSITION, WE HAVE NOTIC ED THAT IN THE CASE OF SHANKAR RICE MILLS, VS ITO, 72 ITD 139(ASR)(SB),THE RESPECTED COORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD THAT M ERELY ON CONJECTURES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE REJECTED AND SOMETHING MORE SHOULD BE BROUGHT ON RE CORD BEFORE REJECTION. I T HAS ALSO BEEN EXPRESSED THAT DUE TO MARGINAL VARIATION THE BOOK RESULTS COULD NOT BE DISCARDED. L IKEWISE IN THE CASE OF R.K.RICE MILLS, 319 ITR 173 (P&H), THE VIEW WAS EXPRESSED THAT ADDITION BASED UPON LOW YIELD COULD NOT BE AF FIRMED BECAUSE THE AO HAD NOT POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. T HEREFORE, UNDER THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND CONSIDERING THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE RESPECTED COORDINATE BENCH, WE HEREBY UPHO LD THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LD CIT(A). THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 6 I.T.A. NO.213/BLPR/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 7. GROUND NO.2 IS AS UNDER: WH ETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.20,55,514/ - MADE BY THE AO AGAINST THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN TO OUR PARTIES. 8. THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADVANCED INTEREST FREE LOANS TO FOLLOWING PARTIES: SL.NO. NAME OF THE PARTY(RELATION) AMOUNT (RS.) 1. SHRI ANIL NACHRANI (DIRECTOR) 12,33,161 2. M/S. LOHA UDHYOG (LEADING BUYER) 1,34,94,500 3. SHRI SANJAY NACHARANI 10,03,264 4. M/S. SURYA ISPAT 14,49,615 TOTAL: 1,71,80,540 IN COMPLIANCE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THAT M/S. LOHA UDYOG WAS ONE OF THE LEADING PURCH ASERS. T HE ASSESSEE HAS ADVAN CED THE AMOUNT TO ESTABLISH THE SAID SICK UNIT SO THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD SUPPLY ITS FINISHED PRODUCTS. T HIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED. A CCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO ESTABLISH THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY IN ADVANCING THE SAID LOAN. T HE A O HAD APPLIED 12% RATE OF INTEREST AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.20,55,514/ - 7 I.T.A. NO.213/BLPR/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 9. BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVANCES WERE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. I T WAS INFORMED THAT THE INTEREST PAID TO SHRI ANIL NACHA RA NI WAS INTEREST TO ONE OF THE DIRECTORS, WHICH WAS NOT DISTURBED BY THE AO. I T HAS ALSO BEEN STRONGLY PLEADED THAT IN THE PAST, THE LOAN WAS ADVANCED BUT THERE WAS NO ADVERSE COMMENTS. LIKEWISE, IN RESPECT OF LOHA UDYOG, IT WAS INFORMED THAT THERE WAS BUSINESS CONSIDERATION; HENCE, NO ADVERSE OPINION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE. A FTER CONSIDERING THE PARTY - WISE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS CONCLUDED THE ISSUE AS UNDER : THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED WITH REFERENCE TO `THE FACTS OBTAINING FROM THE RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT ALL THE AFOREMENTIONED INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT HAD DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE COMMERCIAL EX PEDIENCY AND BUSINESS CONNECTION OF THE APPELLANT. SINCE THE ADVANCE OF THE IMPUGNED SUMS, WAS PROVED TO BE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, STOOD SATISFIED AND NO PART OF INTEREST COULD BE DISALLO WED. F OR THIS PROPOSITION, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION IN S.A. BUILDERS LTD. VS CIT, 288 ITR 1(SC). ADVANCEMENT OF THE IMPUGNED INTEREST FREE LOANS, WAS PROVED TO HAVE BEEN ABSOLUTELY FOR UP KEEPING THE BUSINESS INTEREST OF THE APPELLANT, AND HEN CE, THE SAME WAS UNQUESTIONABLE SINCE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY HAS TO BE ADJUDGED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF CONCERNED BUSINESSMAN AND NOT FROM THE POINT OF VI EW OF THE AO AS HELD BY THE GUJ ARAT HIGH COURT IN 129 ITR 105(GUJ). E VEN N ON - CHARGING OF INTEREST O N LENDING BUT PAYING INTEREST ON BORROWINGS WOULD NOT DISENTITLE THE APPELLANT TO DEDUCTION OF INTEREST N OR WOULD IT EMPOWER THE AOI TO MAKE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME OR DISALLOW INTEREST ON NOTIONAL BASIS (CIT VS. ALOK PAPER INDUSTRIES, 138 ITR 729 (MP ). IN DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LTD., THE AO DISALLOWED PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF INTERST5 PAYMENT CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AS DEDUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT NO INTEREST WAS CHARGED BY T HE APPELLANT ON THE ADVANCE GIV EN. I N V IEW OF THE DECISION IN CIT VS. DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LTD., (2005) 145 TAXMAN 536, THE ITAT DELETED SUCH DISALLOWANCE. T HE DEPARTMENTAL REFERENCE AGAINST SUCH DELETION, WAS DISMISSED BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN ITS DECISION IN CIT VS. DHAMPUR SU GAR MILLS LTD., (2005) 148 TAXMAN 321 (ALL). THE AO HAD NOT PROVED THAT THE CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON THE BORROWINGS EXCLUSIVELY UTILIZED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, WAS BOGUS. T HERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE LOANS OBTAINED FROM THEM AND THE INTEREST PAID THEREON, WERE FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THE BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS. N O EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS BROUGHT BY THE AO ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT IN FACT CHARGED INTEREST ON THE AFOREMENTIONED ADVAN CES, WHICH WAS N OT ACCOUNTED FOR AND OFFERED FOR TAXATION. B EFORE HOL DING ANY ADVERSITY AGAINST THE APPELLANT MIN THIS REGARD, THE STATED FACTS VERIFIABLE FROM THE A FOREMENTION ED PARTIES, WERE NOT 8 I.T.A. NO.213/BLPR/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 VERIFIED. V IDE PARA NOS.22 TO 25 OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, JABALPUR BENCH IN ITA NO.2/JAB/97 & 15/JAB/97 DT.18.8.2003 IN ACIT CIRCLE BILASPUR VS M/S. BUKHARI ?ENTERPRISES, BILASPUR, RESPECTIVELY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF M.P.HIGH COURT IN D& H SECHRON ELECTRO (P) LTD., VS CIT(1984) CTR (MP) 365 AND CIT VS. ALOK PAPER INDUSTRIES (1982) 138 ITR 729 (MP), THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL A GAINST DELETION OF SIMILAR NOTIONAL DISALLOWANCE WAS DISMISSED. 4.5 FOR THE REASON EXTENSIVELY ENUMERATED ABOVE, THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO BEING WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD AGAINST THE APPELLANT, IS UNSUSTAINABLE. T HE SAME IS, T HEREFORE, DELETED. T HE APPELLANT ACCORDINGLY GETS RELIEF OF RS.20,55,514/ - 10. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL BACKGROUND, WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AT SOME LENGTH. W E HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT SHRI ANIL N ACHRANI AND SANJAY N ACHRANI WERE T WO DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. I T WAS INFORMED THAT THERE WAS NO FRESH LOAN IN RESPECT OF ANIL NACHRA NI. B ECAUSE NO FRESH LOAN WAS GRANTED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HENCE, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS WRONGLY MADE. I N RESPE CT OF LOHA UDYOG, IT WAS A STRATEGIC DECISION TO ADVANCE THE LOAN WITH THE MAIN PURPOSE TO ESTABLISH THE SAID SICK CON C ERN. H ENCE, THE ADVANCE WAS TOW ARDS BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. LIKEWISE, IN RESPECT OF LOAN TO SURYA ISPAT, THE ADVANCE WAS MADE CONSIDERING THE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SAID PARTY. T HE ASSESSEE WAS PURCHASING THE MATERIAL FROM THE SAID PARTY, HENCE, WANTED TO HAVE A GOOD RELATION WITH THE SAID SUPPLIER. 10.1 AS FAR AS THE LOAN ADVANCED TO ONE OF THE DIRECTOR, NAMELY SHRI SANJAY NACH R AN I IS CONCERNED , LD A.R. HAS FAIRLY MENTIONED THAT IT WAS A FRESH LOAN DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. W E, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT ONLY IN RESPECT OF SHRI SANJAY NACHA R ANI, THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST COULD BE MADE BY THE AO BUT 9 I.T.A. NO.213/BLPR/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 IN RESPECT OF REST OF TH E P ARTIES, NO DISALLOWANCE WAS CALLED FOR. BECAUSE OF THIS REASON, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE TOTAL RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LD CIT(A) UNJUSTIFIED . . IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND TO FACILITATE THE CORRECT COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE PERTAINING TO THE ADVANCE OF RS.10,03,264/ - IN RESPECT OF SHRI SANJAY NACHAR ANI, WE HEREBY RESTORE ONLY THIS PART OF THE ISSUE BACK TO THE STAGE OF THE AO SO THAT HE COULD COMPUTE THE CORRECT DISALLOWANCE AS PER LAW. F OR REST OF THE PARTY, WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE FI NDINGS OF LD CIT( A) AND ALSO HOLD THAT IN RESPECT OF THOSE PARTIES, THE RELIEF WAS RIGHTLY GRANTED. THIS GROUND IS THEREFORE PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. GROUND NO.3 READS AS UNDER: WH ETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE D E LAYED PAYMENT OF PF AND ESCI CONTRIBUTION BY THE EMPLOYEES AGGREGATING TO RS.1,20,522/ - . 12. WE H AVE BEEN INFORMED THAT WITHOUT VERIFYING THE DATES, THE AO HAD HELD THAT THERE WAS DELAY IN PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF AND ESCI. WH EN THE MATTE R WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), LD CIT(A) EXAMINED THE DATES AND HELD THAT IT WAS PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL, WE HEREBY REJECT THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 13. IN THE R ESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 /02/2016 . SD/ - SD/ - ( , ) ( , ) SHAMIM Y AHY A , ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER MUKUL SHRA WA T , JUDICIAL M EM BER RAIPUR , DATED 17 / 02 /20 1 6 . . ./ PARIDA , SR. PS 10 I.T.A. NO.213/BLPR/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 09 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT : ACIT, - 1(2), RAIPUR 2. / THE RESPONDENT : M/S. SUNIL RE - ROLLERS PVT LTD., 650, URLA INDUSTRIAL AREA,URLA, RAIPUR 3 . ( ) / THE CIT(A) - RAIPUR 4. / CIT , RAIPUR 5. , , / DR, ITAT , RAIPUR 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// SR. PS, ITAT, CAMP: RAIPUR