The DCIT, 1(1), Bhopal V. M/s Bend Joints Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal

ITA 216/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70089 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: H P VERMA; SAKSHI VERMA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 293/IND/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 BEND JOINTS PRIVATE LTD., BHOPAL PAN AACCB 4266 E :: APPELLANT VS ACIT-1(1), BHOPAL :: RESPONDENT ITA NO. 216/IND/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 ACIT-1(1), BHOPAL :: APPELLANT VS BEND JOINTS PRIVATE LTD., BHOPAL PAN AACCB 4266 E :: RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI H.P. VERMA & MISS SAKSHI VERMA REVENUE BY SHRI R.A. VERMA 2 DATE OF HEARING 19.11.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19 . 11 .2013 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE IN CROSS A PPEALS CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2012 OF THE LEARN ED CIT(A)- BHOPAL, FOR THE A.Y.2005-06. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE U P THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE (ITA NO. 293/IND/2013). 2. DURING HEARING, WE HAVE HEARD SHRI H.P. VERMA AL ONG WITH MISS SAKSHI VERMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI R.A. VERMA, LEARNED SENIOR DR. AT THE OUTSET, GROUNDS NO .1 & 2 WERE NOT PRESSED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , THEREFORE, BOTH THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. THE NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.15,09,508/- ON ACCOUNT OF M/S. SURAJ STAINLESS M ETAL AS OPENING BALANCE OF THE COMPANY. THE CRUX OF ARGUMEN TS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATE D ON 30.1.2004 AND IT TOOK OVER ALL THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF ERST-WHILE FIRM M/S. 3 BEND JOINTS, FOR WHICH, OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED T O PAPER BOOK PAGES 30 TO 37. THE FIRMS UNSECURED LOANS AS ON 31 .10.2004 (LAST DAY) REFLECTED LIABILITY OF RS.15,09,508/- IN THE N AME OF SURAJ STAINLESS LTD., THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A FRESH CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE AMOUN T OF RS.15 LACS WAS PAID BY ASSESSEE ONLY ON 18.3.2007 TO SURAJ STA INLESS STEEL (PAPER BOOK PAGE 5), THEREFORE, NO ADDITION COULD B E MADE U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DR CONTE NDED THAT FRESH ARGUMENT HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE LEVEL OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH REQUIRES EXAMINATION/INVESTIGATION A T THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE EXPLA INED THAT IN VIEW OF RECONCILIATION PENDING BETWEEN SURAJ STAINLESS S TEEL AND INDUSTRIAL METAL CORPORATION, THE ACCOUNTS REFLECTE D THE DISTORTED FIGURES AND IN THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF THE FIR M (PAPER BOOK PAGE 12), CREDIT WAS REFLECTED IN THE NAME OF SURAJ STAINLESS STEEL. 3.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INCORPORATED ON 30.1.2004 AFTER TAKING OVER ALL ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE ERST-WHILE FIRM M/S. BEND JO INTS VIDE 4 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 7 TH NOVEMBER 2004 (PAGES 30 TO 37 OF PAPER BOOK). WE NOTE THAT NO CONFIRMATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND MERELY CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS REPAID ON 18.3.2 007 WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED ON 18.12.2007 AS IS EVIDE NT FROM ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. IF THE AMOUNT WAS REPAID ON 18.3.2007, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR POINTED OUT SUCH CLAIM BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. TO SAFEGUARD THE INTERES T OF REVENUE AND ALSO NO PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE, WE DEE M IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAM INE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, FOR WHICH, DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD BE PROVIDED TO IT. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AT LIBERTY TO FURNISH E VIDENCE, IF ANY, TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF T HE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. THE LAST GROUND PERTAINS TO ADDING RS.2,56,061/- ON ACCOUNT OF REGISTRATION EXPENSES. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE 5 ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ADDITION WAS WRONGLY MADE WHER EAS THE LD. SR. DR DEFENDED THE ADDITION. 4.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS.2,56,061/- ON AC COUNT OF REGISTRATION EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE DETAI LS OF SUCH EXPENSES, FROM WHICH, IT WAS FOUND THAT THESE EXPEN SES ARE IN RELATION TO LAND REGISTRATION. AS PER THE REVENUE, SUCH EXPENSES ARE NOT ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE, CONSEQUENTLY, THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,56,061/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESS EE THAT SUCH EXPENSES RELATE TO FEE PAID FOR REGISTRATION OF COM PANIES FOR LEASE OF LAND, LAND REVENUE, SECURITY AND OTHER MISCELLANEOU S EXPENSES WHICH ARE ADMISSIBLE U/S 37 OF THE ACT. PLEA WAS AL SO RAISED THAT NO SPECIFIC QUERY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AB OUT THESE EXPENSES AND WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO E XPLAIN THE SAME, ADDITION WAS MADE. THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED T HAT MOST OF THE EXPENSES ARE OF CAPITAL IN NATURE, ACCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. IF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AVAILABLE ON REC ORD, IT DEPICTS A 6 HAZY/DISTORTED PICTURE AS TRUE FACTS ARE NOT OOZING OUT FROM THE RECORD. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK, AS PER WHICH, BIFURCATION HAS BEEN MENTIONED. DURING A RGUMENT, IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT NEITHER ANY QUERY WAS RAI SED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO T HE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN SUCH EXPENSES. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW T HE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ALSO NO PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO EITHER SIDE, WE REMAND THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, FOR WHICH, DUE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD WITH FURTHER LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVIDENCE, IF ANY, B E PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES, RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. NOW, WE SHALL TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WHER EIN GROUNDS NO.1 & 2 PERTAIN TO NO NOTICE/OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS RAISED WHEREAS THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE L D. CIT(A). 7 5.1 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WITHOUT G OING INTO MUCH DELIBERATION, THE UNCONTROVERTED FACT IS THAT THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AT FIRST APPELLATE STAGE, WA S FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS VERIFICATION AND COMMENTS ON 16.1.2009, WHICH WAS DULY REPLIED VIDE COMMUNICATION DATED 13. 4.2009 BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE F IND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND CONSEQUE NTLY, NO MERIT IN BOTH THESE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE. THESE GROUNDS ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 6. THE NEXT GROUND PERTAIN TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.39,52,125/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CESSATION OF LIAB ILITY OF TRADE CREDITS U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS IN SUPPORT TO THE ADDITION WHEREAS THE L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY EXP LAINING THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DULY EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE AND ONLY THEN REACHED TO A CONCLUSION. 6.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSION, WE 8 ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PORTION OF T HE IMPUGNED ORDER FOR READY REFERENCE: 5.1 DECISION : THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ADDUCED BY THE LD. AR AT THE APPELLATE STAGE WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS VERIFICATION AND COMMENT ON 16-01-2009. IN REPLY DATED 13-04- 2009, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMMENTED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS GIVEN REPEATED OPPORTUNITY AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT HAS FELT TO SUBMIT ANY SPECIFIC DETAILS ALONGWITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. HE ENCLOSED THE COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET ALONGWITH HIS REPORT AND REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THIS STAGE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REPEATED HIS REPLY IN HIS SUBMISSION DATED 04-01-2012. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE ALREADY ADMITTED BY MY PREDECESSOR AND, ACCORDINGLY, I VERIFIED THE SAME TO DISPOSE OF THE PENDING APPEAL. THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S. BEND JOINTS WERE TAKEN OVER BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY WITH EFFECT FROM 01-11- 2004. AS PER THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERTAKING SIGNED BETWEEN THEM, THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE FIRM WERE TAKEN OVER BY THE COMPANY. AS PER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE SUPPLIER M/S. INDUSTRIAL META L INDUSTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM M/S BENDA JOINTS, THE CLOSING OUTSTANDING BALANCE WAS RS. 85,12,300/- AS ON 31-03-2004. AFTER SUBSEQUENT PURCHASES OF RS. 33,87,533/- VIDE BILL NO. 13528, 1030, 1234, 1223, 1247,1803, 1817, 1822, 1888, 2015, 2115, 2161, 2224 ETC. OF THE SUPPLIERS AND PAYMENT OF RS. 79,47,728/- MADE BY THE FIRM FROM 01-04-2004 TO 31-10-2004, THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE SUPPLIER WAS RS. 39,52,125/- AND THIS LIABILITY WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY FROM THE FIRM FROM 01-11-2004. THIS IS VERIFIABLE FROM THE STATEMENT O F 9 BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SUPPLIER AND THE APPELLANT, THE TRADING ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM M/S. BEND JOINTS AND THE CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT BY THE SUPPLIER. IN VIE W OF THE ABOVE, I FIND THAT THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE CANNOT BE ADDED U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT AND HENCE, IT IS DELETED. IF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD AND THE ASSERTION MADE BY THE LD. RESPECT IVE COUNSEL ARE KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND ANALYSED, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE TOOK OVER THE RUNNING BUSINESS OF M/S. BEND JOINTS WITH ALL ITS ASSETS AND LIABILITIES. M/ S. INDUSTRIAL METAL CORPORATION IS AN OLD SUPPLIER OF THE PREDECESSOR FIRM FOR ABOUT 25 YEARS AND MADE REGULA R SUPPLY TO THE NEWLY CONSTITUTED/ASSESSEE FIRM FROM 1.11.2004. THE CLOSING BALANCE IN THE CREDIT OF M/S . INDUSTRIAL METAL CORPORATION AS ON 31.3.2004 IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF M/S. BEND JOINTS WAS RS.39,52,125/ - AND THIS LIABILITY WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE DESIRED BALANCE SHEET COULD NOT BE FILED DURING ASSESSMENT STAGE. HOWEVER, DURING FIRST APPE LLATE 10 STAGE, THE COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE SUPPL IER IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF OLD FIRM I.E. M/S. BEND JOINTS RIGHT FROM 1.4.2003 ONWARDS ALONG WITH APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF I.T. RULES AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FURNIS HED. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, SO FURNISHED, WAS ALSO FORWARD ED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS DULY RESPONDED BY HIM VIDE REPLY DATED 13.4.2009. ADMITTEDLY, AS PER THE MEMOR ANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, SIGNED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND E RST- WHILE FIRM, THE LIABILITIES ALONG WITH ASSETS WERE DULY TAKEN OVER BY THE NEWLY CONSTITUTED FIRM I.E. THE ASSESSE E. AFTER SUBSEQUENT PURCHASES OF RS.33,87,533/-, VIDE VARIOU S BILLS AS NOTED AT PAGE 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE SUP PLIERS AND THE PAYMENT OF RS.79,47,772/- MADE FROM 1.4.200 4 TO 31.10.2004, THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE SUPPLIER WAS RS.39,52,125/-, WHICH WAS VERIFIABLE F ROM THE STATEMENT OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SUPPLIER AND T HE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE TRADING ACCOUNT OF M/S. BEND JOINTS ALONG WITH THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ACCOUNTS BY THE SUPPLIER. IN VIEW OF THESE UNCONTROVERTED FINDINGS, WE FIND N O 11 INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IT IS AFFIRMED. 7. THE NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO DELETING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.15,97,430/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDI TS. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS I N SUPPORT TO THE ADDITION WHEREAS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 7.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSION, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVA NT PORTION FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR READY REFERENCE: DECISION: AS PER THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE SUPPLIER M/S. INDUSTRIAL METAL CORPORATION FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01-04-2003 TO 31-03-2004 AS FURNISHED BY THE LD. AR AND AUTHENTICATED BY THE SUPPLIER, TH E CLOSING OUTSTANDING WAS RS. 85,12,300/-. THE OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01-04-2004 IN THE ACCOUNT OF RS. 85,12,300/- WAS ENHANCED BY FURTHER PURCHASES AND REDUCED TO RS. 39,52,125/- BY SUBSEQUENT PAYMENTS BY THE FIRM M/S. BEND JOINTS AND THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT FIRM IN VIEW OF THE SUCCESSION FROM 01-11-2004. ON FURTHER PERUSAL OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE SUPPLIER BETWEEN THE PERIOD FROM 01-04-2003 TO 31-03-2004, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ALLEGED LOAN OF RS. 12 15,97,430/- WAS ADJUSTED ON 31-03-2004 AND THE ACCOUNT WAS CLOSED FOR THE YEAR WITH A CLOSING OUTSTANDING OF RS. 85,12,300/- AS MENTIONED ABOVE. THE SUM WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE TRADING ACCOUNT OF THE SUPPLIER TO ITS UNSECURED LOAN ACCOUNT AND I T IS PENDING FOR PAYMENT FOR WANT OF RECONCILIATION. THIS HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER AND TRANSFERRED TO THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY ON SUCCESSION. THUS, SINCE THE LIABILITY HAS NOT CEASE D, ADDITION U/S 41(1) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IN VIEW OF T HE ABOVE, ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT IS DELETED. IF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD AND THE ASSERTION MADE BY THE LD. RESPECT IVE COUNSEL ARE KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND ANALYSED, WE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DULY EXAMINED THE FACT IN J UDICIOUS MANNER, MORE SPECIFICALLY, WHEN AS PER ACCOUNTS OF THE SUPPLIER M/S. INDUSTRIAL METAL CORPORATION, WHICH W AS AUTHENTICATED BY HIM, THE CLOSING OUTSTANDING WAS RS.85,12,300/-, WHICH WAS ANNEXED BY FURTHER PURCHA SES AND REDUCED TO RS.39,52,125/- BY PAYMENTS MADE BY T HE FIRM M/S. BEND JOINTS AND THE REMAINING OUTSTANDING BALANCE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSE SSEE FIRM IN VIEW OF THE SUCCESSION W.E.F. 1.11.2004. THIS LO AN WAS 13 ADJUSTED ON 31.3.2004. THE AMOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED F ROM THE TRADING ACCOUNT OF THE SUPPLIER TO ITS UNSECURE D LOAN ACCOUNT AND WAS PENDING FOR PAYMENT FOR RECONCILIAT ION, THUS, SINCE THE LIABILITY HAS NOT SEIZED, NO ADDITI ON U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT CAN BE SAID TO BE SUSTAINABLE. ON THIS POINT ALSO, THE REVENUE HAS NO MERIT. 8. THE LAST GROUND PERTAINS TO ADDITION OF RS.16,03 ,088/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS EXPENDITURE. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE IS IN SUPPO RT TO THE ADDITION WHEREAS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 8.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSION, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVA NT PORTION OF THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORD ER: DECISION : I VERIFIED THE PURCHASE BILLS AND ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE SUPPLY OF THE PURCHASED MATERIAL ARE DULY SUPPORTED BY TRANSPORT BILLS. THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH PURCHASES CANNOT BE IGNORED IN VIEW OF THE POSITIVE MATERIALS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY. ACCORDINGLY, I FIND THAT ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE 14 SIMPLY PURCHASE BILLS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND, HENCE, IT IS DELETED. IF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, C ONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE ASSERTION MADE BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL ARE KE PT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND ANALYSED, WE NOTE THAT THE MAJOR REASON FOR MAKING THE ADDITION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TH AT PURCHASES WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY PROPER BILLS AND VOUCHERS. TH E NECESSARY DETAILS ALONG WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BILLS AND VOU CHERS WERE PRODUCED DURING ASSESSMENT STAGE ITSELF, WHICH WERE DULY CHECKED BY HIM. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NO SP ECIFIC QUERY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKING FOR BILLS FOR PURCHASES. THE UNCONTROVERTED FACT IS THAT THE NECESSARY DETAILS/D OCUMENTS WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THERE IS FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT WAS NOT MERELY S UPPORTED BY BILLS BUT SUCH PURCHASES WERE DULY REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNT AND SUCH PURCHASES WERE ENTERED IN BOOKS ON 1.4.2005, W HICH WAS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF INDUSTRIAL METAL CORPORATION. IT IS NOT WORTHY THAT SUCH PURCHASE BI LLS AND ACCOUNT 15 BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DULY EXAMINED/VERIFIED B Y THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND SUCH PURCHASE MATERIAL WAS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE TRANSPORT BILLS. THUS, IN VIEW OF THESE UNCO NTROVERTED FINDING, THE STAND OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AFFIRMED, R ESULTANTLY, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUS ION OF THE HEARING ON 19.11.2013. SD/- SD/- (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20 .11.2013 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE !VYAS!