The ACIT, Circle-5, Baroda V. M/s. Radiant Engineers, Baroda

ITA 2238/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9736 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 43B; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE: SHR I S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE ACIT, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, BARODA - 390007 (APPELLANT) VS M/S. RADIANT ENGINEERS, D - 28, SARDAR ESTATE, AJWA ROAD, BARODA - 390007 PAN: AACFR0784L (RESPONDENT /CROSS OBJECTOR ) REVENUE BY : S H RI PRASOON KABRA , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S H RI ANIL R. SHAH WITH MS. KINJAL SHAH , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 24 - 10 - 2 016 DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 06 - 12 - 2 016 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS REVENUE S APPEAL & ASSESSEE S CROSS OBJECTION FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 , AR IS E FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - V, BARODA DATED 16 - 07 - 2012 I T A NO . 2238 / A HD/20 12 & CO NO. 231 /AHD/2012 A SSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 I.T.A NO. 2238 /AHD/20 12 & CO NO. 231/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. RADIANT ENGINEERS 2 IN APPEAL NO. CAB/(A)V - 219/10 - 11 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN (I) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.35,97,667/ - MAD E ON A/C OF EXCESSIVE WAGES PAID (II) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,00,000/ - MADE ON A/C OF EXCESSIVE HIRING CHARGES PAID (III) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,81,229/ - MADE U/S 43B ON A/C OF SERVICE TAX PAYABLE. 3. THE RET URN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 50,77,555/ - WAS FILED ON 19 - 09 - 2008. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MECHANICAL AND ENGINEERING JOB WORK. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING O FFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIM ED SITE EXPENSES OF RS. 5,68,37,507/ - WHICH ALSO INCLUDED CONTRACT LABOUR AND WAGES EXPENSE S. T HE ASSESSING O FFICER POINTED OUT THAT OUT OF THESE SITE EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF RS. 3 , 11 , 02 , 820 / - TOWARDS LABOUR CHARGE S INCLUDING FIXED SALA RY. THE ASSESSING O FFICER STATED THAT AVERAGE SALARY PA ID TO EMPLOYEE S( HIRED CONTRACT LABOURERS) WAS RS. 400/ - PER DAY AND RS. 750/ - P ER DAY RESPECTIVELY . THE ASSESSING O FFICER STATED THAT THE TOTAL WAGE EXPENSES CLAI MED DURING THE YEAR WAS TO THE AMOUNTS OF R S. 3,11,02820/ - OUT OF WHICH RS. 11,221260/ - PAID TO PERMANENT EMPLOYEES AND THE BALANCE RS. 2,99,80,560/ - PAID TOWARDS WAGES. T HE ASSESSING O FFICER STATED THAT 60% OF THE WAGES IN THE CATEGORY OF DAILY PAYMENT OF RS. 470 TO RS. 750/ - AMOUN TING TO RS. I.T.A NO. 2238 /AHD/20 12 & CO NO. 231/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. RADIANT ENGINEERS 3 1,79,88,336/ - WAS EXCESSIVE ON THE REASONING THAT IT WA S NOT POSSIBLE OF HAVING THIS PERCENTAGE OF SKILLED WORKERS , THEREFORE , THE ASSESSING O FFICER DISALLOWED 20% OF THE SALARY IN THIS CATEGORY TO THE A MOUNT OF RS . 35,97,667/ - AND ADDED TO T HE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGR IEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A). THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS DELE TED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESS ING O FFICER. THE DECISION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 4.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO AND THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE AR. THE AO HAS FAILED TO BRING ANY MATERIAL/INDEPE NDENT EVIDENCE ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONCLUSION THAT PAYMENT TO SKILLED WORKERS WAS EXCESSIVE. NEITHER THE AO HAS COLLECTED ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING AVERAGE RATE OF PAYMENT TO SUCH WORKERS NOR HAS HE EXAMINED ANY OF THE WORKERS TO PROVE THAT PAYMENTS R EFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE INFLATED. THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE FACT THAT WORK BEING PERFORMED BY THE APPELLANT WAS OF HIGHLY SKILLED NATURE AND WAS TIME BOUND. CONTR ACTS INVOLVED H UGE PENALTIES IN CASE OF TIME OVERRUN. DURING THE COURSE OF APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN COPIES OF WORK ORDER RECEIVED FROM RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD./ INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS LTD. WHICH SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED PAYMENT @ R S.660/ - PER DAY FOR FITTER FOR A 12 HOUR SHIFT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO PRODU CED QUOTATIONS FROM VAISHALI ENGG. CO. BA RODA AND AADIL ENGG. QUOTING RATES B ETWEEN 450 TO 750 PER DAY FOR 8 HRS. SHIFT. NET PROFIT OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ALSO HIGHER COMPARED TO EARLIER PREVIOUS YEAR S. LOOKING TO ALL T HESE FACTS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.35,97,667/ - WITHOUT BRINGING ANY SUPPORTING MATERIAL ON RECORD. DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY DELETED. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. R ELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, I.T.A NO. 2238 /AHD/20 12 & CO NO. 231/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. RADIANT ENGINEERS 4 LD. A.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A). HE ALSO FURNISHED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING THE DETAILS PERTAINING TO WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE TO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A), RETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH STATEMENT OF INCOME, TAX AUDIT REPORTS, DETAILS OF UNPAID SALARY ACCOUNT, SITE EXPENSE DETAILS . 6 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD CAREFULLY. WE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWE D RS. 35,97,667/ - OUT OF WAGES PAID CONSIDERING THE SAME AS EXCESSIVE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY DISALLOWED 20% OF THE WAGE PAYMENT OF OUT OF RS. 1,79,88,336/ - AS EXCESSIVE WITHOUT SUPPORTING MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES TO PROVE THAT THE PAYMENT MADE TO SK ILLED WORKERS WAS EXCESSIVE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPROVED THE SUPPORTING VOUCHERS AND REGISTERS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER RELATED SUPPORTING RECORD MAINTAINED LIKE PROVIDENT FUND AND ESI CONTRIBUTIONS INDICATING THE GENUINENESS OF TH ESE EXPENSES. THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT EXCESSIVE WAGE PAYMENT WAS OF GENERAL NATURE IGNORING THE FACT THAT WAGES WERE PAID ON THE BASIS OF NUMBER OF WORKING DAYS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE NAT URE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE RELATE TO JOB WORK OF MECHANICAL AND ENGINEERING ON CONTRACT BASIS WITH ORGANIZATION LIKE REFINERIES ,PETROCHEMICALS SUCH AS IPCL IOCL GAIL. SOME OF THE JOBS WERE OF HIGHLY LABOR INTENSIVE INVOLVING SKILLED AND EXPER IENCED PHYSICAL LABOUR FORCE AT THE SITE OF THE WORK. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONSIDERED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT I.T.A NO. 2238 /AHD/20 12 & CO NO. 231/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. RADIANT ENGINEERS 5 JUSTIFIED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 35,97,667/ - WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE, THEREFO RE, WE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A). 7 . THE OTHER ISSUE RELATE TO THE PAYMENT OF HIRING CHARGES FOR HYDRA MACHINE AT BARAUNI SITE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING O FFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS PAID HIRING CHARGES FOR USAGE OF HYDRAULIC MACHINES A MOUNTING TO RS. 40 LACS. HE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID HIRING CHARGES FOR USAGE OF HYDRAULIC MACHINE TO M/S U PENDRA PRASAD SINGH, HI TECH CONS TRUCTION PVT. LTD AMOUNTING TO R S. 40 LACS AN D H.D.ENGG. SERVICES, BARODA AMOUNTING TO RS.1,68000 RESPECTIVELY. THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO M/S UPENDRA PRASAD SINGH, HI TECH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD FOR HIRING OF 8 TON E , 10 TO NE AND 11 TONE CAPACITY OF HYDR AULIC MAC HINE @ RS. 9000/ - , RS . 10,000/ - AND RS. 12,000/ - PER DAY RESPECTIVELY. FURTHER A LUMP - S UM PAYMENT OF RS. 27,60,000/ - WAS MADE FOR 45 MT PH CRANE FOR 42 DAYS AND PER DAY PAYMENT OF THIS MACHINE COMES TO RS. 65,714/ - . WHEREAS H.D.ENGG.SERVICES, BARODA WERE PAID FOR HIRING OF TWO CRANES @ RS.14 00/ - PER DAY FOR 12 HOUR SHIFT. THE ASSESSING O FFICER STATED THAT HIRING CHARGES PAID TO M/S UPENDRA PRASAD SINGH COMPARED TO PAYMENT FOR HIRING CRANE FROM H.P. ENGG . WAS EXCESSIVE AND EXORBITANT. THE ASSESSING O FFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE U NREASONABLE PAYMENTS , THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED AMOUNT OF RS.20,00000 BEING 50% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 40 LAKHS STATING THESE EXPENSES NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. I.T.A NO. 2238 /AHD/20 12 & CO NO. 231/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. RADIANT ENGINEERS 6 8 . AGGRIEVED AGA INST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER, TH E ASS ESSSE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A). THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS DELETE D THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATING THAT THE PARTY TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS W AS MADE NOT A RELATED PARTY AND THERE WAS N OTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW TH AT THE PART OF THE PAYMENT HAD BEEN RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 5.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO AND THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE AR. FROM THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IT IS SEEN THAT IN RESPECT OF HIRING OF 45 MT PH CRANE THE APPELLANT HAS INCURRED TOTAL LOSS OF RS.1 ,03,488/ - I.E. AMOUNT BILLED BY THE APPELLANT IS LESSER THAN THE AMOUNT PAID B Y THE APPELLANT TO M/S UPENDRA PRASAD SINGH HI TECH CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD. BY RS. 1,03,488/ - . SIMILARLY TOTAL LOSS INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF HIRING OF 3 HYDRAULIC MACHINES FROM M/S UPENDRA PRASAD SINGH HI TECH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. WAS RS.15 ,000/ - ONLY. THE FACT THAT THE IOCL HAS MADE PAYMENT TO THE APPELLANT AT SUCH A HIGH RATE POINTS TO THE FACT THAT LOCAL RATES OF HIRING WERE HIGH. IT ALSO POINTS OUT TO THE REASONABLENESS OF PAYMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. INCURRING A LOSS ON A PART OF THE CONTRACT SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED ADVERSELY UNLESS THERE ARE OTHER REASONS ALSO. THE PARTY TO WHOM PAYMEN TS HAVE BEEN MADE IS NOT A RELATED PARTY AND THEREIS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT A PART OF THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK BY THE APPELLANT. CONSIDE RING ALL THESE FACTS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20,00,000/ - MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF PAYM ENTS MADE TO M/S UPENDRA PRASAD SINGH HI TECH CONSTRUCTION PVT . LTD. IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME IS HEREBY DELETED. 9. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. A.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A). I.T.A NO. 2238 /AHD/20 12 & CO NO. 231/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. RADIANT ENGINEERS 7 HE ALSO FURNISHED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING THE DETAILS PERTAINING TO WRITTE N SUBMISSION MADE TO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A), RETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH STATEMENT OF INCOME, TAX AUDIT REPORTS, LEDGER A/C OF H.D. ENGG. SERVICES AND UPENDRA PRASAD SINGH HITECH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD, LEDGER A/C OF RADIANT HITECH ENGG. PVT. LTD. 10. ON CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE SIDES WE OBSERVED THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 20,00,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF HIRING OF CRANE PAYMENT TO M/S UPENDRA PRASAD SINGH HITECH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD, IN THIS CONNECTION WE NOTI CED THAT THIS DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT BASED ON COGENT OR JUSTIFIABLE REASONS. WE FIND THAT THE HIRING CHARGES PAID WAS NOT RELATED TO THE PERSONS COVERED UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE THIS DISALLOWANCE ON ESTIMATED BAS IS WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCES TO PROVE THAT THE SAME WAS EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND FINDINGS, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A). 11 . THIRD ISSUE IN THE CASE RELATE TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,81,2 29/ - U/S. 43B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING O FFICER NOTICED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE PROVISION FOR SERVICE TAX PAYABLE AMOUNTING TO RS. 22,07,221/ - BUT SERVICE TAX OF R S. 18,25 ,992/ - WAS PAID ON 5 TH JULY , 2008 AND THE BALANCE WAS NO DUE AND THE PAYMENT D UE AS PAID ON 31 - 03 - 2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED RS . 381229/ - U/S. 43B OF THE ACT STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY PROPER EXPLANATION. I.T.A NO. 2238 /AHD/20 12 & CO NO. 231/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. RADIANT ENGINEERS 8 THE ASSESSEE FIL ED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) AGAINST THE IMP UGNED DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION AND DECISION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO AND THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE AR. FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IT IS CLEAR THAT OUT OF SERVICE TAX BILLED BY THE APPELLANT AMOUNT TO RS.22,07,221/ - ONLY AMOUN T OF RS.18,25,992/ - HAD BECOME PAYABLE UPTO THE DATE OF AUDIT. BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.3,81,229/ - HAD NOT BECOME DUE AND PAYABLE UPTO THE DATE OF AUDIT BECAUSE SERVICE TAX BECOMES DUE AFTER THE PAYMENT IS RECEIVED AND IT IS TO BE PAID BY THE NEXT MONTH. CLEAR LY THERE WAS NO LIABILITY ON THE APPELLANT TO PAY THE SERVICE TAX AS ON 31.3.2008. LOOKING TO THE PECULIAR NATURE OF ACCOUNTING OF SERVICE TAX AN D ALSO LOOKING TO THE FACT THAT THE SERVICE TAX WAS NOT DEBITED TO THE P & L ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE, RATIO OF D E CISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S NOBLE AND HEWITT INDI A LTD. IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,81,229/ - MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY DELETED. 12. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE LD. D .R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. A.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A). HE ALSO FURNISHED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING THE DETAILS PERTAINING TO WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE TO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X(A), SERVICE TAX DETAILS. 13. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE SIDES AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOW ED U/S. 43B OF THE ACT OF RS. 3,81,229/ - AS SERVICE TAX PAYABLE .IN THIS CONNECTION WE NOTICED THAT OUT OF TOTAL SERVIC E TAX LIABILITY OF RS. 22,07,221/ - ONLY AMOUNT OF RS. I.T.A NO. 2238 /AHD/20 12 & CO NO. 231/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. RADIANT ENGINEERS 9 18,25,992/ - SERVICE TAX WAS PAID ON 5 TH JULY, 2008 AND THERE WAS REMARK IN THE AUDIT REPORT THAT THE SUM FOR RS. 3,81,229/ - SERVICE TAX WAS NOT DUE AND HENCE NOT PAID. WE CONSIDERED THAT THERE WAS NO LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PAY THE ABOVE REFERRED SERVICE TAX AS ON 31 - 03 - 2008 AND TH IS SERVICE TAX OF RS. 3,81,229/ - WAS ALSO NOT DEBITED TO THE P & L A/C , THEREFORE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CO NO. 23 1 /AHD/2012 14. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE FOLLOWING CROSS OBJECTIONS: - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND PROVISIONS OF LAW AND HAS PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER DELETING RS.35,97,667 BEING ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ALLEGED 'EXCESSIVE WAGES PAID' BY YOUR THE APPELLANT. 2. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND PROVISIONS OF LAW AND HAS PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.20,00,000 BEING LAMPSUM ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS 'EXCESSIVE HIRING CHARGES PAID' BY YOUR APPELLANT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD IN HIS SPEAKING ORDER THAT SEC.43(B) DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND PER PROVISIONS OF LAW AND HE HAS CORR ECTLY DELETED RS.3,81,229 DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS 'SERVICE TAX PAYABLE . 4. ON FACTS OF THE CASE AN D AS PER PROVISION OF LAW INTEREST U/S.234 IS NOT LIABLE TO BE CHARGED AND HENCE THE SAME BE DELETED. I.T.A NO. 2238 /AHD/20 12 & CO NO. 231/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. M/S. RADIANT ENGINEERS 10 15. THE CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE FILED AGAINST THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CROSS OBJECTIONS SUPPORT THE ORDER OF LD. C.I.T(A). THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES COVERING THE CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE SIMILAR THAT OF THE ARGUMENTS MADE TOWARDS THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS ELABORATED ABOVE IN THIS ORDER. CONSIDERING THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DISMISSED, WE FIND THAT THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME REDUNDANT. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED AS BECOME REDUNDANT. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 06 - 12 - 201 6 SD/ - SD/ - ( S.S. GODARA ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 06 /12 /2016 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,