Royal Sterling (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2475/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6999 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 09-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH KR GUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Rejection of books of accounts; Unexplained expenditure; Gift; Business expenditure; Additional evidence; Bad and doubtful debts; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2475 /DEL/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 M/S. ROYAL STERLING (INDIA) PVT. LTD., GREEN PARK, NEW DELHI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 15(4), NEW DELHI PAN : AAACP7135L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. SURESH KR. GUPTA, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. F.R. MEENA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 09.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06.10.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER DATED 20/03/2013 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS) - XVIII, NEW DELHI , FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER/CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 12,00,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER/CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWING EXPENSES OF RS. 36,23,810 / - INCURRED THROUGH CREDIT CARD. 3. THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER/CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.10,000/ - AS ESTIMATED PROFIT ON S ALE OF SHARES 2 ITA NO. 2475/DEL/2013 AY: 2008 - 09 4. THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER/CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,73,769/ - BY DISALLOWING BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER/CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,31,07,452/ - OUT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS CLAIMED BY THE ASSEESSEE. 6. THAT THE ASSESSEE SEEKS PERMISSION TO ADD DELETE, AMEND OR MO DIFY ANY GROUND (S) OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND RESALE OF GOLD, SILVER JEWELLERY AND ARTICLES, ARTIFICIAL JEWELLERY THROUGH RETAIL SELL POINTS IN DELHI AND OTHER CITIES IN INDIA. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING LOSS OF RS.20,24, 655/ - . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTI NY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE A CT ) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD. THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 27 /12/2010 AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,60,90, 380/ - AFTER MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES TO THE RETURNED INCOME. ON APPEAL, THE LEAR NED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES, 1962 (IN SHORT THE RULES ) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SHE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, RAISING THE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. 3. IN GROUND NO. 1 , THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED ADDITION OF RS.12 LAKH S DE POSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS. THE FACT IN RESPECT OF ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE THAT ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE THROUGH THE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT (AIR), THE ASSESSEE HAD 3 ITA NO. 2475/DEL/2013 AY: 2008 - 09 DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.12 L ACS ON 28/03/2008 IN HDFC BA NK, ROOP NAGAR, NEW DELHI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE ONLY FURNISHED COPY OF A BANK LEDGER FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2008 AND, THEREFORE , IN ABSENCE OF SO URCE OF DEPOSIT OF CASH EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE HELD THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN TERMS OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. BEFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS) , THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT CASH WAS DEPOSIT ED IN THE HDFC BANK OUT OF CASH - I N - HAND APPEARING IN THE CASH BOOK ON THE DAY AND OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS IN CASH. THE ASSES SEE MOVED AN APPLICATION UNDER R ULE 4 6A OF THE R ULES FOR ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES CONSISTING OF COPY OF CASH BOOK FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE REJOIND ER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED SUMMARY OF CASH SALES, CREDITS SALES AND SALES TO CREDIT CARDS ETC . FROM VARIOUS SHOWROOMS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS) , HOWEVER , OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT FURNIS H COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD EITHER AS PER HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OBTAINED FROM THE BANK. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AUTHENTICITY OF THE CASH BOOK FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS QUESTIONABLE IN ABSE NCE OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. FURTHER , THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX ( A PPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY S HEAD OFFICE AND ITS BRANCH OFFICE IN DELHI WERE NOT IN THE VICINITY OF THE BRANCH OF HDFC BANK IN WHICH THE CASH DEPOSIT WAS MADE. I N VIEW OF THE OBSERVATIONS, HE UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3.1 BEFORE US, LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SUMMARY OF THE BREAKUP OF THE CASH AND CREDIT SALES WERE ALREADY FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS). A COPY OF SUCH SUMMARY HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE AT PAGE 80 TO 87 OF THE ASSESSES S PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE BANK BOOK 4 ITA NO. 2475/DEL/2013 AY: 2008 - 09 OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AT PAGE 144 TO PAGE 183 OF THE ASSESSES S PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AVAILABLE ON PAGE 87 OF THE ASSESSES PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS TOTAL CASH SALES OF RS. 3.26 CRORE DURING THE YEAR AND TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS ARE OF RS. 2.32 CRORE, AND ACCORDINGLY HE ARGUED THAT LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME T AX ( APPEALS) WAS WRONG IN HOLDING THAT CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 12 LAKH WAS ONLY SOLITARY CASH DEPOSIT. 3.2 ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT NO B ILLS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE CASH BOOK WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN IN REMAND PROCEEDING AND , THEREFORE , AUTHENTICITY OF THE CASH BOOK COULD NOT BE VERIFIED, ACCORDINGLY , HE PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER M IGHT BE SUSTAINED. 3.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.12 .00 L ACS ON 28/03/2008 IN THE HDFC BANK ACCOUNT. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IN THE CA SE IS THAT CASH BOOK FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE SUPPORTING BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING REMAND PROCEEDING AND , THEREFORE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT VERIFY THE AUTHENTICITY OF SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. IN OUR OPINION, IF THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF CASH BOOK FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, A CLEAR DECISION CAN BE MADE FOR JUSTIFYING THE SOURCE OF CASH D EPOSITS. FURTHER, THE OBSERVATION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT BRANCH OF THE BANK IS NOT IN THE VICINITY OF SALES CENTRE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE DON T AGREE, THIS AS ONE OF THE REASONS OF THE CONFIRMATION BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE HAS ITS OWN CHOICE, IN WHICH BRANCH OF BANK, IT WANTS TO DEPOSIT CASH. 5 ITA NO. 2475/DEL/2013 AY: 2008 - 09 THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT DECIDE HOW TO CONDUCT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IN V IEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL BILLS/VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF CASH BOOK AND ALSO PRODUCE COPY OF BANK BOOK OR BANK STATEMENT FOR VERIFICATION OF THE CASH DEPOSITS. NEVERTHELESS, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AFFORDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. AFTER EXAMINATION OF CASH BOOK, BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND BANK STATEMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO PASS ORDER ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 4. IN GROUND NO. 2 , THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWING EXPENSES OF RS.36,23, 810/ - INCURRED THROUGH CREDIT C ARDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THROUGH INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT (AIR) THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.36,23, 810/ - THROUGH THE CREDIT CARD OF AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK DURING THE YEAR. ACCORDING TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE CREDIT CARD STATEMENT AND DETAILS WITH SOURCE OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WIT H DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ONLY NAME OF THE PERSON TO WHOM CREDIT CARDS WERE ISSUED, WITHOU T ANY DETAILS OF EXPENSES OR A STATEMENT OF CREDIT CARDS, ACCORDINGLY , HE HELD THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.36,23 810/ - AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE R U LES FOR ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES CONSISTING OF L EDGER ACCOUNT OF AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT CARD ETC ., WHICH WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS. IN THE REMAND REPORT SENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED T HAT NO DOCUMENTS IN SUPPO RT OF L EDGER OF CREDIT CARD EXPENSES WERE FILED BEFORE 6 ITA NO. 2475/DEL/2013 AY: 2008 - 09 HIM. BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 07.02.2013 AS UNDER: - 2) POINT NO. 3 : DETAI LS OF EXPENSES, PURPOSE & COPIES OF BILLS RELATED TO TRANSACTIONS EXECUTED ON AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK CORPORATE CARDS. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT MAY BE OBSERVED FROM THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.36.54 LACS SWIPED THROUGH CREDIT CARDS OF AMEX ISSUE D TO (I) MS. CHANDA NARANG - CEO, (II) MS. ARCHANA SINGH - PRESIDENT, (III) MR. TULU PATNAIK ASSOCIATE PRESIDENT, (IV) MR. KAMAL SHARMA - DIRECTOR, (V) MR. YASHPAL SINGH BHATI - MANAGER PROJECT, (VI) MR. YUGAL KISHORE - PURCHASE OFFICER & (VII) MR.SAURABH SHARMA - MANAGER PURCHASE. HOWEVER THE NET AMOUNT BOOKED IN COMPANY S ACCOUNT THROUGH AMEX CREDIT CARD WAS ONLY RS. 26.82 LACS. DETAILS OF AMEX CARD TRANSACTIONS ARE AS UNDER: (I) TRAVELLING EXPENSES: AN AMOUNT OF RS. 15.21 LACS DEBITED IN TRAVELLING ACCO UNT. A DETAIL STATEMENT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES THROUGH CREDIT CARDS IS ENCLOSED ALONG WITH NAME OF EXECUTIVE TRAVELLED AND PURPOSE OF TRAVELLING. THE MOST OF THE EXPENSES ARE RELATED TO BANGALORE SHOWROOM WAS OPENED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND COMPANY'S CEO, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATE PRESIDENT, DESIGNERS & OTHER EXECUTIVES VISITED THE SHOWROOM FOR PRE - COMMENCEMENT AND INTERIOR RELATED WORK. COPIES OF RELATED BILLS ARE ENCLOSED. (II) REPAIRS : AN AMOUNT OF RS.2.03 LACS HAD BEEN DEBITED IN REPAIR & MA INTENANCE ACCOUNT THROUGH AMEX CREDIT CARD. THESE EXPENSES ARE RELATED TO REPAIRS WORK OF SHOWROOM, INTERIOR WORK & BAD SHEETS USED IN LODHI SHOWROOM ON CENTER TABLES ETC. (III) BUSINESS PROMOTION : AN AMOUNT OF RS. 74 LACS DEBITED IN BUSINESS PROMOTION ACCOUNT THROUGH AMEX CARD AND THE ITEMS PURCHASE WAS MAINLY USED FOR BUSINESS PROMOTION PURPOSE. COPIES OF RELATED BILLS ARE ENCLOSED FOR YOUR REFERENCE. (IV) FIXED ASSETS : AN AMOUNT OF RS. LACS CAP ITALIZED FOR PURCHASED OF FIXED ASSETS MAINLY; MUSIC SYSTEMS, CCTV, TABLES, FURNITURE & OFFICE EQUIPMENTS. THESE ITEMS HAD BEEN PURCHASED FOR NEWLY OPENED SHOWROOM IN DELHI & BANGALORE AND FOR OFFICE USE. COPIES OF BILLS ARE ENCLOSED FOR YOUR REFERENCE. 7 ITA NO. 2475/DEL/2013 AY: 2008 - 09 (V) BALANCE AMOUNT AROUND RS.0.51 LACS IN AMEX CARD IS OF GENERAL OFFICE EXPENSES, STAFF WELFARE, VEHICLE PETROL & AMEX CARD ANNUAL FEES AND INTEREST CHARGED BY AMEX ON LATE PAYMENT. A COMPLETE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF AMEX CORPORATE CARD HAS ALREADY BEEN PROV IDED. A COPY OF THE SAME IS AGAIN ENCLOSED FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE. (VI) CHANDA NARANG : AN AMOUNT OF RS.6.64 LACS DEBITED TO CHANDA NARANG AND CREDITED TO AMEX CORPORATE CARD, I.E. FEW EXPENSES OF MS. CHANDA NARANG PAID THROUGH AMEX CARD BUT RECOVERED B Y COMPANY FROM HIM. DETAILS OF AMOUNT DEBITED ARE ENCLOSED. (VIII) AN AMOUNT OF RS.3.08 LACS CREDITED TO AMEX CORPORATE CARD ALSO REVERSED AS PER DETAILS ENCLOSED. 4.1 T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS), HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMIS SIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ADDITION WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 5.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SUBMISSIONS, REMAND REPORT, AND REJOINDER THEREOF. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT AIR INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS. 36,23,810/ - THROUGH CREDIT CARDS OF AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK. AS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF EXPENDITURE AND THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES BOOKED WERE FURNISHED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 36,23,810/ - . DURING TH E APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT CLAIMED IT HAD FILED DETAILS IN REGARD TO EXPENSES INCURRED THROUGH THE CREDIT CARDS AND ALSO MOVED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CONVINCED AS THE DETAILS FURN ISHED BY THE APPELLANT SHOW HEAVY EXPENDITURE ON HOTEL BILLS, TRAVELLING, AND REPAIR & MAINTENANCE. IN ITS REJOINDER, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS WERE MADE TOWARDS EXPENSES LIKE TRAVELLING (RS. 21,39,990/ - ), REPAIR (RS. 2,04,845/ - ), BUSINESS PROMOTION (RS. 2,39,567/ - ), PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSETS (RS. 6,85,841/ - ), AND OTHERS (RS. 5,07,720/ - ). ALONG WITH THIS, THE APPELLANT FILED A COPY OF THE AMERICAN EXPRESS CORPORATE CREDIT CARD LEDGER ACCOUNT APPEARING IN ITS BOOKS. THE DETAILS FIL ED THEREIN SHOWED HEAVY PAYMENT TO ROYAL ORCHID HOTEL, PURCHASE OF NUMBER OF MUSIC SYSTEMS & DVD PLAYERS & OTHER ELECTRONIC GOODS, TRAVELLING 8 ITA NO. 2475/DEL/2013 AY: 2008 - 09 EXPENSES, PURCHASE OF QUILT & BED SHEETS, FURNITURE & FLOORING, BOOKS, GIFTS LUCKNOW HOTEL BILLS (THE APPELLANT DO ES NOT HAVE A SHOWROOM AT LUCKNOW), PURCHASE OF SILVER ARTICLES FROM FRAZER & HAWS, SPENDING IN FOREIGN CURRENCY, PURCHASE OF FABRIC, PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY FROM EPISODE (NEW DELHI), STAY IN HOTEL IN NEW DELHI, SHOES & CLOTHING FROM LEVI S. THE DETAILS THUS SHOWED THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD BOOKED LARGE AMOUNT OF ITS PERSONAL EXPENSES OF ITS EXECUTIVES AND DIRECTORS INCURRED THROUGH CREDIT CARDS AS BUSINESS EXPENSES. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS ENCLOSED COPIES OF LEDGER ACCOUNT BUT THE SOURCE FROM WHICH T HE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE HAS NOT BEEN ENCLOSED THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLANT EITHER DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS OR DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO SHOW CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF SOURCE OF PAYMENT. THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. 4.2. B EFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS WERE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS PAID FROM REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE EXPENSES OF CR EDIT CARDS WERE DEBITED TO VARIOUS HEADS OF EXPENSES, WHICH HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AFTER DUE VERIFICATION AND THE BANK S STATEMENT S THROUGH WHICH PAYMENTS OF CREDIT CARD WERE MADE , WERE PRODUCED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE FURTHER REFE RRED TO PAGE 188 OF THE ASSESSEE S PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL C REDIT CARD PAYMENTS OF RS.36.54 LACS, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 9.72 LAKHS WAS RECOVERED FROM THE EMPLOYEES CO NCERNED AND NET EXPENSES OF RS. 26.82 LAKHS WERE BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT OUT OF WHICH 26.82 LAKHS AGAIN, RS. 7.32 LACKS WERE DEBITED TO FIX ED ASSETS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE RS. 19.49 LACS WERE DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE VARIOUS HEADS OF EXPENDITURE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, , THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE SUBMITTED THAT NO DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SOURCE OF THE EXPENSES CANNOT BE DOUBTED IN ABSENCE OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WHEREIN THOSE EXPENSES WERE ACCOUNTED FOR. 9 ITA NO. 2475/DEL/2013 AY: 2008 - 09 4.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF RS. 36.54 LACS, THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY HAS ALREADY RECOVERED RS. 9.72 LAKHS FROM THE CONCERNED EMPLOYEES FOR PERSONAL USE AND AMOUNT OF RS. 7.32 LAKHS HAS BEEN DEBITED TO FIX ED A SSETS, LEAVING A BALANCE OF RS. 19.49 L ACS ONLY IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT . WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD BOOKED LARGER AMOUNT OF ITS PERSONAL EXPENSES TO ITS EXECU TIVE AND DIRECTORS INCURRED THROUGH CREDIT CARD AS BUSINESS EXPENSES, BUT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT QUANTIFIED SUCH EXPENSES, WHEREAS , THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE RECOVERY OF RS. 9.72 LAKHS FROM THE CONCERNED EMPLOYEES/ EXECUTIVES AND THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS). IN OUR OPINIO N, THE ISSUE OF RECOVERY OF RS. 9.72 LAKHS AND EXPENDITURE TOWARDS THE FIXED ASSETS OF RS. 7.23 L ACS HA S NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THEREFORE, WE FEEL APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES ALONG DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE OF DISAL LOWANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED THAT COPY OF BANK STATEMENT EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF CREDIT CARD EXPENSES WAS NOT FILED EITHER DURING REMAND PROCEEDING OR DUR ING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. WE DIRECT THE ASSE SSEE TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT BANK STATEMENTS TO SUPPORT THE SOURCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED THROUGH CREDIT CARD , BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . NEVERTHELESS, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AFFORDED SUF FICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND OF THE APP EAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN GROUND NO. 3 , THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED ADDITION OF RS. 10,000 / - ESTIMATED PROFIT ON SALE OF SHARES. THE FACTS IN RESPECT OF THE 10 ITA NO. 2475/DEL/2013 AY: 2008 - 09 ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED SALE OF SHARES OF M/S . SILITE CH ENGINEERING FOR A SUM OF RS. 1 LAKH, BUT NO PROFIT ON THE SALE WAS SHOWN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT DESPITE GIVING OPPORTUNITY AND FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE, IT DID NOT FURNISH THE REQUIRED DETAILS AND ACCORDI NGLY HE ESTIMATED PROFIT OF RS. 10,000 ON THE SALE AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS), UNDER RULE 4 6A OF THE RULES , THE ASSESSEE FILED A COPY OF BOARD RESOLUTION STATING THAT THE SALE S OF SHARES IN REFERENCE WAS MADE AT THE RATE OF THE RS. 10 EACH . THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS), HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT NO OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO CONFIRM THE RATE AT WHICH THE SHARES HAVE BEEN SOLD AND SALE THROUGH REGISTERED SHARE BROKER , WERE FILED AND SHE UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ESTIMATING THE PROFIT ON THE SALE OF SHARES IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE WITH THE R EVENUE TO SHOW THE SALE PRICE WAS MORE THAN WHAT IS RECORDED WITH ASSESSEE . 5.1 THE LEARNED SR. DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER S OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PE RUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES LEADING TO ADDITION ON ESTIMATE BASIS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FEEL IT APPROPR IATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT RELEVANT EVIDENCES AND DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEVERTHELESS , THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AFFORDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. ACCORDINGLY , THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 11 ITA NO. 2475/DEL/2013 AY: 2008 - 09 5.3 IN GROUND NO. 4 , THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED ADDITION OF RS.1, 73,769 / - BY DISALLOWING BA D DEBTS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE THAT IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS SESSEE CLAIMED BAD DEBTS OF RS. 1,73,769/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAIL S OF PARTIES IN RESPECT OF CLAIMS OF BAD DEBT, IN SPITE OF VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES AND FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED, THUS, HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.4 BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE M OVED APPLICATION UNDER SECTION RULE 4 6A AND FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAVING DETAILS OF BAD DE BTS AND COPY OF BOARD R ESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,73, 769 / - WRITT EN OFF DURING THE YEAR. HOWEVER, IN REMAND PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE HIM , NEITHER THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF BOARD RESOLUTION, NOR FILED DETAIL OF STEPS TAKEN TO RECOVER THE DEBTS. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, REMAND REPORT AND REJOINDER THEREOF , UPHELD THE ADDITION RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE KERAL A HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S . TRAVANCORE TEA ESTATE COMPANY LIMITED VS. CIT (1992) 197 ITR 528 AND HELD THAT THREE CONDITIONS ESSENTIALS FOR AN AMOUNT TO BE WRITTEN OFF AS BAD DEBT MUST HAVE BEEN SATISFIED AS FOLLOWS: (A) THERE SHOULD BE DEBT OWING TO THE ASSESSEE (B) THE DEBT SHOULD ARISE IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND (C) IT SHOULD BECOME BAD IN THE YEAR OF ACCOUNT 5.5 B EFORE US , THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS OF THE PARTIES WHOSE RECOVERY W AS WRITTEN OFF, WERE SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT SHOWN AS BAD DEBT WAS IN THE NATURE OF SHORT RECOVERY, WHICH IS A NORMAL FEATURE OF ALL THE BUSINESSES . THE COPY OF BOARD 12 ITA NO. 2475/DEL/2013 AY: 2008 - 09 RESOLUTION WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS EE AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5.6 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAS CONTESTED THAT THE COPY OF THE BOARD R ESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF, WAS NOT SUPPLIED TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN IN THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDING, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THAT SAME WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT, IN THE INT EREST OF J USTICE, WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE O F ASSESSING OFFICER, WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF BAD DEBT. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY O F HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 6. IN GROUND NO. 5, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALL ENGED ADDITION OF RS.1, 31, 07, 452/ - OUT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS IN RESPECT OF ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE SHOWN SUNDRY CREDITORS AMOUNT ING TO RS.1,99,77, 465/ - . ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE ONLY FILED DETAILS IN RESPEC T OF CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO RS.68, 70 ,013/ - AND , THEREFORE , HE HELD THE REMAI NING CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,31,07, 452/ - AS UNVERIFIABLE AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS), THE ASSES SEE MOVED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE RULES, INCLUDING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. IN REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REPORTED THAT NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF BALANCE CREDITORS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE HIM. IN REJOIN DER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE DULY EXPLAINED AND THE SUNDRY CREDITORS INCLUDE TDS PAYABLE , PF PAYABLE, VAT PAYABLE ETC. 13 ITA NO. 2475/DEL/2013 AY: 2008 - 09 T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS), HOWEVER , DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION WITH FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 8.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SUBMISSIONS, REMAND REPORT, AND REJOINDER THEREOF. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SUNDRY CREDITORS A MOUNTING TO RS. 1,99,77,465/ - . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT SUBMITTED DETAILS IN REGARD TO NAME AND ADDRESSES OF PARTIES TOTALING RS. 68,70,013/ - , BUT DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETAIL IN REGARD TO THE BALANCE PARTIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,31,07,452/ - . ON T HIS BASIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF THE SAME AMOUNT. DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, INSPITE OF CLAIMING THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS BEING FILED, THE APPELLANT ONLY FURNISHED A LIST STATING THE AMOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR DELHI, MUMBAI, BANGALORE AND OTHERS, WITHOUT FURNISHING ANY CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT FURNISHED DETAILS AS UNDER: - SR. NO PARTICULAR S AMOUNT DETAILS FURNISHED COMMENTS (1) SUNDRY CREDITORS, DELHI RS. 35,04,620 THE APPELLANT ENCLOSED PARTY - WISE DETAILS AND THE DATE OF PAYMENT TO THE PARTIES BY CHEQUE ALONG WITH COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT EXCEPT IN REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES: (1)BEE DEE MFG. CO. (RS. 8,57,814) (2)CITI COOL CORPN. (RS. 46,524) (3)MUSHTAQ AHMED (RS. 11,532) (4)PRIYANKA UDY. LTD. (RS. 5,10,627) (5)VIKAS VIRMANI (RS. 50,863) (6)VIKAS VIRMAN (RS. 37,864) THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED THESE DETAILS EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS IN RESPECT OF DELHI DOES NOT TALLY WITH THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE LETTER DATED 12.12.2012. THERE IS NO BASIS TO CONFIRM THAT THE PARTIES APPEARING IN THE LIST FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT ARE SUNDRY CREDITORS AS ON 31.03.2008. FURTHER, THE DETAIL S HAVE BEEN FURNISHED IN THE REJOINDER AND WITHOUT MOVING ANY FURTHER APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE APPELLANT THUS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. (2) SUNDRY CREDITORS, MUMBAI RS.10,35,625 HEREIN THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN PAYMENT TO ONLY AARTI ASHISH SONAWALA (RS. 1,04,285) (3) SUNDRY CREDITORS, BANGALORE RS.01,46,232 THE APPELLANT ENCLOSED PARTY - WISE DETAILS AND THE DATE OF PAYMENT TO THE PARTIES BY CHEQUE ALONG WITH COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT EX CEPT: (1)AHIR CONSULTANCY (RS. 1,584) (2)LIGHT & STYLE (RS. 15,891) (3)TASVEER ART PVT. LTD. (RS. 49,000) (4) SUPPLIERS, DELHI RS.31,13,431 THE APPELLANT ENCLOSED PARTY - WISE DETAILS AND THE DATE OF PAYMENT TO THE PARTIES BY CHEQUE ALONG WITH 14 ITA NO. 2475/DEL/2013 AY: 2008 - 09 COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT EXCEPT IN REGARD TO 4 PARTIES: (1)R.R. ENTEPRISES (RS. 2,845/ - ) (2)SWASTIK PRINTERS (RS. 13,440/ - ) (3)VITALIKA DESIGN STUDIO (RS. 26,097/ - ) (4)M.S. GEMS (RS. 16,783/ - ) (5) TDS PAYABLE RS.04,49,395 NO DETAILS GIVEN (6) PF PAYABLE RS.03,42,090 THE APPELLANT HAS FILED CERTAIN COPIES OF PAYMENTS MADE. (7) S&W PAYABLE RS.14,85,571 NO DETAILS GIVEN (8) DUTIES & TAXES RS. 63,274 NO DETAILS GIVEN (9) CURRENT LIABILITIES RS.98,37,254 THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT RS. 88,40,865/ - WAS PAYABLE TO FRAZER & HAWS INTL. PVT. LTD. WHICH HAS BEEN ADJUSTED BY CHEQUES OF HDFC BANK LTD., PAID TO SUNDRY PARTIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,50,000/ - AND RS. 32 LACS BY TRANSFER TO SUCHITRA KRISHNAMURTY. IN RE SPECT OF THE OTHER PAYABLE, NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. THE PAYMENT TO M/S. FRAZER & HAWS INTL. LTD. HAS NOT BEEN MADE DIRECTLY BUT HAS BEEN SHOWN THROUGH BOOK ENTRIES. CREDIT HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR PAYMENT MADE TO SUNDRY PARTIES AND TO SUCHITRA KRISHNAMUR TY WHICH AS PER RECORD APPARENTLY HAS NO RELEVANCE. THE AUTHENTICITY THEREOF CAN ALSO NOT BE VERIFIED. FURTHER, THE DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED IN THE REJOINDER AND WITHOUT MOVING ANY FURTHER APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE APPELLANT THUS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED TOTAL RS1,99,77,494 AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE CREDITORS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS HAS NOT BEEN PROVED EITHER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE LIST OF CREDITORS HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCED EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR REMA ND PROCEEDINGS. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE CLAIM THAT PAYMENT TO THE CREDITORS HAS BEEN MADE THUS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE DETAILS AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED ARE WITHOUT MOVING AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A. IF THE EVIDENCE WAS AUTHENTIC, THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN 15 ITA NO. 2475/DEL/2013 AY: 2008 - 09 FILED AT THE TIME OF FILING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. 6.1 B EFORE US , T HE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE STAGE OF ASSESSMENT NEVER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT AS PER THE LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS FURNISHED AND THE AMOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AS PER BALANCE SHEET. IN WR ITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED BALANCE OF RS.1,31,07, 452/ - AS UNDER: ITEM NO IN THE LIST AMOUNT EXPLANATION 5.SUNDRY CREDITORS OTHERS 1,25,080/ - REPRESENTS VARIOUS MISC EXPENSES PAYABLE INCLUDING CREDIT CARDS PAYABLE RS 45567/ - ( PB 186&187) AS PER RECORDS) 6. M/S FRAZER & HAWKS INTERNATIONAL P LTD 88,40,804/ - CONFIRMATION OF THE ABOVE PARTY FILED (PB - 456) THERE WAS A PAYMENT OF RS 32 LACAND RS 3.5 LAC TO OTHER PARTIES FROM THE ACCOUNT OF ABOVE PARTY TO MS SUCHITRA KRISHNAMURTHY BY THE APPELLANT ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE PARTY. THIS PAYMENT OF RS 32 LAC WAS TO A FAMOUS MODEL FOR THE PRODUCTS OF THE SAID PARTY AND THE ABOVE PARTY IS A GROUP COMPA NY OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD CIT (A) HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS. THE ABOVE AMOUNT WAS PAYABLE TO THE ABOVE PARTY IN LIEU OF THE BANK GUARANTY PROVIDED TO THE ABOVE SAID PARTY TO ENABLE THE LATER TO AVAIL LOAN FROM THE BANK. THIS FACT IS DULY DISCLOSED BY WAY OF NOTE NO 14 IN THE BALANCE SHEET ON PAGE PB55. SINCE AS DISCLOSED IN THE NOTE NO CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THAT FACILITY THE CREDIT WAS THEREFORE TAKEN AS RECIPROCAL. 7 - 18 VARIOUS STATUTORY LIABILITIES AND ROUTINE CONTINGENCIES 32,18,487/ - THE DETAILS OF THE ANNEXURE S C TO M (PB - 457 - 467) THEE EVIDENCES WERE REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THESE WERE FRESH EVIDENCES BUT THE LD CIT (A) MISSED THE POINT THAT THESE ARE THE CORROBORATING EVIDENCES OF THE SAME FURNISHED AND CONSIDERED. 19 - 22 VARIOUS LIABILITIES 6,807/ - THESE ARE BASICALLY INDIRECT TAX LIABILITIES. 23. WCT PAYABLE 1,11,424/ - THIS AMOUNT IS ADDED BACK BY THE APPELLANT ITSELF IN THE COMPUTATION U/S 43B THEREFORE THIS IS CASE OF DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE. PLEASE REFER TO PB 22 ANNEXURE X TO TAX AUDIT REPORT AND PB 2 COMPUTATION OF INCOME. 24. BEE DEE MANUFACTURING CO HONGKONG 8,57,814/ - THIS LIABILITY IS AGAINST THE IMPORT OF MATERIAL BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS DUE TO THE DISPUTE GOING ON WITH THE PARTY CONCERNED. 16 ITA NO. 2475/DEL/2013 AY: 2008 - 09 6.2 T HE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) DID NOT ACCEPT FEW ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED SUBSEQUENTLY ALONGWITH THE REJOINDER. 6.3 WE HAVE HEAR D THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT IN THE REJOINDER FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS ), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES RECONCILING THE BALANCES OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS IN DISPUTE, WHICH WERE NOT ADMITTED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX ( APPEALS). IN OUR VIEW, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE REJOINDER BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CRUCIAL FOR DETERMINING THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF J USTICE, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEAR ING TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUN T THE SUBMISSIONS AND DOCUMENTS , DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE , IN ACCOR DANCE WITH THE LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 5 OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 7. IN THE RESULT , APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH OCTOBER , 2016 . SD/ - SD/ - ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 6 TH OCTOBER , 2016 . LAPTOP / - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI