Himgiri Enterprises (P) Ltd., Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2477/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2741 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Onus to prove
• Section: 133(6); 131; 68; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 2477 /DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 M/S HIMGIRI ENTERPRISES (P) LTD., C/O - KAPIL GOEL , ADV., A - 1/25, SECTOR 15 ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAACH 6941G ) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(4), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. KAPIL GOEL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 08.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13.01.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2013 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) - XXVII, NEW DELHI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 17,08,990/ - BEING GENUINE SHARE CAPITAL ON BASIS OF EXTRANEOUS AND IRRELEVANT REASONS. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT DELETING WRONGFUL ADDITION 2 ITA NO. 2477/DEL/2013 , AY: 2006 - 07 HIMGIRI ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. ON ACCOUNT OF GENUINE TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS. 425,165 ON WHICH IS FRINGE BENEFIT TAX IS ALSO PAID. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 100,000 ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY EXPENSES BEING CONFIRMED ON AD - HOC AND SURMISICAL BASIS. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD OF GENUINE PROFESSIONAL CHARGES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 400,000 WHICH IS FULLY VOUCHED AND GENUINE IN NATURE, INCURRED FOR BU SINESS PURPOSES. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 ON 12.11.2006 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 7,38,262/ - , WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ) . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF ELECTRICAL ACCESSORIES HAVING BRAND NAME GIRISH AND ALSO ACTING AS COMMISSION AGENT FOR SALE OF SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS TO GOVERNMENT AND OTHER HOSPITALS. WHILE SCRUTINY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED INTRODUCTION OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 41 ,20,490/ - AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF THE SAME. I N RESPONSE , THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 18,72,500/ - ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE IDENTIFICATION, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS BUT IN THE COMPUTATION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , HE HELD THE BALANCE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 22,47,990/ - (RS. 41,20,490 18,72,500) AS UNEXPLAINED , THOUGH IN THE BODY OF THE ORDER , H E HELD THE ENTIRE CASH CREDIT O F 3 ITA NO. 2477/DEL/2013 , AY: 2006 - 07 HIMGIRI ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. RS. 41,2 0 , 4 90/ - AS UNEXPLAINED, HOWEVER, THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4,25,165/ - OUT OF THE TRAVELING EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DETAILS AND PURPOSE OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 2 LAKHS OUT OF THE SALARY EXPENSES AND DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5,29,734/ - TOWARDS PROFESSIONAL CHARGES. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION , COPY OF ITR ETC. IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 24,11,500/ - AND THUS, BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 17,08,990/ - WAS UPHELD BY HIM AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE ADDITION MADE IN RESPECT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES WAS UPHELD BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) OBSERVING THAT NO VOUCHER OF TOUR/TRAVELLING EXPENSES WAS FILED EV EN BEFORE HIM. FURTHER, HE ALLOWED RELIEF OF RS. 1 LAKH AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2 LAKHS MADE IN RESPECT OF SALARY EXPENSES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 , 29,734/ - UNDER THE HEAD PROFESSIONAL CHARGES THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS. 4 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF PROFESSIONAL CHARGES FRO M MR. RAKESH BUDHIRAJA, LIASONING CONSULTANT (RS. 2,75,000/ - ) AND COLOUR CREATIVE SOLUTION, CONSULTANT FOR DESIGN OF PACKING MATERIAL OF ( RS. 1,25,00 0/ - ) . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4 ITA NO. 2477/DEL/2013 , AY: 2006 - 07 HIMGIRI ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. 3. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 17,08,990/ - FOR SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEITHER M ADE ANY INQUIRY UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT, NOR ASKED TO PRODUCE ANY OF THE PERSONS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SHARES WERE DULY ALLOTTED TO THE SHARE APPLICANTS IN MOST OF THE CASES AND THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE MOSTLY EITHER KNOWN PERSONS OR EMPL OYEES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LOVELY EXPORTS PVT. LTD., REPORTED IN 2016 CTR 195. 3.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE INITIAL BURDEN OF PROOF AS NO COMPLETE ADDRESS OR CONFIRMATION FROM THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE FILED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ALLOTMENT OF SHARE WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THE CREDIT OF AMOUNT AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OR LOAN AND THEREFORE NOT RELEVANT. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S MASS CON (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITA NO. 1940/DEL/2012, AY 2005 - 06 , DATED 11.10.2013, RELIED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE IS IN RESPECT OF SALE OF SHOP AND NOT IN RESPECT OF CASH CREDITS, AND THEREFORE, NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE . HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. EMPIRE BUILDTECH PVT. LTD., REPORTED IN 366 ITR 110. 5 ITA NO. 2477/DEL/2013 , AY: 2006 - 07 HIMGIRI ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. 3.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 17,08,990/ - OUT OF THE SHARE APP LICATION OF RS. 41,20,409/ - CREDITED DURING THE YEAR , EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE SUBMITTING OF THE CONFIRMATION CONTAINING NAME, ADDRESSEE AND DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WAS THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO DISCHARGE HIS BURDEN OF PROOF , AS FAR AS SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WAS CONCERNED. WITHOUT PROVIDING THE BASIC DETAILS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO HANDICAPPED IN MAKING ANY INQUIRY EITHER UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT OR A SUMMON UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT. 3.3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT, THE FINDINGS OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S LOVELY EXPORT (SUPRA) DO NOT APPLY. FURTHER, THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. VRINDAVAN FARMS (P.) LTD. , ITA NO. 71/2015 , 72/2015 & 84/2015 OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT ARE DIFFERENT. IN THAT CASE, THE ENTIRE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANTS WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INCLUDING PAN, CONFIRMATIONS, BANK STATEMENTS, BALANCES SHEETS AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AN D CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION ETC. IN THE CASE OF EMPIRE BUILDTECH PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) , THE HON BLE HIGH COURT DISTINGUISHED THE FACT OF M/S LOVELY EXPORTS AND HELD AS UNDER: 8. HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES, PARTICULARLY, THE FACT THAT THESE INVESTORS NOT ONLY DID NOT SUBMIT ANY CONFIRMATION AND HAD CONCEDEDLY REPORTED FAR LESS INCOME THAN THE AMOUNTS INVESTED, THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT UNDER T HE CIRCUMSTANCES BE SAID TO HAVE 6 ITA NO. 2477/DEL/2013 , AY: 2006 - 07 HIMGIRI ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. DISCHARGED THE BURDEN WHICH WAS UPON IT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE IN VIEW OF THE LAW DECLARED IN LOVELY EXPORTS ( SUPRA ) MATTER. IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO MERELY DISCLOSE THE ADDRESSES OR IDENTITIES OF THE INDIVID UALS CONCERNED. THE OTHER WAY OF LOOKING AT THE MATTER IS THAT HAVING GIVEN THE ADDRESSES, THE INABILITY OF THE NOTICES WHO ARE APPROACHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO AFFORD ANY REASONABLE EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THEY GOT THE AMOUNTS GIVEN THE NATURE OF THEI R INCOME WHICH WAS DISPROPORTIONALLY LESS THAN WHAT THEY SUBSCRIBED AS SHARE CAPITAL WOULD ALSO AMOUNT TO THE REVENUE HAVING DISCHARGED THE ONUS IF AT ALL WHICH FELL UPON IT. THIS COURT ALSO NOTICES THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE WAS INCORPORATED BARELY FE W MONTHS BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, AND THERE IS NO FURTHER INFORMATION, OR ANYTHING TO INDICATE WHY ITS MARK UP OF THE SHARE PREMIUM THOUSAND FOLDS IN RESPECT OF THE SHARES WHICH WERE OF THE FACE VALUE OF RS. 10 LAKHS WAS JUSTIFIED. 3.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGE D HIS BURDEN OF PROOF AND FAILED TO FURNISH THE CONFIRMATION/CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 17,08,990/ - BEFOR E THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AND ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4,25,165/ - FOR TRAVELLING EXPENSES. LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT FRINGE BENEFIT TAX WAS DULY PAID ON THE SAID EXPENSES AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO ACTION FOR DISALLOWANCE. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF OM INTERN ATIONAL VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, IN ITA NO. 2310 & 2311/MUM./2012, FOR AYS 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08. 7 ITA NO. 2477/DEL/2013 , AY: 2006 - 07 HIMGIRI ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. 4.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARN ED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WERE FURNISHED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE SEEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE FRINGE BENEFIT TAX FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. FRINGE BENEFIT OF RS. 2,55,875/ - DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, IN THE CASE, CITED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY WHETHER THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE WAS SUBJECTED TO FRINGE BENEFIT TAX. 4.3 FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE RESTORE THE MATTER TO FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WILL VERIFY THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WHETHER THE SAID TRAVELLING EXPENSES WERE SUBJECT TO THE FRINGE BENEFIT TAX. IF THOSE EXPENDITURE ARE SUBJECT TO FRINGE BENEFIT TAX, THEN NO DISALLOWANCE SHALL BE MADE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. 5. AS REGARD TO GROUND NO. 3, LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION ON AD - HOC BASIS BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 5.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY JUSTIFICATION OF EXPENSES, REDUCING THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS. 1 LAKHS WAS PROPER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 8 ITA NO. 2477/DEL/2013 , AY: 2006 - 07 HIMGIRI ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. 5.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DISALL OWANCE IN RESPECT OF SALARY ON AD - HOC BASIS IS NOT WARRANTED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE TURNOVER AS WELL AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY AS COMPARED TO THE LAST YEAR. THEREFORE, WE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1 LAKH SUSTAIN ED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AND ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6. GROUND NO. 4 IS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4 LAKHS OUT OF THE PROFESSION EXPENSES. LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS IN RESPECT OF THE TWO PARTIES, FIRST, M/S RAKESH B U DHIRAJA OF RS. 2,75,000/ - , WHO PROVIDED SERVICES OF LIAS I ONING /MARKETING AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW CUSTOMERS AND S ECOND , M/S COLOUR CREATIVE SOLUTIONS OF RS. 1,25,000/ - , TOWARDS COST OF CONSULTANCY, PA CKAGING AND DESIGNING FOR THE BRAND. LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REFERRED TO COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF M/S RAKESH B U DHIRAJA APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, AT PAGE NO. 42 OF THE PAPER BOOK. LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE COPY OF CONTRACT AGREEMENT WITH M/S RAKESH B U DHIRAJA FILED AT PAGE NO. 43 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND BILL S RAISED BY M/S RAKESH B U DHIRAJA FILED AT PAGE NOS. 44, 45 AND 46 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF MS. ASHA PRIYA SRIDHAR VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITA NO. 187/MDS/2012, DATED 28 TH MARCH, 2012. 9 ITA NO. 2477/DEL/2013 , AY: 2006 - 07 HIMGIRI ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. 6.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED IN RESPECT OF SERVICES OF SH BHUDIRAJA WERE LACKING RELIABILITY LOOKING TO MANNER OF THEIR MAINTENANCE AND ABSENCE OF HIS SIGNATURE ON THEM . 6.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THE TWO PARTIES, IN PARAGRAPH 23 OF THE ORDER HAS MENTIONED AS UNDER: .. HOWEVER , WITH RESPECT TO PAYMENT MADE TO M/S COLOR CREATIVE SOLUTIONS, THE PURPOSE OF THE PAYMENT AS MENTIONED ON THE BILL IS TOWAR DS THE C OST OF CONSULTANCY AND PACKING DESIGN FOR THE BRAND FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 05 AND FEBRUARY 06 RS. 1,00,000/ - AND TOWARDS THE COST OF SHOOT AND MATERIAL CHARGES - RS. 25,000/ - . NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE APPELLANT TO SHOW WHAT SERVICE S WERE ACTUALLY RECEIVED FROM THE PARTY. FURTHER IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENT OF RS. 2,75,000/ - PAID TO RAKESH BUDHIRAJA, THE NARRATION OF THE ENTRY MENTIONED BY THE APPELLANT IS LIASIONING WORK UNDERTAKEN WITH VARIOUS GOVT. HOSPITALS FOR SUPPLY OF SURGICAL EQUIPMENTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND SEARCH OF NEW CUSTOMERS AND THEIR DEVELOPMENTS FOR PROMOTION OF YOUR PRODUCT GIRISH ALL OVER INDIA DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . WHAT LIASIONING WORK HAS BEEN DONE AND WHAT DEVELOPMENT OF NEW CU STOMERS HAS BEEN DONE, NOTHING HAS BEEN STATED IN 10 ITA NO. 2477/DEL/2013 , AY: 2006 - 07 HIMGIRI ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. THIS REGARD. THE SO CALLED CONTRACT SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN SIGNED WITH SH RAKESH BUDHIRAJA , HAS BEEN SIGNED ON A LETTER HEAD OF THE COMPANY ACCORDING TO WHICH SH RAKESH BUDHIRAJA WAS SUPPOSED TO PERFORM CER TAIN FUNCTIONS AS ALREADY STATED ABOVE. NO DETAIL OF ANY SUCH FUNCTION HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE APPELLANT. .. 6.2 PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT PROOF OF SERVICES RENDERED. AS REGARD TO THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT SERVICES WERE DULY RENDERED BY SH. R AKESH BUDHIRAJA, BEFORE US A COPY OF CONTRACT LETTER ON A PLANE LETTER WAS FILED AT PAGE 43 OF THE PAPER BOOK , WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE CONTRACT F ILED ON LETTER HEAD OF THE COMPANY BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). THE CONTRACT LETTER FILED BEFORE IS ALSO NOT SIGNED BY SH. RAKESH BUDHIRAJA AND THE CONTRACT LETTER IS BE ARING CONTRACT NO. 001/2005 - 06 I.E. THE FIRST CONTRACT SIGNED BY MR . BUDHIRAJA, WHICH RAISES D OUBT ON HIS EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD OF HIS CONSULTANCY. FURTHER, THE BILLS PLACED AT PAGE NOS. 44 TO 46 OF THE PAPER BOOK ARE ALSO HAVING RUNNING SERIAL NO. 1 TO 3, THOUGH THE BILLS HAVE BEEN ISSUED AT A N INTERVAL OF MANY DAYS. MORE IMPORTANTLY, THESE BILLS ARE NOT SIGNED EITHER BY SH. RAKESH BUDHIRAJA OR ANY OF THE PERSON AUTHORIZED ON HIS BEHALF. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, THE SERVICES RENDERED BY M/S BUDDHIRAJA ARE NOT GETTING ESTABLISHED AND THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW T HE DISALLOWANCE HAS RIGHTLY BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). AS REGARDS TO M/S COLOR CREATIVE SOLUTIONS ALSO NO DOCUMENTARY 11 ITA NO. 2477/DEL/2013 , AY: 2006 - 07 HIMGIRI ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. PROOF OF SERVICES RENDERED WERE FILED EITHER BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OR BEFORE US. THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF MS. ASHA PRIYA SRIQDHAR, CITED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIFFERENT AS IN THAT CASE IN SEARCH NO MATERIAL QUA THE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES WAS FOUND. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMI TY IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ON ISSUE IN DISPUTE , ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 3 T H JANUARY, 2016 . S D / - S D / - ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 3 T H JANUARY, 2016 . RK/ - COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI