The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Srinagar V. M/s. Angu Interior Decorators, Srinagar

ITA 249/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2234 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R L CHHANALIA
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Depreciation; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 249(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAN: AAHFA4950E DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF VS. M/S ANGU IN TERIOR DECORATORS, INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ZAINAKOTE, SRINAGAR SRINAGAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. R.L. CHHANALIA, D.R. RESPONDENT BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING: 29.05.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.05.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1) THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2012 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), JAMMU, F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT N ET PROFIT OF 6.5% OF THE TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPTS INSTEAD OF 10% APPLI ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN THE COMPLETENESS AND CORRECT NESS OF THE VERSION OF ACCOUNTS/BOOKS RESULTS/BOOKS OF ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REJECTED U/S 145(3 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2 II. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT N ET PROFIT RATE OF 6.5% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS INSTEAD OF 10% APPLIED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE I.T.A.T. CHANDIGARH A BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S SHIVAM CONSTRUCTION CO . AND AFFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARY ANA IN THEIR ORDER IN I.T.A. NO. 183 OF 2007 DATED 14-05-2007. III. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT N ET PROFIT RATE OF 6.5% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS INSTEAD OF 10% APPLIED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN THE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR, IN THE CASE OF M/S POOJA CONSTRUCTION CO., REPORTED IN I.T .A. NO. 750(ASR)/1992 HAD HELD THAT THE APPLICATION OF NET PROFIT RATE OF 10% ON GROSS RECEIPTS IS PROPER. THE SAID ORDER OF THE JURISDICTIONAL I.T.A.T. HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COU RT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THEIR ORDER IN I.T.A. NO. 166 OF 1999 DATED 10.09.2010. IV. THAT THE APPLICANT CRAVES TO AMEND OR ADD ANY ONE O R MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2) THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME OF RS. 24,69,230/- ON 15.09.2009. SUBSEQUENTLY, A C ASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 09. 09.2010 WAS ISSUED AND DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE VIDE SPEED POST A ND THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 20 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. BUT ON SAID DATE OF HEARING NEITH ER ANYBODY ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS NOR ANY WRITTEN RE PLY WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, A FRESH NOTICE FOR SUBMI SSION OF AUDIT REPORT UNDER SECTION 139-D OF THE ACT, DATED; 18.02.2011 W AS ISSUED VIDE SPEED POST. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILED A COP Y OF THE AUDIT REPORT 3 ALONGWITH ITS ANNEXURES THROUGH DAK ON 11.03.2011 W HICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORDS. THEREAFTER, NOTICE UNDER SECTIO N 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 14.10.2011 WAS ISSUE D AND DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 20.10.2011. THE DATE WAS FIXED FOR COMPLIANCE ON 20.10.2011. ON 20.10.2011, LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRE SENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS AND REQUESTED FOR ISSUANCE OF COPY OF QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 14.10.2011 AND THE SAME WAS ISS UED TO HIM ON HIS REQUEST AND NEXT DATE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 01.1 1.2011. ON 01.11.2011, LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF TH E ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS AND SUBMITTED PART REPLY TO THE QUE STIONNAIRE. FURTHER, ON THIS DATE HE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH TDS DETAILS AN D OTHER BALANCE INFORMATION AS CALLED FOR VIDE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 14.10.2011 AND NEXT DATE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 14.11.2011. HE WAS AL SO REQUESTED TO PRODUCE COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE DATE FOR COM PLIANCE WAS FIXED ON 14.11.2011, ON WHICH DATE, NONE ATTENDED. THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 05. 12.2011, WHICH WAS DULY SERVED VIA SPEED POST. THE DATE FOR COMPLIANCE WAS FIXED ON 12.12.2011. IN COMPLIANCE TO THE SAME, THE AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND SUBMITTED ONLY PART REPLI ES REGARDING TDS DEFAULTS. THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN REQUESTED TO PRODU CE COMPLETE BOOKS ON 4 09.12.2011. ON THIS DATE, NONE ATTENDED NOR ANY WRI TTEN REPLY WAS SUBMITTED. 3) THE ASSESSEE IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR AND HAS DECLA RED A NET PROFIT OF RS. 24,69,230/- AGAINST THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS . 5,52,87,258/-. THIS GIVES A NET PROFIT RATIO OF 4.47% WHICH IS EXTREMEL Y LOW CONSIDERING THAT SINCE THE TURNOVER IS ABOVE RS. ONE CRORE, A NET PR OFIT RATE OF AROUND 10% IS EXPECTED IN ASSESSEE LINE OF BUSINESS. FROM A PE RUSAL OF P&L A/C FILED, IT WAS SEEN THAT HUGE EXPENSES AT RS. 40,77,143/- O N A/C OF WAGES AND RS. 46,63,904/- ON A/C OF SERVICE AND OTHER DEPARTMENT AL CHARGES. NO PRIMARY BILLS/VOUCHERS WHATSOEVER WERE SUBMITTED DU RING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. EVEN THE PRELIMINARY QU ESTIONNAIRE DATED 14.10.2011 REMAINS UN-COMPLIED WITH. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PRIMARY DOCUMENTS/BILLS AND VOUCHERS, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. 4) KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES A S EXPLAINED ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND DETERMINED THE NET PROFIT @ 1 0% ON GROSS CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF I.T .A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH, GIVEN IN THE CASE OF M/S SHI VAM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS. ACIT, I.T.A. NOS. 383 & 384 OF 2004; 62 2 OF 2005; 385 & 5 386 OF 2004 AND 728 OF 2005. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE AFORESAID DECISION OF I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENC H, CHANDIGARH, HAS ALSO BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HI GH COURT, IN WHICH THE NET PROFIT @ 10% HAS BEEN DETERMINED. THE ASSES SING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E ACT. 5) AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHO VIDE IMPUGNE D ORDER DATED 22.11.2012, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE AND REDUCE THE NET PROFIT RATE AT 6.5% BY APPLYING THE DECISION OF I.T .A.T., AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR GIVEN IN THE CASE OF M/S CONSTRUCTIONS ENG INEERS, WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN PARA 4.3 (PAGE 3) OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AGAINST 10% APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LASTLY, THE LEARN ED FIRST APPELLANT AUTHORITY HAS ESTIMATED THE PROFIT OF RS. 35,93,671 /- INSTEAD OF RS. 55,48,791/- AND PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22. 11.2012. NOW, THE REVENUE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), F ILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. 6) AT THE TIME OF HEARING LEARNED D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7) NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD FOR 29.05.2013. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, LEARNED AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE 6 OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION, WHI CH THIS OFFICE HAS RECEIVED ON 27.05.2013 VIDE RECEIPT NO. 468, DATED 27.05.2013. THE CONTENTS OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE AUT HORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, AMRITSAR, PUNJAB. SUBJECT:- WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 CASE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 29.05.2013 REFERENCE:- IN THE CASE OF M/S ANGU INTERIOR DECORATORS, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE ZAINKOTE SRINAGAR KASHMIR. (RESPONDENT) SIR, IN RESPONSE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ASSES SING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 & CASE FIXE D FOR HEARING ON 29.05.2013 THE ASSESSEE WOULD LIKE TO SU BMIT BEFORE YOUR HONOUR AS UNDER; 1. THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF INTERIOR DECORATOR WORK AT INDUSTRIA L ESTATE ZAINKOTE SRINAGAR KASHMIR. THE ASSESSEE HAS HEAD OFFICE AT KARAN NAGAR SRINAGAR KASHMIR. DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE HAS EXECUTED CONTRACT WORK OF RS. 55287258.00 & ALSO MADE LOCAL SALE OF RS. 44444.00. DURING THE YEAR THERE WAS SERVICE TAX OF RS. 4663904.00 & TDS OF RS. 1153705.00 GROSS PROFIT & NET PROFIT WAS RS. 6560381.00 & RS. 2469230.00 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED NET PROFIT RATE OF 10% ON THE GROSS CONTRACT WORK WITHOUT BASIS WHICH IS INJUSTICE WITH THE ASSESSEE. 3. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS NOT ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF SALAR Y TO PARTNERS AMOUNTED TO RS. 360000.00. INTEREST ON PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT AMOUNTED TO RS. 456165.00 7 DEPRECIATION ON FIXED ASSETS AMOUNTED TO RS. 61588.00 SERVICE TAX OF RS. 6466904.00 SUPPORTED BY DEPARTMENTAL CERTIFICATES & OTHER ROUTINE EXPENSES. 4. THAT THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE HEARING FROM TIME TO TIME & REPLIED THE QUESTIONNAIRE FULLY WHICH IS ALS O ON RECORD. 5. THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DESIRED INFORMATION AS WAS ASKED IN QUESTIONNAIRE CONSISTING OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS, SERVICE TAX (SALES TAX) CERTIFICATES, CREDITORS CONFIRMATIONS, PREVIOUS YEARS AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, BANK STATEMENTS ETC . 6. THAT IN SPITE OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ALL THE DES IRED INFORMATIONS, PARE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY USING THE WORDS IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY PRIMARY DOCUMENTS THE CONTENTIONS/CLAIMS CANNOT BE RELIED UPON 7. THAT THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGES THE ORDER OF THE LEARN ED ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ALONGWITH THE SUPPORTING STATEMENTS/DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS THEN THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND APPLICATION OF 10% RATE OF GROSS CONTRACT WORK WAS TOTALLY BASELESS AND HARASSMENT TO ASSESSEE. 8. THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING CIT APPEALS CALLED FOR RECORD FROM THE CONCERNED CIRCLE 3 AND FOUND REPLY TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ALONG WITH THE DET AILS OF EXPENSES IN THE ASSESSMENT FILE OF THE ASSESSEE. THAT THE PARA 4.2 OF PAGE NO. 2 OF APPEAL ORDER PASSED B Y CIT APPEALS STATES IN HIS DETERMINATION AS UNDER: DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AT THE CAMP OFFIC E AT SRINAGAR ASSESSMENT RECORD WAS CALLED FOR. IT IS SEEN THAT REPLY TO QUESTIONNAIRE IS PLACED ON RECOR D AND THE APPELLATE AT PARA -10 OF ITS REPLY HAS STAT ED THEREIN THAT ALL RECORDS ALONG WITH BILLS, VOUCHERS AND OTHER RELEVANT RECORDS WERE SUBMITTED FOR VERIFICAT ION. THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES WERE ALSO FOUND PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS TRUE THAT ON DUE DATE OF FINAL HEARIN G THE 8 APPELLANT DID NOT ATTEND AND PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 9. THAT THE REPLY TO THE PARA 03 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN REPLIED BY THE CIT APPEALS IN PARA 4.2 OF DETERMINATION WHICH IS ITSELF SELF EXPLANATORY. KEEPING IN VIEW ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN CONSIDERATION, ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS TOTALLY CHALLENGED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND YOUR HONOUR IS PRAYED THAT THE RETURNED INCOME AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY KINDLY BE ACCEPTED AND ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY KINDLY BE QUASHE D. THANKING YOU YOURS FAITHFULLY M/S ANGU INTERIOR DECORATORS I/E ZAINKOTE SRINAGAR KASHMIR SD/./- ASSESSEE/COUNSEL 8) WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED D.R. AND HAVE THOROUGHLY G ONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY ALONG WI TH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE O F THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LEARNED FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER IN LIGHT OF THE VARIOU S DECISIONS IN WHICH FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS & CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEES CASE AND REDUCE THE NET PROFIT @ 6.5% ON ESTIMATE BASIS FROM THE NET PROFIT @ 10% ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. FOR THE SAKE OF 9 CONVENIENCE, RELEVANT PORTION ON THE ISSUE IN DISPU TE I.E. PARA NOS. 4.1 TO 4.3 (PAGE NOS. 3 TO 4) OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE RE PRODUCED AS UNDER: 4.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE ME. THE A.O. HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT 10% OF THE GROSS RECEIPT OF RS. 5,52, 87,258/- RELYING ON THE CASE LAW OF M/S SHIVAM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS. ACIT NOS. 383 & 384/2004, 622/2005, 385 & 386/2004 AND 7 28/2005 OF THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIG ARH WHERE THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF CONTRACT WAS DETERMINED @ 10% OF GROSS CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS. THIS VIEW HAD BEEN UPHE LD BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT. THE NET PROFIT @ 10% OF GROSS CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS IS ARRIVED AT RS. 55,28, 725/- AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3). THE ARGU MENT OF THE A.O. IS THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT SUBMIT COMPLETE REPLY TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ALONG WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ON T HE DUE DATE OF DETAILS ASKED FOR WERE NOT WERE NOT FURNISHED HENCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON BASIS OF ESTIMATION OF PROFIT. THE APPE LLANT ON THE OTHER HAND STATED THAT IT HAS SUBMITTED THE ENTIRE DETAILS ASKED FOR BY THE A.O. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT STATED THAT DES PITE THE FACT THAT QUESTIONNAIRE WERE REPLIED TO AND DETAILS FURNISHED THE A.O. PROCEEDED TO ASSESS INCOME ON ESTIMATE BASIS AT 10 % OF THE GROSS CONTRACTUAL RECEIPT. 4.2 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AT THE CAMP OFFICE AT SRINAGAR, ASSESSMENT RECORD WAS CALLED FOR. IT IS SEEN THAT R EPLY TO QUESTIONNAIRE IS PLACED ON RECORD AND THE APPELLANT AT PAR-10 OF ITS REPLY HAS STATED THEREIN THAT ALL RECORDS ALONG WITH BILLS, VOUCHERS AND OTHER RELEVANT RECORDS WERE SUBMITTED FOR VERIFICATION. THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES WERE ALSO FOU ND PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS TRUE THAT ON DUE DATE OF FINAL HEARIN G THE APPELLANT DID NOT ATTEND AND PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 4.3 IN ITS REPLY DATED 21.11.2012 THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) HENCE NO D ISCUSSING IS NEEDED ON THE SAME. THE A.O. WHILE PASSING THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER HAS NOT ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF SALARIES TO PARTNERS F OR RS. 3,60,000/- INTEREST ON PARTNER CAPITAL RS. 4,56,165/- DEPRECIA TION ON FIXED 10 ASSETS RS. 61,588/- AND SERVICE TAX RS. 46,63,904/- ETC. IF THESE EXPENDITURES ARE ALLOWED NET PROFIT WOULD COME DOWN SUBSTANTIAL. THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR IN THE CASE OF M/S C ONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS HAS APPLIED A NET PROFIT RATE OF 6.5% IN CASE OF CONTRACTORS WITHOUT ANY OTHER ALLOWANCE. THE CASE W AS ASSESSED U/S 144 OF I.T. ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO INCOM E HAS BEEN ASSESSED ON ESTIMATION BASIS WHICH IS AKIN TO BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT. KEEPING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF CONTR ACTS IN VIEW AND ABOVE CASE LAW THE PROFITS AT THE RATE OF 6.5% OF THE GROSS RECEIPT APPEAR JUSTIFIED. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTIC E I, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE A.O. TO TAKE A PROFIT OF 6.5% ON CONTRACTUAL RE CEIPT OF RS. 55,28,7258/-. NO OTHER ALLOWANCES TO BE GIVEN AS DE DUCTION. THE PROFIT IS THUS ESTIMATED AT RS. 35,93,671/- INSTEAD OF RS. 55,48,791/-. REGARDING OTHER ADDITION OF INTEREST I NCOME OF RS. 20,066/- THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MENTIONED ANYTHING I N ITS SUBMISSION AND ALSO HAS NOT PRESSED THE GROUND. THE REFORE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR AND THE ADDITION IS CONF IRMED. 4.4 IN RESULT, APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9) KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FINDINGS GIVEN BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL A S AFTER PERUSING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED IN THE WELL REASONED ORDERED PASSED BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE IMP UGNED ORDER DATED 22.11.2012 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), JAMMU, AND DIS MISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 11 10) IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH MAY, 2013 SD/./ SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH MAY, 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: M/S ANGU INTERIOR DECORATORS, INDUST RIAL ESTATE, ZAINAKOTE, SRINAGAR 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, SRINA GAR 3. THE CIT(A), JAMMU 4. THE CIT, JAMMU 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.