ACIT - 9(3), MUMBAI V. M/s. SUPER MILLENIUM INVESTMENT & TRADING P. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 2681/MUM/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1579 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 21-10-2009
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY SRI VASTAVA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 131; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V D RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO 2681/MUM /2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03) ACIT -9(3), ROOM NO.299, 2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI -400 020 VS SUPER MILLENIUM INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT LTD, HEDGESHINE, SAI ARADHANA BLDG, PHIROZSHA ROAD, SANTACRUZ (WEST), MUMBAI -400 054 PAN: AAHCS 0011 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI AJAY SRIVASTAVA RESPONDENT BY: NONE ORDER PER PRAMOD KUMAR 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF CIT (A)S ORDER DATED 3 RD JANUARY 2007, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT PASS ING ORDER UNDER RULE 46A(2) OF INCOME-TAX RULES 1962, EVEN THOUGH THE AO HAD GIVEN A SPECIFIC FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT IS BEING FINALIS ED U/S 144 OF THE ACT BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO FURNISH DETAILS AS PER NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 14.4.2004 AND ALSO TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE IN T HE CLOSING STOCK. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO 1, THE FOLLOWING GRO UNDS ARE BEING TAKEN UP: 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF STOCK OF RS 1,0 4,82,713/-, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT (A) TH AT THE VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK WAS RS 477,35,323/- AND ALSO TO RECON CILE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE CLOSING STOCK. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 9,52,84,246/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUPER MILLENIUM INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT LTD 2 UNSECURED LOAN ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FURNISHED D URING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT GETTING FURTHER ENQUIRY MADE AF TER RECEIVING THE REMAND REPORT EVEN THOUGH THE TOTALS OF DEBIT AND C REDIT SIDE AND HE CLOSING BALANCE OF THE UNSECURED LOAN DIFFERED BETW EEN THE CONFIRMATION FILED BEFORE CIT (A) AND ANNEXURE II (SR NO 24) OF TAX AUDIT REPORT; THE CONFIRMATION DID NOT GIVE PAN OF THE LOANEE; PARTY WISE DETAILS OF LOANS ADVANCED BY LOANEE AND COPY OF BANK STATEMENT WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE LOANEE AND THEREFORE, THE SOURCE AND GENUINENES S OF THE CREDIT WAS NOT PROVED. 4 (A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 99,42,378/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND FURTHER ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE REMAND REPORT ON THIS POINT. (B) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.4(A), THE CTT (A ) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST WITHOU T ENQUIRING INTO GENUINENESS OF ALLOWABLILIY OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE . (C) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO 4(A),4(B), THE C IT (A) ERRED IN ALLOWING ENTIRE INTEREST AS AN EXPENDITURE ON THE B ASIS OF REMAND REPORT FORM THE AO WHICH IS ON TEST CHECK BASIS OF ONLY 5 PARTIES INSTEAD OF WHOLE AND COMPLETE ENQUIRY. (D) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO 4(A),4(B), 4(B), 4(C), THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS AS THE SO CAL LED CONFIRMATIONS AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD DO NOT CONTAIN SIGNATURE OF THE LOAN CREDITORS IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT DO NOT CONTAIN SIGNATURE OF THE LOAN CREDITORS IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT, AND NO PAN IS QUOTED IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT. 5 (A) ON THE ACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS 1,12, 500/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONSULTANCY CHARGES AND ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE REMA ND REPORT IN THE ON THE ISSUE WITHOUT ENQUIRING INTO SPECIFIC SERVICES RENDERED. (B) ON PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO 5(1), THE CIT (A) FAI LED TO APPRECIATE THAT PRIMARY ONUS LIES UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SPECIFIC SERVICES RENDERED. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 85,000 /- U/S 40A(2)(B) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCE THAT ASSESSEE FAI LED TO PROVE THE REASONABLENESS OF EXPENDITURE. 7. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A ) ON THE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ITO /AC/ DC BE RESTORE D. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUNDS OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. SUPER MILLENIUM INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT LTD 3 2. TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS APPEAL, ONLY A FEW MATERIA L FACTS NEED TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 AS THE COMPANY NEITHER FURNISHED THE RECONCILIATION OF CLOSING STOCK AS SP ECIFICALLY REQUESTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NOR FURNISHED OTHER DETAILS REQUIRED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. IT APPEARS THERE WAS ONLY ONE APPEARANCE BY THE DIRECTOR OF CO MPANY ON 25 TH JANUARY 2005, AND PRIOR TO THAT NOTICES SENT TO THE ASSESSEE WERE RET URNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. WHEN BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT U/S 144 WAS FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS 1,04,82,713/- ON AC COUNT OF LACK OF CLOSING STOCK RECONCILIATION, OF RS 99,42,376/- ON ACCOUNT OF INT EREST PAID ON UNSECURED LOANS WHICH COULD NOT BE VERIFIED, RS 60,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION AND RS 52,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISCOUNT IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO DETAI LS WERE FURNISHED AND OF RS 85,000/- IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO SPECIFIED P ERSONS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITIONS SO MADE, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN A PPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED HIS COMMENTS ON EXPLANATIONS IN RESPECT OF ALL THESE ADDITIONS, WHICH WERE FORWARDED BY THE CIT (A) TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER CONCERNED UPON RECEIPT OF REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CI T (A) CONSIDERED EACH OF THE ADDITIONS ON MERITS AND DELETED EACH OF THESE ADDIT IONS. REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE RELIEF SO GRANTED BY THE CIT (A) AND IS IN APPEAL B EFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE, BUT NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REJECTED. WE HAVE CONSIDERED SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 4. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, ONCE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN DULY HEARD BY THE CIT (A) ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE, THERE IS NOT MUCH MERIT IN HIS OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSION PER SE OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT WAS MADE EX-PARTE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALL THAT THE CIT 9A0 HAS DONE IS TO PROVIDE YET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE A SSESSEE TO FURNISH EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES CLAIMS OF DEDUCT ION ETC IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS PRABHAVATI SHAH SUPER MILLENIUM INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT LTD 4 (231 ITR 1), THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A CANNOT DILU TE OR CURTAIN CIT (A)S POWERS U/S 250(4) WHICH PERMIT HIM TO CALL FOR FURTHER ENQUIRI ES. IT IS ALSO WELL SETTLED IN LAW THAT WHEN A STATUTORY AUTHORITY HAS POWERS TO DO SO METHING, SUCH AN AUTHORITY ALSO HAS CORRESPONDING DUTY TO EXERCISE SUCH POWERS WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES SO JUSTIFY OR WARRANT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE CIT (A) WAS QU ITE JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 5. COMING TO THE MERITS OF CIT (A)S DELETING THE I MPUGNED DISALLOWANCES, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE CIT () HAS DONE SO, ON THE BASI S OF REMAND REPORT DATED 14TH OCTOBER 2005 FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF . IT IS USEFUL TO REFER TO THE FOLLOWING EXTRACTS FROM THE AFORESAID REMAND REPORT :- 3. THE REPORT ON THE ABOVE IS SUBMITTED ITEMWISE HEREUNDER:- I) DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING STOCK RS 1,04,82,713/- IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SEE N THAT THE CLOSING STOCK SHOWN AT RS 3,72,52,610/- IN THE BALANCE SHEET. HO WEVER AS PER THE ANNEXURE III TO THE TAX AUDIT REPORT, THE CLOSING S TOCK WAS SHOWN AT RS 4,77,35,323/-. VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 12.1.2 005 THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO RECONCILE THIS DIFFERENCE BUT NO RECON CILIATION WAS FILED TILL THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE DIFFERENC E IN CLOSING STOCK AMOUNTING TO RS 1,04,82,713/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING STOCK AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET AND AS PER THE TAX AUDIT R EPORT IS BASICALLY DUE TO MISTAKE IN VALUING OPENING QUANTITY INSTEAD OF CLOS ING QUANTITY IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK OF 2126295 SHARE S AT THE RATE OF RS 22.45/- PER SHARE I.E. RS 4,77,35,323/-. THROUGH OVERSIGHT , THE VALUE OF OPENING STOCK OF 1659359 SHARES AT THE RATE OF RS.22.45/- PER SHA RE AMOUNTING TO RS 3,72,52,610/- WAS MENTIONED AS CLOSING STOCK IN THE BALANCE SHEET. FROM THE VERIFICATION OF RECORDS, IT IS SEEN THAT T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE BALANCE SHEET HAS SHOWN THE CLOSING STOCK AT RS 3,7 2,52,610/- (SCHEDULE 13) AND THE INVENTORIES ARE ALSO VALUED AT RS 3,72,52,6 10/- (SCHEDULE 5). THUS, THERE IS A MISTAKE IN VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK AT RS 3,72,52,610/- INSTEAD OF RS 4,77,35,323/- WHICH HAS BEEN CORRECTED REFLECTED IN THE ANNEXURE III TO THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, THE CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT AND THEREFORE THESE FACTS MAY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL. SUPER MILLENIUM INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT LTD 5 II) UNSECURED LOANS OF RS 9,52,84,246/- SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE CONFIRMATION LETTER S, THE AMOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS AND INTEREST WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FILED A LOAN CONFIRMATION FROM M/S BARONI SECURITIES PVT LTD. ON THE BASIS OF LOA N CONFIRMATION LETTER, SUMMON U/S 131 OF THE IT ACT, WAS ISSUED. IN RESPO NSE TO WHICH M/S BARONI SECURITIES SERVICES PVT LTD HAS FILED COPIES OF BAL ANCE SHEET, PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR HAVING FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2002-03. A COPY OF CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S BARONI SECURITIES SERVICES PVT LTD IS ALSO FILED. FROM THE VERIFICATION OF THE CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUN TS FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2001 TO 31.3.2002, IT IS SEEN THAT M/S BARONI SECURITIES SE RVICES PVT LTD HAS ADVANCED A SUM OF RS 9,52,84,246/- TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THIS AMOUNT CONSISTS OF PAYMENTS MADE DIRECTLY TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND OTHER PARTIES ON ITS BEHALF. IT IS FURTHER CLARIFIED BY M/S BARONI SECU RITIES SERVICES PVT LTD VIDE LETTER DATED 26.8.2005 THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNT IS REF LECTED IN SCHEDULE VI OF LOANS AND ADVANCES IN THE BALANCE SHEET WHEREIN THE TOTAL LOANS AND ADVANCES ARE SHOWN AT RS 12,62,53,511/-. THIS IS INCLUSIVE OF LOAN AND ADVANCES OF RS 9,52,84,246/- TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE, THE APPEAL MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS. III) INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS 99,42,376/- FOR WANT OF DETAILS THE INTEREST CLAIMED AT RS 99,4 2,376/- WAS DISALLOWED. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST WAS ALREADY ATTACHED WITH THE T AX AUDIT REPORT AND A COPY OF THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST IS ALSO FILED WITH THE CIT (A). ON THE BASIS OF THE DETAILS FILED, TO TEST-CHECK TH E LOAN TRANSACTIONS AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST, SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE IT ACT WERE ISSUED TO THE FOLLOWING PERSONS:- SR NO. NAME OF PERSON AMOUNT OF INTEREST 1. SHRI BHOJRAJ KARKERA RS 1,52,097/- 2. SHRI AJAY MEHTA RS 9,93,785/- 3. SHRI B S RAWAT RS 2,46,521/- 4. SHRI VISTASPA PATEL RS 1,47,639/- IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS THE ABOVE PERSONS ATTEND ED AND FILED LETTER STATING THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF INTER EST MENTIONED ABOVE AND SUPER MILLENIUM INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT LTD 6 SAME HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN BANK OF PUNJAB, CHAWPATY BRANCH. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THE LOAN WAS TAKEN FROM THE BANK OF PUNJAB AND THE SAME WAS INVESTED IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE FINANCIAL Y EAR 2000-2001. THE INTEREST RECEIVED FROM THE COMPANY IS ALSO DEPOSITE D IN THE BANK OF PUNJAB AND AFTER NETTING OFF THE INTEREST PAYABLE TO THE B ANK OF PUNJAB, THE BALANCE, IF ANY, IS OFFERED FOR TAXATION BY THE PERSONS MENTION ED ABOVE. IV) CONSULTANCY CHARGES/COMMISSION & DISCOUNT RS 1, 12,500/- FOR NON-FILING OF THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF CONSULT ING CHARGES OF RS 60,000/- AND COMMISSION AND DISCOUNT OF RS 52,000/- WAS DISALLOW ED AND THE SAME WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SUBMITTED THAT CONSULTANCY CHARGES OF RS 60,000/- ARE PAYABLE TO M /S GANNAYAK CREDIT AND CAPITAL SERVICES PVT LTD AND COMMISSION AND DISCOUN T OF RS 52,500/- IS INCURRED AND PAID FOR GETTING LOAN PROCESSED FROM B ANK OF PUNJAB TO VARIOUS PERSONS. REGARDING THE CONSULTANCY CHARGES, THE ASSESSEE COM PANY SUBMITTED BILL FROM M/S GANNAYAK CREDIT AND CAPITAL SERVICES PVT LTD ST ATING THAT THE CHARGES ARE FOR ACCOUNTING AND SUPERVISION. REGARDING COMMISSION AND DISCOUNT OF RS 52,500/- TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION MADE TO THE FOL LOWING PERSONS: DATE PARTICULARS AMOUNT 4.4.2001 SANJAY G FOR ARRANGING LOAN RS 19,000/- 26.4.2001 RAMESH RAJPAL FOR ARRANGING LOAN RS 17, 500/- 5.7.2001 ANWAR KAZI RS 30,000/- FROM THE DETAILS FILED, IT IS SEEN THAT THIS COMMIS SION OF RS 52,500/- HAS BEEN PAID FOR ARRANGING LOANS TO VARIOUS PERSONS FROM BA NK OF PUNJAB. V) PAYMENTS MADE TO THE PERSONS SPECIFIED U/S 40A(2 )(B) OF THE IT ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS AND REASONABLENESS OF PAY MENTS MADE TO THE PERSONS SPECIFIED U/S 40A(2)(B) WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF COMMENTS IN TAX AUDIT REPORT. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SUBMITTED THAT THES E PAYMENTS ARE MADE BY WAY OF CONSULTANCY CHARGES OF M/S GANNAYAK CREDIT AND CAPITAL SERVICES PVT LTD AND RS 60,000/- AND BY WAY OF REMU NERATION TO ONE OF THE DIRECTORS AMOUNTING TO RS 25,000/-. IT MAY BE NOTE D THAT AS ON DATE ALSO THE SUPER MILLENIUM INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT LTD 7 ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT THE REASONABLENESS OF THE PAYMENTS OF RS 60,000/- TO M/S GANNAYAK CREDIT AND CAPITAL SERVICES PVT LT D. 5. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMPANY WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE CERTAIN DETAILS WITHIN 15 DAYS. BUT BY THE TIM E COMPANY COULD NOT SUBMIT THE DETAILS, ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED. THIS SUB MISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. AS IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE O RDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 25.1.2005 SHRI ANIL MANSINKAR, DIRECTOR OF THE COMP ANY ATTENDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 14.2.2005 FOR FILING THE DETAILS CALLED FOR. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TURN UP ON THE APPOINTED DATED AND NOR FILED THE DETAILS REQUIRE TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. FINALLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 23.2.2005. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS. 6. I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR KIND NOTICE THAT A LL THE ABOVE DETAILS WERE NOT FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS FOR WHICH THE LOSS CLAIMED WAS SCALED DOWN BY MAKING THE ADDITIONS ON THE ABOVE ISSUES. SINCE THESE DETAILS FILED ONLY AT THE APPELLATE STAGE, TH E SAME MAY NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF TH E IT RULES, 1962. 6. AS IS CLEARLY DISCERNABLE FROM THE ABOVE EXTRACT S FROM THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED ASSESSEES CONTENTIO NS ON ALL ADDITIONS, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF PAYMENT OF RS 60,000/- TO M/S GANNAYAK CRED IT AND CAPITAL SERVICES LTD ONE OF THE SPECIFIED PERSONS U/S 40A92)(B), ON MERI TS. ONCE HE DOES SO, IT CANNOT BE OPEN TO HIM TO CHALLENGE DELETION OF ALL IMPUGNE D ADDITIONS BY THE CIT (A). THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, EXCEPT TO THE LIMITED EXTENT OF PAYMENT OF RS 60,000/- TO THE SPECIFIED PERSON FOR WHICH THE CIT (A) INDEED DID NOT HAVE ANY GOOD REASONS TO GRANT RELIEF. WE, THEREFO RE, UPHOLD THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT (A0 EXCEPT FOR DISALLOWANCE OF RS 60, 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE TO GANNAYAK CREDIT AND CAPITAL SERVICES LTD FO R WHICH NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AT ANY STAGE. TO THAT LIMITE D EXTENT, ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS REVERSED. SUPER MILLENIUM INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT LTD 8 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE T ERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 27TH OCT OBER 2009. SD/- (V D RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 27TH OCTOBER 2009 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)-IX, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT - IX, MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. E BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR CHAVAN* I.T.A.T., MUMBAI SUPER MILLENIUM INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT LTD 9 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 26.10.09 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 27.10.09 SR.PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS SR.PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER