ITO, Jaipur V. SRIDHAR PRASAD SHARMA, Jaipur

ITA 293/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4868 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts
• Section: 143(3); 68; 131

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS [KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YAD AV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 293/JP/15 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR CUKE VS. SHRI SRIDHAR PRASAD SHARMA, C-52, NEHRU NAGAR, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AGXPS 0466 K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ CO NO. 29/JP/15 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI SRIDHAR PRASAD SHARMA, C-52, NEHRU NAGAR, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AGXPS 0466 K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL. CIT ) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20.12.2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/12/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2, JAIPUR DATED 12. 01.2015 WHEREIN THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: IN ITA NO. 293/JP/15 (REVENUES APPEAL): (I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF R S. 9,00,000/- OUT OF ITA NO. 293/JP/15 & CO NO. 29/JP/15 SHRI SHRIDHAR PRASAD SHARMA VS. ITO WARD 4(4), JAI PUR 2 ADDITION OF RS. 18,70,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS. (II) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.60 ,02,367/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE APPEARED IN 26AS STATEM ENT AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE RULE 46A AND WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO. IN CO NO. 29/JP/15 (ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTION): (I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE U/S 145(3) OF THE IT ACT, 196 1 MERELY BY ALLEGING THAT THE STOCK REGISTER IS NOT MAINTAINED AND THE S ALE/PURCHASE BILL WERE NOT PRODUCED BY ASSESSEE. THUS THE ADDITION OF THE LD. AO DESERVES TO BE HELD BAD IN LAW. (II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,5 7,000/- BEING 10% OF TOTAL LABOUR CHARGES CLAIMED IN M/S VED PRAKASH & C O. AND RS.55,032/- BEING 10% OF TOTAL LABOUR CHARGES CLAIMED IN M/S MA DAN MOHAN &CO. WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY ASS ESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED. THUS THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,1 2,632/- DESERVES TO BE DELETED. (III) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,0 0,000/- BEING UNSECURED LOAN RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE AND HELD BY LD. AO AS UNE XPLAINED CREDITS U/S 68 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE AND THE EVIDENCES ADDUCED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS. THUS THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,00,000/- SO SUSTAINED DESERVE S TO BE DELETED. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS PROPRIETOR OF TWO FIRMS NAMELY M/S VED PRAKASH & CO AND MADAN MOHAN & CO. THE FIRST FIRM M/S VED PRAKASH & CO. IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GOVT. CONTRACTOR UNDERTAKING CONTRACT WORKS FOR JVVNL AND ITS SUBSI DIARIES. THE SECOND FIRM M/S MADAN MOHAN & CO. IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF CEMENT POLES WHICH WERE ALSO SUPPLIED TO THE STATE ELECTRICITY COMPANIES. ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UN DER APPEAL ON 23.09.2010 ITA NO. 293/JP/15 & CO NO. 29/JP/15 SHRI SHRIDHAR PRASAD SHARMA VS. ITO WARD 4(4), JAI PUR 3 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 13,09,900/- AND THE A SSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF IT ACT, 1961 AT THE TOTAL INCOME OF R S. 2,13,30,310/- BY MAKING VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES AFTER INVOKING SECTION 145(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVEMENTIONED DISALLOWANCES, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS GRANTED PARTIA L RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL IN RESPECT OF ADDITION ON A CCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS AND CONTRACT RECEIPTS WHERE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVE N RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE LATTER IS IN APPEAL AGAINST REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES OF VARIOUS EXPENSES AND UNSECURED LOA N CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). 3. IN CO NO. 29/JP/15, THE GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 PERTAI NS TO REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) AND 10% DISALLOWANCES OF VAR IOUS EXPENSES. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE SAME WERE NOT PRESSED HENCE THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. NOW COMING TO GROUND NO. 1 OF REVENUES APPEAL A ND GROUND NO. 3 OF ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION, THE SAME RELATES TO ADD ITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF NON- CONFIRMATION OF UNSECURED LOANS OF RS 18,70,000. T HE LD CIT(A) HAS GIVEN RELIEF OF RS 9,70,000 TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AND N OW BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IN CROSS-APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 4.1 IN THIS REGARD, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E BRIEF FACTS PERTAINING TO THIS GROUND OF APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAK EN UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 18,70,000/- FROM VARIOUS PARTIES IN HIS PROPRIETARY FIRMS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE LD. AO DIRECTED TO FURNI SH DETAILS AND CONFIRMATION REGARDING THESE LOANS, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 22.11.2012 & 12.03.2013 DULY SUPPLIED THE REQUISITE DETAILS AND THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM LOANS HA D BEEN TAKEN AND ALSO ITA NO. 293/JP/15 & CO NO. 29/JP/15 SHRI SHRIDHAR PRASAD SHARMA VS. ITO WARD 4(4), JAI PUR 4 FILED THE COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME ALONGWITH COMP UTATION OF INCOME , HOWEVER LD. AO HAS DELIBERATELY NOT STATED THIS FAC T ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND STRAIGHTAWAY OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE F AILED TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION THEREFORE, THE LOANS ARE N OT CONFIRMED AND MADE THE ADDITION. WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION THE AO NEITHER STATED WHETHER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OR THE GENUIN ENESS OF THE TRANSACTION OR CREDITWORTHINESS. WITH REGARD TO THE IDENTITY, CON FIRMATIONS CONTAINING COMPLETE NAME, ADDRESSES AND PAN OF THE LENDER WERE FILED. SINCE ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS THU S GENUINENESS WAS FURTHER PROVED AND THEIR CREDIT WORTHINESS HAVE BEE N PROVED BY THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS, WHICH FURTHER ESTABLISHED THAT ALL THE PARTIES ARE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX. THUS, THE ASSESEEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED HIS BURDEN OF PROVING EXISTENCE OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE T RANSACTION, WHICH HAS BEEN TABULATED AS UNDER: NAME OF CREDITOR AMOUNT PAN WHETHER RETURN OF INCOME & COMPUTATION FILED WHETHER CONFIRMAT ION FILED WHETHER SUMMON ISSUED ANURADHA PAREEK 9,00,000/ - ANVPP 2650 F 125 126 34 - 35 NOT KNOWN BHAGWAN SAHAY 1,50,000/ - ARKPK 1059 Q 41 36 - DO - BHAGWATI PD. SSHARMA 1,50,000/ - BXYPS 6699 M 132 37 - DO - KAMLESH KR. SHARMA 1,00,000/ - BGGPS8117 M 129 - 130 38 - DO - OM PRAKASH PAREEK 2,00,000/ - AAQPP7307 P 127 - 128 39 - DO - RAKESH PAREEK 70,000/ - AKNPP6804 A 131 40 - DO - M.L.SHARMA 3,00,000/ - BNKPS3277F 123 - 124 NO - DO - THUS, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRESENTE D AMPLE EVIDENCES BEFORE LD. AO TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE CREDITORS, GEN UINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION MADE WITH THEM AND THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. FURTHER LD. AO VERY VAGUELY OBSERVED THAT THE SUMMONS WERE ISSUED TO SOME PERSO NS BUT DID NOT MENTION AS TO WHOM AND WHEN THE SUMMONS WERE ISSUED. THUS, IT WAS REQUESTED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THAT IN LIGHT OF THE LACK OF ENQU IRY ON PART OF LD. AO. ALLEGATIONS ITA NO. 293/JP/15 & CO NO. 29/JP/15 SHRI SHRIDHAR PRASAD SHARMA VS. ITO WARD 4(4), JAI PUR 5 OVER GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WITH REGARD TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE LEN DERS WERE INCOME TAX ASSESSEE AND HAD THE CAPACITY TO MAKE ADVANCE/LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THEIR COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME WHERE E ACH OF THEM HAD SUFFICIENT INCOME. FURTHER THE LD. AO HAS OBSERVED THAT NO IT R IS FILED AND NO BANK ACCOUNT IS PROVIDED. IN THIS REGARD IT IS SUBMITTE D THAT ALL THE CREDITORS HAS FILED THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE TH E LD. AO WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE STATEMENTS OF ASSESEE RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE LD. AO VIDE QUESTION NO.10 HAD MADE A REFERENCE TO THE RET URN FILED BY SHRI BHAGWAN SAHAY AND QUESTIONS HIS CAPACITY TO ADVANCE THE AMOUNT TO ASSESSEE. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE LD. AO WAS APPRISED BY ASSESSEE OF THE FACT THAT THE CREDITORS HAVE BEEN FILING ITRS, HOWEVER, THE LD. A O QUITE GENERALLY OBSERVED THAT NO ITRS ARE FILED AND NO BANK ACCOUNTS ARE MAI NTAINED. SUBSEQUENTLY, LD. CIT(A), ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS FURNISHED , DELET ED THE ADDITION IN THE CASE OF ALL THE UNSECURED LOANS EXCEPT OF SMT. ANURADHA PAREEK, WHO HAD LENT RS. 9,00,000/- TO ASSESSEE. THE ONLY REASON GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) FOR CONFIRMING THE ADDITION WAS THAT ONLY IN THE CASE OF ANURADHA PAREEK, WHO HAS GIVE N LOAN OF RS. 9,00,000/- WHEREAS THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY HER IS ONLY OF RS. 1.86 LACS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO D ISCHARGE HIS ONUS WITH RESPECT TO CREDITWORTHINESS OF THIS CREDITOR. THER EFORE, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN OR RS. 9 LACS RECEIVED FROM ANURAD HA PAREEK IS UPHELD... ON BARE PERUSAL OF ABOVE REMARKS OF LD. CIT(A), IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HI S STAND IN RESPECT OF LOAN TAKEN FROM ANURADHA PAREEK. NO FURTHER ENQUIRY WHA TSOEVER WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF LOAN TAKEN FROM ANURADHA PAREEK, RATHER MERELY ON THE BASIS OF RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED, IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT L ENDER WAS NOT IN A POSITION ITA NO. 293/JP/15 & CO NO. 29/JP/15 SHRI SHRIDHAR PRASAD SHARMA VS. ITO WARD 4(4), JAI PUR 6 TO LEND A SUM OF RS. 9 LACS. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT SO FAR AS FUNDS HAVE BEEN BORROWED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND IDENTITY AS WELL AS GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS PROVED, AND ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE SOURCE OF A PARTICULAR INCOME ONUS OF PR OVING SOURCE OF SOURCE DOES NOT LIE UPON ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN OF PROVING THE IDENT ITY, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND THUS ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 18,70,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS IS NOT S USTAIN ABLE IN LAW. RELIANCE PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: ORRISA CORPORATION (P) LTD. REPORTED IN 159 ITR 78 . 383 ITR 502 CITVS. VRINDAVAN FARMS P.LTD. (DELHI). 101 DTR 377 -366 ITR 217 267 CTR 396 CIT VS. JAI KUMAR BAKLIWAL (RAJ.) 49 DTR 212 CIT VS. BHAWANI OIL MILLS PVT. LTD. (RAJ .) 187 TAXMAN 338 ARAVALI TRADING CO. VS. ITO (RAJ.) 128 TTJ 708 SHANTI KUMAR CHORDIA VS. ASSTT. CIT (JP ) CIT VS. HEERALAL CHAGANLAL 257 ITR 281 (RAJ.) BALBIR SOINGH TOMAR (DR.)_ VS. ACIT (RAJ. HC) 20 TW 546. SHEON NARAIN MOHARILAL VS. ACIT 24 TW 318 (ITAT, JA IPUR) 4.2 LD DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THE MATTER AND SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF THE AO. 4.3 THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER: I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSESSMENT O RDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS ADDED UNSE CURED LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS. 18,70,000/- IN THE PROPRIETARY CON CERN M/S MADAN MOHAN & CO. RECEIVED FROM SEVEN PERSONS. THE AO HAS STATED THAT NO PERSON WAS PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION, NO RETURN OF INCOME OR BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITORS WERE FURNISHED AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED THE LOAN AMOUNT. THE APPELLANT HAS STA TED THAT HE HAS ITA NO. 293/JP/15 & CO NO. 29/JP/15 SHRI SHRIDHAR PRASAD SHARMA VS. ITO WARD 4(4), JAI PUR 7 SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE CO NFIRMATIONS OF THE UNSECURED LOANS, THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BY THE SE PERSONS AND THEIR PAN NO. FURTHER MORE ALL THESE LOANS HAVE BEEN RE CEIVED BY CHEQUES. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO STATED THAT NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED BY THE AO REGARDING THE SUMMONS WHICH WERE ISSUED BUT NOT COMPLIED TO. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON THE CASE OF CIT VS. JA I KUMAR BAKLIWAL 366 ITR 217 (RAJ.) IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT IF THE MONEY HAS BEEN ADVANCED BY CHEQUE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOU NTS AND THE CREDITORS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX THEN THE ASESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68. IN THIS CASE ALS O, THE ABOVE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN PRIMA FACIE SATISFIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN MOST INSTANCES AND THEREFORE, THE ONUS HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN THESE INSTANCES. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RETURNS OF INCOME F ILED BY THE CREDITORS VI-A- VIS THE QUANTUM OF UNSECURED LOANS GIVEN THAT ONLY THE CASE OF ANURADHA PREEKH WHO HAS GIVEN A LOAN OF RS. 9 LACS WHEREAS T HE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HER IS ONLY OF RS. 1.66 LAKHS, THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS WITH RESPECT TO THE CREDITWOR THINESS OF THIS CREDITOR. THEREFORE, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT T OF UNE XPLAINED LOAN OF RS. 9 LAKHS RECEIVED FROM ANURADHA PAREEKH IS UPHELD AND UNSECURED LOAN OBTAINED FROM SIX OTHER PERSONS AMOUNTING TO RS.9,7 0,000/- IS HELD TO BE EXPLAINED IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE A SSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO IS THEREF ORE, DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 9,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS RECEIVED FROM SIX PERSONS. THIS GROUND IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. 4.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURSUED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY APPLIED THE T EST OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS TO EXAMINE THE UNS ECURED LOAN TRANSACTIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND AFTER EXAMINING THE MATERIAL O N RECORD, HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT EXCEPT FOR ANURADHA PAREEK, THE SAID T EST IS DULY SATISFIED. REGARDING THE FINDINGS ABOUT ANURADHA PAREEK FROM W HOM THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN UNSECURED LOAN TRANSACTION OF RS 9,00,000, TH E LD CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING AFTER EXAMINING HER RETURN OF INCOME THAT H ER CREDITWORTHINESS IS NOT PROVED. WHERE ANY ONE OF THREE LIMBS OF THE BASIS TEST AS REFERRED ABOVE ARE NOT SATISFIED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY ITA NO. 293/JP/15 & CO NO. 29/JP/15 SHRI SHRIDHAR PRASAD SHARMA VS. ITO WARD 4(4), JAI PUR 8 ONUS PLACED UPON HIM. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SA ME, WHERE THE LD CIT(A) HAS ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ADE QUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. APPARENTLY, ON REVIEW OF TH E SAME SET OF DOCUMENTATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD CIT (A) HAS COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE OTHER LOAN TRANSACTIONS ARE DUL Y EXPLAINED AND HE HAS PROVIDED THE NECESSARY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. NOT HING FURTHER HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO CONTROVERT THE SAID FINDIN GS OF THE LD CIT(A) TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF ANURADHA PAREEK. TO THAT EXTENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY ONUS. FURT HER, VARIOUS LEGAL AUTHORITIES QUOTED BY THE ASSESSEE DOESNT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDINGLY DONOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. THE GROUND NO. 1 OF REVENUES APPEAL AND GROUND NO. 3 OF ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION ARE THUS DISMISSED. 5. NOW COMING TO GROUND NO.2 OF REVENUES APPEAL, T HE DEPARTMENT HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY LD. AO OF RS. 60,02,367/- BY ALLEGING DIFFERENCE IN THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS AS DECLARED IN THE ITR AND AS REFLECTED IN THE FORM 26AS. 5.1 THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AO FAILED TO PROPERLY UNDERSTAND THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN AS MUCH AS SHE HAS WRONGL Y MENTIONED THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS SHOWN BY ASSESS EE IN ITR AND IN THE TAX CREDIT STATEMENT AS REFLECTED IN THE FORM NO. 26 AS . A BARE PERUSAL OF FORM 26AS IN CONTRAST WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY ASSESSEE WOULD SHOW THAT THE TOTAL RECEIPT DECLARED BY ASSESSEE IN HIS TRADI NG ACCOUNT IN THE CASE OF M/S VED PRAKASH & CO. IS OF RS. 4,10,38,482/- WHICH COM PRISES SALES ON ACCOUNT OF ITA NO. 293/JP/15 & CO NO. 29/JP/15 SHRI SHRIDHAR PRASAD SHARMA VS. ITO WARD 4(4), JAI PUR 9 SUPPLY OF MATERIAL AT RS. 2,96,11,377/-AND CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS. 1,14,27,105/- AND THE GRAND TOTAL IS MORE THAN THE GROSS RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE FORM 26AS. SINCE THE AWARDERS HAVE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON THE SUPPLIES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO WHICH ARE SEPARATELY DISC LOSED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD SALES, THUS BY TAKING TOGETHER THE S ALE AND CONTRACT, THE ALLEGATION OF THE LD. AO IS NOT TENABLE. THE TOTAL RECEIPTS AS PER FORM 26AS COME TO RS. 1,91,12,467/- WHEREAS AS STATED ABOVE I N THE TRADING ACCOUNT OF M/S VED PRAKASH & CO. THE GROSS RECEIPTS DECLARED A T RS. 4,10,38,482/-. BESIDES THIS, THE TDS HAS ALSO BEEN DEDUCTED ON THE HIRING CHARES SEPARATELY SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH FACT IS ALSO GROSSLY IGNORED BY THE LD. AO. FOR BETTER CLARITY ON FACTS OF THE CASE, D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A CHART WAS FURNISHED PROVIDING BIFURC ATION OF THE RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM WHICH IT WOULD CLEARLY BE SEEN THAT THE DEDUCTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE SUPPLIES ALSO, FEW COPIES OF THE BILL S AND PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE AWARDER AT THE TIME OF MAKING PAYMENT , AS SUBMITTED TO THE LD. AO IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM ARE ENCLOSED WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE TDS WAS ALSO DEDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SUPPLIES MADE TO T HE AWARDER THUS THE GROSS RECEIPTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPARED INSTEAD OF COMPA RING THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS ONLY. THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATION OF LD. AO WAS FACTUALLY WRONG AND WHEN THESE FACTS WERE BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF T HE LD. CIT(A), AFTER THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE COPIES OF BILLS/PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY PRINCIPAL, WHICH REFLECTED THAT TAX HAD BEEN DEDUCT ED AT SOURCE ON SALES/ SUPPLY OF MATERIAL AS WELL AND THE RECONCILIATION S TATEMENT OF RECEIPTS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND AS PER 26AS, LD. CIT(A) DELET ED THE ADDITION. 5.2 LD DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THE MATTER AND SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF THE AO. ITA NO. 293/JP/15 & CO NO. 29/JP/15 SHRI SHRIDHAR PRASAD SHARMA VS. ITO WARD 4(4), JAI PUR 10 5.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PURSUED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A). THE AO HAS SIMPLY COMPARED THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS WI TH FORM 26AS. THE LD CIT(A) HAS HOWEVER GONE THROUGH THE DETAILS FURNISH ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN DETAIL IN TERMS OF REFLECTION OF SALES ON ACCOUNT O F SUPPLY OF MATERIAL IN ADDITION TO THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS IN ITS BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS, THE FACT THAT THE TDS HAS ALSO BEEN MADE ON THE SUPPLIES IN ADDITION TO C ONTRACT RECEIPTS AND THE RECONCILIATION THEREOF. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) REPRODUCED AS UNDER ARE THUS CONFIRMED: I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSESSMENT O RDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. IN 26AS STATEMENT CO NTRACT RECEIPTS ARE SHOWN AS RS.1,74,29,472/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,14,27,105/-BY WAY OF CONTRACT RECEI PTS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO HAS ADDED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.60 ,02,367/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME AS UNDISCLOSED CONTRACT RECEIPTS. IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE APPELLANT THAT TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE NOT ONLY ON CONTRACT RECEIPTS BUT ALSO ON SUPPLIES/SALES MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED COPIES OF BILLS AND PAYMENT INS TRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL WHICH SHOWS THAT TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON SALES/SUPPLY MATERIAL AS WELL. THE APPELLANT HAS S UBMITTED A RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WHICH SHOWS THAT ALL THE R ECEIPTS IN THE 26-AS STATEMENT HAS BEEN CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S. I AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE NO ADDITION IS C ALLED FOR ON THIS ISSUE. THE ADDITION OF RS. 60.02,367/- MADE BY THE AO IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AS W ELL AS ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 293/JP/15 & CO NO. 29/JP/15 SHRI SHRIDHAR PRASAD SHARMA VS. ITO WARD 4(4), JAI PUR 11 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/12 /2016. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 22/12/2016 PILLAI VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), J AIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- SHRI SHREEDHAR PRASAD SHARMA, JAIP UR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT II, JAIPUR 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.293/JP/2015 & CO. NO. 29/JP/15) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR.