M/s. Granil Medifer P.Ltd., Phagwara V. The Income Tax Officer, Phagwara

ITA 298/ASR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 29820914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 30-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

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.298(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004-05 PAN :AABCG 3683M M/S. GRANIL MEDIFER (P) LTD; VS. THE INCOME TAX OF FICER, NAVEEN TOWER, PHAGWARA. PHAGWARA-1, PHAGWARA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH.P.N.ARORA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY:SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING:30/12/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:31/12/2013 ORDER PER BENCH ; THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED 26.03.2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR, ARE BOTH AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE A ND IS UNTENABLE IN LAW. ITA NO.298(ASR)/2010 2 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE RET URNED INCOME AND SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE WHOLE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WHICH WAS BASED ON CONJECTURES, SURMISES AND SUPPOS ITIONS. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AT RS.16,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SO-C ALLED UNEXPLAINED CASH INTRODUCED ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE R ECEIVED FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. IT MAY BE FURTHER POINTED OUT THA T THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS.16 ,00,000/- WAS ADVANCED IN EARLIER YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF LAND AND THE SAME WAS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND THE SAME WAS RECEIVED BACK DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT MAY BE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS NO REASON FOR CO NFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED CA SH CREDIT WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT THIS WAS NOT A CASE OF FRESH CA SH CREDIT. AS SUCH, THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) MAY BE DELETED. 4. THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,000/- MADE ON A CCOUNT OF MISC. EXPENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS THE CIT( A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E AO. AS SUCH, THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) AT RS.10 ,000/-MAY BE DELETED. 5. SIMILARLY, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF E LECTRICITY EXPENSES AT RS.1130/- SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY T HE CIT(A) AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE CIT(A) MAY BE DELETED. 6. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.40395/- OUT OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AT RS .50140/- UNDER THE HEAD REBATE & DISCOUNT. THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE WHOLE ADDITION AND THERE WAS NO REASON FOR SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.40395/-. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE SAME IS RELATED TO BUSINESS AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN TOTO. ALTERNATIVELY, THE ADDITION SUSTAINED IS VERY HIGH & EXCESSIVE. 7. AGAIN, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE ADDITION OF RS.32,313/- ON ACCOUNT OF BREAKAGE AND EXPIRY DATE GIVEN TO VARIOUS CUSTOMERS BY ISSUING CREDIT NOTES. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT THESE EXP ENSES ARE ITA NO.298(ASR)/2010 3 INCIDENTAL FOR CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS. IT IS, THE REFORE, VERY RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.32,313/ - CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) MAY BE DELETED. ALTERNATIVELY, THE AD DITION MADE IS VERY HIGH & EXCESSIVE. 8. AGAIN, THE CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G THE ADDITION AT RS.5355/- OUT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11246/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTIES WI THOUT APPRECIATING THAT ALL THE FACTS WERE BROUGHT TO TH E KNOWLEDGE OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. AS SUCH, THE ADDITION MADE M AY KINDLY BE DELETED AS THE SAME WAS NOT WARRANTED ON THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 9. ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL AS MAY BE URGED AT TH E TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. GROUNDS NO. 1, 2 & 9 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND T HEREFORE, DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 3. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.3, THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS APPEARING IN THE ORDER OF THE AO ARE REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CLAR ITY AS UNDER: CASH CREDIT RS.16,00,000/- IT WAS FOUND THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.5,00,000/- ON 15.4.2003 AND RS.11,00,000 ON 1.10.2003 IN CASH AS SHOWN BY HIM UNDER THE HEAD ADVANCE FOR LA ND. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADVANCED A SUM OF R S.16,00,000/- ON 15.3.2002 FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND AND HE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH NAME COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THIS ADVANCE WAS GIVEN, COPY OF AGREEMENT IN THIS REGARD, COPY OF HIS ACCOUNT FO R THE PERIOD ENDING 31.3.2002, 31.3.2003 AND 31.3.2004. THE ASSESSEE RE PLIED THAT NAME & ADDRESS OF THE PERSON WITH WHOM THIS AGREEMENT WA S ENTERED IS NOT WITH THEM AND HE ENCLOSED COPY OF ACCOUNT WITH HIS REPLY. WHEN FURTHER ASKED TO SHOW AS TO WHY ACTION AGAINST HIM COULD NOT BE TAKEN IN THIS REGARD IN THE ABSENCE OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT OF LAND ANY DOCUMENTS/RECEIPT OR ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE OR THE N AME & ADDRESS OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THIS ADVANCE WAS GIVEN EARLIER A ND RECEIVED BACK ITA NO.298(ASR)/2010 4 THIS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS ALREA DY BEEN SUBMITTED THAT PURCHASE AGREEMENT WAS RETURNED TO THE SELLER ON ITS CANCELLATION AND IS NOT IN THEIR POSSESSION. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IN THIS CONNECTION. IT IS SEEN T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED A SUM OF RS.5,00,000/- AND RS.11,00,000/- IN CASH IN ITS CASH BOOK ON 15.4.2003 AND 1.10.2003 RESPECTIVELY. HE CO ULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR SOURCE OF FROM WHERE THIS MONEY IN CASH WAS RECEIVED BY HIM. HE ALSO COULD NOT GIVE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSON FROM WHOM THIS MONEY WAS RECEIVED. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS EV IDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE INTRODUCED HIS OWN INCOME FROM THE UNDISCL OSED SOURCES IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE CREDITS SHO WN ON 15.4.2003 AND 1.10.2003 ARE TAKEN AS ASSESSEES OWN INCOME FR OM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES INTRODUCED BY HIM UNDER THE GARB OF ADVANCE RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND. HENCE ADD RS.16,00,000/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESEE. SINCE HE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME, PENALTY PROCE3EDINGS U/S 271 (1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATION 1 ARE SEPARATELY INITIATED. 4. BEFORE, THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HE EXPLANATION, WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO THE A.O. AFTER TAKING REPORT FROM THE AO, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. P.N.ARORA, ADVOCATE ARGUED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.16,00,000/- WAS ADVANCED ON 15.03.2002 FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND. THIS AMOUNT IS OUTSTANDING IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE YEARS ENDING 31.03.2002, 31.03.2003 PERTAINING TO A SSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 & 2003-04. THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK D URING THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2004 AS A SUM OF RS.5,00,000/- ON 15.4.2003 AND RS.11,00,000/- ON 1.10.2003 AND THERE IS NO BALANCE OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.03.2004 PERTAINING TO ITA NO.298(ASR)/2010 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. MR. P.N.ARORA, ADVOCATE, I NVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF ALL THE THREE YEARS WH ICH ARE AUDITED BY AN AUDITOR DULY APPOINTED UNDER THE ACT. NO DISCREPAN CY IN THE PRECEDING YEAR HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002- 03 & 2003-04 WITH REGARD TO THE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING WHICH HAS BEEN DECLARED AS AN ASSET IN THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET I .E. FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.02.2003 & 31.03.2003. BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IS ALSO NOT UNDER DISPUTE. NOTHING HAS BEEN BRO UGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE THAT THE MONEY BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. SIN CE THE AGREEMENT WAS RETURNED TO THE PERSON TO WHOM ADVANCE HAS BEEN GIV EN AND THOUGH THERE WERE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED MONEY AND THE EXPLANATION WAS SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHI CH IS REPRODUCED IN PARA 2.4 OF CIT(A)S ORDER. MR. P.N. ARORA, ADVOCATE, R EAD THE SUBMISSIONS IN PARA 2.4 OF CIT(A)S ORDER BEING THE EXPLANATION GI VEN BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS BEING REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY A S UNDER: 2.4 THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED AS UNDER: WITH REFERENCE TO THE SPECIFIC QUERY THE AMOUNT O F RS.16. LACS (RS. SIXTEEN LAKHS) RECEIVED BACK DURING THE YEAR U NDER REFERECE TO DISCLOSE THE NAME OF BROKER ETC. KINDLY NOTE THAT T HE AGREEMENT WAS MADE FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND AT JALANDHAR AND DUE TO INDULGENCE OF THE LAND MAFIA PEOPLE AND APPRECIATION IN THE PRICE S, I WAS FORCE TO RETURN THE AGREEMENT BY CANCELING IT. IT WAS VERY H ARDLY THE REFUND OF ITA NO.298(ASR)/2010 6 ADVANCE MONEY WAS TAKEN BACK. THE LAND MAFIA PEOPLE ENTERED THE HOUSE OF M.D. AND MANHANDLED THE FAMILY TILL THE AG REEMENT WAS CANCELLED AND RETURN TO THEM, IT WAS TOLD TO FACE T HE DIRE CONSEQUENCES IF THE MATTER WAS DISCLOSED TO THE POLICE AND OR A NYBODY ETC. NAME OF PARTY OR BROKER IS DISCLOSED OR ANY LEGAL ACTION IS TAKEN. IN VIEW OF THREAT TO THE LIFE OF FAMILY MEMBERS AN D THE MD THE ASSESSEE WAS DEBARRED FROM UTTERING ON THIS ISSUE. THUS, IN VIEW OF CIRCUMSTANCES, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE MAY BE DRAWN A DETAILED REPLY AS PER & PARA 4 OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION IS ALREADY ON RE CORD ON THIS ISSUE. 5.1. IT IS WITH THIS BACKGROUND THAT THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED AND NO DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE EARLI ER YEARS. IN CASE, AGREEMENT IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE THEN T HERE CANNOT BE A PLEADING BY THE REVENUE THAT THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SAME IS NO T KEPT. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT KEPT THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT, THEN THE A SSESSEE CANNOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE SAME IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, MR. P.N.ARORA, ADVOCATE, PRAYED TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION SO MADE BY HIM . 6. THE LD. DR, MR. TARSEM LAL, ON THE OTHER HAND, A RGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EVEN RETAIN THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH IN FACT WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW. THIS RAISES SUSPICION IN THE MIND OF THE REVENUE AND INSPITE O F THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE ITA NO.298(ASR)/2010 7 TRANSACTION BEING THE THREE IMPORTANT INGREDIENTS O F THE CASH CREDITS AMOUNTING TO RS.16,00,000/-. THE SAME REMAINS UNEST ABLISHED AND ACCORDINGLY PRAYED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS REGARDS THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUI NENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION WHICH HA S BEEN REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO SUB MIT THE EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE CASH CREDIT FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY IDENTITY OF THE PERSON BUT AT THE SAME TIME HAS SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE AUDITED BALA NCE SHEET FOR THE YEARS ENDING 31.03.2002, 31.03.2003 WHICH SHOWS THE AMOUN T OUTSTANDING IN THE RESPECTIVE BALANCE SHEETS AVAILABLE AT PB 113 TO 12 5 AND NO DEFECT IN THE SAME HAS BEEN POINTED OUT OR NO DOUBT HAS BEEN CAST ED UPON BY THE REVENUE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THERE IS NO QUALIFICATION BY THE AUDITORS WITH REGARD TO THE SUSPICION OF SUCH AMOUNT BY THE AUDITORS AND T HE REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ON RECORD ANY SUCH QUALIFICATION OF THE AUDITORS W ITH REGARD TO SAID AMOUNT ADVANCED DECLARED FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2002 & 31.03.2003. IT IS A ITA NO.298(ASR)/2010 8 PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCE IN THE PRESENT FACTS OF THE C ASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY OF THE PERSON BUT THE TRANSAC TION IS GENUINE. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND OUR OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS HEREINABOVE, THE TRANSACTION IS GENUINE AN D THEREFORE, CASH CREDIT CANNOT BE GIVEN A SHAPE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION SO MADE . THUS, GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.4, THE AO DISALLOWED RS.10, 000/- AS MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES SINCE NO VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME WERE PRODUCED. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, WE CONCUR WITH TH E VIEWS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON A LETTER DAT ED 10.3.2004 OF M/S. KANTI DISTRIBUTORS, MEERUT IN WHICH CREDIT OF RS.10,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES INCURRED BY M/S. KANTI DISTRIBUTORS ON BEH ALF OF ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE SOUGHT TO BE REIMBURSED. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE SAME EXPLANATION VIDE LETTER DATED 23.6.2005 AND HAD SUBMITTED A COPY OF ACCOUNT OF M/S. KANTI DISTRIBUT RS IN ITS BOOKS IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SUBMITTED VIDE L ETTER DATED 6.6.2005 TO ITA NO.298(ASR)/2010 9 THE AO THAT A COPY OF ITS ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF M /S. KANTI DISTRIBUTORS DULY CONFIRMED WOULD BE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO. H OWEVER, TILL THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LETTER DA TED 10.3.2004 OF M/S. KANTI DISTRIBUTORS WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO. NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THE DEBIT OF RS.10,000 EXCEPT THE ENTRY I N ITS OWN BOOKS. SINCE SUFFICIENT TIME WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO TO PRODUCE TH E NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM OF MISC. EXPENDITURE OF RS.10,000/ - AND NO EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED, LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ADMITTED THE LETTER D ATED 10.3.2004 AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE, TH E CLAIM OF MISC. EXPENDITURE OF RS.10,000/- IS RIGHTLY HELD TO BE DI SALLOWED BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.4 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. 10. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.5 OF THE ASSESSEE, THE BRI EF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ELECTRICITY EXPENDITURE OF RS. 10,410/-. OUT OF THIS, THE ASSESSEES EXPENDITURE OF ITS OWN ELECTRICITY BILL S WAS RS.9,280/- AND THE BALANCE EXPENDITURE WAS STATED TO BE REIMBURSEMENT OF 50% OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL OF SH.RAJVINDER, OWNER OF THE METER INSTALLED IN THE BUILDING. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,130/- (10410-9280) WAS NOT EXPLA INED AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO. 10.1. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER. ITA NO.298(ASR)/2010 10 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO DIFFERENCE OF RS.1130/- BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCO RDINGLY, WE CANNOT INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SA ME IS UPHELD. THUS, GROUND NO.5 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 12. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.6 OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASS ESSEE HAS CLAIMED REBATE AND DISCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.98,126/- AND T HE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE VOUCHERS AND DETAILS TO JUSTIFY HIS CLAIM. THE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT WHICH WERE NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AVAILA BLE AT PAGE 3 & 4 OF AOS ORDER AMOUNTING TO RS.50,144/- WHICH WERE ADDE D TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 12.1. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.4 0,395/-. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEWS OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH REG ARD TO THE AMOUNT OF RS.9,745/- OF AMIT PHARMACY, RS.5385/- OF VIJAYATA ENTERPRISE, RS.1873/- OF M/S. INDU MEDICAL AGENCIES, RS.4867/- OF M/S. I TOO PHARMACEUTICAL ANANTNAG IN HIS ORDER IN PARA 3.6.3, WHICH IS A WEL L REASONED ORDER. WE ALSO DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) WITH REGARD TO THE SPECIAL DEAL, FREE GOODS TO THE PARTY AND SHORT CREDIT NOTE S AMOUNTING TO RS.4038/-, RS.8231/- AND RS.6260/- IN PARA 3.6.3 (II) OF THE L D. CIT(A)S ORDER, WHICH IS ITA NO.298(ASR)/2010 11 WELL REASONED ONE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED AND GROUND NO.6 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 14. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.7 OF THE ASSESSEE, THE BRI EF FACTS ARE THAT THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF BREAKAGE OF RS.32,313/- ON THE GROUND THAT SIX PARTIES TO WHOM SUCH CREDIT WAS GIVEN HAD NOT SHOWN THE CORRESPONDENCE IN THEIR ACCOUNTS. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEWS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE COPIES OF ACCOUNTS WERE CONFRONTED TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY SH. PAWAN GOYAL ON 26.12.2006 AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 8.12.2006 WA S ALSO GIVEN. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT(A). THUS, GROUND NO.7 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 16. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.8 OF THE ASSESSEE, THE BRI EF FACTS ARE THAT A SUM OF RS.5355/- WAS ADDED BACK BEING DIFFERENCE IN THE BALANCE OF COPY OF ACCOUNT AND BALANCE IN THE BALANCE-SHEET. THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEWS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE SAID DIFFERENCE EXISTS AS ITA NO.298(ASR)/2010 12 STATED BY THE AO AND THE EXPLANATION FOUND IS NOT S ATISFACTORY AND ACCORDINGLY WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A). THUS, GROUND NO.8 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 18 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.298(ASR)/2010 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31ST DECEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 31ST DECEMBER, 2013 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. GRANIL MEDIFER (P) LTD. PHAGWARA 2. THE ITO PHAGWARA-1, PHAGWARA 3. THE CIT(A), JLR. 4. THE CIT, JLR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR