The DCIT, Circle-1, JUNAGADH V. M/s. R.M. Dassa Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,

ITA 309/RJT/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6654 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AVINASH KUMAR
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 44AD

Judgement Text

: : IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL: RAJKOT BENCH: RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARSIMHA CHARRY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO . 309 /R JT /201 3 WITH CO NO.28/RJT/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 10 THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JUNAGADH VS M/S. R.M. DASSA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., AT. KOYALI, DIST. JUNAGADH PAN : AACCR5125J / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO .467/RJT/2014 WITH CO NO.19/RJT/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JUNAGADH VS M/S. R.M. DASSA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., AT. KOYALI, DIST. JUNAGADH PAN : AACCR5125J / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI AVINASH KUMAR , D.R ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KALPESH DOSHI , CA / DATE OF HEARING : 20 / 03/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21 /03/2017 / O R D E R PER SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE DEPAR TMENT HAS FILED THE ABOVE APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) - IV , RAJKOT DATED 20 / 05 / 201 3 AND 29/05/2014 F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 200 9 - 10 AND 2010 - 1 1 RESPECTIVELY . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. ITA NO.309 / RJT/ 2013 & 467/RJT/2014 & CO.28 /RJT/ 2013 & 19/RJT/2014 - 2 - 2. FIRST WE WILL TAK E UP REVENUE S APPEAL VIDE I TA NO.309/RJT/2013 AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY ASSESSEE VIDE CO.NO.28/RJT/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE , A PRIVATE LIMITED C OMPANY, IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR , CARRIED OUT BUSINESS OF CONTRACT WORK OF CIVIL NATURE, PARTICULAR LY CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS. IT HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCO ME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 57,76, 940/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT DURING THE YEAR , GROSS RECEIPTS OF ASSESSEE WERE RS.18,67,59,02 3/ - ON WHICH NET PROFIT DECLARED WAS 3.09%. HE , HOWEVER, NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SUBLET CONTRACT WORK OF RS.5,31,35,619 FROM WHICH NET PROFIT OF RS.13,07,299/ - WAS DECLARED. IT WAS ALSO STATED BEFORE HIM THAT NO OTHER EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY ASSESSEE A GAINST SUCH SUBLET CONTRACT WORK. TH US, THE ASSESSEE ITSELF EXECUTED THE CONTRACT WORK WITH GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.13,36,23,404/ - AGAINST WHICH NET PROFIT OF RS.44,69,641/ - WAS EARNED. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THE F OLLOWING DEFECTS AND DEFI C IENCIES IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT AND , THEREFORE , INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 145(3) REJECT ED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT: - DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT TRANSPIRED THAT (I)NO STOCK REGISTER OF MATERIAL IS MAINTAI NED BY THE ASSESSEE. (II) LABOUR/WORKERS ATTENDANCE REGISTER IS NOT MAINTAINED/PRODUCED. (III) INVENTORY OF CLOSING STOCK AND WORK IN PROGRESS WITH BASIS OF VALUATION AND DIFFERENT COST COMPONENTS LIKE MATERIALS, LABOUR ETC ARE NOT FILED AND T HESE DET AILS CANNOT BE DEDUCED DETAILS FILED. (IV) AS MENTIONED AGAINST CLAUSE 28(B) OF FORM NO. 3CD, QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF MATERIAL CONS UMED ARE NOT MAINTAINED. ASSESSEE HAD NOT MENTIONED QUANTITA TIVE DETAILS IN ITS E - FILED RETURN OF INCOME. ITA NO.309 / RJT/ 2013 & 467/RJT/2014 & CO.28 /RJT/ 2013 & 19/RJT/2014 - 3 - (V) SUBSTANTIA L EXPENSES FOR LABOUR, SOME URD PURCHASES AND OTHER EXPENSES ARE NOT SUP PORTED BY AUTHENTIC VOUCHERS. (VI) LOG BOOK FOR TRANSPORT AND CONVEYANCE VEHICLES ARE NOT MAINTAINED. THUS USE OF LARGE NO. OF VEHICLES FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN DECLARED BUSINESS CA NNOT BE RULED OUT PARTICULARLY WHEN A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE WORK IS SUBLET TO OTHERS. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE NET PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 3.3% FROM CONTRACT WORK EXECUTED BY ASSESSEE ITSELF WAS LOW AND UNACCEPTABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. (I)AS ADMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THERE WERE NO ABNORMAL LOSSES OR ADVERSE FACTORS DURING THE YEAR WHICH COULD SUGGEST A LOWER THAN NORMAL PROFIT. (II) ASSESSEE IS A WELL ESTABLISHED COMPANY WITH LONG EXPERIENCE IN ITS FIELD OF WORK. WITH EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE IN ITS FIELD, ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS IN A POSITION TO EARN BETTER PROFIT, DESPITE COMPETITION. (III) ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS OWN FUNDS OF MORE THAN RS. 3.56 CRORES BY WAY OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SURPLUS IN PROFIT & LO SS RESERVE A/C. THUS IT IS PLACED IN A MUCH BETTER POSITION TO EARN BE TT E R MARGIN OF PROFIT AS COMPARED TO OTHERS WORKING WITHOUT OWN CAPITAL. (IV) AS IS EVIDENT FROM FIXED ASSETS DETAILS, ASSESSEE HAS LARGE MACHINERY WITH CLOSING WDV OF MORE THAN RS. 2. 23 CRORES. THE MACHINERY INCLUDES TRANSPORT VEHICLES, CONVEYANCE VEHICLES, JCB EXCAVATOR, DUMPERS, MIXER PLANT, VIBRATORS AND OTHER MACHINERY USED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBLET A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF ITS CONTRACT WORK. DIVERSION OF ITS MACHI NERY FOR SUCH SUBLET CONTRACT WORK IN CONSIDERATION FOR UNDECLARED RENT OR OTHER BENEFIT CAN NOT BE RULED OUT. USE OF CONVEYANCE VEHICLES FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN BUSINESS CANNOT BE RULED OUT. ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED HEAVY EXPENDITURE ON DEPRECIATION, INTERES T AND MAINTENANCE COST ON SUCH MACHI NERY AND ITA NO.309 / RJT/ 2013 & 467/RJT/2014 & CO.28 /RJT/ 2013 & 19/RJT/2014 - 4 - CLAIMED IT ALL AGAINST ITS OWN EXECUTED CONTRACT WORK. ENHANCED PROFIT RESULTING FROM USE OF OWN MACHINERY MORE THAN COMPENSATES THE INCREASED COST ON DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NO T ACCEPT THE ASSESSEE S EXPLANATION OF ATTRIBUTING LOW G.P TO INCREASED MATER IAL AND LABOUR COST. HE ALSO DID NOT APPRECIATE THE ASSESEE S CLAIM THAT NET PROFIT HAD INCREASED DESPITE INCREAS E IN DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST. HE , ACCORDINGLY , TAKING GUIDANCE F ROM THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 44AD , ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 8% DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,20,97,138/ - AS UNDER: COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME IS AS UNDER: - INCOME FROM BUSINESS: (I) NET PROFIT FROM OWN EXECUTED CONTRACT WORK @ 8% OF SUCH GROSS RECEIPT OF RS.13,36,23,404/ - (AS PER PARA - 5 OF THE ORDER) ADD: DEPRECIATION 1,06,89,872/ - 44,82,111/ - 1,51,71,983/ - LESS: DEPRECIATION AS CLAIMED 44,82,111/ - 1,06,89,872/ - (II)NET PROFIT FROM SUB LET CONTRACT WORK AS DECLARE D 13,07,299/ - (III)PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND AS DECLARED (AS PER REPLY DTD.7.09.2011) 99,967/ - TOTAL INCOME 1,20,97,138/ - I.E RS. 1,20,97,140/ - 6. BEING AGGRIEVED , ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A) AND IN DETAIL EXPLAINED THE VAR IOUS DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT BY ASSESSING OFFICER . BEING SATISFIED WITH THE ASSESEE S DETAILED EXPLANATION , LD.CIT(A) REJECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER S CLAIM REGARDING REJECTI O N OF BOOKS OF ACCO UNT AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE NATURE OF ITA NO.309 / RJT/ 2013 & 467/RJT/2014 & CO.28 /RJT/ 2013 & 19/RJT/2014 - 5 - EXPENDI TURE INCURRED IN CASH AND VOUCHERS BEING SELF MADE , DIRECTED FOR MAKING A ROUND DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5 LAKHS. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) , THE R EVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS TA KEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE LEARNED C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN VALIDATING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.58,20,200/ - MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF N.P. 3. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT THE REVENUE MAY RAISE BEFORE OR DURING HEARING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HON BLE ITAT. 4. ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) O UGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF A.O. 5. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET - ASIDE AND THAT THE A.O BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 8. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION AND HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION. 1. THE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF RS.5,00,000/ - WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 2. THAT, THE FINDING OF LEARNED CIT(A) ARE NOT JUSTIFIED AND REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. 9. NOW, COMING TO THE R EVENUE S APPEAL , THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE L D. DR I S THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD POINTED OUT DEFECTS I N THE ITA NO.309 / RJT/ 2013 & 467/RJT/2014 & CO.28 /RJT/ 2013 & 19/RJT/2014 - 6 - BOOKS OF ACCOUNT , AS NOTED EARLIER , AND THE REFORE REJECT ED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY INVOKING SECTION 145(3) . THEREFORE, HE WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PAGE 2 TO 15 OF LD. CIT(A) S ORDER TO SUBMIT THAT ALL DEFECTS , AS P OINTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER , WERE DUL Y EXPLAINED. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL THE VOUCHERS AND BILLS INCLUDING SITE - WISE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT HE DID NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE SAID BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND JUST GAVE A PASSING REMARK BEFORE REJE CTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . T HEREFORE , LD CIT(A) , AFTER DULY APPRECIATING THE ASSESSEE S NATURE OF BUSINESS AND THE DOCUMENTS KEPT BY IT , ACCEPTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PARTICULARLY BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED COMPLETE SITE - WISE DETAILS REGARDING THE PU RCHASES, OPENIN G AND CLOSING STOCK AND MAIN COMPONENTS OF ITEM S OF MATERIAL PURCHASED AND EXPLAINED THE REASONS AS TO WHY THE QUANTITATIVE DETAI LS COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED. LD.COUNSEL , FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT PROFIT OF AS SESSEE HAD INCREASED DURING THE YE AR . THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT, CIR.2 JUNAGADH VS S H RI JAGABHAI BHAYABHAI WAGH IN ITA NO.252/RJT/2013 DATED 21/ 1 0/201 6 WHEREIN UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES T RIBUNAL DISMISSED THE R EVENUE S APPEAL AS WELL AS C ROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF RAJKOT BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1, JUNAGADH VS M/S.SHANTI CONSTRUCTION VIDE ITA NO.419/RJT/2013 DATED 24/11/2016. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S AND PER USED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. AS FAR AS SECTION 145(3) IS CONCERNED , THE SAME CAN BE INVOKE D WHEN , INTER - A LIA, ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE MAIN OBJECTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONLY THAT CERTAIN DETAILS WERE NOT MAINTAIN ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MANNER IN ITA NO.309 / RJT/ 2013 & 467/RJT/2014 & CO.28 /RJT/ 2013 & 19/RJT/2014 - 7 - WHICH THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER. T HE MAIN CONTEN T ION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE DEFICIENCIES POINTE D OUT BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , THE ACCOUNTS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS C ORRECT OR COMPLETE. BEFORE WE DELVE UPON FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE , IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO REFER TO SECTION 34 OF THE E VIDENCE A CT , WHICH READ S AS UNDER: 34. ENTRIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHEN RELEVANT ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, INCLUDING THOSE MAINTAINED IN AN ELECTRONIC FORM, REGULARLY KEPT IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS, ARE RELEVANT WHENEVER THEY REFER TO A MATTER INTO WHICH THE COURT HAS TO INQUIRE BUT SUCH STATEMENTS SHA LL NOT ALONE BE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CHARGE ANY PERSON WITH LIABILITY. 12. TH U S , THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAIN TAIN ED IN REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS CANNOT BE CASUALLY REJECTED AFTER POINTING OUT CERTAIN BROAD POINTS WITH REFERENCE TO DETAILS MAINTAIN ED BY ASSESSEE. DUE REGARD IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE CUSTOM PECULIARITIES OF PARTICULAR BUSINESS. IT IS TO BE EXAMINED WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAIN ED BROADLY ALL THE DETAILS OR NOT TO CORROBORATE THE ENTRIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR NOT. I F IT IS NOT FEASIBLE FOR AS SESSEE TO MAINTAIN CERTAIN DETAILS, CONSIDERING THE LINE OF BUSINESS IN WHICH HE IS , TH E N ON THAT BASIS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE REJECTED 13. IT IS TRUE THAT ENTRIES ALONE IN BOOKS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT AND THEY HAVE TO BE DULY CORROBORATED. BUT WHERE TRANSACTIONS ARE NUMEROUS THEN IT IS HARDLY REASONABLE TO EXPECT INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE TO BE GIVEN TO PROVE EACH AND EVERY PARTICULAR TRANSACTION. IN SUCH CASE THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACCOUNT BOOKS, IF THEY ARE REGULARLY KEPT IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS, WILL BE THE DETERMINING FACTOR. ITA NO.309 / RJT/ 2013 & 467/RJT/2014 & CO.28 /RJT/ 2013 & 19/RJT/2014 - 8 - 13. 1 I N TH E BACK DROP OF ABOVE DISCUS SION, N OW WE WILL EXAMINE THE SPECIFIC DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY ASSESSING OFFICER . 13.2 A S REGARD S NO STOCK REGISTER OF MATERIAL BEING MAINTAIN ED BY ASSESSEE, T HE ASSESSEE CLEARLY , IN T ER - A LIA , POINTED OUT IN ITS REPLY THAT EACH BILL O R VOUCHER CONTA INED MATE RIAL PURCHASED ALONG WITH THE DETAILS OF QUANTITY AND THE SAME AR E REFLECTED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . THE ASSESSEE , HOWEVER, POINTED OUT THAT DUE TO INVOLVEMENT OF NUMEROUS ITEM S OF CONST RUCTION MATERIAL , IT WAS NO T FEASIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE STOCK REGISTER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OU T ANY SPECIFIC DISCREPANCIES IN THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE. U NDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES , THIS COULD NOT BE A GROUND FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE. 13. 3 THE SECOND DEFICIENCY POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REGARDING LABOUR WORK ATTENDANCE REGISTER BEING NOT MAINTAINED. T HE ASSESSEE HAD INTER - ALIA, EXPLA I N ED THAT IT HAD FURNISHED SITE - WISE LABOUR COST. FURTHER , THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE MODUS OPERANDI REGARDING THE LABOUR COST BEING INCURRED AT SITE. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE WAS HIRING LABOUR FORCE EITHER ON DAILY WAGES BASIS O R ON WORK - ON - SITE BASIS, DEPENDING ON CIRCUMSTANCES OF WORK A ND SITE REQUIREME NT AND ALL WERE CASUAL WORKERS. I T WAS EXPLAINED THAT IT HAD MAINTAINED COMPLETE VOUCHER S DULY A UTHENTICATED BY SITE SUPERVISOR AND A SUMMARY OF THOSE VOUCHERS WAS ALSO AUTHENTICATED BY D IRECTORS. CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF ASSESSEE S BUSI NESS , THIS EXPLANATION CANNOT BE S AID TO BE NON - PLAUSIBLE AND , THEREFORE , IT COULD NOT BE BASIS FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS AND ACCOUNT , MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT POINT OUT ANY DEFICIENCY IN TH E REGULAR METHOD OF MAINTAINING DETAILS REGAR DING LABOUR EXPENDITURE CLAIM ED BY ASSESSEE. ITA NO.309 / RJT/ 2013 & 467/RJT/2014 & CO.28 /RJT/ 2013 & 19/RJT/2014 - 9 - 13.4 . THE NEXT DEFECT POINTED OU T BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS IN REGARD TO INVENTORY OF CLOSING STOCK AND WORK IN PROGRESS WITH BASIS OF VALUATION BEING NOT FILED. TH E ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT HAD FURNISHED SITE - WISE COST OF MATERIAL, LABOUR, OPENING AND CL OSING STOCK OF WORK IN PROGRESS. T HE ASSESSEE FURNISHED SITE - WISE OPENING AND CLOSING OF STOCK/WIP WITH THE BASIS OF VALUATION WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM PAGES 5 TO 7 OF LD.CIT(A) S ORDER. WHEN ASSESS EE HAD FURNISHED SITE - WISE LABOUR AND OTHER EXPENSES PERTAINING TO SITE THEN WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS IN SAID BILLS , THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN RECOURSE TO SECTION 145(3) . T HEREFORE THIS ALSO COULD NOT BE BASIS FO R REJECTION OF BO OKS OF ACCOUNT . 1 3. 5. THE NEXT DEFECT POINTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS IN REGARD TO QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF MATERIAL CONSUMED BEING NOT MAINTAINED . T HIS ASPECT H AS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY US , W HILE DEALING WITH NON MAINTENANCE OF ST OCK REGISTER AND TH EREFORE , DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY FURTHER COMMENTS AS THIS COULD NOT BE BASIS FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 1 3. 6. THE NEXT OBJECTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN REGARD TO SUBSTANTIAL EXPENSES WITH REGARD TO URD PURCHASES, OTHER EXPENSES BEING NOT SUPPOR TED BY AUTHENTIC VOUCHERS. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THAT THOUGH ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC ITEM BUT AT THE SAME TIME, CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT THE EXPENSE S HAD BEEN INCURRED IN CASH, THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO CHECK THE LEAKAGE OF REVE NUE , LD.CIT(A) HAS DISALLOWED LUMPSUM RS .5 LACS. THEREFORE, THIS COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . 1 3. 7. THE NEXT OBJECTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN REGARD TO NON MAINTENANCE OF LOG BOOK FOR TRANSPORT AND CONVEYANCE VEHICLE. IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE HAD POINTED OUT THAT IT HAD SUBMITTED DETAILS OF ITA NO.309 / RJT/ 2013 & 467/RJT/2014 & CO.28 /RJT/ 2013 & 19/RJT/2014 - 10 - SITE - WISE VEHICLE AND MACHINERIES MAINTENANCE EXPENSES AND ALL BILLS OF DIESEL AND OTHER REPAIRING EXPENSES WERE PRODUCED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER . FEW BILLS WERE DULY VERIFIED ON TEST - CHECK BASIS, BUT NO DISCREPANCIES W ERE FOUND. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS COULD NO T BE THE BASIS FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . IF ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ANY SPECIFIC OBJECTION THEN DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE TO THAT EXTENT ONLY . 14 . WE THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT , ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY REJEC TED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . 15 . NOW, COMING TO THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY LD.CIT(A) OF RS.5LACS . T HE MAIN CONTENTION OF LD. COUNCEL IS THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR SUSTAINING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5LACS . THE SUBMISSION O F LD.DR IS THAT , IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI JAGABHAI BHAYABHAI WAGH(SUPRA) , THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD P ROPORTIONATELY BE INCREASED. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE DECISION RELIED UPON THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE GROSS RECEIPTS WERE ONLY RS.7,56,88,213/ - WHEREAS IN ASSESSEE S CASE IT IS MORE THAN RS.18,00,00,000/ - , THEREFORE, EVEN IF ASSESESS S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE TO BE ACCEPTED, THEN THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD PROPORTIONATELY BE INCREASED. IN OUR OPINION THE ARGUMENT S OF BOTH SIDE S DESERVE S TO BE REJECTED BECAUSE, AS OBSERVED BY US WHILE CONSIDERING THE REVENUE S APPEAL THAT DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY L D.CIT(A) TO CHECK THE REVENUE LEAKAGE AS MOST OF THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN CASH AND WERE ON THE BASIS OF SELF MADE VOUCHERS. AS FAR AS LD. DR S CONTENTION REGARDING DISALLOWANCE TO BE ENHANCED IS CONCERNED, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS CANNOT BE WI TH REFERENCE TO THE TURNOVER. AN OVERVIEW HAS TO BE TAKEN ON ENTIRE CONSPECTUS OF THE FACTS BEFORE ARRIVING AT AN ESTIMATE. ITA NO.309 / RJT/ 2013 & 467/RJT/2014 & CO.28 /RJT/ 2013 & 19/RJT/2014 - 11 - 16 . IN THE RESULT THE REVENUE S APPEAL AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 17 . ITA NO.467/RJT/2014 AND CO 19/RJT/2014 18 . AS THE FACTS BEING IDENTICAL IN THE CURRENT YEAR, FOLLOWING THE DECISION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 , WE DISMISS THE REVENUE S APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE A SSESSEE. 19. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE REVENUE S APPEAL AS WELL AS C ROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 21 ST MARCH, 2017. SD/ - SD/ - ( K. NARSIMHA CHARRY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( S.V. MEHROTRA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD, DATED 21 / 03 /20 17 * MANISH / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1 . / APPELLANT - 2 . / RESPONDENT - 3 . / CO NCERNED CIT /DIT 4 . - / CIT (A) - IV, RAJKOT 5 . , , / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6 . / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) / ITAT, RAJKOT