Sadasiva Sahu, Berhampur V. ITO, Berhampur

ITA 321/CTK/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 32122114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K NATH
• Assessee Lawyers: D K SHETH
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Reasonable cause
• Section: 40A(3)

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK ( BEFORE SHRI P. M. JAGTAP , A.M. AND SHRI P. S. CHAUDHURY, J .M . ) ITA NO.321 /CTK /2013 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 SADASIVA SAHU, BERH AMPUR - V S - ITO, WARD - 3 , BERHAMPUR (APPELLANT) PAN : AEUPS 7608L (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.316/CTK /2013 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 ITO, WARD - 3 , BERHAMPUR - VS - SADASIVA SAHU, BERHAMPUR (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) `` C.O. NO.46/CTK /2013 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.316/CTK/2013) SADASIVA SAHU, BERHAMPUR - VS - ITO, WARD - 3 , BERHAMPUR (CROSS OBJECTOR ) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.K.SHETH, A.R . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI K.K.NATH, DR : O R D E R : PER SHRI P.M.JAGTAP , AM THESE TWO APPEAL S, ONE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING ITA NO.321/CTK/2013 AND THE OTHER FILED BY THE REVENUE BEING ITA NO.316/CTK/2013, ARE CROSS APPEALS, WHI CH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), BERHAMPUR DATED 25.02 .2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND THE SAME ARE BEING DISPOSED OF ALONG WITH THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING C.O. NO.46/CTK/2013. 2. FIRST, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, G ROUND NO.1 OF WHICH INVOLVES THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.14,69,069/ - MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40 A(3). 2 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN SPICES , ETC. UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF HIS PROPRI ETARY CONCERN M/S. B V ENTERPRISES . THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.09.2009 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME AT RS.10,87,608 / - . IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C. FILED ALONG WITH THE SA ID RETURN, A SUM OF RS.66,20,965 / - WAS DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT EXPENSES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, FREIGHT EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE EXAMINED BY THE AO AND ON SUCH EXAMINATION, HE FOUND THAT THE FREIGHT EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.14,69,069 / - WERE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH EXCEEDING RS.20,000/ - IN A SINGLE DAY TO A SINGLE TRANSPOR TER. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THESE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT IN CASH THUS WERE HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) AND THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WAS CALLED UPON BY HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED BY INVOL V ING THE SAID PROVISION. 2.1 IN REPLY, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE IN CASH DURING THE DAY WERE CONSISTING OF SEVERAL PAYMENTS TO A PERSON AND ALTHOUGH THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF SUCH PAYMENT S EXCEEDED THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF RS.20,000/ - , T HERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 40A(3) SINCE NO SINGLE PAYMENT WAS MADE IN CASH EXCEEDING RS.20,000/ - . THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE AO AND BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3), THE FREIGHT EXPENSE S CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.14,69,069 / - WERE DISALLOWED BY HIM . 3. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT CHARGES BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 40A(3) WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) . DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS RESTRICTION FOR THE ENTRY OF TRUCKS DURING DAY TIME IN THE MARKET PLACE AND SINCE TRUCKS ARE NOT 3 ALLOWED TO ENTER BEFORE 9 OCLOCK AT NIGHT , THEY ENTER THE MARKET PLACE FOR UNLOADING THE GOODS ONLY THEREAFTER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE TRUCKS ENTER AFTER 9 OCLOCK IN THE NIGHT AND LEAVE BEFORE SUNRISE, THE DRIVERS INSIST FOR CASH PAYMEN T ONLY AND IN THESE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE IS COMPELLED TO MAKE PAYMENT IN CASH. THIS STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND HE PROCEEDED TO CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 40A(3) ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT CHARGES FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS IN PARAGRAPH NO.7.3 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER. 7.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATTER. ADMITTEDLY OUT OF TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS.66,20,965/ - , AN AMOUNT OF RS.14,69,069/ - HAVE BEEN PAID IN CASH TO VARIOUS TRANSPORTERS IN EXCESS OF THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S.40A( 3). THE LD. A/R IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS MERELY STATED THAT THE DRIVERS INSIST ON CASH PAYMENTS. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT HAS BEEN FILED. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THESE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO SEVERAL TRUCKS ON VARIOUS DATES, WHICH INDICA TES THAT THE APPELLANT HAS A REGULAR BUSINESS RELATIONS WITH THESE TRUCKS. IT IS NOT A ONE OFF OF TRANSACTIONS WHERE THE TRUCK OWNERS BEING UNFAMILIAR MAY INSIST FOR THE PAYMENT IN CASH. I, THEREFORE, FIND NO REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE APPELLANT TO V IOLATE THE MANDATE OF THE ACT PRESCRIBED U/S. 40A(3). SINCE NO REASONABLE CAUSE HAS BEEN MADE OUT, I FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ACTION OF THE AO AND THE ADDITION OF RS.14,69,069/ - IS SUSTAINED AND THE GROUND NO.3 IS DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ALTHOUGH THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED BY THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES GIVEN IN RULE 6DD OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES, 1962, ESPECI ALLY AFTER THE AMENDMENT MADE IN CLAUSE (J) THEREOF, IT IS OBSERVED THAT A SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) UNDER SECTION 40A(3) IN THE CASE OF B. ASHOK KUMAR PATRO INVOLVING IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAS BEEN DEL ETED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 02.02.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.515/CTK/2013 FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2009 - 10 . A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US AND PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE 4 TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARAGRAPH NO.8 OF ITS ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, EW FIND THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE IN GROCERY AND SPICES. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT TO TRUCK OWNERS, WHO BRINGS THE COMMODITIES FROM ALL OVER INDIA. THE ASSESSEES SHOP AND GODOWN IS LOCATED IN BIG BAZAAR AREA, BERHAMPUR, WHICH IS A BUSY BUSINESS AREA OF SOU TH ORISSA. AS PER BERHAMPUR TRAFFIC POLICE REGULATIONS/ NOTIFICATIONS, THE HEAVY GOODS CARRYING VEHICLES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BIG BAZAAR AREA OF BERHAMPUR FROM 9 AM TO 9 PM DURING THE WEEK DAYS. THE TRUCKS CARRYING GOODS ENTER THE BIG BAZAAR AREA DURING LATE HOURS IN THE EVENING AFTER 9 PM AND LEAVE THE AREA AFTER UNLOADING THE GOODS DURING THE RIGHT ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE PAYMENT EXCEEDING RS.20,000/ - TO A SINGLE PAYEE TRUCK DRIVER, WHICH EXCEEDS THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT U/S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT. NEITHE R THE AO CONSIDERED THE GENUINENESS OF THE FREIGHT EXPENSES, NOR THE CIT(A) IN APPEAL. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT IN CASH. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND. 4 .1 AS THE ISS UE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL AS ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS RELATING THERETO ARE SIMILAR TO THE CASE OF SHRI B. ASHOK KUMAR PATRO ( SUPRA ), WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE DECISION RE NDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID CASE AND DEL ETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 40A(3) AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 5. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,09,849/ - MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) O N ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON LOAN HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 5 6. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL O F THE REVENUE WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,44,825/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERVALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK ACCEPTING THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE MATTER. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,94,806/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF ASSET ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE FACT S AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS OF AO IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. . 7. WE HAVE THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUS ED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.1 RELATING TO THE ALLEGED UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK BY THE ASSESSEE, I T IS OBSERVED THAT THE CLOSING STOCK OF 1845 BAGS OF ARECANUT WAS VALUED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.76, 56,879/ - BY APPLYING THE RATE OF RS.4150.06 PER BAG. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSISTENTLY VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK AT COST AND THE AVERAGE COST OF ARECANUT AS WORKED OUT BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL PURCHASE S WAS @ RS.4445.37 PER BAG, HE VALUED THE CL OSING STOCK AT RS.82,01,707/ - BY ADOPTING THE SAID RATE AS AGAINST THE VALUATION OF RS.76,56,879/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.5,44,828/ - WAS ADDED BY HIM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BY THE AO TO EXPLAIN THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE AO FOR VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK WAS THE AVERAGE PURCHASE VALUE WHILE IT WAS VALUED BY HIM AT THE ACTUAL PURCHASE VALUE OF THE STOCK AS DETERMINED ON THE LAS T DATE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. A DETAILED STATEMENT WAS ALSO FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SHOWING THE 6 BASIS AS ADOPTED FOR VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. THIS STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE AO FOR VERIFICATION. AS PER THE DIRECTION BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE AO VERIFIED THE BASIS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK WITH REFERENCE TO THE CORRESPONDING PURCHASE INV OICES AND OFFERED NO ADVERSE COMMENTS THEREON IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(A). AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AO, THE LD. C IT(A) FOUND THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE SAME WAS DELETED BY HIM FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO.5.3 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER. 5.3 I HA VE CAR EFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATTER. AS WAS ARGUED BY THE APPELLANT, THE APPELLANT DEALS WITH VARIOUS VARIETIES OF ARECANUT AND HAS MAINTAINED DETAIL STOCK STATEMENTS OF THE 1845BAGS. THESE 1845BAGS CONSISTS OF 42 TYPES OF ARECANUT INCLUDING SOME CARRY FORW ARD STOCKS. IN OTHER WORDS THE APPELLANT HAS ADOPTED THE COST PRICE FOR ARECANUT OF VARIOUS QUALITIES AND NOT THE AVERAGE PURCHASE VALUE OF ALL VARIETIES OF ARECANUT OVER THE YEAR. THUS AS CERTIFIED BY THE AUDITOR WHICH HAS BEEN REFERRED TO BY THE AO BOTH IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AS WELL AS IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE APPELLANT HAS VALUED THE STOCK AT COST ONLY BUT MORE IMPORTANT THE VALUATION IS AT COST SPECIFIC TO VARIOUS TYPES OF ARECANUT AND NOT AT THE AVERAGE COST OF THE TOTAL PROCUREMENT. SINCE THE DETAILS FILED BY THE APPELLANT RELATING TO VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK STANDS VERIFIED BY THE AO IN REMAND AND NO ADVERSE FINDING HAVE BEEN REPORTED, I SEE NO REASON TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF THE UNDERVALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOC K. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE ADDITION OF RS.5,44,828/ - IS DELETED AND THE GROUND NO.2 IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 7.1 AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. DR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO RAISE ANY MATERIAL CONTENTION IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUES CASE ON THIS ISSUE. HE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO REBUT OR CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THERE IS NO ADVERSE FINDING GIVEN BY THE AO ON THIS ISSUE IN 7 THE REMAND REPORT, THEREBY ACCEPTING THE VALUATION O F CLOSING STOCK AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THIS ISSUE AND UPH OLDING THE SAME, WE DISMISS GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES AP PEAL. 8. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL REGARDING THE DELETION BY THE LD. CIT(A) OF ADDITION OF RS.11,94,806/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED ASSET, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THIS ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENCE IN THE BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF ONE SUNDRY DEBTOR, NAMELY, SHAA KANTILAL JAYANTILAL (CHENNAI) AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE SAID PARTY. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), HIS DIFFERENCE HOWEVER WAS DULY RECONCILED BY THE ASSESSEE POINTING OUT THAT SOME OF THE SALE PARTI ES GIVEN BY HIM DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE ENTERED INTO BY THE CONCERNED DEBTOR IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ONLY IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR A ND T HIS POSITION WAS ACCEPTED EVEN BY THE AO, ON VERIFICATION OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, WHEN THE MATTER WAS REMANDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO HIM FOR VERIFICATION. 8.1 AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. DR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EITHER RAISE ANY MATERIAL CONTENTION IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUES CASE ON THIS ISSUE OR REBUT OR CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE DIFFERENCE AS RECONCILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED EVEN BY THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT. WE , THEREFORE, FIND NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) GIVING RELIE F TO THE ASSESS EE ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL . 9. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES A PPEAL RELATING TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. DR, AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO 8 G IVE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO VERIFY THE SAME. ON THE OTHER HAND, A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CLEARLY SHOWS THAT WHATEVER DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM WERE FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE AO FOR VERIFICATION AND ONLY AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE REMAND REPORT FILED BY THE AO ON SUCH VERIFICATION, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DECIDED BY HIM. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND DISMISS THE SAME. 10. IN HIS CROSS - OBJECTION , THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHEREBY HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK AND ALLEG ED SUPPRESSION OF RECEIVABLES . AS W E HAVE UPHELD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON BOTH THESE ISSUES WHILE DISPOSI NG OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, T HE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. T HE SAME IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 11 . IN THE RESULT , THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED WHEREAS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUN CED IN THE COURT ON 28 TH OCTOBER, 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( P.S.CHAUDHURY ) ( P.M.JAGTAP ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 28/10/2015 TALUKDAR,SR.PS 9 COPY TO : 1. SHRI SADASIVA SAHU, PROP. B V ENTERPRISERS, MALASANI PETA, BERHAMPUR, ODISHA 2. I.T.O. , WARD - 3 , BERHAMPUR 3. CIT(A) - BERHAMP UR 4. CIT BERHAMPUR 5. D. R., ITAT, BERHAMPUR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., CUTTACK