DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Super Plastic Coats (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3430/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7313 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 22-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJIV MALHOTRA
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH CHADHA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business expenditure; Loose papers; Peak credit; Accommodation entries
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI O.P. KANT ITA NO. 3430 /DEL/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 1 0 DCIT, VS. SUPER PLASTIC COATS (P) LTD., CIRCLE - 13, 1 - CE NTRAL MARKET, NEW DELHI. WEST PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI. (PAN: AA E C S2311M ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CROSS OBJECTION NO. 239/DEL/2013 ( IN ITA NO. 3430/DEL/2013 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 SUPER PLASTIC COATS (P) LTD., VS. DCIT, 1 - CENTRAL MARKET, CIRCLE - 13, WEST PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN: AAECS2311M) (APPELLANT) (CROSS - OBJECTOR) ASSESSEE BY: S/ SHRI VED JAIN & ASHISH CHADH A, ADV. DEPARTM ENT BY: SHRI RAJIV MALHOTRA , CIT( DR ) DATE OF HEARING : 0 5 . 0 4 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14 : 0 6 .201 6 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR : JUDICIAL MEMBER REVENUE HAS QUESTIONED FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AND FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 57,72,733 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS WHEREIN THE 2 ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES BY PAYING CASH TO M/S. KALRA PAPER PVT. LTD., 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,65,577 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF THE CREDIT CART EXPENSES OF TWO DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY IN ABSENCE OF ANY BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY OF SUCH EXPENSES. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO AMEND MO DIFY, ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL' 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AT AN INCOME OF RS.3,46,08,362/ - AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.2 ,74,11,307/ - . THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.57,72,733/ - ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED RECEIPTS. AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, DURING POST - SEARCH ENQUIRY IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT ASSESSEE HAS GOT CHEQUES/ DEMAND DRAFTS FRO M VARIOUS PARTIES. 3 . IN ORDER TO VERIFY THIS, A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF M/S KALRA PAPERS PVT. LTD. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY SOME LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND WHEREBY IT WAS NOTICED THAT CASH AMOUNTING TO R.56,33,966/ - HAS BEEN RECEI VED AND CHEQUES OF RS.57,72,733/ - WERE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF M/S SUPER PLASTIC COATS PVT. LTD. NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO TREATED THE CHEQUE AMOUNT OF RS.57,72,733/ - AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 4 . THE LEARNED CIT(A) HA S DELETE D THE SAID ADDITION HOLDING THAT THE CHEQUES GIVEN BY M/S KALRA PAPERS PVT. LTD. ARE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED CIT( DR ) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE SAID ADDITION. THE AO HAS GIVEN DETAILED REASONING IN ITS ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT REASONING CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE. 5. THE LEARNED AR IN REPLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.57,72,733/ - HAS BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS SALE CONSIDERATION. THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME AMOUNT CANNOT BE ADDED AGAIN. IT WAS ALSO S UBMITTED THAT THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED AND NO ERROR OR DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THESE FINDINGS. THERE IS NO ALLEGATION EVEN FROM KALRA PAPERS PVT. LTD. THAT IT HAS RECEIVED CASH FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 6 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WE NOTE THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE AND HAS RECORDED A FINDING WHICH READS AS UNDER: - 4 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATTER. ANY DEPOSIT IN A BANK ACCOUNT HAS TO HAVE SOME SOURCE. IN THIS CASE, IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT IS CHEQUES GIVEN BY M/S KALRA PAPERS (P) LTD. WHILE THE REVENUE CLAIMS, ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED DURING SURVEY U/S 133A FROM THE PREMISES OF M/S KALRA PAPERS (P) LTD. THAT THESE CHEQUES WERE GIVEN AGAINST CASH RECEIVED FROM THE APPELLANT, THE APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT IT DID NOT HAVE ANY CASH TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S KALRA PAPERS (P) LTD. THE VERSION OF M/S KALRA PAPERS (P) LTD. IS NOT ON RECORD. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER ANY STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTOR / EMPLOYEE OF M/S KALRA PAPERS (P) LTD. WAS RECORDED AND WHAT WERE ITS CONTENTS. EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF A PERSON IS GOOD EVIDENCE AGAINST THAT PERSON, AND UNLESS THAT PERSON CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY, OR CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IS FOUND TO INDICATE CONTRARY FACTS, THAT EVIDENCE CANNOT BE USED AGAINST A THIRD PARTY. THIS RULE OF EVIDENCE WAS LAID DOWN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN JAIN DIARY / HAWALA CASE. THE CASH RECEIVED BY M/S KALRA PAPERS (P) LTD. STATED TO BE FROM THE APPELLANT, IS TO BE EXPLAINED BY M/S KALRA PAPERS (P) LTD. IF THEY CLAIM THAT THE CASH WAS REC EIVED FROM THE APPELLANT, THE APPELLANT WILL BE CONFRONTED WITH THIS FACT AND ALLOWED AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS - EXAMINE M/S KALRA PAPERS (P) LTD. UNLESS THESE ACTIONS ARE TAKEN, ENTRIES IN DOCUMENTS FOUND IN POSSESSION OF M/S KALRA PAPERS (P) LTD. CANNOT BE HELD ADVERSELY AGAINST THE APPELLANT. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT IN THE SIMILAR MATTER OF ENTRIES TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT FROM ONE SH RAVINDER YADAV IN LIEU OF CASH SALES TO THIRD PARTIES, SH. YADAV HAS BEEN HELD TO BE THE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF THE TRANSACTIONS R OUTED IN HIS VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE PEAK CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS, ALONG WITH THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS AND THE ACCRUALS TO / INCREASES IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S R V TRADERS, WAS BROUGHT TO TAX IN HIS HANDS. THUS, IT IS TO BE EXAMINED AS TO HOW THE SALES BY 5 THE APPELLANT TO M/S KALRA PAPERS (P) LTD. AND CASH RECEIVED BY M/S KALRA PAPERS (P) LTD. AS INDICATED BY THE DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED DURING SURVEY HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S KALRA PAPERS (P) LTD. IT IS ALSO TO BE EXAMI NED AS TO HOW AND TO WHOM M/S KALRA PAPERS (P) LTD. HAS SOLD THE GOODS PURCHASED FROM THE APPELLANT AND WHETHER THE SALES ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND CREDITED TO THE P & L ACCOUNT DULY AUDITED AND FILED WITH THE I.T. RETURNS IN THE CASE O F M/S KALRA PAPERS (P) LTD. I HOLD ACCORDINGLY AND DIRECT THE AO TO MAKE A REFERENCE IN THE MATTER TO THE AO OF M/S KALRA PAPERS (P) LTD. THE ADDITION IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AS PER THE RULING OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND IS, THEREFORE, DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.57,72,733/ - 7. THE LEARNED DR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE ABOVE FINDINGS. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THERE IS NO ALLEGATION, NOR ANY STATEMENT FROM EITHER DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE OF THE KALRA PAPERS PVT. LTD. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH ALLEGATION, THE PAPER FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF KALRA PAPERS PVT. LTD. CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSE SSEE. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT CHEQUES OF RS.57,72,733/ - ARE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THESE CHEQUES HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR AGAINST SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE SALES HAVING BEEN INCLUDED IN THE INCOME , THE SAME ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 6 8. IT MAY ALSO BE RELEVANT TO REFER TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR IN ITA NO. 1971 - 1972/DEL/2013 DATED 30.03.2016 , WHEREIN UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED AO WERE DELETED. THE SAID ADDITIONS WERE DELETED FOLLOWING THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF ITS SISTER CONCERN, NORTHERN STRIPS LTD. , WHERE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST SUCH ORDER STANDS ALSO REJECTED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 1 ST AUGUST, 2015. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 9. THE NEXT GROUND IN APPEAL IS DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.2,65,577/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF THE CREDIT CARD EXPENSES. THE AO HAS MADE THIS ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY HAS INCURRED THIS EXPENDITURE THROUGH CREDIT CARD. SINCE THESE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE DIRECTOR WERE THROUGH CREDIT CARD, THE SA ME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND ACCORDINGLY HE MADE THE DISALLOWANCE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION HOLDING THAT CREDIT CARD EXPENSES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE PERSONAL EXPENSES AND MOREOVER THERE WAS FRINGE BENEFIT TAX APPLICABLE AND HENCE THIS ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 10. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED CIT( DR ) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ABOVE SAID DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF FRINGE BENEFIT TAX ARE APPLICABLE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FRINGE BENEFIT TAX STANDS 7 ABOLISHED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GIVING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF FRINGE BENEFIT TAX. 11. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE EXPLANATION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CREDIT CARD IS ONLY A FACILITY LIKE BANK. THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF MAKING PAYMENT IN CASH CAN MAKE THE PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY THROUGH CREDIT CARD. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT THE NATURE OF THE EXPENSES SO AS TO SUGGE ST THAT THESE ARE PERSONAL EXPENSES. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES IN VIEW OF ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WE NOTE THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITIO N ON THE GROUND THAT ON SUCH EXPENSES FRINGE BENEFIT TAX PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE. THE LEARNED CIT( DR ) IS CORRECT IN ITS SUBMISSION THAT THE FRINGE BENEFIT TAX PROVISIONS WERE NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF TH E LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE EXPENSES HAVING BEEN INCURRED THROUGH CREDIT CARD AND ASSESSEE HAVING FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 8 13. IN ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION, THE ONLY ISSUE IS ADDITION OF RS.122,985/ - SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.10,35,790/ - MADE B Y AO, ON ACCOUNT OF THE UN - RECONCILED PURCHASES BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM M/S JINDAL POLY FILMS LTD. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS COMPLETE RECONCILIATION OF THE ACCOUNT FOR THE 7 YEARS WERE MADE AND AS PER THIS RECONCILIATION, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WO RKED OUT A TABLE WHEREBY THE DIFFERENCES FOR EACH YEAR WERE WORKED OUT. AS PER THIS TABLE THERE WERE SOME SHORT PURCHASES BOOKED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHEREBY IN SOME OF THE YEARS THERE WERE EXCESS PURCHASES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF THIS R ECONCILIATION SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF THE DIFFERENCES IN EACH OF THE YEAR. IN THIS YEAR THERE WAS A SHORT PURCHASE OF RS.122,985/ - AND ACCORDINGLY THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUSTAINED ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,22,985/ - AS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.10,35,790/ - MADE BY THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THIS ADDITION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAKING REGULAR PURCHASES FROM M/S JINDAL POLY FILMS LTD. AGAINST THESE PURCHASES THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DISCOUNTS AND REBATES AND NUMBER OF DEBIT AND CREDIT NOTES ARE PASSED DURING THE YEAR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE WHERE THERE IS ANY EXCESS QUANTITY OR BILL WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR. IT IS A CAS E WHERE DIFFERENCE HAS ARISEN BECAUSE OF THE CLAIMS AND COUNTER - CLAIMS BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THE DIFFERENCE HAS ARISEN BECAUSE OF ACCOUNTING OF SUCH CLAIMS IN A PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO THE END OF THE YEAR AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE TABLE MADE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A ). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN ANY CASE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS BOOKED LESS EXPENDITURE BY 9 MAKING SOME CLAIMS AGAINST THE SUPPLIER, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE OF THE DIFFERENCE OF AMOUNT SHORT BOOKED AS ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS CLAIMED LESSER EXPENDITURE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,22,985/ - DURING THE YEAR IS THE LESS EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION IS UNTENABLE. 14. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED CIT( DR ) SUBMITTED THAT SINCE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO RECONCILE THE ACCOUNT AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAKING PURCHASES FROM M/S JINDAL POLY FILMS LTD. FURTHER THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE EXCESSIVELY BOOKED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS MADE A TABLE FOR THE 7 YEARS WHICH READS AS UNDER: - (AMOUNTS IN RUPEES) FINANCIAL PURCHASES OF DISCOUNT N. PURCHASES GROSS SALES DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASES ADDITION YEAR SUPER PLASTIC (APPELLANT) (AS PER APPELLANT) OF APPELLANT OF JINDAL SHORT EXCESS BY AO 2002 - 03 344,371,350 27 ,820,050 372,191,400 372,243,761 52,361 238,485 2003 - 04 405,699,941 24,941,282 430,641,223 430,995,183 353,960 353,960 2004 - 05 414,150,738 21,596,786 435,747,524 435,442,394 305,130 305,130 2005 - 06 635,445,601 29,123,042 682,568,643 682,045,062 523, 581 8,920,979 2006 - 07 1,644,915,799 85,997,685 1,730,913,484 1,734,993,646 4,080,162 4,105,324 10 2007 - 08 1,673,203,226 73,088,544 1,746,291,770 1,751,585,291 5,293,521 5,293,521 2008 - 09 2,245,307,214 118,925,357 2,364,232,571 2,364,355,556 122,985 1,15 8,745 16. ON GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE TABLE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE DIFFERENCES ARE ARISING MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE DISCOUNTS. IN SOME OF THE YEARS DISCOUNT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MORE. CONSEQUENTLY THE PURCHASES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE LESS AS COMPARED TO THE SALES SHOWN BY JINDAL POLY FILMS LTD. IN SOME OF THE YEARS THE PURCHASE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE LITTLE HIGHER AS COMPARED TO THE SALES SHOWN BY JINDAL POLY FILMS LTD. AS RIGHTLY EXPLAINED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THESE DIFFERENCES WERE A RISING BECAUSE OF THE CREDIT NOTES AND DEBIT NOTES BEING ACCOUNTED FOR AT DIFFERENT POINT OF TIME BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND JINDAL POLY FILMS LTD. THIS BEING A RUNNING ACCOUNT THESE DIFFERENCES ARE BOUND TO BE THERE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO AND TH E LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE QUANTITY OR THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR BY JINDAL POLY FILMS LTD. THESE BEING RUNNING ACCOUNT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO PARTIES ACCO UNTS CANNOT BE MADE. WE ARE ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE PURCHASES BOOKED BY THE ASSESSEE IS OF RS.236,42,32,571/ - AS AGAINST SALES SHOWN BY JINDAL POLY FILMS LTD. OF RS.236,43,55,556/ - . THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE LESS BY RS.1,22,985/ - ON ACCOUNT OF THE PURCHASES. HAVING CLAIMED LESS EXPENDITURE THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY WE HOLD THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CO NFIRMING THE 11 ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THESE DIFFERENCES IN THE RECONCILIATION. ACCORDINGLY, AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IS ALLOWED. 17. IN SUMMARY, APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY AL LOWED AND CROSS - OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 . 0 6 . 201 6 SD/ - SD/ - ( O.P . K A NT ) ( I.C. S UDHIR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14 / 0 6 /20 1 6 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE DRAFT DICTATED DIRECTLY ON COMPUTER 14 . 0 6 .201 6 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 14 . 0 6 .201 6 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 14 .0 6 .2016 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 14 . 0 6 .2016 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 14 .0 6 .2016 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 15 . 0 6 . 2016 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.