The ACIT- 2(1), Bhopal V. Shri Vinod Agrawal, Bhopal

ITA 354/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 35422714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K RINWA
• Assessee Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Bogus loan

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MUKU L KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER PAN NO. AASPA1760D ITA NO. 354/IND/2013 A.Y. : 2008-09 ACIT, BHOPAL VS. SHRI VI NOD AGRAWAL, PROP. M/S. VINOD JEWELLERS, LAKHERAPURA, BHOPAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.A.VERMA, SR. DR REVENUE BY : SHRI A.K. RINWA, ADV. / // / DATE OF HEARING : 12.09.2014. /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13/10/2014. / O R D E R PER P.K.BANSAL, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 13.12.2012, ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECT IVE GROUNDS :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN :- 1. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/- MADE B T O ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED PAYMENT TO M/S. RATAN TRADER S. 2. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,29,100/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED LOANS. VINOD AGARWAL, PROP. M/S. VINOD JEWELLERS, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 354/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 2 3. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,20,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT IN GOLD. 4. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,18,799/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF STOCK OF GOLD AND SILVER ORNAMENTS DETECTED DURING SURVEY U/S 133A. 5. DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4,08,918/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENS ES. 2. SO FAR AS GROUND NO. 1 IS CONCERNED, WE NOTED AFTER HEARING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THAT A SUM OF RS. 2 LAKHS CASH WAS NOT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE SAID CASH WAS FOUND IN THE POSSES SION OF SHRI AVNEET JAIN OF BAREILLY AND WHEN HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED, HE CONFIRMED THAT HE BROUGHT THE CASH AMOUNT OF RS. 2 LAKHS AND THE MONEY WAS BROUGHT FROM M/S. VISHWAKARMA HARDWAR E, BAREILLY, FOR PAYMENT TO M/S. RATAN TRADERS, BHOPAL . THIS IS THE SETTLED LAW THAT APPARENT IS REAL, ONUS IS ON THE P ERSON, WHO ALLEGES APPARENT IS NOT REAL. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GI VEN CLEAR CUT FINDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO ES TABLISH ANY LINK BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND M/S. M/S.VISHWAKARMA HARD WARES, BAREILLY FOR PAYMENT TO M/S. RATAN TRADERS, BHOPAL, WHOSE VINOD AGARWAL, PROP. M/S. VINOD JEWELLERS, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 354/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 3 COMPLETE ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS WAS AVAILABL E ON RECORD. THE LD. SENIOR DR EVEN THOUGH VEHEMENTLY RE LIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT COULD NOT ADDUCE ANY COGENT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE BEFORE US, WHICH MAY PROVE THA T THE FACT STATED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE AVNEET JAIN ARE INCO RRECT. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ILLEGALITY OR INFIRMI TY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 LAKHS. THUS, THIS GROUND NO.1 STANDS DISMISSED. 3. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,29,100/-. 4. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS. 13.80 LAKHS ON THE DATE OF THE SURVEY WITH REFERENC E TO UDHARI DIARY ( BS-02 ), BUT WHILE FILING THE RETURN, THE S AID AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN AND THE ASSESSEE HAS INCLUDED ONLY A SUM OF RS. 4,50,900/-. HE DID N OT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TOTAL OF BS-02 WAS ONLY RS. 4,50,900/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN ANY TIME AT THE TIME OF SURVEY TO TOTAL THE DUES AND, THEREFORE, HE ACCEPTE D THE APPROXIMATION. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE T HE CIT(A). VINOD AGARWAL, PROP. M/S. VINOD JEWELLERS, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 354/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 4 THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER VERIFYING THE ENTRY IN BS- 02 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 10. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE D ETAILS OF BS-02 FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALS O BEEN PLACED BEFORE ME. THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THE S AID DETAILS WITH REFERENCE TO BS-02. THE DETAILS SUBMI TTED ARE FOUND TO MATCH WITH THE ENTRIES IN BS-02. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING TH E SAID DETAILS WITHOUT VERIFICATION. NO INSTANCE OF ANY DE FECT IN THE DETAILS HAS BEEN REPORTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS ALSO NOTEWORTHY THAT ON THE DATE OF SURVEY THE PHYSICAL CASH FOUND TALLIED WITH THE CASH BOOK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS, THEREFORE, NO T JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,80,000/- WHEN THE ACTUAL DUES AS PER THE UDHARI DIARY WERE ONLY R S. 4,50,900/-. THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,80,000/- IS, THE REFORE, RESTRICTED TO RS. 4,50,900/-. THE APPELLANT GETS RE LIEF OF RS. 9,29,100/-. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME. WE NOTED THAT THE ENTRIES IN T OTAL BS-02 HAVE DULY BEEN VERIFIED BY THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE LD . CIT(A) HAD GIVEN A CLEAR CUT FINDING THAT THE ACTUAL DUES AS P ER THE UDHARI DIARY WAS ONLY RS. 4,50,900/- AND, THEREFORE, HE RE DUCED THE ADDITION TO RS. 4,50,900/-. IN VIEW OF THIS FINDING OF FACT, WHICH REMAINS UNCONTROVERTED BEFORE US BY THE LD. SENIOR DR, WE DISMISS THE GROUND NO.2 TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. VINOD AGARWAL, PROP. M/S. VINOD JEWELLERS, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 354/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 5 6. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 14.20 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUN T OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN REPLY TO QUESTI ON NO.20 ( REFERRED TO BS-01 AND BS-04), THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS. 14,20,000/- BEING THE VALUE OF 1490 GMS. GOLD ORNAMENTS GIVEN FOR REPAIRING/RECEIVED BACK. THE AS SESSEE RETRACTED THE SAID SURRENDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE SE ORNAMENTS DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THER EFORE, HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 14.20 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDIT ION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 14. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO SEEN THE BS-01 AND BS-04 AND ALSO THE DETAILS OF TH ESE ANNEXURES FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. ANNEXURE BS-01 IS KARIGAR BAHI BELONGING T O THE APPELLANT. AS PER THIS ANNEXURE, GOLD ORNAMENTS WER E GIVEN TO THREE KARIGARS FOR REPAIRING BEFORE THE DA TE OF SURVEY AND WERE ALSO RECEIVED BACK FROM THEM BEFORE THE DATE OF SURVEY. SIMILARLY, ONE KARIGAR WAS GIVE N SILVER AND WAS RECEIVED BACK FROM HIM BEFORE SURVEY . THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO PAID WAGES TO THE KARIGARS O N SUCH REPAIRING ETC. WHICH HAS BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED F OR IN THE CASH-BOOK. MOREOVER, ON THE DATE OF SURVEY, NO STOCK OF GOLD OR SILVER WAS WITH THE KARIGARS. WHATEVER ORNAMENTS WERE GIVEN TO THE KARIGARS WERE RECEIVED BACK FROM HIM BEFORE SURVEY. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO VINOD AGARWAL, PROP. M/S. VINOD JEWELLERS, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 354/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 6 PAID WAGES TO THE KARIGARS ON SUCH REPAIRING ETC. W HICH HAS BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE CASH-BOOK. MOREO VER, ON THE DATE OF SURVEY, NO STOCK OF GOLD OR SILVER W AS WITH THE KARIGARS. WHATEVER ORNAMENTS WERE GIVEN TO THE KARIGARS WERE RECEIVED BACK BEFORE THE DATE OF SURV EY. THE ENTIRE STOCK OF GOLD AND SILVER AT THE SHOP HAD BEEN PHYSICALLY TAKEN AND VALUED SEPARATELY. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO MAKE ANY ADDITION ON T HE BASIS OF BS-01. SIMILARLY, BS-04 IS KARIGAR BAHI BELONGING TO SHRI SAJAL SONI. AS PER THIS KARIGAR B AHI 1650.542 GMS. OF FIND GOLD WAS GIVEN TO KARIGARS FO R MAKING ORNAMENTS AND 1966.420 GMS. ORNAMENTS WERE RECEIVED BACK FROM THE SAID KARIGAR BEFORE SURVEY. THEREFORE, NO FINE GOLD WAS LEFT WITH THE KARGIAR O N THE DATE OF SURVEY. HENCE, ANY ADDITION FOR BS-04 IS AL SO UNCALLED FOR. SIMPLY BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAD AGRE ED TO MAKE DISCLOSURE FOR THESE ANNEXURES CANNOT BE TH E BASIS FOR SUSTAINING THE ADDITION. AN ADMISSION DOE S NOT CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF THE FACTS ADMITTED . EVIDENCE CAN BE GIVEN TO DISPROVE IT. IN FEDERAL BA NK LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA, AIR 1995 KER. 62, IT HAS BEEN HELD IN A TAX MATTER THAT WHERE AN ADMISSION W AS MADE IN A TAX RETURN, THE TAX PAYER WAS ENTITLED TO RESILE FROM IT AND THAT HE COULD DO SO EVEN AT THE APPELLA TE STAGE. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT NO ENTRIES PERTAINING O BS-01 AND BS-04 HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS NOT TRUE. THE WAGES FOR ENTRIES IN THESE ANNEXURES ARE FOUND TO HAVE BE EN ENTERED IN THE CASH-BOOK. THE WEIGHTS CANNOT POSSIB LY BE ENTERED IN THE FINANCIAL BOOKS AND CAN ONLY BE RECORDED IN THE KARIGAR BAHIS. THE ADDITION MADE IS THEREFORE UNJUSTIFIED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS ON RECO RD. THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,20,000/- IS, THEREFORE, DELETED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME. BEFORE US EVEN THOUGH THE LD. SENIOR DR HAS VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT VINOD AGARWAL, PROP. M/S. VINOD JEWELLERS, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 354/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 7 HE DID NOT DENY THAT THE KARIGAR BAHI BS-01 AND BS- 04 WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY. THE COPY OF THESE BAHIS ARE ALSO FILED BEFORE US WHICH ARE AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK. FROM THESE BAHI, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS MAINTAINING THE KARIGAR BAHI AND ASSESSEE WAS GIVIN G THE GOLD ORNAMENTS TO THE KARIGARS FOR REPAIRING AND WAS ALS O RECEIVING BACK THESE GOLD ORNAMENTS. THIS IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PAID THE WAGES TO THE KARIGARS, WHICH HAS DULY BEEN ACCOUNTED IN THE CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE CLEAR CUT FINDING THAT AS PER BS-04, THE KARGIAR BAHI BELONGING TO SHRI SAJAL SONI. 1605.542 FIND GOLD WA S GIVEN TO THE KARIGAR FOR MAKING ORNAMENTS AND 1966.420 GMS. ORNA MENTS WERE RECEIVED BACK FROM THE SAID KARIGAR BEFORE SUR VEY AND, THEREFORE, NO FIND GOLD WAS LEFT WITH THE KARIGAR O N THE DATE OF THE SURVEY. SIMILARLY, ON THE BASIS OF BS-01, KARGIAR B AHIU BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE, OLD STOCK OF GOLD OR SILVER WAS WI TH THE KARIGARS. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THESE FINDINGS OF FACTS, WHIC H REMAINS UNCONTROVERTED BY THE LD. SENIOR DR BEFORE US, WE A RE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE WHICH WARRANTS OU R INTERFERENCE. WE, ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS GROUND. THUS, THIS GROUND STANDS DISMISSED. VINOD AGARWAL, PROP. M/S. VINOD JEWELLERS, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 354/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 8 9. GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,18,799/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCO UNT OF DIFFERENCE OF STOCK OF GOLD AND SILVER ORNAMENTS DE DUCTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. 10. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.21 OF THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE MADE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, THE ASSESS EE SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS. 20 LAKHS BEING THE DIFFERE NCE IN STOCK OF GOLD AND SILVER. BUT IN THE RETURN, THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS. 18,81,201/-. WHILE QUESTIO NED, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS DUE TO THE MISTAKE C OMMITTED BY THE ACCOUNTANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDI TION OF THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,18,799/-. THE ASSESSEE W ENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PREPARED THE CORRECT TRADING ACCOUNT ON THE DATE OF SURVEY AND SUBMITTED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS NOT A CASE OF SHORTAGE OF THE GOLD OR SILVER. THE QUANTITY WAS DU LY RECONCILED. THE VALUE WAS JUST ESTIMATED IN LUMP SUM AT RS. 20 LAKHS WHILE THE ACTUAL VALUE CAME TO RS. 18,81,201/-. THE LD. C IT(A), THEREFORE, DELETED THE ADDITION. VINOD AGARWAL, PROP. M/S. VINOD JEWELLERS, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 354/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 9 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE NOTED THAT ON THE DATE OF SUR VEY, THE SURVEY TEAM PHYSICALLY NOTED THE FOLLOWING INVENTOR Y : GOLD ORNAMENTS 12731.030 GMS SILVER ORNAMENTS 373.450 KGS. THE INVENTORY AS PER THE BOOKS FOUND BY THE DEPARTM ENT WAS AS UNDER :- GOLD ORNAMENTS 1 0800.160 GMS SILVER ORNAMENTS 3 90 . 390 KGS. THUS, THE REVENUE HAS WORKED OUT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE STOCK ON THE DATE OF THE SURVEY. GOLD ORNAMENTS 1930.870 GMS SILVER ORNAMENTS 16.940 KGS. BOTH THE EXCESS AND SHORTAGE WERE TREATED AS UNDISC LOSED INCOME AND THE VALUE WAS ESTIMATED AT RS. 20 LAKHS. SUBSEQ UENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREPARED STOCK AS PER THE BOOKS ON THE DATE OF THE SURVEY AS UNDER :- GOLD ORNAMENTS 10807.511 GMS SILVER ORNAMENTS 441.717 KGS. VINOD AGARWAL, PROP. M/S. VINOD JEWELLERS, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 354/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 10 AND ON THE BASIS OF THESE BOOKS, WHICH THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE ASSESSEE WORKED O UT THE DIFFERENCE ON THE DATE OF THE SURVEY, GOLD ORNAMENT S AT 1923.519 GMS. (EXCESS ) AND SILVER ORNAMENTS -68.267 KGS. (S HORTAGE). ON THIS BASIS, THE ASSESSEE WORKED OUT THE CORRECT VALUE OF 1923.519 GMS. OF GOLD ORNAMENTS AT RS. 18,81,201/- AND THE SAME RATE HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE REVENUE. THE CORR ECT DIFFERENCE IN SILVER ORNAMENTS WAS OF RS. 68.267 KG S., THE VALUE OF WHICH WAS WORKED OUT AT RS. 6,67,651/-, WHICH WAS E XPLAINED TO BE A TRANSFER TO M/S. ABUSHAN JEWELLERS, 10 NO. MAR KET, BHOPAL. ACCOUNTING ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY DEBITING M/S.ABHUSHAN JEWELLERS AND CREDITING THE SILVER ORN AMENTS. THIS FACT HAS ALREADY BEEN VERIFIED BY THE LD.CIT(A). BE FORE US, EVEN THOUGH THE LD. SENIOR DR HAS VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED A ND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT COULD NO T ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR ANY COGENT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE WHICH M AY PROVE THAT THE FACTS AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT CORREC T. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS G ROUND. THUS, THIS GROUND STANDS DISMISSED. VINOD AGARWAL, PROP. M/S. VINOD JEWELLERS, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 354/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 11 12. LAST GROUND RELATES TO DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4,08,918/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES. 13. THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE INTERE ST @ 15% TO THE PERSONS COVERED UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(B), WHICH HE F ELT WAS IN EXCESS AND, THEREFORE, HE APPLIED THE INTEREST RATE @ 9% AND DISALLOWED THE SAME. 14. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING AS UND ER :- 22. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE NOT USED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF HIS BUSINESS. I DO FIND FORCE IN TH E SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAME RATE OF INTEREST OF 15% WAS PAID BY THE APPELLANT IN THE LA ST YEAR AND NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE, THUS, THERE IS NO REASON TO HOLD THAT THE INTEREST RATE OF 15 % IS TOO HIGH DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. I AM CONVINCED WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT GOING BY THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM RELATIVE U/S 2( 41), ALL THE PERSONS ARE NOT SPECIFIED PERSONS U/S 40A(2)(B). I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PAID SAME RATE OF INTEREST TO SPECIFIED AND NON SPECIFIED PERSONS WHICH IS ALSO INDICATIVE OF THE MARKET RATE. I AM O F THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE RATE OF INTEREST ON SEC URED LOANS FROM THE BANKS CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH THE RATE OF INTEREST ON UNSECURED LOANS. THE CASE OF TH E APPELLANT CERTAINLY FINDS STRENGTH FROM THE DECISIO N IN ITO VS. CHAMBAMAL ROOPCHAND, (2001) 70 TTJ (ASR) VINOD AGARWAL, PROP. M/S. VINOD JEWELLERS, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 354/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 12 43 AND SETH FAQUIRCHAND KARWA & SONS VS. CIT, (1996) 135 TAXMAN 126 (CHD.TRIB). 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONGWITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE NOTED THAT IN THE PAST, THE INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID TO THESE PERSONS EVEN IN THE EARLIER YEARS ALSO @ 15% AND NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T HOSE YEARS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY PLAUSIBLE R EASONS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TAKING 9% TO BE TH E REASONABLE RATE OF INTEREST DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEA R, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE INTEREST ON THESE GROUNDS HAVE BEEN ALLOWE D IN THE EARLIER YEARS @ 15%. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND DISMISS THIS GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 17. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN PURSUANCE WITH RULE 34(4) BY PUTTING ITS PRONOUNCEMENT ON THE NOTICE BOARD. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (P. K. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER INDORE; DATED : 13/10/2014 VINOD AGARWAL, PROP. M/S. VINOD JEWELLERS, BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 354/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 13 CPU*SPS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '# ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $%$&' # # ( / CONCERNED CIT 4. # # ( ( ) / THE CIT(A), INDORE 5. +,# &' , # # &' , -.% / DR, ITAT, INDORE 6. ,/0 1 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, -# -# -# -# $2 $2 $2 $2 (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, INDO RE 1. DATE OF DICTATION- 17.09.2014 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .09.2014 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S. .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER