Income Tax Officer, Sonepat V. Sh. Alok Singla, Sonepat

ITA 3544/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4237 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY PURI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `A: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI C.L.SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER. I.T. A. NO.3544/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SHRI ALOK SINGLA, WARD-3, SONEPAT. VS. 1132, SEC.14, SONEPAT. PAN: AZHPS3355B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJAY PURI, CIT-DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GAUTAM JAIN, CA. O R D E R PER C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21 .05.2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.51,35,739/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF CONTR A ENTRIES, BY ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE, IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES, DURI NG THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), THE A DDITION OF RS.51,35,739/- 2 HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. FOR WANT OF DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCE IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN CONTRA ENTRIES MADE BY M/S. LUMINOUS POWER TECH PVT. LTD. IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEA L BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED AP PLICATION UNDER RULE 46-A OF INCOME-TAX RULES, REQUESTING FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN THE NATURE OF A CERTIFICATE DATED 26.04.2010 GIV EN BY M/S. LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. EXPLAINING THE CONTRA ENTRIES PASSED IN THEIR BOOKS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES APPLICATIO N, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND SENT THEM TO THE AO VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 27.04.2010 FOR HIS COMMENT AND REPORT. HAVING RECEIVED THE REQUISITION FROM THE CIT(A) TO GIVE REPORT ON ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCES, THE AO SUBMITTED HIS REPORT, WHICH HAS BEEN QUOTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AT PAGES 5 & 6 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER:- QUOTE THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE CERTIFICATION FROM TH E M/S. LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN EXAMINED AND IT IS FOUND THAT THE ENTRIES AMOUNTING TO RS.408157/- AND RS.3509/- HAVE EFFECT ON THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN HIS PRES ENTLY CLAIM ASSESSEE SPECIFIES THAT THE ENTRIES RELATE TO THE COMMISSION AND OTHERS WHICH WERE BEING CREDITED TO OUR ACCOUNT AND 3 SIMULTANEOUSLY REVERSED BECAUSE COMPANY HAD ISSUED CHEQUES FOR THE SAME. THESE CHEQUES HAVE ALREADY BEEN ACCO UNTED FOR IN OUR ACCOUNTS IN VARIOUS HEADS. THIS VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BEEN EXAMINED AND IT IS FOUND THAT THE M/S . LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. SAID IN ITS CERTIFICAT ION DATED 26.04.2010 THAT RS.408157/- BELONGS TO THE COMMISSI ON WHILE THE ASSESSEE IN ITS SUBMISSIONS AND ITS ANNEXURE DA TED 6/5/2010 STATES THAT THE ENTRIES AMOUNTING TO RS.408157/- RE LATES TO INTEREST ON SECURITY AT RS.55487/- (9/5/2006); COMM ISSION RECEIVED RS.43917/-; REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES RS.4 6527/-; SALARY RS.3500/-; REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES RS.8251 8/-; COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE RS.82518/- (29/06/06); AND RS.93690/- (01.08.2006). THE VERSION OF THE ASSESS EE HAS BEEN EXAMINED AND IT IS SENT HAT THE ENTRIES OF COMMISSI ON AMOUNTING TO RS.82518/- (INCLUDING TDS) AND THAT THE ENTRIES OF COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS.82518/- (INCLUDING TDS) AND RS.93690/- (INCLUDING TDS) HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE GE NUINE. HOWEVER, THE BALANCE OF RS.2,31,949/- NEEDS TO BE S USTAINED AS M/S LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. HAS CERTI FIED IT TO BE AS COMMISSION ENTRIES WHILE NOT SO AS PER THE BO OKS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE A DDITION BY OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER:- THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT APPRECIATED ITS VERSION ON RS.2,31,949/-. AS PER T HE APPELLANT THE PAYER I.E. M/S. LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT . LTD. HAVE DEBITED THESE AMOUNTS IN THE APPELLANTS ACCOUNT UN DER THE HEAD COMMISSION WHEREAS THE APPELLANT HAS CREDITE D THESE AMOUNTS UNDER VARIOUS OTHER HEADS SUCH AS INTEREST ON SECURITIES ACCOUNT, COMMISSION RECEIVABLE ACCOUNTS, REIMBURSEMENT ACCOUNT AND SALARY ACCOUNT. THE AMOU NTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO BE DULY TAKEN FOR WORKING OUT THE PROFITABILITY; IT IS A DIFFERENT MATTER THAT THE SA ME HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN UNDER ONE HEAD I.E. COMMISSION. 4 THE ISSUE INVOLVED AND THE VERSION OF THE APPELLAN T HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. THE ENTRIES OF THE AMOUNT UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE BEEN DULY MADE IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS, ALTHOUGH IN DIFFERENT HEADS BY THE APPELLANT. HAD ALL THESE ENTRIES BEEN MADE UNDER ONE HEAD I.E. COMMISSION, C ONFUSION WOULD NOT HAVE ARISEN BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THE APPE LLANT WOULD HAVE CLAIMED EXPENSES ALSO AGAINST THE SAME. NOW S INCE THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN DULY TAKEN FOR WORKING OUT THE PR OFITABILITY, ALTHOUGH UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS, THERE IS NO CHANCE OF LEAKAGE OF REVENUE. THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED. IT IS REITERATED THAT THE APPELLANT IS CONSIGNEE AGENT OF M/S. LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. 7. HENCE, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. THE LEARNED DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF RS.51,3 5,739/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE BY WAY OF CONTRA ENTRIES PASSED, THE LEA RNED CIT(A) HAS ONLY CONSIDERED THE ENTRIES AMOUNTING TO RS.4,08,157/- A ND RS.3,509/- WITHOUT EXAMINING AND VERIFYING THE NATURE OF THE REST OF T HE ENTRIES. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT APPLIED H IS MIND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE DELETING THE ADDITION. 9. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE LETTER DATED 27-04-2010 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ISSUE D TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKING HIM TO EXAMINE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CES AND TO SEND HIS REPORT BY 29-04-2010, A LETTER FROM THE AO ASKING T HE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE HIM REGARDING THE CONTR A ENTRIES AMOUNTING TO RS.51,35,739/-, THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION DATED 05 -05-2010 BEFORE THE AO, DETAILS OF ENTRIES IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS AMOUNTIN G TO RS.4,08,157/-, A 5 CERTIFICATE FROM M/S. LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES P VT. LTD. DATED 26-04- 2010 AND DETAILS OF CONTRA ENTRIES DEBITED AND CRED ITED PASSED BY M/S. LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. ETC., WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 248 TO 258 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE REMAND REPORT GIVEN BY THE AO AND THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.51,35,739/- ON A CCOUNT OF CONTRA ENTRIES PASSED IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLO GIES PVT. LTD. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND PERUSED THE VARIOUS EVIDE NCES FILED BEFORE US. IN THE LETTER DATED 27-04-2010 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) W RITTEN TO THE AO, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUB MITTED A CERTIFICATE DATED 26-04-2010 FROM M/S. LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PV T. LTD., AS PER WHICH, MOST OF THE ENTRIES ARE PERTAINING TO BILL C ANCELLATION, CREDIT NOTES/DEBIT NOTES, REVERSALS AND CHEQUE DISHONOURED ETC. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ASKED THE AO TO EXAMINE THE SAME TO GIVE HIS REPORT. THE AO THEN ISSUED A NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE HI M WITH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH WERE EXAMINED BY THE AO. THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED AN EXPLANATION DATED 05-05-2010 BEFORE THE AO WHERE TH E ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT OUT OF CONTRA ENTRIES OF RS.51,35,739/-, AN AM OUNT OF RS.4,08,157/- IS 6 RELATED TO COMMISSION AND RS.3,509/- IS ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS PAYMENT REIMBURSED. IN THIS LETTER, NO EXPLANATION HAS BEE N GIVEN WITH REGARD TO REST OF THE ENTRIES EXCEPT RS.4,08,157/- AND RS.3,509/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS GIVEN COMMENT ONLY WITH REGAR D TO THE ENTRIES AMOUNTING TO RS.4,08,157/- AND RS.3,509/-. WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO EXAMINED THE ENTRIES AMOUNT ING TO RS.4,08,157/- AND RS.3,509/-. NO COMMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN WITH REG ARD TO THE REST OF THE ENTRIES, WHICH ARE DETAILS OF CONTRA ENTRIES DEBIT AND CREDIT. IN THESE DETAILS, PARTICULARS OF DEBIT AND CONTRA ENTRIES ARE GIVEN O N ACCOUNT OF CREDIT GIVEN FOR VAT PAYMENT, EXCESS PAID NOT ALLOWED, INVOICE R EVERSED BEING CANCELLED, DEBIT NOTE AND INVOICE CANCELLED, CHEQUE REVERSED ETC. THOUGH THE DETAILS OF CONTRA ENTRIES, DEBIT ENTRIES WERE F URNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY M/S. LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., THESE DETAILS WERE NOT EXAMINED AND VERIFIED EITHER BY THE AO OR BY THE CIT(A). WHETHER THE PARTICULARS GIVEN IN DETAIL IN REGARD TO CONTRA ENTRIES BY M/S. LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. ARE C ORRECT, HAS NOT BEEN COMMENTED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) BEFORE DELETIN G THE ADDITION. WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR HIS EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION AS TO WHETHER THE DETAILS OF CONTR A ENTRIES DEBIT AND CREDIT GIVEN BY M/S. LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. ARE VERIFIABLE AND IF 7 IT IS SO FOUND, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. THE ASS ESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO RAISE ANY SUCH OTHER CONTENTION AS HE WISHES TO SUP PORT HIS CASE, WHICH SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY THE AO AS PER LAW, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE AO SHALL PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 11. GROUND NO.2 IS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.7,38,66,865/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF REV ERSED ENTRIES, BY ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE, IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNI TIES, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 12. IN THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.7,38,66,865/- ON ACCOUNT OF REVERSED ENTRIES IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCES. 13. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPE AL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 14. THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS WERE FORWARDED BY TH E LEARNED CIT(A) TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMENT. THE AO HAD GIVEN THE FOLLO WING COMMENT VIDE HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 9/13-04-2010:- THE MAJOR ADDITIONS OF RS.7,38,66,865/- ON ACCOUN T OF CONTRA ENTRIES REVERSED FOR WANT OF DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCE WERE MADE. NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AN EXPLANATI ON IN THIS REGARD ALONG WITH CONSIGNMENT GOODS NOTES TITLED AS RETAIL INVOICE/CASH MEMO/BILL. THESE ENTRIES IN NOTES HAV E BEEN TEST CHECKED AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE IS DRAWN. THE PRO DUCTION OF THESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ALONG WITH LINES OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CONSIGNEE I.E., THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIGNOR I.E. M/S. LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. EXPLAINS THE ENTRIES 8 TOTALLING OF RS.7,38,66,865/-. THE LD. CIT(A) ROHT AK MAY THUS LIKE TO DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 15. IN THE LIGHT OF THE COMMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.7,38,66,8 65/-. 16. HENCE, THE DEPARTMENT IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFO RE US. 17. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITIO N OF RS.7,38,66,865/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRA ENTRIES PASSED IN THE BOOKS FOR W ANT OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE ENTRIES REVERSED. BEFO RE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.7,38,6 6,865/- HAD ARISEN ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRA ENTRIES MADE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF P ARTIES ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF GOODS ON CONSIGNMENT BASIS. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE AO HAS ADDED DIFFERENCE OF ONLY ONE SIDE AND HAS TOTALLY L EFT THE OTHER SIDE OF ACCOUNT. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RECONCILIATION STATEMENT THROUGH LETTER D ATED 05-10-2009 BEFORE THE AO WHICH WERE ANNEXED AT PAGES 4 TO 63 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THIS SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WA S FORWARDED BY THE CIT(A) TO THE AO. IN THE REMAND REPORT BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED PHOTO COPIES OF CONSIGNMENT GOODS NOTES AND DETAILS OF PAGE- WISE ENTRIES OF CONSIGNMENT GOODS ENTRIES IN THE ST ATEMENT ON CREDIT SIDE AS WELL AS ON DEBIT SIDE. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THESE ENTRIES WERE REVERSED AT THE 9 END OF THE EACH QUARTER AS THESE GOODS BELONGED TO THE COMPANY AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY CONSIGNEE AGENT. THE DETAILS OF ACCOUNT OF CONSIGNMENT GOODS WERE ALSO SUBMITTED RECONCILING OF THESE ENTR IES AND FINALLY REVERSED. THE AO SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT ACCEPTING THE AS SESSEES VERSION AFTER CHECKING AND VERIFYING THE ENTRIES OF CONSIGNMENT G OODS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS ALSO NOTED THE FAC T THAT THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE HIM WAS IN THE LINE OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES P VT. LTD. EXPLAINING THE CONTRA ENTRIES TOTALLING OF RS.7,38,66,865/-. IN THE LIGHT OF THE REMAND REPORT GIVEN BY THE AO, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELE TED THE ADDITION. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, THE LEARNED DR HA S NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE DETAILS OF ACCOUNTS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. S INCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF FOUND THE ENTRIES TO BE CORRECT AND IN LINE OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. LUMINOUS PO WER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE C IT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. HENCE, GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REV ENUE IS REJECTED. 18. GROUND NO.3 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE CIT(A)S OR DER IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,88,954/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY AND OTHER EXPENSES. 10 19. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 20. THE AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS.1,88,954/- HAS BEE N DELETED BY THE CIT(A) AFTER DISCUSSING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND G IVING THE REASONS AS UNDER:- 10. IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.7 THE APPELLANT HAS CHA LLENGED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,88,954/- IN PARA 5 OF THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER. DURING DISCUSSION WITH THE ARS OF THE APPE LLANT IT EMERGED THAT M/S. LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. HAD CREDITED RS.1,88,954/- TO THE APPELLANT AND AT THE TIME OF CREDIT TDS OF RS.2,119/- WAS DEDUCTED (PAGE 64 & 65 OF THE PAPER BOOK). THE APPELLANT TRANSFERRED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,88,954/- TO FURTHER 9 PARTIES (PAGE 64 OF THE PAPER BOOK) THR OUGH WHOM IT HAS GOT THE WORK OF ADVERTISEMENT ETC. DONE ON BEHA LF OF M/S. LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. AS PER THE A O, BEFORE MAKING PAYMENT/CREDITING THE AMOUNT FURTHER TO 9 PA RTIES THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE DEDUCTED TDS. THE VERSION OF THE AR OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN CLAIM ED AND IT WAS REIMBURSED BY M/S. LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. FOR THE WORK DONE BY 9 PARTIES FOR M/S. LUMINO US POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. THE ISSUE INVOLVED AND THE VERSION OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED CAREFULLY. SINCE THERE IS NO EXPENDITURE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACC OUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TDS IS NOT IN ORDER. THE SAME IS DELETED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 7 IS ALLOWED. 21. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, THE LE ARNED DR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY EVIDENCE REBUTTING THE REASON S GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION. 22. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AN D FOUND THE SAME TO BE IN ORDER INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED TH E AMOUNT OF RS.1,88,,954/- 11 TO 9 PARTIES THROUGH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD GOT THE WORK OF ADVERTISEMENT ETC. DONE ON BEHALF OF M/S. LUMINOUS POWER TECHNOLO GIES PVT. LTD. AND THE SAME WAS NOT CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THUS, GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE I S REJECTED. 23. GROUND NO.4 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE CIT(A)S OR DER WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.70,020/-. 24. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, THE LE ARNED DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND HAS TAKEN MISTAKENLY INASMUCH AS T HE ADDITION OF RS.70,020/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS H AS NOT BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A) BUT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN UPHELD BY HIM. IN THE LIGHT OF THE CLARIFICATION BY THE LEARNED DR, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 25. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 26. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 21 ST APRIL, 2011. SD/- SD/- (G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA) (C.L. SETHI) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21 ST APRIL, 2011. 12 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.