KRITIKA TOWNSHIP (P) LTD, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 363/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7205 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Opportunity of cross examination; Additional evidence; Wrong claim
• Section: 133(6); 64; 131; 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH A, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,O A JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 363/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14. KRITIKA TOWNSHIP (P) LTD., 69/11, NEAR DHANVANTARI HOSPITAL, MANSAROVAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AAECK 1418 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJ MEHRA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 16.10.2019. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.10.2019. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 16.03.2017 OF LD. CIT (A)-1, JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 71,20,843/- MADE BY LD. AO BEING PURCHASES OF BUILD ING MATERIAL UTILIZED IN DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ALLEGIN G THE SAME AS NON GENUINE WITHOUT ACCEPTING SUBMISSION MADE AND E VIDENCES ADDUCED. APPELLANT PRAYS DISALLOWANCE SO MADE DESER VES TO BE DELETED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 10,00,000/- MADE BY LD. AO BEING 50% OF DEVELOPMENT 2 ITA NO. 363/JP/2017 M/S. KRITIKA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY ASSESSEE TOWARDS CONTRACT W ORK GIVEN TO KUNDHALIYA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY & SILVERTECH ENG INEER. APPELLANT PRAYS DISALLOWANCE SO MADE DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 55, 560/- MADE BY LD. AO U/S 69A, BEING DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT ADVANCED BY ASSESSEE TO ARIHANT SHIVENK INFRA PROJECTS LTD. AND THAT CONFIRMED BY THE PARTY AS UNEXPLAINED. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO AMEND/ALT ER ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF THIS APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE MATTER. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF DEVELOPME NT EXPENDITURE TOWARDS ROAD CONSTRUCTION ETC. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE AS SESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN REAL ESTATE PROJECT IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF KHUSHI SANSAR, A TOWNSHIP AT TONK ROAD, GRAM VATIKA, JAIPUR. AFTER PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONVERS ION OF THE SAME FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE, THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE LAND MEASURING 23,02 2.71 SQ. YARDS DURING THE YEAR OUT OF THE TOTAL LAND DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE OF 29,194.63 SQ. YARDS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS DEBITED DIRECT EXPENSES OF RS. 99,18,091/- UNDER THE HEAD COST OF MATERIAL CONSUMED. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF THE DIR ECT EXPENDITURE BOOKED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. SINCE THE DEVELOPMENT EXPEN DITURE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 71,20,843 WAS SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2013 AND WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THE AO ISSUE D SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 133(6) TO 9 PARTIES AND ALSO RECORDED THE STATEMENT S UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE IT ACT. THE AO OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THESE PARTIES HAVE DENIED TO 3 ITA NO. 363/JP/2017 M/S. KRITIKA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. HAVE SUPPLIED ANY MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSEE AND THER E WAS NO RESPONSE AND APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEVELOPMENT EXPENDIT URE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 71,20,843/- WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDE R SECTION 144 OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND FILED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS INCLUDING LAY OUT MAP OF SCHEME BEING DEV ELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE, PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE OF PROJECT/SCHEME, COPY OF WORK COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHARTERED ENGINEER, COPY OF 90B ORDER WITH WCC, COPY OF 90A ORDER WITH WCC AND NOC OF ELECTRIC WORK BY JVVNL ETC. TH E LD. CIT (A) ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CALL ED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. HOWEVER, AFTER REMAND REPORT, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THIS ACCOUN T. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED INVOICES/BILLS IN RESPECT OF THE MATERIAL PURCHASED FROM THESE PARTIES WHICH CONTAIN COMPLETE PARTICULARS OF THE SUPPLIERS . ALL THESE PARTIES HAVE ACCEPTED THE FACT OF CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLY OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL. THE ASSESSEE DEMANDED THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF THESE PA RTIES WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED BY THE AO IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSEE. HOWE VER, THE AO HAS REFUSED TO ALLOW THE CROSS EXAMINATION DURING THE REMAND PROCE EDINGS. THUS THE STATEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE AO WITHOUT AFFORDING THE OPPORTU NITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION TO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTEN TION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ANDAMA N TIMBER INDUSTRIES VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, 15 SCC 785 (SC). TH E LD. A/R HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS ACTUALLY DONE THE 4 ITA NO. 363/JP/2017 M/S. KRITIKA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. DEVELOPMENT WORK, HOWEVER, HE HAS TREATED THE PURCH ASES AS BOGUS BY WHOLLY RELYING UPON THE STATEMENTS OF THE SUPPLIERS RECORD ED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALL OWANCE BY IGNORING ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WHIC H INCLUDES WORK COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHARTERED ENGINEER AS WEL L AS OTHER EVIDENCES INCLUDING NOC OF ELECTRIC WORK DONE BY JVVNL. FURTHER, THE A SSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT AGAINST THESE PURCHASES TO ALL THE PARTIES IN THE S UBSEQUENT YEAR AND THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE T HROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SHRI UMESH GUPTA. THUS THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS PRODUCED ALL THE BILLS/INVOICES IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE PARTIES. THE GENUINENESS OF THESE BILLS/INVOICES HAS NOT BEE N EXAMINED BY THE AO, EVEN THE AO HAS NOT CONFRONTED THE SIGNATURES ON THESE BILLS /INVOICES TO THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. THEREFORE, EVEN IF THESE PARTIES HAVE DEN IED THE SUPPLY OF MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSEE, IT MAY BE TO PROTECT THEIR OWN VESTED INT EREST. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE VARIOUS DECISION S. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS RELIED UPON T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS CONDUCTED AN EN QUIRY TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE. ALL THESE 9 PARTIES HAVE EITHER NOT RESPONDED TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) OR DENIED TO HAVE SUPPLIED ANY MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRO DUCED ANY MATERIAL OR EXPLANATION BEFORE THE AO AND CONSEQUENTLY THE AO H AS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALSO PROVIDED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BY CALLING FOR A REMAND REPORT AND AFTER T HE REMAND REPORT, THE ADDITION 5 ITA NO. 363/JP/2017 M/S. KRITIKA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. WAS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT (A) BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE AO HAS DOUBTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE AND TAKEN FOR VERIFICATION ON THE FACT THAT THE DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE TO THE EX TENT OF RS. 71,20,843/- WAS DUE BUT PAID IN NEXT YEAR. THUS THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THI S FACT THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. EVEN O THERWISE, BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED, THE PAYMENT WAS ALREAD Y MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO CONDUCTED THE ENQUIRY FROM THESE PARTIES BY CALL ING THE INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. SOME OF THE PARTIES HAV E NOT RESPONDED TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6), HOWEVER, THE OTHERS DE NIED TO HAVE SUPPLIED ANY MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM BY PASSING AN EX PARTE ORDER. THE DETAILS OF THE PARTIES IN R ESPECT OF WHICH THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE ARE AS UNDER :- S.NO. PARTY NAME INVOICE NO. DATE AMOUNT NAME OF MATERIALS 1 TOFIQ ALI BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLIERS 58 12.03.2013 7,95,000 CEMENT 2 TOFIQ ALI BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLIERS 59 13.03.2013 12,38,800 GREET, BRICKS & STONE 3 SHRI VISHAWKARMA FABRICATION 112 15.03.2013 5,95,200 GATE, STEEL, SARIYA 4 KIRAN ENTERPRISES 102 10.03.2013 4,33,843 BAZARI 5 KIRAN ENTERPRISES 106 12.03.2013 2,15,000 BAZARI 6 KIRAN ENTERPRISES 107 15.03.2013 6,52,800 IRON 7 TIZA TRADING COMPANY 64 02.03.2013 3,74,000 CEMENT/BAZARI 8 TIZA TRADING COMPANY 66 08.03.2013 3,21,000 CEMENT/BAZARI 9 TIZA TRADING COMPANY 67 16.03.2013 24,95,200 GREET, BRICKS & STONE 10 TOTAL AMOUNT 71,20,843 6 ITA NO. 363/JP/2017 M/S. KRITIKA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. THE ASSESSEEE ALSO EXPLAINED THE FACT THAT THE PAYM ENT WAS MADE THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SHRI UMESH GUPTA BUT HAS REJECTED THE CLAI M ON THE GROUND THAT THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE DIRECTOR IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND ALLOWABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE LA Y OUT PLAN OF THE PROJECT, PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE SHOWING THE WORK OF DEVELOP MENT, WORK COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHARTERED ENGINEER REGARD ING THE WORK COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPMENT WORK TOWARDS RO AD. THE DETAILS OF THE WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE REPORT OF THE CHARTERED ENGINEER WHICH INCLUDES ROAD WORK, SEWERAGE LINE WORK, WATER SUPPLY WORK, ELECTRICITY WORK ETC. THE ASSES SEE ALSO FILED THE NOC OF THE ELECTRIC WORK BY JVVNL. ONCE THESE DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCES HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE ACTUAL WORK CARRIED OUT AT S ITE AND THE AO HAS NEITHER DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THESE DOCUMENTS NOR DENI ED THE ACTUAL WORK DONE AT THE SITE, THEN MERELY BECAUSE SOME OF THE SUPPLIERS HAVE DENIED THE SUPPLY OF MATERIALS TO THE ASSESSEE, THE EXPENDITURES INCURRE D ON THE ACTUAL WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED IN TOTO. IT MAY BE A CASE OF INFLATING THE EXPENDITURE IF IT IS DETECTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED SOME BOGUS EXPENDITURE OR INFLATED THE COST OF PURCHASE OF MATERIAL, HOWEV ER, THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE DEVELOPMENT WORK CARRIED OUT AT THE SITE CANNOT BE DENIED. THE ASSESSEE FILED ALL THE INVOICES ISSUED BY THE SUPPL IERS WHICH CONTAIN THE PARTICULARS OF MATERIAL AND COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE SUPPLIES INCLU DING THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE DULY SIGNED BY THE SUPPLIERS. THE AO HAS NOT CONFR ONTED THE SUPPLIERS WITH THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS AS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFOR E, WHEN THE BILLS/VOUCHERS 7 ITA NO. 363/JP/2017 M/S. KRITIKA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT FOUND TO BE BOGUS OR PROVED TO BE FALSE BEING NOT ISSUED BY THE SUPPLIERS, THEN THE MERE DENIAL OF TH E SUPPLIERS DUE TO THEIR OWN VESTED INTEREST TO COVER UP THE MISDEED OF NOT DISC LOSING THE TRANSACTIONS IN THEIR OWN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR DISALLO WANCE OF EXPENDITURE. EVEN OTHERWISE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DEMANDED THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PARTIES WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED BY THE AO IN THE ABS ENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN NOT AFFORDING THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE DURING T HE REMAND PROCEEDINGS IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CONS EQUENTLY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BASED ON SUCH STATEMENTS RECORDED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION DESPITE THE DEMAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHERE THE ACTUAL WORK OF DEVELOPMENT CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE SITE IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE A.O., THEN THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM IN TOTO IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HENCE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ALL THE DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCES TO ESTABLISH THE CARRYING OUT THE DEVELOPMENT WORK AND THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE IS NOT FOUND TO BE EXCESSIVE IN CONSONANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT WOR K ACTUALLY DONE AT SITE, THEN THE DISALLOWANCE IS UNCALLED FOR AND THE SAME IS DE LETED. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF 50% DEVEL OPMENT EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRACT WORK GIVEN TO M/S. KUNDHALIYA CONSTRUCTION CO. AND M/S. SILVERTECH ENGINEER. 6. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF ELEC TRICITY WORK OF RS. 20 LACS COMPRISES OF RS. 10 LACS EACH FROM M/S. KUNDHALIYA CONSTRUCTION CO. AND M/S. SILVERTECH ENGINEER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PR ODUCE THE REQUISITE EVIDENCE AND DETAILS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEREFOR E, THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF 8 ITA NO. 363/JP/2017 M/S. KRITIKA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. 50% OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CI T (A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT AND AFTER THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO WHEREIN THE A O HAS REITERATED ITS STAND OF DISALLOWANCE, HAS CONFIRMED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE O F RS. 10 LACS BEING 50% OF THE CLAIM OF RS. 20 LACS. 7. BEFORE US, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT WORK AT RE SIDENTIAL PROJECT KHUSHI SANSAR. THE MATERIAL WAS PURCHASED FROM THE ASSES SEE FROM M/S. SILVERTECH ENGINEER TO BE UTILIZED IN TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ITY SUCH AS CONDUCTORS, CABLES, PCC POLES, TRANSMISSION LINES, INSULATORS AND OTHER STR UCTURES ETC. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE INVOICES/BILLS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN PURCHASING MATERIALS AS WELL AS ERECTION AND LAYING DOWN OF THE TRANSMISSION LINES INCLUDING SOME STRUC TURES BY THESE PARTIES. THE LD. A/R HAS REFERRED TO THE QUOTATIONS/ESTIMATIONS BEIN G SUBMITTED BY THESE PARTIES WHICH SHOW THAT THE MATERIAL AS WELL AS SERVICES FO R ELECTRIFICATION OF SCHEME WAS ACTUALLY PROCURED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID PAR TY M/S. SILVERTECH ENGINEER, THE PAYMENT OF THE SAME IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE EXPENDI TURE IS GENUINE AND VERIFIABLE, THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE DOUBTED. FURTHER, DU RING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF ASSISTANT ENGINEER (O&M), JVVNL WAS ALSO SUBMITTED WHEREIN TH E WORK OF ELECTRICITY WORK HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE JVVNL AFTER INSPECTION AND CO NSEQUENTLY THE CONNECTION WAS TO BE RELEASED TO THE INDIVIDUAL CONSUMERS. THUS THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT ELECTRICAL WORK WAS CARRIED OUT AT SITE AND THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT, THEN THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF 50% OF EXPENSES IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 9 ITA NO. 363/JP/2017 M/S. KRITIKA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS AS WELL AS UNDATED QUOTATIONS WI THOUT GIVING ANY BREAK UP OF VARIOUS ITEMS, THEREFORE, THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT V ERIFIABLE REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM. THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT F OR GETTING THIS WORK DONE FROM THESE TWO CONCERNS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS JUSTIFIE D IN RESTRICTING THE CLAIM TO 50%. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE QUOTATIONS FROM M/S. SILVERTECH ENGINEER AS WELL AS ESTIMATION OF ELECTRICITY WORK TO BE DONE IN THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT KHUSHI SANSAR. THE SAID DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ON THE GROUND T HAT BREAK UP OF VARIOUS ITEMS IS NOT GIVEN IN THESE QUOTATIONS AND ESTIMATIONS. FUR THER, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE JVVNL HAS CERTIFIED THE COMPLETION OF ELEC TRIFICATION WORK OF THE PROJECT. HOWEVER, DESPITE ALL THESE FACTS, 50% OF THE CLAIM IS DISALLOWED DUE TO SOME IRREGULARITIES IN THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASS ESSEE. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT WHEN THE WORK IS ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT AT THE SITE A ND IT IS ALSO CERTIFIED BY THE JVVNL, THEN EVEN IF THERE ARE SOME IRREGULARITIES IN THE B ILLS AND VOUCHERS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN NOT GIVING THE BREAK-UP OF THE ITEMS, T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. ONLY IN CASE IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE EITHER MADE A BOGUS CLAIM OR INFLATED THE EXPENDITURE THEN TO THE EXTENT OF S UCH BOGUS OR INFLATED CLAIM CAN BE DISALLOWED. ONCE THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE IS NOT F OUND TO BE EXCESSIVE OR INFLATED THEN HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ACTUAL WORK HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT AT THE SITE, THE CLAIM CANNOT BE DISALLOWED ON MINOR IRREGULARIT IES OR DEFECTS IN THE BILLS/INVOICES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE MA DE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS DELETED. 10 ITA NO. 363/JP/2017 M/S. KRITIKA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. GROUND NO. 3 IS REGARDING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DI SCREPANCY IN AMOUNT OF ADVANCE BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. ARIHANT S HIVENK INFRA PROJECTS LTD. 10. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS STATED AT BAR THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT PRESS GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL AND THE SAME MAY BE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THE LD. D/R HAS NO OBJECTION IF TH E GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, T HE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/10/2019. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 21/10/2019. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT-M/S. KRITIKA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD., JAIP UR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT-THE ITO WARD 2(4), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO.363/JP/2017} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR 11 ITA NO. 363/JP/2017 M/S. KRITIKA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD., JAIPUR.