The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat V. M/s. J.K. Paper Ltd., Surat

ITA 365/SRT/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5568 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Services rendered outside India; Permanent establishment; Non-deduction of tax; Corroborative evidences; Revised return; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 115JB; 195; 13; 22

Judgement Text

, , INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIRTUAL HEARING) . . ./ I.T.A NO.365/SRT/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. M/S J. K. PAPER LTD., P.O. CENTRAL PULP MILLS, FORT SONGADH 394660. DIST. TAPI, GUJARAT. [PAN: AAACT 6305 N] / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY SHRI SOURABH SOPARKAR S ENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MISS URVASHI SHODHAN ADVOCATE /REVENUE BY SHRI RITESH MISHRA CIT - DR / DATE OF HEARING: 29 . 04 .20 2 1 /PRONOUNCEMENT ON: 29. 0 4 .202 1 /O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMEBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, SURAT HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS LD.CIT(A) DATED 27.12.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2014-15. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING TO REWORK DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SOCIAL FORESTRY EXPENSES OF RS. 89,60,112/- AND GRANTING RELIEF OF RS. 85,38,112/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED LOSS IN AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND AS PER SECTION 14A, THE EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO THE INCOME WHICH IS NOT INCLUDABLE IN TOTALS INCOME IS NOT ALLOWABLE? 2- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 2 ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS OF RS. 9,70,460/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE AO RIGHTLY APPLIED SECTION 41(1) OF THE IT ACT ? 3- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT EXCESS PROCESS STOCK DECLARED TO THE BANK WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION ON AFTER FINDING DIFFERENCE IN STOCK WITH THE BANK WITH RS. 12,58,580/- ? 4- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT COMMISSION PAID ON SALE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE EXPENSES OF COMMISSION OF RS. 18,60,000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE? 5- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER EXPENSES OF RS. 1,88,35,000/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE EXPENSES WITH CORROBORATIVE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES? 6- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF EMPLOYEES WELFARE EXPENSES OF RS.92,55,000/-WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO JUSTIFY THAT SAID EXPENDITURE IS RELATED TO ITS BUSINESS? 7- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN BOOK PROFIT COMPUTATION U/S. 14A OF THE I.T. ACT OF RS.21,34,390/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY WORKED OUT THE BOOK PROFIT? 8- WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.42,36,591/- OF NON DEDUCTION OF TAX ON FOREIGN REMITTANCE AS THE NATURE OF PAYMENTS IS AGENCY COMMISSION PAID TO A NON- RESIDENT, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS ON THE SAID PAYMENTS? 9- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 3 10- IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICE MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF PAPERS AND GENERATION OF POWER FOR ITS OWN PURPOSE. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 27.11.2014 DECLARING LOSS OF RS.831,97,06,157/- AND BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT AT LOSS OF RS.121,95,88,001/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. LATER ON, THE INCOME RETURNED WAS REVISED BY FILING REVISED RETURN ON 31.07.2016 PURSUANT TO THE SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT SANCTIONED BY HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, WHEREIN LIME KILN UNDERTAKING OF JK ENVIRO-TECH LTD WAS MERGED WITH THE ASSESSEE AS A GOING CONCERN ON SLUMP SALE. IN THE REVISED RETURN, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED LOSS OF RS.834 CRORE AND BOOK PROFIT AT LOSS OF RS.119 CRORE. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 28.12.2016. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT WAS ORDER MADE A NUMBER OF ADDITIONS OF THE DISALLOWANCES AS MENTIONED ON PAGE NO.35 & 36 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND ON DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 4 APPEAL DELETING / RESTRICTING THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS ARE SUMMARIZED IN THE FOLLOWING CHART: SR. NO. NATURE OF ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES ADDITION BY A.O. RS. ADDITION DELETED/ SUSTAINED BY LD.CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1. SOCIAL FORESTRY EXPENSES RS.89,60,112/ - DELETED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.85,38,112/- 2. ADJUSTMENT U/S. 145A OF THE I.T.ACT RS.26,66,677/ - NOT UNDER APPEAL 3. ADJUSTMENT U/S. 145A OF THE IT ACT ON OPENING STOCK ( - ) RS.1,24,34,215/- NOT UNDER APPEAL 4. UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS RS.9,70,460/ - DELETED/ALLOWED 5. EXCESS PROCESS STOCK DECLARED TO BANK RS.12,58,580/ - DELETED/ALLOWED 6. DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE I.T.ACT RS.21,34,390/ - DELETED/ALLOWED 7. DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION ON SALES RS.18,60,000/ - DELETED/ALLOWED 8. DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER EXPENSES RS.1,88,35,000/ - DELETED/ALLOWED 9. DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES RS.92,55,000/ - DELETED/ALLOWED 10. INCOME FROM DEPLOYMENT OF FCCB FUNDS RS.51,23,492/ - SUSTAINED 11. NON DEDUCTION OF TAX ON FOREIGN REMITTANCE RS.42,36,591/ - DELETED/ALLOWED 12. DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EXCEPTIONAL EXPENSES RS.35,31,81,948/ - NOT UNDER APPEAL 13. DEPRECIATION ON EXPENSES CAPITALIZED ( - ) RS.12,36,13,682/- NOT UNDER APPEAL TOTAL ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCE RS.27,24,34,353/ - 4. THUS, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS FILED PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF SH. RITESH MISHRA, LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (LD.CIT-DR) FOR THE REVENUE AND SHRI DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 5 SOURABH SUPARKAR LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE (LD. SR COUNSEL) ASSISTED BY MRS. URVASHI SHODAN ADVOCATE. 6. AT THE OUTSET OF HEARING, THE SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY VARIOUS DECISIONS OF TRIBUNAL OR HIGHER COURTS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER HEARING. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THIS FACT IS DULY ACCEPTED BY REVENUE IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS, FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE REVENUE HAS FURTHER STATED IN ITS STATEMENT OF FACTS THAT THIS APPEAL IS FILED TO KEEP THE ISSUE ALIVE, AS PER REVENUE THE ISSUES HAVE NOT ATTAINED FINALITY AS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE DECISIONS OF TRIBUNAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OR THEY MAY FILE FURTHER APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2010-11 AND 2012-13. 7. GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SOCIAL FORESTRY AND DEPRECIATION ON AT USE FOR SOCIAL FORESTRY. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2002-03 AND THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING BY COMMON ORDER FOR A.Y. 2002-3 TO DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 6 2004-05 DECIDED THE ISSUE IF FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2002-03 IN ORDER DATED 04.09.2009. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FURTHER EXPLAINED THE FACTS THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED ON GROWING SAPLINGS OF LAND / OPERATION ON GROWING SAPLING AFTER REMOVAL FROM LAND IN POTS AND POLYTHINE PACKS AND AFTER PLUCKING THEM FROM GROUND PLANTED IN SUCH POTS IS AN INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES WHICH IS IN CONJUNCTION WITH GROWING SAPLING ON THE LAND IS AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES IT HAS TO BE DISALLOWED. AS STATED EARLIER THIS ISSUE WAS FIRST TIME AROSE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2002-03 AND AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION IT WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THESE PRINCIPLES WERE FOLLOWED IN APPEAL FOR SUBSEQUENT YEAR IN A.Y. 2010-11 TO 2012-13 IN ORDER DATED 04.11.2020. THE LD.AR SUBMITS THAT ORDER OF TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2002-03 AND 2010-11 TO 2012-13 IS LACED ON RECORD, ACCORDINGLY THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.CIT-DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT HE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF AO. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). WE HAVE NOTED THAT DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 7 LD. CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE ORDER FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2002-03 DATED 09.04.2009. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL SIMILAR RELIEF WAS GRANTED TO ASSESSEE IN APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 TO 2012-13 BY PASSING THE FOLLOWING ORDER : 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION ABOUT THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE NOTED THAT SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, 2003-04 AND IN 2004- 05. THE ADDITIONS WERE UPHELD BY LEARNED CIT(A), HOWEVER ON APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED RELIEF VIDE ORDER DATED 4 SEPTEMBER 2009. BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION FOR EARLIER YEARS THE COORDINATE BENCH IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN ITA NO.511& 634/AHD/2013, ORDER DATED 31.07.2013, GRANTED SIMILAR RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY PASSING THE FOLLOWING ORDER; 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S. 143(3), DATED 23.12.2011 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF PULP AND BOARD. THE COMPANY HAS TWO PAPER MILLS. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.1, IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE ON SOCIAL FORESTRY AT RS.85,43,140/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS MANUFACTURING PULP & BOARD, THEREFORE, THE BAMBOO AND THE HARDWOOD ARE THE MAJOR RAW MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR THE MANUFACTURING. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED AND FOLLOWING THE PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE, THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS DISALLOWED. WHEN THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 8 MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED AN ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREAFTER DIRECTED THE AO TO REWORK THE DISALLOWANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL. WITH THESE BRIEF BACKGROUND, WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS ITAT 'C' BENCH AHMEDABAD FOR A.Y. 2008- 09 IN AN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEARING ITA NO.2262/AHD/2011 AND CROSS APPEAL BEARING ITA NO.2505/AHD/2011 VIDE AN ORDER DATED 24TH OF MAY, 2012 HAS HELD VIDE PARAGRAPH NO.31 AT PAGE 9 THAT THE GROUND IN REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED AN EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 4.9.2009, WHEREIN THE QUANTIFICATION WAS MADE AS UNDER: 'FOLLOWING OUT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ONLY THE EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.15.15 LACS WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES OUT OF TOTAL CLAIM OF EXPENSE AT RS.80.95 LACS AND WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. AGAINST THIS THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (RELATABLE TO GROWING OF SAPLINGS THROUGH LAND) AT RS. 5.72 LACS AND SALE OF SAPLINGS NOT RELATABLE TO AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AT RS. 1.42 LACS. THEREFORE, AGRICULTURAL LOSS WOULD BE ONLY RS.15.15 - 5.72 = 9.43 LACS. THE SALE OF SAPLINGS AT RS.1.42 LACS WOULD BE NON- AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES. SO FAR AS THE DEPRECIATION OF RS.4.32 LACS IS CONCERNED THE SAME HAS BEEN CLAIMED ON MIST CHAMBERS OTHER ASSETS USED IN GROWING SAPLINGS THROUGH CLONAL ROUTES WHICH HAS BEEN TREATED AS NON-AGRICULTURAL OPERATION IN OUR DISCUSSION MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WHILE DISPOSING OF SIMILAR GROUND. THUS, THE DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 9 RS. 9.43 LACS AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSEE GETS RELIEF OF RS. 78.13 - 9.43) = RS.68.70 LACS.' 2.1 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS ISSUE NOW STOOD COVERED BY SEVERAL DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL PRONOUNCED IN THE PAST AND LEARNED CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY FOLLOWED ONE OF THE SAID DECISION, HENCE, THERE WAS NO FALLACY IN THE JUDGMENT OF LEARNED CIT(A), THUS REQUIRED TO BE AFFIRMED. RESULTANTLY, WE FIND NO FORCE IN THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE DISMISSED. 9. CONSIDERING THE CONSISTENT DECISION OF TRIBUNAL ON SIMILAR SET OF FACT, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSION OF LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS. HENCE, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). NO CONTRARY FACTS OR LAW IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO TAKE THE OTHER VIEW. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. CONSIDERING THE CONSISTENT DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPAL OF CONSISTENCY AND MORE OVER THE LD. CIT(A) GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). HENCE, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED, DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 10 11. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS OF RS.9,70,460/-. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT LD.CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2005-06 IN ITA NO. 4027& 4080/AHD/2008 DATED 04.02.2011. THESE PRINCIPLES WERE FOLLOWED IN APPEAL FOR SUBSEQUENT YEAR IN A.Y. 2010-11 TO 2012-13 IN ORDER DATED 04.11.2020. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.CIT-DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT HE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF AO. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). WE HAVE NOTED THAT LD.CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE ORDER FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2005-06 DATED 04.02.2011. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL SIMILAR RELIEF WAS GRANTED TO ASSESSEE IN APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 TO 2012-13 BY PASSING THE FOLLOWING ORDER : 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE NOTED THAT ON ALMOST SIMILAR FACT ON SIMILAR GROUND OF APPEAL IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER; 10. GROUND NO.2 IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 'ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.5,14,850/- ON ACCOUNT OF DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 11 UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE CREDITORS.' 10.2 AT THE OUTSET, WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y.2008-09 (SUPRA) HAD HELD THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE ALREADY CONSIDERED IN THE PAST FOR A.Y. 2006- 07 AND 2007-08 BY THE TRIBUNAL. ON THE SAME LINES FOR A.Y. 2008-09, THE ITA NO.511 & 634/AHD/2013 J.K. PAPER LTD. VS ITO A.Y. 2009- 10 TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, RELEVANT PORTION IS REPRODUCED BELOW: '2.4 GROUND NO.4 IS AS UNDER: '(4) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-I, SURAT HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,95,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST UPON IT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDITORS.' 2.4.1 REGARDING THIS ISSUE, IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH THE SIDE THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN EARLIER TWO YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND 2007-08 AS PER GROUND L(D) AND L(C) RESPECTIVELY AND THEREFORE, IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO, THIS ISSUE MAY BE DECIDED ON SIMILAR LINE. IN THOSE TWO YEARS, THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AS PER PARA 15.2 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER OF EARLIER TWO YEARS WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: '15.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW.. WE FIND THAT THIS IS AN ADMITTED FACT IN BOTH THESE YEARS THAT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS SHOWN AS LIABILITY AND IT WAS NOT WRITTEN BACK BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF CREDIT TO THE P & L ACCOUNT. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WHEN WE EXAMINE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WE FIND THAT AS PER EXPLANATION (1) INSERTED IN SECTION 41(1) BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT 1996 W.E.F. 01.04.1997, IF THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN BACK THE LIABILITY THEN IT WILL AMOUNT TO REMISSION OR CESSATION OF LIABILITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVOKING SECTION 41(1). AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS AS REPORTED IN 236 ITR 518 (S.C.) AND IN THE CASE OF KESARIA TEA CO. LTD. REPORTED IN 254 ITR 434 (S.C.), EVEN A UNILATERAL ENTRY PASSED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WRITING BACK THE LIABILITY WILL NOT AMOUNT TO CESSATION OF LIABILITY. HOWEVER, AFTER THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 41(1) BY WAY OF INSERTION OF EXPLANATION TO THIS EXTENT, THESE TWO JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE APEX COURT WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN BACK THE LIABILITY BUT WHERE ASSESSEE HAS NOT WRITTEN BACK THE LIABILITY IN THE BOOKS, SECTION 41(1) CANNOT BE INVOKED AS PER DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 12 THOSE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT EVEN AFTER THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION (1) IN SECTION 41(1). THESE TWO JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE APEX COURT WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN BACK THE LIABILITY BUT WHERE ASSESSEE HAS NOT WRITTEN BACK THE LIABILITY IN THE BOOKS SECTION 41(1) CANNOT BE INVOKED AS PER THESE TWO JUDGMENTS OF HANDLE APEX COURT EVEN AFTER THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT. SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE, ASSESSEE HAS NOT WRITTEN BACK THE LIABILITY IN QUESTION, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) CANNOT BE INVOKED AND HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO.1(D) OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND GROUND NO.1(C) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ARE REJECTED.' 2.4.2 SINCE NO DIFFERENCE IN THE FACT COULD BE POINTED OUT BY THE LD. DR. IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN EARLIER TWO YEARS AS PER THE RELEVANT PARA REPRODUCED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO REJECTED.' 12. CONSIDERING THE CONSISTENT DECISION OF TRIBUNAL ON SIMILAR SET OF FACT, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSION OF LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS. HENCE, WE AFFIRMS THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). NO CONTRARY FACTS OR LAW IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO TAKE THE OTHER VIEW. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 14. CONSIDERING THE CONSISTENT DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPAL OF CONSISTENCY AND MORE OVER THE LD. CIT(A) GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). HENCE, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 15. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE ON EXCESS PROCESS STOCK DECLARED TO BANK. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 13 ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT LD.CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2002-03 IN ORDER DATED 04.09.2009. THESE PRINCIPLES WERE FOLLOWED IN APPEAL FOR SUBSEQUENT YEAR IN A.Y. 2010-11 TO 2012-13 IN ORDER DATED 04.11.2020. THE LD. SR. AR SUBMITS THAT ORDER OF TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2002- 03 AND 2010-11 TO 2012-13 IS PLACED ON RECORD, ACCORDINGLY THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE IS ALSO SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 16. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.CIT-DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT HE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF AO. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE HAVE NOTED THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE ORDER FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2002-03 DATED 09.04.2009. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL SIMILAR RELIEF WAS GRANTED TO ASSESSEE IN APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 TO 2012-13 BY PASSING THE FOLLOWING ORDER : 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE NOTED THAT ON ALMOST SIMILAR FACT ON SIMILAR GROUND OF APPEAL IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, IN ORDER DATED 04.09.2009, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER; DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 14 31.5 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PRODUCE THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHAT BASIS THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE FUNDING THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF QUANTITY IN A STOCK A STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK AND WHAT IS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS. WE HOWEVER, RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE STATEMENTSJ-1,J-4&J-7 AND ANY OTHER STATEMENT WHICH IS IN THE POSSESSION OF AO POINTING OUT THE DIFFERENCE IN A STOCK IN TERMS OF QUANTITY. IF THERE IS NO SUCH STATEMENT DEPICTING DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF QUANTITIES, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR BUT WHERE THERE IS ANY DOCUMENT IN POSSESSION OF AO SHOWING STOCK IN QUANTITY ON A PARTICULAR DATE AND ON COMPARISON WITH THE BOOKS IT RESULT IN UNFAVORABLE DIFFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME WILL BE SHOWN TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER CONFRONTING HIM THE DIFFERENCE IN QUANTITIES WILL BE WORKED OUT. STOCK IN TERMS OF QUANTITY WILL BE COMPARED AS ON THE SAME DATE. THEREAFTER, THE DIFFERENCE IF ANY WILL BE VALUED AT COST OR MARKET PRICE WHICHEVER IS LOW AS PER ACCOUNTING POLICY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR VALUATION OF STOCK. WITH THESE REMARKS WE SET ASIDE THIS GROUND TO THE FILE OF AO. 16. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), IN HIS ORDER DATED 11 TH APRIL 2014, DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION. CONSIDERING THE CONSISTENT DECISIONS OF TRIBUNAL ON SIMILAR SET OF FACT IN EARLIER YEARS, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSION OF LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS. HENCE, WE AFFIRMS THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). NO CONTRARY FACTS OR LAW IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO TAKE THE OTHER VIEW. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 18. CONSIDERING THE CONSISTENT DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY AND MORE OVER THE LD. CIT(A) GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). HENCE, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 15 19. GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID ON SALE OF RS.18,60,000/-. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY TAKING VIEW THAT AD- HOCK DISALLOWANCE BY A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LD. SR COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2011-12, SIMILAR GROUND OF APPEAL WAS DISMISSED IN ORDER DATED 04.11.2020. ACCORDINGLY THE LD. SR. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE IS ALSO SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 20. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.CIT-DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT HE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF AO. 21. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). WE HAVE NOTED THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE ORDER HELD THAT THAT AD-HOCK DISALLOWANCE BY A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE HAVE FURTHER ON SIMILAR GROUND OF APPEAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE SIMILAR RELIEF WAS GRANTED TO ASSESSEE IN APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 TO 2012-13 BY PASSING THE FOLLOWING ORDER : 25.WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AD-HOCK DISALLOWANCE. THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT SIMILAR COMMISSION EXPENSES WERE ALLOWED IN EARLIER YEARS WAS NOT EXAMINED OR DISCARDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED THE COMPLETE DETAILS REGARDING SALE AND THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 16 DEALERS AS RECORDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARA 12.2 OF HIS ORDER. THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES WAS NOT DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT GENUINE BUSINESS EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE, AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IN EARLIER YEARS SIMILAR COMMISSION EXPENSES WERE ALLOWED, ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US NO CONTRARY FACT OR EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT TO TAKE OTHER VIEW. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), WHICH WE AFFIRM. IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 22. CONSIDERING THE CONSISTENT DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY AND MORE OVER THE LD. CIT(A) GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). HENCE, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 23. GROUND NO.5 RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER EXPENSES OF RS.1,88,35,000/-. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY TAKING VIEW THAT AD-HOCK DISALLOWANCE BY A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LD. SR COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2011- 12, SIMILAR GROUND OF APPEAL WAS DISMISSED IN ORDER DATED 04.11.2020. ACCORDINGLY THE LD. SR. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE IS ALSO SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 17 24. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.CIT-DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT HE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF AO. 25. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE HAVE NOTED THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE ORDER FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2002-03 DATED 09.04.2009. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL SIMILAR RELIEF WAS GRANTED TO ASSESSEE IN APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 TO 2012-13 BY PASSING THE FOLLOWING ORDER : 26. GROUND NO. 8 RELATES TO DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 5% OF VARIOUS EXPENSES OF 1.29 CRORE. THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED 2593.05 LAKHS UNDER THE HEADS BANK CHARGES, TRANSPORT, CLEARING AND FORWARDING CHARGES, TRAVELLING AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THESE EXPENSES AND VOUCHERS RELATING TO TRAVELLING AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT EXPENSES ARE REVENUE IN NATURE AND PERTAIN TO THE BUSINESS OPERATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE ENTIRE EXPENSES BEING WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REASONABLY DISALLOWED ONLY 5% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES TREATING SAME AS NON-BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED DR PRAYED THAT DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ON REASONABLE BASIS AND ARE REQUIRED TO BE UPHELD BY REVERSING THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND BY RESTORING THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 26. CONSIDERING THE CONSISTENT DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 18 CONSISTENCY AND MORE OVER THE LD. CIT(A) GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). HENCE, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 27. GROUND NO.6 RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EMPLOYEE WELFARE EXPENSES OF RS.92,55,000/-. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY TAKING VIEW THAT AD- HOC DISALLOWANCE BY A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LD. SR COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2010-11 TO 2012-13, SIMILAR GROUND OF APPEAL WAS DISMISSED IN ORDER DATED 04.11.2020. ACCORDINGLY THE LD. SR. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE IS ALSO SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 28. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.CIT-DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT HE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF AO. 29. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). WE HAVE NOTED THAT LD.CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY TAKING VIEW THAT AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE BY A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED SIMILAR GROUND OF APPEAL THAT RAISED BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 19 REVENUE WAS DISMISSED BY TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010- 11 TO 2012-13 BY PASSING THE FOLLOWING ORDER : 31. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FIND ANY DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SPECIFIED EVEN A SINGLE DISCREPANCY EITHER IN THE DOCUMENTS OR IN THE REPLY FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT GENUINE. EVEN BEFORE US NO CONTRARY FACT OR LAW IS SHOWN TO TAKE OTHER VIEW EXCEPT TO RAISE THE PLEA THAT THE DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE ON REASONABLE BASIS. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), WHICH WE AFFIRM. IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO FAILED. 30. CONSIDERING THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN APPEAL FOR AY 2010-11 TO 2012-13 AND FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY AND BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). NO CONTRARY FACT OR LAW IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO TAKE OTHER VIEW. HENCE, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED 31. GROUND NO.7 RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOOK PROFIT COMPUTATION U/S.14A OF THE ACT OF RS.21,34,390/-. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED THE ORDERS OF TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS. THE LD. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 20 COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITS THAT ON SIMILAR GROUNDS THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY TRIBUNAL IN REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 TO 2012-13. 32. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.CIT-DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT HE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF AO. 33. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER PASSED BY LD.CIT(A). WE HAVE NOTED THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE ORDER FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS AS A.Y. 2002-03 TO 2004-05 DATED 09.04.2009. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL SIMILAR RELIEF WAS GRANTED TO ASSESSEE IN APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 TO 2012-13 BY PASSING THE FOLLOWING ORDER : 37. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADJUSTMENT BY TAKING VIEW THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR ANY ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF MAT CREDIT TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS AND THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE REDUCED FROM THE NET PROFIT FOR COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT AND ACCORDINGLY ADDED TO THE BOOK PROFIT. THE LD CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR AY 2009-10. 38. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF DELHI TRIBUNAL IN ACIT SS VIREET INVESTMENT [2017] 82 TAXMANN.COM 417 (DELHI- TRIBUNAL SB) HELD THAT COMPUTATION UNDER CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB(2), IS TO BE MADE WITHOUT RESORTING TO COMPUTATION AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 14A. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 21 34. CONSIDERING THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2002-03 TO 2004-05 DATED 09.04.2009, WHICH WAS AGAIN FOLLOWED IN AY 2010- 11 TO 2012-13 AND THEREBY FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY AND BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). NO CONTRARY FACT OR LAW IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO TAKE OTHER VIEW. HENCE, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 35. GROUND NO.8 RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TAX ON FOREIGN REMITTANCE OF RS.42,36,591/-.THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT LD.CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS TOSHOKU LTD (125 ITR 525 SC) AND FURTHER TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2010-11 TO 2012-13 IN ORDER DATED 04.11.2020 ALLOWED SIMILAR RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY DISMISSING THE IDENTICAL GROUND OF APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL ACCORDINGLY SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE IS ALSO SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 36. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.CIT-DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT HE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF AO. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 22 37. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE NOTED THAT LD.CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE ORDER FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR AY 2012-13, WHEREIN ITS WAS HELD THAT COMMISSION PAID TO NON-RESIDENT FOR SERVICES RENDERED OUTSIDE INDIA CANNOT BE DEEMED TO BE INCOME ACCRUED OR ARISEN IN INDIA. AND FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS TOSHOKU LTD (SUPRA). WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT IN APPEAL FOR AY 2010-11 TO 20112- 13, SIMILAR RELIEF WAS GRANTED BY TRIBUNAL TO ASSESSEE BY DISMISSING THE SIMILAR GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY REVENUE BY PASSING THE FOLLOWING ORDER : 49.WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. DURING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE MADE FOREIGN REMITTANCE OF 7,100,00/- TO NON-RESIDENT ON ACCOUNT OF EXPORT COMMISSION, ON WHICH NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY A DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40 A (I) SHOULD NOT BE MADE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE MADE DISALLOWANCE OF 71 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING THE NON- WITHHOLDING TAX ON COMMISSION PAID TO NON-RESIDENT IS NOW SETTLED BY HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VERSUS TOSHOKU LIMITED (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE APEX COURT THAT COMMISSION AMOUNTS, WHICH WERE EARNED BY THE NON-RESIDENT FOR SERVICES RENDERED OUTSIDE INDIA CANNOT BE DEEMED TO BE INCOME WHICH HAS NEITHER ACCRUED NOR ARISE IN DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT. VS. J.K.PAPER LTD., / ITA NO.365/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 23 INDIA. THE NON-RESIDENT TO WHOM SUCH COMMISSIONS WERE PAID IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DOES NOT HAVE ANY BUSINESS CONNECTION OR PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA AND THEREFORE, NO INCOME ACCRUE OR ARISE OR DEEM TO ARISE IN INDIA IN TERMS OF SECTION 9(1)(I) OF THE ACT. SUCH INCOME IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX INDIA AS PER SECTION 195 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VERSUS TOSHOKU LIMITED (SUPRA) DELETED THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE. NO CONTRARY FACT OR LAW IS BROUGHT TO NOTICE TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW, THUS WE AFFIRM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 38. CONSIDERING THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL IN AY 2010- 11 TO 2012-13 AND THEREBY FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY AND BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). NO CONTRARY FACT OR LAW IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO TAKE OTHER VIEW. HENCE, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED. 39. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29 TH APRIL 2021 AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL IN VIRTUAL COURT. SD/- SD/- /- (DR . ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( /JUDICIAL MEMBER) / SURAT, DATED : 29 TH APRIL, 2021 #SGR COPY OF ORDER SENT TO- ASSESSEE AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/GUARD FILE OF ITAT . BY ORDER / TRUE COPY / / // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SURAT