AGRIBIOTECH INDUSTRIES LIMITED, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 367/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2057 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Gift; Business income

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS [KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YAD AV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 367/JP/17 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S AGRIBIOTECH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. , SP-825, ROAD NO. 14, VKI AREA, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE A CIT, CIRCLE-4 JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO.: AAFCA1695R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRHDH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HIMANSHU GOYAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 14/09/2017 ?KKS'K .KK DH R KJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15/09/2017. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), AJMER DATED 09.03.2017 FOR A.Y. 2013-14. 2. THE GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE W HICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION, HENCE THE SAME ARE DISMI SSED. 3. IN GROUND NO. 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 20,14,362/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF TRA VELLING EXPENSES. IN THIS REGARD THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE AND THE FINDINGS OF THE AO ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO.367/JP/17 M/S AGRIBIOTECH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, JAIP UR 2 4. DISALLOWANCE OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES: DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 70,30,911/- IN P&L ACCOUNT UND ER THE HEAD TRAVELLING EXPENSES. OUT OF THIS, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 20,14,362/- WAS INCURRED ON DIRECTORS FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES . VIDE NOTE SHEET ENTRY DATED 20.10.2015 THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EX PLAIN AS TO WHY ENTIRE FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF DIRECTORS SHA LL NOT BE DISALLOWED AS THERE WAS NO LINK BETWEEN FOREIGN TRAVELLING BY THE DIRECTORS AND BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTE N SUBMISSION STATING THEREIN THAT- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE I NCURRED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 13,29,639/- ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVEL OF ITS DIRECTORS. THE ASSESSEE IS GROWING COMPANY AND REQUIRE LATEST TECH NIQUES AND METHODOLOGIES TO INCREASE ITS TURNOVER, EFFICIENCY AND QUALITY OF PRODUCT, THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY VISIT OTHER C OUNTRIES TO EXPLORE BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES AND ACCORDINGLY IMPLEMENT TH E SAME IN THE BUSINESS LINE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT CANNOT BE SAID TH AT THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN THE FOREIGN TRAVEL AND THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE GROWTH OF BUSINESS IS A CONTINUOUS PROCESS AND THOU GH EVERY TRANSACTION MAY NOT LEAD TO ANY SPECIFIC BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE BUT IT HAS A GREAT IMPACT IN FUTURE. A BUSINESS MAN WORKS WITH A LONG TERM PERSPECTIVE AND INCURS EXPENDITURE ACCORDINGLY. IT IS FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO DECIDE WHAT EXPENDITURE WILL BEST SUIT THE BUSINESS OF AN ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN THIS CASE THE TRIP HAS BEEN AP PROVED BY THE BOARD OF THE COMPANY. IT IS FURTHER IMPORTANT TO ME NTION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED COMPANY AND HAS A SEPARATE LE GAL ENTITY WHICH IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF ITS DIRECTORS. ANY E XPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR ITS PERSONAL PURPOSE. THERE ARE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT IN WHICH I T IS HELD THAT FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES INCURRED TO EXPLORE NEW BUSINESS OP PORTUNITIES, ARE ELIGIBLE AS REVENUE IN NATURE. -CIT VS. MUCHEM 208 TAXMAN 250 (MAG.) ( P&H) (HIGH COURT) -HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN REV. PET. NO. 668 OF 2011 IN ITA NO. 157 OF 2011 PRONOUNCED ON: 1 ST JUNE, 2012 IN THE CASE OF RAHULJEE & COMPANY PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBU NALS & OTHERS - SUPREME COURT IN S.A. BUILDERS VS. CIT(APPEALS) ( SC), [288ITR 2] ITA NO.367/JP/17 M/S AGRIBIOTECH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, JAIP UR 3 -SAYAJI IRON & ENGG. CO. LTD. VS. CIT 253 ITR 749 . 4.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE ONLY WHEN THE SAME ARE FOR WHOLLY AND EXC LUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. IF THE DIRECTORS VISITED ABROAD F OR BUSINESS PURPOSE THAN THE BUSINESS VISA WAS MUST. BUT IT WAS FOUND T HAT THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY VISITED UAE, MARITIUS AND MALDIVES ON T OURIST VISA. EVEN THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY PROOF OF METING A BROAD OR ANY PROJECT REPORT/BUSINESS REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DIRECTORS. FURTHER ONGOING THROUGH THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IT IS EVIDENT THAT SMT. POOJA BAJORIA ALSO VISITED ABROAD WITH SH. ASHUTOSH BAJORIA. MRS. POOJA BAJORIA IS NOT DIRECTOR IN ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE AS SESSEE COMPANY NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE WHICH PROVES THAT THE DIRECTO RS VISIT WAS TO EXPLORE THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. 4.2 RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE H IGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , BANGALORE VS. HMA DATA, SYSTEMS (P) LTD. [2015] 63 TAXMANN.COM 14 4, WHERE IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT EXPENDITURE REL ATED TO TRAVELLING ABROAD BY COMPANYS MD AND HIS WIFE IS NOT AN ALLOW ABLE EXPENSE WHEN ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE SAID CLAIM BY PRODUCING COGENT EVIDENCE-ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH DETAILS LIKE BUSI NESS VISA, NAME OF PERSON AT WHOSE INVITATION BUSINESS TRIP WAS HELD, PROOF OF ANY MEETING ABROAD AND DETAILS ALIKE. IN THIS CASE ALSO THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE DE TAILS OF BUSINESS VISA, NAME OF PERSON AT WHOSE INVITATION BUSINESS TRIP WA S HELD, PROOF OF ANY MEETING ABROAD, ANY REPORT SUBMITTED TO COMPANY, FU RTHER EXCEPT TICKETS, NO OTHER EXPENSE DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNISH ED BY THE ASESSEE. 4.3 THEREFORE I HEREBY DISALLOWED ENTIRE DIRECTORS FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS. 20,14,362/-. THUS RS. 20,14,362/- I S ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 4. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 4, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHA LLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 77,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISE MENT AND PUBLICATION EXPENSES AND IN GROUND NO. 5, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHAL LENGED THE ADDITION OF ITA NO.367/JP/17 M/S AGRIBIOTECH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, JAIP UR 4 RS. 3,07,887/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF SALE P ROMOTION EXPENSES . IN THIS REGARD, THE FACTS, SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE AO ARE AS UNDER:- DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EXPENSES (ADVERTISEMENT AND SAL ES PROMOTION): ON VERIFICATION THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESS EE IT IS FOUND THAT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED RS. 8,85,073/- UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS PROMOTION & DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES. OUT OF HIS, RS. 2,69,298/- WERE INCURRED ON ADVERTISEMENT & PUBLISHING EXPENSES AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 6,15,775/- WERE INCURRED ON SALES PRO MOTION EXPENSES. VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATE 20.10.2015 THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY DISALLOWANCES SHALL NOT BE MADE A S THE EXPENSES OF ADVERTISEMENT & PUBLICITY ARE ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTI SEMENT IN SOUVENIR TO SOME EXTENT AND EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF SALES AND PROMOTION ARE MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF HOTEL & RESTAURANT BILLS OF DI RECTORS AND PURCHASES FROM VARIOUS STORE, GIFTS AND SWEETS TO GOVT. OFFIC IAL. THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION STATING THEREIN THAT: EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT AN D PUBLISHING EXPENSES : YOUR HONOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED AN AMOUNT OF R S. 2,69,298/- UNDER THE HEAD ADVERTISEMENT AND PUBLISHING EXPENSE S DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE SAID EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESS EE COMPANY. A COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN FILED BEFORE YOU . A PERUSAL OF THE SAME WILL REVEAL THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE AN AMOUNT OF RS. 131357/- HAS BEEN INCURRED ON ADVERTISEMENT MADE IN NEWS PAPER (COPY ENCLOSED) FOR INVITING TENDERS OF TRANSPORT S ERVICE PROVIDERS TO THE TRANSPORT THE GOODS OF THE COMPANY, AN AMOUNT OF R S. 60,941/- HAS BEEN INCURRED TOWARDS PUBLISHING AN ADVERTISEMENT I N NEWS PAPER (COPY ENCLOSED) FOR RECRUITING MANAGER OF BOILER A ND TURBINE OPERATIONS, AS REGARDS THE BALANCE EXPENDITURE THE SAME HAS BEEN INCURRED IN THE INTEREST OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY TO MAINTAIN ITS PRESENCE IN THE MARKET AMONG VARIOUS S TAKEHOLDERS. THUS ITA NO.367/JP/17 M/S AGRIBIOTECH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, JAIP UR 5 THE COMPLETE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND HENCE ALLOWABLE. EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT SALE PROMOTION EXP ENSES YOUR HONOR DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6,15,775/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES. LOOKING TO THE TOTAL SALES MADE BY THE AS SESSEE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED UNDER THIS HEAD IS MEAGER. THE SAID EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BU SINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. A COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF S ALES PROMOTION EXPENSES HAS ALREADY BEEN FILED BEFORE YOUR HONOR. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME WILL REVEAL THAT ALL EXPENSES ARE RELATED OF T HE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON HOTELS, STAY RES TAURANTS, PURCHASES OF SWEETS, GIFTS ETC. EITHER THROUGH CREDIT CARDS/D IRECTLY HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASS ESSEE TO TAKE CARE OF VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS AND TO MEET OUT THE NEEDS OF T HE BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY AND NO EXPENDITURE CAN BE CONSIDERED BEING PERSONAL IN NATURE. YOUR HONOR IN THIS REGARD YOUR ATTENTION IS DRAWN T O THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF SAYAJI IRON & ENGG. CO. LT D. VS. CIT 253 ITR 749 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF A C OMPANY NO EXPENDITURE SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE IN THE NATURE OF PERSONAL EXPENDITURE AS THE COMPANY IS A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTI TY. 5.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT FOUND FULLY CONVINCING. THE ASSESSEE CONTENTION THAT EXPENDITUR E OF RS. 1,31,357/- AND 60,941/- WERE INCURRED FOR ADVERTISEMENT IN NEW S PAPER IS ACCEPTABLE. BUT AS FAR AS REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 7 7,000/- IS CONCERNED, THE CONTENTION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE REMAINING EXPENDITURE OF RS. 77,000/- HAS INCURRED FOR ADVERT ISEMENT IN SOUVENIR AND NOT ALLOWABLE. THUS AMOUNT OF RS. 77,000/- IS D ISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO TOTAL BACK TO TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE. 5.2 AS FAR AS SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES ARE CONCERNE D THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FULLY CONVINCING. SINCE THE EXPENDI TURE ARE MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF HOTEL & RESTAURANT BILLS OF DIRECTORS AN D PURCHASES FROM VARIOUS STORES, GIFTS & SWEETS THEN HOW THE SAME AR E INCIDENTAL TO ITA NO.367/JP/17 M/S AGRIBIOTECH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, JAIP UR 6 BUSINESS. THEREFORE I DISALLOWED 50% OF THESE EXPEN SES AND ACCORDINGLY AN ADDITION OF RS. 3,07,887/- (50% OF 6 15775) IS MADE TO TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.3 THUS TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 3,84,887/- (77,000+3 07887) IS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES AND ADDED TO TO TAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FOUND THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO AS REASONABL E AND FAIR AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO. 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND THE LD AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. REGA RDING TRAVEL EXPENSES, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A PRIV ATE LIMITED COMPANY, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR AO TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS IN CURRED ANY PERSONAL EXPENSES IN RELATION TO FOREIGN TRAVEL OF ITS DIREC TORS AND IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAYAJI IRON & ENGG. CO. LTD.(SUPRA). 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR TOOK US THROUGH THE FINDI NGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT NO EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN S UBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENDITURE AND WH ETHER SUCH FOREIGN TRAVEL IS IN CONNECTION WITH ASSESSEES BUSINESS OR NOT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SMT. POOJA BAJORIA ALSO VISITED ALONG WITH SHRI ASH UTOSH BAJORIA AND HER EXPENSES HAVE ALSO BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE EVE N THOUGH SHE IS NOT THE DIRECTOR IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN HIS REJOINDER , THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES ON THE FOREIGN TRAVEL HAVE BEEN INCURR ED TO EXPLORE NEW BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES AND THE ASSESSEE CAN DEMONST RATE THE SAME IF SO REQUIRED THROUGH PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT THEREOF. REGARDING OTHER DISALLOWANCES, THE LD DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE LD AR REITERATED ITS SUBMISSIONS MADE EARLIER BEFOR E THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ITA NO.367/JP/17 M/S AGRIBIOTECH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, JAIP UR 7 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. REGARDING FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES, THE O NUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO DEMONSTRATE THROUGH VERIFIABLE AND CREDIBLE EVIDENC E THAT THE TRAVEL EXPENDITURE ON FOREIGN TRIPS HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS. THE MATTER IS ACCORDINGLY REM ITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDING APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. REGARDING SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES OF RS 307,88 7, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED 50% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES HOLDING THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULLY JUSTIFIED THE INCURRENCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE AS INC IDENTAL TO BUSINESS GOING BY THE NARRATION OF THE EXPENDITURE IN TERMS OF HOTEL BILLS, GIFTS AND SWEETS. IN OUR VIEW, IF THE AO HAS ANY APPREHENSION THAT THE E XPENDITURE HAS NOT BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS, HE SHOULD SP ECIFY THE PARTICULAR TRANSACTION/EXPENDITURE AND IN CASE, THERE ARE REPE AT TRANSACTION/EXPENDITURE OF SIMILAR NATURE, THE AO HAS TO GIVE A SPECIFIC FI NDING AS TO WHY HE FEELS THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS NOT BEEN INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. SIMILARLY, NO BASIS HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO FOR DISALLOWANCE OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE OF RS 77,000 TOWARDS ADVERTISEMENT IN SOUVENIR. TH E MATTER IS ACCORDINGLY REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LAW AND GIVE A SPECIFIC FINDING AFTER PROVID ING APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND NO. 3, 4 & 5 ARE THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. IN GROUND NO. 6, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED TH E ADDITION OF RS. 4,42,192/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID INCOME WAS RECEIVED IN SUBSEQUENT ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 AND HAS ALREADY BEEN OFFERED TO TAX AND WHERE THE S AME IS BROUGHT TO TAX IN ITA NO.367/JP/17 M/S AGRIBIOTECH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, JAIP UR 8 THE INSTANT YEAR, IT WILL LEAD TO DOUBLE TAXATION. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING HENCE, THE INTEREST INCOME HAS ACCRUED DURING THE Y EAR AND HAS RIGHTLY BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHICH H AS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 11. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRO DUCED AS UNDER:- 7.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, STAT EMENT OF FACTS, GROUND OF APPEAL AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION CAREFULLY. IT IS SEEN THAT THE INTEREST OF RS. 4,42,192/- HAS ACCRUED IN THE F.Y. 2012-13 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2013-14 AND THE APPELLANT IS FOLLOWING MERCANT ILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THA T THE INCOME OF RS. 4,42,192/- IS REQUIRED TO BE TAXED IN THE A.Y. 2013 -14. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO LIBERTY TO DECLARE THE INCOME OF THE A.Y. 20 13-14 IN THE A.Y. 2014-15. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,42,192/- MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 12. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE V IEW THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE INTEREST INCOME ACCRUES TO THE ASS ESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND AS PER THE ACCRUAL METHOD O F ACCOUNTING, THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN OFFERED TO TAX IN THE INSTANT YEAR . ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CO NFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN BRINGING THE SAID INTEREST TO TAX IN THE INSTANT YEAR. AT THE SAME TIME, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE SAID INCOME HAS ALREADY OFFERED T O TAX IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY, IF SO ADVIS ED, TO REVISE ITS RETURN OF INCOME OR MAKE AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER STATING THAT THE INCOME HAS ALREADY BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE INSTANT YEAR AND THE SAME CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEA R AND THE AO SHALL EXAMINE THE SAME AS PER LAW. THE GROUND OF APPEAL I S DISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO.367/JP/17 M/S AGRIBIOTECH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, JAIP UR 9 THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISPOSED OFF WITH ABO VE DIRECTIONS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15/09/2017. SD/- SD/- DQY HKKJR FOE FLAG ;KNO (KUL BHARAT) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 15/09/2017 *SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT - M/S AGRIBIOTECH INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., SP- 825, ROAD NO. 14, VKI AREA, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR . 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT , 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 367/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR.