ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s Piron Learning & Training (P) Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3701/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2908 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU MUKHARJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH GOEL; RISHABH JA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Rejection of books of accounts; Unexplained investment
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 68; 69

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3701/DEL/2015 A.Y.: 2011-12 ACIT, CC-17, VS. M/S PIRON LEARNING & TRAINING (P) LTD., ROOM NO. 356, C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADV. 2-E, ARA CENTRE, F-26/124, SECTOR-7, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., ROHINI, DELHI - 85 NEW DELHI (PAN: AAFCP1537K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. RANU MUKHARJEE, SR. DR. ASSESSEE BY : SH. VED JAIN, ADV. & SH. ASHISH GO EL, CA & SH. RISHABH JAIN, CA O R D E R PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNE D ORDER DATED 25.3.2015 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 54,08 ,275/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH RECEIPTS U/S 68 OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 44,96 ,163/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS EXPENSES U/S 69C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2 3. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,00, 000/- MADE BY AO U/S 40A(2)(B)II OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY REMUNERATION TO DIRECTOR. 4. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING 50% OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 38,60,500/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS EXPENSES AND RECEIPTS FROM M/S ESAJV. 5. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 65,78 ,666/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 6. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,65, 000/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE IN COME TAX ACT. 7. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,31,8 63/-, RS. 6,76,299/- BEING FALSE EXPENSES AND RS. 8,48, 803/- MAD E BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT OF MONEY. 8. (A)THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT TENAB LE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. (B)THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY / ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF T HE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CONSULTANCY SERVICES I N THE FIELD OF BUSINESS CONSULTANCY, PROJECT CONSULTANCY ETC. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 21.07.2011 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 3,04 ,990/-. THE AO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT RS. 2,33,70,560/- VIDE O RDER HIS ORDER 3 DATED 26.2.2014 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT) AND MADE VARIOUS ADDITION AND DISALLOWANCES. AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WH O VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.3.2015 DELETED THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS EXCEPT THE ONE WHERE HE GAVE A PARTIAL RELIEF. AGGRIEVED WITH THE IMPUG NED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . 3. GROUND NO. 1 IN REVENUES APPEAL IS REGARDING THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 54,08,275/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH RECEIPTS. IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH THE LD. DR AND LD. AR THAT THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF PIRON EDUCATIO N PVT. LTD. (ITA NO. 3699/DEL/2015) (AY 2011-12) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS MADE SIMILAR ADDITION ON THE SAME REASONING. IN THE SAID APPEAL I N THE CASE OF ACIT VS. PIRON EDUCATION PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 3699/DEL/2015 (AY 2011-2) VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.2018, WE HAVE HELD THAT THE ADDITION IS UNSUSTAINABLE AS THE CASH DEPOSITED IS AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEING REGULA RLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT WHICH CASH RECEIPT OR DEPOSITED IN THE BANK IS UNACCOUNTED FOR. F ROM THE DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 217 IT IS EVIDENT THAT ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN EXPLANATION FOR EACH RE CEIPT AND DEPOSIT IN THE BANK. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL FOLLOWING OUR ORDER DATED 31.10.2018 AND THE REASONING IN THE ABOVE SAID ORDER WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DELETING THIS ADDITION AND THIS GR OUND IS DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. 4. GROUND NO. 2 IN REVENUES APPEAL IS RELATING TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 44,96,163/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS EXPENSES. ON THE ISSUE OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CARRYING OUT ANY ACTIVITIES ON THE BASIS OF THE SURVEY REPORT IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THE O BSERVATIONS OF THE AO ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CARRYING O N ITS ACTIVITIES AND 4 IT HAS PROVIDED ALL THE DETAILS IN SUPPORT THEREOF AS ASKED FOR BY THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH IN CLUDED THE LIST OF FACULTY, TRAINING PROGRAM, COURSE MATERIAL AND SUPPORT ING BILLS ETC. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT AN Y SPECIFIC ERROR OR MISTAKE IN THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE AO IS MAKING A GENERAL OBSERVATION IGNORING THE F ACTS AND THE EVIDENCES ON RECORD. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS AN D INFORMATION WERE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ALSO AND IT IS NOT T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DETAILS WER E NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. IN FACT SURVEY REPORT IF ANY HAS NOT B EEN SHARED OR CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AT ANY TIME. IT WAS ALSO SUBM ITTED THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER WAS F OUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ALLEGATI ON OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS TOTALLY FALSE. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE DETAILS PLACED ON RECORDS. ON GOING THROUGH THE SAME WE FIND THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR IS CORRECT. THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON REGULAR BUSINESS AND ALL THE EXPE NSES HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY INCURRED. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ARBITRARILY IGNORING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT THE BUSINESS. AS REGARD THE SURVEY REPORT ON GOING THROUG H THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WE NOTE THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS MAKIN G A REFERENCE TO THE SURVEY REPORT BUT IS IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ALLEGATIONS MADE ARE GENERIC AND IN THE LIGHT OF EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM HOW HE HAS IGNORED THE SAME. IT IS IMPORTANT TO POIN T OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NOR HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CARRYING ANY BUSINESS. THE EXPENSES INCURR ED ARE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL BR OUGHT ON THE RECORD BY THE AO THAT THESE EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN ACTUALLY INCURRED. IN VIEW OF 5 THE ABOVE FACTS WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE RE VENUE. 5. GROUND NO.3 IN REVENUES APPEAL IS REGARDING THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 6,00,000/- MADE BY AO UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(B) ON A CCOUNT OF REMUNERATION TO DIRECTOR. THE AO HAS MADE THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE TO MR. ABHISHEK ASTHANA WHO H OLDS ONLY 5% SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADD ITION HOLDING THAT THE REMUNERATION PAID IS NEITHER EXCESSIVE NOR UNREASON ABLE. MR. ABHISHEK ASTHANA IS A QUALIFIED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND LOOKING AFTER THE OVERALL AFFAIRS. THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE ABOVE FACTS. THE REMUNERATION PAID TO MR. ASHTHANA BEING A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT CANT BE SAID TO BE EXCESSIVE. FURTHER HE IS LOOKING AFTER THE O VERALL AFFAIRS. THE OBSERVATION THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND THIS GROUND NO. 3 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. THE GROUND NO. 4 IN REVENUES APPEAL IS RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS. 38,60,500/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE SERVICE CHARGES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S ESAJV D-ART INDO INDI A PVT. LTD. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN RELIEF OF 50% OF THE TOTAL ADDITION . A SIMILAR ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF PIRON EDUCAT ION PVT. LTD. A SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON THE SAME REASONI NG AS STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CIT(A) IN THAT CASE HAS ALSO GIVEN RELIEF OF 50% OF THE TOTAL ADDITION. WE H AVE DECIDED THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. PIRON EDUCATION PVT. LTD. (ITA NO. 3699/DEL/2015) (AY 2011-12) VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.2018 WHEREBY WE HA VE HELD THAT THIS ADDITION IS UNSUSTAINABLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAVING INCLUDED THE SERVICE CHARGES IN ITS INCOME, THE SAME AMOUNT CAN NOT BE ADDED AGAIN. IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH THE LD. DR AND LD. AR THAT TH E FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF PIRON ED UCATION PVT. LTD. 6 (SUPRA). THIS ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 38,60,500/- FORMS PART OF THE RECEIPT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ITS INCOME IN THE PROFIT & LOS S ACCOUNT OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY FOLLOWING THE REA SONING GIVEN IN OUR ORDER DATED 31.10.2018 IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. PIRON EDUCATION PVT. LTD., (SUPRA), WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO. 4 OF REVENUES APPEA L IS DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO 5 IN REVENUES APPEAL IS RELATING TO DEL ETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 65,78,666/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED I NVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ABO VE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID BACK THE LOAN RECEIVED FR OM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES DURING THE YEAR: SL. NO. NAME OF THE PARTY FROM WHOM LOAN HAS BEEN ACCEPTED TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED DURING A.Y 2011-12 TOTAL AMOUNT PAID BACK DURING A. Y. 2011-12 INTEREST PAID CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2011 1. M/S DOLPHIN SPACE SYSTEMS RS. 1,54,500/- RS. 1,54,500/- NIL NIL 2. M/S INDO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. RS. 50,03, 066/- RS. 50,03,066/- NIL NIL 3. M/S PIRON DESIGN PVT. LTD. RS. 5,27,000/- RS. 5,27,000/- NIL NIL 4. M/S PIRON EDUCATION PVT. LTD. RS. 8,94,100/- RS. 8,94,100/- NIL NIL TOTAL RS. 65,78,666/- RS. 65,78,666/- NIL NIL 7. WE FIND THAT A SIMILAR ADDITION ON THE ABOVE ACCOU NTS WAS ALSO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. PIRON EDU CATION PVT. LTD.(ITA NO. 3699/DEL/2015) (AY 2011-12). IN THE SA ID CASE WE HAVE ANALYSED ALL THE FACTS AND THE DOCUMENTS AND AFTER EXA MINATION, WE HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION. THE RELEVANT FINDING IN THE S AID ORDER ARE AS UNDER: 13.1 ONGOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WE NOTE THA T THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT PAID BA CK BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES NOT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THESE PARTIES: 7 S.NO. NAME OF THE PARTY FROM WHOM LOAN HAS BEEN ACCEPTED TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED DURING AY 2011-12 TOTAL AMOUNT PAID BACK DURING AY 2011-12 INTERE ST PAID CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.3.2011 1 M/S DOLPHIN SPACE SYSTEMS RS. 23,58,400 RS. 23,58,400 NIL NIL 2 M/S PIRON CONSULTING PVT. LTD. RS. 8,94,100 RS. 89,41,000 NIL NIL 3 M/S INDO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. RS. 1,25,52,000 RS. 85,28,000 NIL RS. 40,90,000 4 M/S PIRON DESIGN PVT. LTD. RS. 42,14,000 RS. 5,89,000 NIL RS. 36,25,000 5 SH. ASHISH AGGARWAL RS. 7,64,453 RS. 7,64,453 NIL NIL 6 SH. ANKUR AGGARWAL RS. 36,63,500 RS. 22,46,500 NIL RS. 14,17,000 TOTAL RS. 2,44,46,453 RS. 1,53,80,453/- NIL RS. 54,51,000/- 13.2 IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST PARTY NAMELY M/S DOLPHIN SPACE SYSTEM, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 23,58,400/- AND PAID BACK THE SAME AMOUNT DURING THE YEAR. THE DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE THE AO IN RESPECT OF THIS CREDITO R IS PLACED IN PB. PG. 266-287 WHICH INCLUDE CONFIRMATION, COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT AND COPY OF AUDIT ED FINANCIALS. THIS IS A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF ONE OF THE DIRECTOR MR. ASHISH AGGARWAL. AS PER THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IT HAS MADE A SALE OF RS. 4,98,28,165/-. IT HAS FILED THE INCO ME TAX RETURN DECLARING A TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 10,19,401/- W HICH INCLUDE PROFIT FROM THIS CONCERN OF RS. 8,87,582/-. THIS CONCERN HAS GOT LOAN FROM BANKS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTION S WHICH INCLUDE NSIC LTD. THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE FROM ITS R EGULAR BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH VIJAYA BANK. IT HAS A RUN NING ACCOUNT BEING A SISTER CONCERN WITH ASSESSEE AS IS EVIDENT FR OM THE COPY OF ACCOUNT PLACED AT PB. PG. 267. 8 13.3 THE SECOND CASE IS THAT OF PIRON CONSULTING PVT. LTD . THIS IS A SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 8,94,100/- DURING THE YEAR AND PAID THE SAM E BACK DURING THE YEAR. THE DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE THE AO I N RESPECT OF THIS CREDITOR IS PLACED IN THE PB. PG. 288-306 WHICH I NCLUDE CONFIRMATION COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT, BANK STATEMENT AND AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND ITR. THIS COMPANY IS BEING ASSE SSED WITH THE SAME AO AND IN FACT ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE SAME YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE AO ON 26 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 UNDER SECTION 143(3) AND NO ADVERSE IN FERENCE HAS BEEN DRAWN IN RESPECT OF THIS AMOUNT RECEIVED AND PAID BACK DURING THE YEAR IN THAT ORDER. THE COPY OF ACCOUNT IS PLACED AT PB. PG. 289 WHICH IS A RUNNING ACCOUNT. THE A O HAS SIMPLY ADDED THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF THE CREDIT WITHO UT EVEN CONSIDERING THAT THIS IS A RUNNING ACCOUNT BETWEEN THE T WO CONCERNS. THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE AND RECEIVED FROM THE REGULAR BANK ACCOUNT AND THERE IS NOTHING ABNORMAL IN THE BANK STATEMENT SO AS TO DRAW ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE ABOUT THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO WITH THIS COMPANY. 13.4 THE THIRD CASE IS THAT OF INDO SOLUTION PVT. LTD . IN THIS ACCOUNT THERE WAS AN OPENING DEBIT BALANCE OF RS. 36,15, 000/- AND ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS. 1,25,52,000/- AND PAID BACK RS. 85,28,000/- DURING THE YEAR WITH THE RESULT THAT THE RE WAS A CLOSING CREDIT BALANCE OF RS. 4,09,000/-. THE DOCUMENTS FI LED IN RESPECT OF THIS ACCOUNT BEFORE THE AO ARE PLACED AT PB. PG. 315 TO 388 WHICH INCLUDE CONFIRMATION, LEDGER ACCOUNT, BANK STATEMENT, ITR AND AUDITED BALANCE SHEET. THIS IS ALSO A SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS ACCOUNT IS ALSO A RUNNING ACCOUNT . THE AO IN THIS CASE ALSO HAS SIMPLY ADDED THE ENTIRE AGGR EGATE 9 CREDIT WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THIS IS A CURRENT ACCOUNT BETWEEN THE TWO RELATED CONCERNS. ALL THE PAYMEN T HAVE BEEN MADE AND RECEIVED THROUGH THE RUNNING BANK ACCOUNT. THIS COMPANY HAS FILED ITS ITR FOR THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION OF RS. 41,60,505/-. IT HAS A GROSS INCOME F ROM OPERATION OF 18,52,99,273/-. THERE IS NOTHING ABNORM AL IN THE TRANSACITONS ENTERED IN TO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THIS COMPAN Y AND ALSO IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THIS COMPANY. 13.5 THE FOURTH CASE IS THAT OF PIRON DESIGN PVT. LTD . WHICH AGAIN IS A GROUP COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM O F RS. 14,42,000/- AND HAS PAID BACK RS. 5,89,000/- WITH T HE RESULT THAT THERE IS A CLOSING CREDIT BALANCE OF RS. 36,25 ,000/-. INTERESTINGLY THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 5,89,000 /- ONLY BEING THE AMOUNT PAID BACK BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YE AR. THE DOCUMENTS FILED IN RESPECT OF THIS ACCOUNT BEFORE THE AO ARE PLACED AT PB. PG. 389 410 WHICH INCLUDE CONFIRMATION , COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT, BANK STATEMENT, ITR AND AUDITED FINANC IALS. THIS IS ALSO A RUNNING ACCOUNT AS PER THE COPY OF ACCOUNT PLACE D AT PB. PG. 390. THIS COMPANY HAS A GROSS INCOME FROM OPERAT ION OF RS. 2,14,64,220/- AND ASSESSMENT OF THIS COMPANY HAS AL SO BEEN COMPLETED BY THE SAME AO VIDE ORDER DATED 28 TH JANUARY, 2014 AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE HAS BEEN DRAWN IN RESPE CT OF THE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THIS COMPANY . ALL THE PAYMENTS ARE THROUGH REGULAR BANK ACCOUNT AND THE RE IS NOTHING ABNORMAL IN THE BANK STATEMENT AND THE TRANSA CTION ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE. 13.6 THE FIFTH CASE IS THAT OF MR. ASHISH AGGARWAL, DIR ECTOR OF ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 7,64,453/0 AND PAID BACK RS. 7,64,453/-. THE DO CUMENTS 10 FILED BEFORE THE AO IN RESPECT OF THIS ACCOUNT ARE PLA CED AT PB. PG. 256 TO 265 WHICH INCLUDE CONFIRMATION, COPY OF LED GER ACCOUNT, BANK STATEMENT AND ITR. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM OF MR. ASHISH AGGARWAL ALSO. AS PER THE ITR THE TAXABLE INCOME DECLARED IS 10,19,400/-. THIS IS ALSO A RUNNING ACCOUNT WITH A DIRECTOR MR. ASHISH AGGARWAL AS I S EVIDENT FROM THE COPY OF ACCOUNT PLACED AT PB. PG. 258 . THE AO HAS SIMPLY ADDED THE AGGREGATE CREDIT WITHOUT CONSIDERI NG THE NATURE OF THE ACCOUNT BEING THAT OF A CURRENT ACCOUNT. T HE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE AND RECEIVED THROUGH REGULAR BANK ACCOUNT OF MR. ASHISH AGGARWAL AND THERE IS NOTHING ABNO RMAL IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF MR. ASHISH AGGARWAL SO AS TO D RAW ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE. 13.7 THE SIXTH AND THE LAST CASE IS THAT OF MR. ANKUR A GGARWAL, DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 36,63,500/- DURING THE YEAR AND HAS PAID BACK RS. 22,46,500/- WITH THE RESULT THAT THERE WAS A CREDIT BA LANCE OF RS. 14,17,000/-. THE AO INTERESTINGLY HAS MADE ADDITIO N NOT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BUT OF THE AMOUNT PAID BACK I.E. RS. 22,46,500/-. THE DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THIS ACCOUNT ARE PLACED IN PB. PG. 307 TO 3 14 WHICH INCLUDE CONFIRMATION, LEDGER ACCOUNT, ITR AND BANK STATE MENT. MR. ANKUR AGGARWAL HAS ALSO FILED HIS RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 9,01,940/-. HE IS ALSO HAVING A RUNNING ACCOUNT AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE COPY OF ACCOUNT PLACED AT PB. PG. 308 . ALL THE PAYMENTS ARE THROUGH REGULAR BANK ACCOUNT AND THERE IS NOTHING ADVERSE ABOUT THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE. 11 13.8 THE ABOVE ANALYSIS OF EACH OF THE CREDITORS SHOWS T HAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES SO AS TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACT IONS. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THERE IS NOTHING ABNORMAL SO AS TO DRA W ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IT MAY BE REL EVANT TO POINT OUT THAT HE AO HAS MADE ADDITION WITHOUT AP PLICATION OF MIND. THIS FACT GETS ESTABLISHED THAT AO HAS MADE ADDITI ON OF THE AMOUNT PAID BACK AND NOT THAT OF THE AMOUNT RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, THE ABOVE ANALYSIS CLEARLY DEMONSTRA TE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS FULLY IN RESPECT O F THE CREDIT. THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MAT ERIAL SO AS TO DRAW ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE. HE HAS INDULGED INTO SURMISES. THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION AND ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETIN G THE ADDITION. IN THE RESULT THE GROUND NO 5 IS DISMISSED. 7.2 BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE FACTS AND THE REA SONING FOR MAKING THIS ADDITION IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. PIRON EDUCATION PVT. LTD. WE HAVE EXAMINED THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL IN TH E CASE OF PIRON EDUCATION PVT. LTD (ITA NO. 3699/DEL/2015) (AY 2011- 12) AND HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. SINCE THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ABOVE CASE FOLLOWING THE ORDER IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE WE UPH OLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ABOVE ADDITION AND THIS G ROUND NO. 5 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO. 6 IN REVENUES APPEAL IS REGARDING THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 4,65,000/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDITS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND T HAT ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DEPOSITED CASH IN ITS BANK ACCOUNTS. IT WAS AG REED BY BOTH THE PARTIES THAT THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF M/S PIRON 12 EDUCATION PVT. LTD. (ITA NO. 3699/DEL/2015) (AY 2011 -12) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE SIMILAR ADDITION ON THE SAM E REASONING. IN THE SAID APPEAL IN THE CASE OF M/S PIRON EDUCATION PVT. LT D. WE HAVE HELD THAT THE ADDITION IS UNSUSTAINABLE AS THE CASH DEPOSITED IS AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEING REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH CASH IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS REPRESENTS THE FEE RECEIPT FROM THE ST UDENTS WHICH HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE INCOME. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENT ICAL FOLLOWING OUR ORDER AND THE REASONING IN THE ABOVE SAID ORDER WE U PHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DELETING THIS ADDITION. AND THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 9. GROUND NO. 7 IN REVENUES APPEAL IS REGARDING DELE TION OF THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1,31,863/-, RS. 6,76,299/- MADE BY THE AO BEING FALSE EXPENSES AND RS. 8,48,803/-MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT OF MONEY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 1,31,863/- TREATING THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION TO FIXED ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE AS FALSE EXPENSES. FURTHER THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,76,29 9/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY GIV EN EARLIER AND AMOUNT OF RS. 8,48,803/- HAS BEEN ADDED ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND EXPENSES PAYABLE OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.3.2011 TRE ATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT OF MONEY. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEL ETED ALL THE THREE ADDITIONS ON THE GROUND THAT AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION S WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY BASIS AND WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY ADVERSE EVIDEN CES AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE FIRST ADDITION IS OF RS. 1,31,860/-. THIS D ISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE ON THE ALLEGATION THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURV EY AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY ACTIVITY OR THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY WAS FOUND. THESE EXPENSES PERTAIN TO FIXED ASSETS AND THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING THIS ADDITION. THE REASO NING GIVEN BY THE AO IS INCORRECT. AS HELD IN GROUND NO. 2 THE ASSESSEE IS VERY MU CH CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS AND THIS ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS UNSUSTAINA BLE. FURTHER THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,76,299/- HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DELETED B Y THE LD. CIT(A). THIS 13 WAS THE LOAN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING YE AR AND HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK DURING THE YEAR. AS REGARDS THE FURTHER ADDITION OF RS. 8,48,803/- THE SAME REPRESENTS THE CREDITORS FOR THE VARIOUS SERVICES AND EXPENSES OUTSTANDING AS ON LAST DAY OF THE YEAR. THE A SSESSEE HAS PROVIDED THE DETAILS OF THE SAME AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 222-225 . AS PER THIS DETAILS THESE AMOUNTS ARE PAYABLE TO TRAVEL AGENT, CII ETC. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN DEL ETING THESE ADDITIONS. ACCORDING, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND NO. 7 OF APPEAL. 10. GROUND NO. 8 IN REVENUES APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE NEED NO ADJUDICATION IS REQUIRED. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 05-11-2018. SD/- SD/- [L.P. SAHU] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE:05/11/2018 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. DR , ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES 14