RAJ AUTOWHEELS PVT. LTD., Ajmer V. ITO, Ajmer

ITA 398/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 39823114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K KHANDELWAL; D C SHARMA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Loose papers; Commercial expediency; Revenue expenditure

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 39/8JP/2012 M/S. RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 1(1), AJMER 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R. ME ENA) ITA NO. 398/JP/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAN : AADCR 3896 B M/S. RAJ AUTOWHEELS (P) LTD. VS. THE ITO RAWAN KI BAGICHI WARD- 1(1) KESAR GANJ, AJMER AJMER (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI D.C. SHARMA & SHRI A.K. KHAND ELWAL ITA NO. 396/JP/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAN : AGPPG 8817 N SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GARG VS. THE ITO (HQRS.) OPP. SBBJ, LOHAGAL ROAD AJMER AJMER (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 397/JP/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAN : AFXPG 7454 G SMT. ASHA GARG VS. THE ITO OPP. SBBJ, LOHAGAL ROAD WARD- 2 (1) AJMER AJMER (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI D.C. SHARMA ITA NO. 39/8JP/2012 M/S. RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 1(1), AJMER 2 DATE OF HEARING: 03-09-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31-10-2014 ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY ABOVE ASSESSEES OF THE SAME GROUP; AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A), AJMER EACH DATED 10-12-2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ISSUES BEING INTER CONNECTED THESE ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2.1 THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE M/S. RAJ AUTO WH EELS (P) LTD. IN ITA NO. 398/JP/2012 ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 3,35,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CASH FOUND IN SURVEY. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 18,53,156/- (RS. 21, 55,136 RS. 3,02,000) ON THE BASIS OF THE LOOSE PAPERS IG NORING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS EITHER RECORDED IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS OR REPETITIVE AMOUNTS OR UNRELATED TO ASSE SSEE OR THERE ARE TOTALING ERRORS. 2.2 THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GARG IN ITA NO. 396/JP/2012 ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 39/8JP/2012 M/S. RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 1(1), AJMER 3 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 8,44,513/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY LET OUT TO M /S. RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. IGNORING THAT THE AO WRONGLY GOT TH E SURRENDER OF THIS AMOUNT. 1.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THIS AMOUNT IS ALSO ADDED IN CASE OF M/S. RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. WHO CARRIED OUT THE FURTHER CONSTRU CTION. 2.3 THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE SMT. ASHA GARG IN IT A NO. 397/JP/2012 ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N CONFIRMING THE NOTIONAL DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTERES T PAYMENT AT RS. 1,36,000/- IGNORING THAT ADVANCES GIVEN TO AVAN TIKA ENTERPRISES, ABHISHEK ENTERPRISES & GOVIND GARG & CO. ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 6,80,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY LET OUT TO M /S. RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE SAID ADDITION IGNORING THAT ADDITION OF THIS AMOUNT IS ALSO CONFIRMED BY HIM IN CASE OF M/S. RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. 2.4 ADVERTING TO THE APPEAL OF M/S. RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD., BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, M/S RAJ AUTOWHEE LS PVT. LTD. IS A DEALER OF MARUTI CAR AND ALSO RUNNING A WORKSHOP AT AJMER. TH E SHOWROOM OF THE FIRM ITA NO. 39/8JP/2012 M/S. RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 1(1), AJMER 4 IS AT VAISHALI NAGAR, AJMER IS OWNED BY SH. VIJAY G ARG AND THE WORKSHOP/ SERVICE CENTRE IS AT JAIPUR ROAD, AJMER WHICH IS OW NED BY SMT. ASHA GARG. A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED ON 18.02.2008 ON THE BUSINES S PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. STATEMENT OF SH. PRADEEP KUMAR GARG, DIRE CTOR ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY WAS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, I N REPLY TO Q NO. 48 HE SURRENDERED RS.3,35,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CASH AND IN REPLY TO Q NO. 49 WITH REFERENCE TO PAPERS OF CONSTRUCTION FOUND A T ANNEXURE A-2, PG 1 TO 76 OFFERED RS.6,80,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE ON CONSTRUCTION AT WORKSHOP/ SERVICE CENTRE AND RS.14,75,136/- ON ACCO UNT OF CONSTRUCTION AT SHOWROOM. AFTER THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE V IDE LETTER DATED 23.03.2008 RETRACTED FROM THE STATEMENT AND OFFERED RECONCILIA TION OF THE AMOUNTS SURRENDERED STATING THAT EXCESS CASH DETERM INED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS DUE TO NO POSTING OF SOME RECEIPTS OF VE HICLE BOOKING AMOUNTS AND COLLECTION; SURRENDER ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTIO N WAS INCORRECT AS IT RELATED TO OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS/ THIRD PARTIES WHIC H CAN BE RECONCILED. IN SHORT ASSESSE OFFERED TO RECONCILE THE SURRENDERED FIGURES AND REQUESTED THAT THESE AMOUNTS DO NOT REPRESENT ITS INCOME. THE AO H OWEVER WAS NOT CONVINCED IN THIS BEHALF AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSME NT OF THE FIRM ON 29.12.2010 MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CAS H FOR RS.3,35,000/-. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDER ED RS.6,80,000/- ON ITA NO. 39/8JP/2012 M/S. RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 1(1), AJMER 5 WORKSHOP CONSTRUCTION AND RS.14,75,136/- ON SHOWROO M CONSTRUCTION OUT OF WHICH RS.3,02,000/- IS PAID THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THEREFORE MADE ADDITION OF RS.18,53,136/-. BESIDES LD. AO MADE AD DITION OF RS.6,80,000/- IN CASE OF SMT. ASHA GARG AND RS.8,44,513/- (147513 6-630623 EXPENDITURE INCURRED DURING THE YEAR & SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHE ET) IN THE CASE OF SH. VIJAY GARG. 2.5 ALL THESE ASSESSEES PREFERRED FIRST APPEALS. L D. CIT(A) WHOEVER IN THE CASES OF M/S. RAJ AUTOWHEELS (P) LTD. AND SHRI VIJA Y KUMAR GARG, DISMISSED THEIR APPEALS AND IN THE CASE OF SMT. ASH A GARG PARTLY ALLOWED HER APPEAL. 2.6 NOW AGGRIEVED, THESE ASSESSEES ARE BEFORE US; IN THE BACK DROP OF THESE FACTS THE ABOVE GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED. 2.7 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT FOR EXCESS CASH OF RS. 3.35 LACS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE AS SESSEE DEMONSTRATED THAT DIFFERENCE WAS OWING TO FACTS THAT AMOUNTS WERE COL LECTED AND RECEIPTS WERE ISSUED BUT ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT LATTER, IT IS A USUAL PRACTICE OF PREPARING FINAL ACCOUNTS ARE COMPLETED WITHIN A DAY OR TWO. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HELD THAT ASSESSESSEES EXPLANATION IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE ACTUAL FACTS ANY PROVIDING ANY JUS TIFICATION. AT THE TIME OF CONDUCTING OF SURVEY, REGULAR BUSINESS OF THE ASSES SEE WAS GOING ON AND IT ITA NO. 39/8JP/2012 M/S. RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 1(1), AJMER 6 WAS BUT NATURAL THAT SOME OF THE RECEIPTS WERE YET TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THIS NORMAL BUSINESS PRACTICE IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE AS LONG AS THE BOOKS ARE PROPERLY WRITTEN AND THEY ARE NOT REJECTED BY AO. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THIS FACT TO THE S URVEY TEAM WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF A MONTH AND PRODUCED COMPLETE EVIDENCE ALONG WITH COPIES OF ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTIES AND BILLS AGAINST WHICH THE ADVANCES WERE SET OFF. LD. COUNSEL CONTENDS THAT ASSESSEE'S EXPLA NATION HAS BEEN DISCARDED WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SAME BY SOLELY RELYING ON THE SURVEY STATEMENT. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S. K HADAR KHAN SON, 352 ITR 480 (SC) HAS SQUARELY HELD THAT SURVEY STATEMEN TS HAD NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENTIARY VALUE CONSEQUENTLY THEY CAN BE EXPLAINE D OR RECONCILED BASED ON PROPER EVIDENCE WHICH HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PUT RELIANCE ON THE DETAILED SUBMISSIO NS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AT PARA 4.1 OF LD. CIT( A)S ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/S. RAJ AUTOWHEELS (P) LTD. 2.8 APROPOS CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORKSHOP/ SERVICE C ENTRE SHRI PRADEEP GARG ONE OF THE DIRECTOR OF M/S. RAJ AUTOWHEELS (P) LTD. OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6.80 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORKSHOP/ SERVICE CENTRE WHICH WAS LEASED OUT BY SH RI VIJAY GARG AND SMT. ASHA GARG TO COMPANY. IN THE CASE OF M/S. RAJ AUTOW HEELS (P) LTD. IT WAS ITA NO. 39/8JP/2012 M/S. RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 1(1), AJMER 7 DULY DEMONSTRATED THAT ENTIRE EXPENDITURES INCURRED BY IT TOWARDS IMPROVEMENT OF LET OUT PREMISES WAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND IN ANY CASE IT WAS ALLOWABLRE AS REVENU E EXPENDITURE. THE AO THOUGH CONSIDERED THIS SUBMISSION BUT ALLOWED ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3.02 LACS WHICH WAS PAID BY CHEQUE AND REMAINING AMOUNT WAS ADDED WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY PROPER REASON. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDS THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT P OINTED OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSE E WITH REFERENCE TO THE VERIFICATION OF VARIOUS AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION EXPE NSES RECORDED IN THE PAPERS FOUND IN SURVEY. THE ADDITION IS SOLELY MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED IN SURVEY WHICH HAS NO CONCLUSIV E EVIDENTIARY VALUE AS HELD BY SUPREME COURT (SUPRA) AND MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE SAME WAS IMMEDIATELY RETRACTED AFTER SURVEY. IT IS CLEAR THA T THE COMPANY INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE WAS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, ONLY BY PRESUMING THAT ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT, THE ADDI TION IS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE FINDING IS UNJUSTIFIED, PRESUMPTIVE AND WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION THE ADDITION BE DELETED. THE LD. AR S UBMITTED THAT THE MAJOR EXPENSES PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND NOT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ITA NO. 39/8JP/2012 M/S. RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 1(1), AJMER 8 2.9 IN RESPECT OF THE CASE SH. VIJAY KUMAR GARG IT IS SUBMITTED THAT HE IS OWNER OF THE SHOWROOM AND VALUE OF LAND & BUILDING AS PER HIS BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2007 IS RS.21,26,665/- AND AS ON 31.03.2008 IS RS.27,57,281/-. THUS, VIJAY GARG FURTHER INCURRED E XPENDITURE OF RS.6,30,623/- DURING THE YEAR. IN COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS, AO AGAIN RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF SH. VIJAY GARG WHER E HE SURRENDERED RS.8,44,513/- (1475136-630623) AS HE WAS TOLD THAT NO ADDITION WILL BE MADE IN CASE OF THE COMPANY IF HE AGREES TO BE TAXE D ON SUCH AMOUNT AS IT IS ALREADY SURRENDERED BY SH. PRADEEP GARG IN CASE OF COMPANY. IN THE SHADOW OF SUCH MISREPRESENTATION HE MADE THE ALLEGED SURRE NDERED. SH. VIJAY GARG THEREAFTER FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DT. 27.01.2012 BEFORE THE CIT(A) EXPLAINING THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE SURRENDER WAS MADE. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER IGNORING ALL THESE FACTS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.8,44,513/- IN THE HANDS OF SH. VIJAY GARG WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT SUCH AM OUNT IS ALREADY CONFIRMED IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY M/S RAJ AUTOW HEELS PVT. LTD. AS A MATTER OF FACT THERE IS NO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT I N THE CONSTRUCTION EITHER IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY OR IN THE HANDS OF SH. VIJ AY GARG, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IN CASE OF SH. VIJAY GARG BE DELETED. 2.10 THE AO ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.6,80,000/- IN CASE OF ASHA GARG, OWNER OF SERVICE STATION/ WORKSHOP ON THE SAME LINE S, IGNORING THAT THE SAME ITA NO. 39/8JP/2012 M/S. RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 1(1), AJMER 9 IS ALREADY ADDED IN THE CASE OF COMPANY AND THAT TH ERE IS NO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORKSHOP IN A S MUCH AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DECLARED CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES OF RS.34 .75 LACS. THE CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING ALL THESE RELEVANT AND MATERIA L FACTS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION WHICH IS GROSSLY UNJUSTIFIED, THEREFORE, T HE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. 2.11 APROPOS NOTIONAL DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAYM ENT OF RS. 1,36,049- IN THE HANDS OF SMT. ASHA GARG, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NEGATIVE CAPITAL OF RS.8,69,896/- BUT HAS GIVEN INTEREST FREE LOAN AND ADVANCES OF RS.39,00,1 53/-, CONSEQUENTLY DISALLOWED THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AT RS.4 ,30,529/-. BEFORE LD CIT(A) IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE CAPITAL HAS BEEN OVERDRAWN IN THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S SHIVA ENTERPRISES ON 26.06. 2007 WHEREAS THERE IS A CREDIT OF RS.2,27,700/- IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF A NOTHER PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S RAJ ASHA AUTOWHEELS. THUS, THE NET CAPITAL OVER DRAWN IS ONLY RS.6,42,196/-, BESIDES ON ADVANCE GIVEN TO TWO PERS ONS, INTEREST OF RS.2,94,483/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND THUS NET INTERE ST PAID IS ONLY RS.1,36,046/-. THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO OTHER THREE PA RTIES NAMELY AVANTIKA ENTERPRISES, ABHISHEK ENTERPRISES AND GOVIND GARG & CO. WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE I S REQUIRED TO BE MADE. THE LD CIT(A) PARTLY ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY GIVING CREDIT ITA NO. 39/8JP/2012 M/S. RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 1(1), AJMER 10 OF INTEREST RECEIVED AT RS.2,94,483/- AND CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS.1,36,046/-. THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO THREE PARTIES BEING FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. THIS WAS EXPLAINED B EFORE THE CIT(A) AND IS REPRODUCED AT PARA 4.1 OF HIS ORDER, THIS FACT IS N OT DENIED. ONCE THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCE IS GIVEN ON COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY, NO PART OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE CAN BE DISALLOWED AS HELD BY SUPREME CO URT IN CASE OF S.A BUILDERS VS. CIT 288 ITR 1. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOW ANCE CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED 2.12 THE LD. DR IS HEARD. 2.13 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW A SURVE Y STATEMENT IS NOT BY ITSELF A CONCLUSIVE PIECE OF EVIDENCE WHEN THE SAME IS RETRACTED OR RECONCILED IN REASONABLE TIME, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NORMAL IN THE BUSINESS THAT ACCOUNTS ARE FINALISED AFTER 2/3 DAYS WHEN THE RELEVANT INFORMATION IS COLLATED. IT HAS NOT BEEN D ISPUTED THAT RECEIPT WERE ISSUED FOR BOOKING THE ADVANCE FROM THE CUSTOMERS W HICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHEN THEY WERE FIN ALLY WRITTEN SAME ARE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO FOR SCRUTINY AND STAND ACCEP TED. THE ADVANCE RECEIPT CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED MERELY BECAUSE THEY WE RE ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AFTER 2/3 DAYS. SIMILARLY IN CASE OF COS T OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE ITA NO. 39/8JP/2012 M/S. RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 1(1), AJMER 11 HANDS SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GARG AND SMT. ASHA GARG, THE SAME IS BASED ON ESTIMATION AND SURMISES. SIMILARLY, IN THE HANDS OF RAJ AUTOWHEELS (P) LTD., THE ASSESSEE COULD DEMONSTRATE THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND MERELY BECAUSE ONE OF THE DIRE CTORS SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT DOES NOT OVERRIDE THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THUS THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT F ACTS IN PROPER AND JUDICIOUS MANNER, BESIDES THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY M/S. RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. BEING ON RENTED PREMISES, PRIMA FACIE APPE ARS TO BE A REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHICH THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE VERIFIED FRO M THIS ANGLE ALSO. 2.14 SIMILARLY IN CASE OF SMT. ASHA GARG, THE NOTIONAL D ISALLOWANCE INTEREST PAYMENT LACS APPLICATION OF MIND FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE VIEW AS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF S .A. BUILDERS LTD VS. CIT, 288 ITR 1.(SC). THUS LOOKING AT THE ENTIRETY O F THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED ABOVE, WE ARE INCLINED TO S ET ASIDE THE ISSUES RAISED IN ALL THESE APPEALS BACK TO THE FILE OF THE TO DEC IDE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES. ITA NO. 39/8JP/2012 M/S. RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. VS. ITO, WARD- 1(1), AJMER 12 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31- 10-2014 SD/- SD/- (T.R. MEENA) (R.P. TOLANI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED: 31 ST OCT. 2014 *MISHRA COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. M/S. RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD., AJMER 2. THE ITO, WARD- 1(1), AJMER 3. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GARG, AJMER 4. THE ITO, WARD- (HEADQUARTER), AJMER 5. SMT. ASHA GARG, AJMER 6. THE ITO, WARD- 2(1), AJMER 7. THE LD. CIT(A) 8. THE LD. CIT BY ORDER 9.THE LD. DR 10.THE GUARD FILE (IT NO.398/JP/2012) AR ITAT, JAIPUR