J.C.I.T., Range-3, Gwalior V. M/s A.K.Shivhare &Co, Guna

ITA 415/AGR/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 41520314 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R C TOMAR I T P
• Keywords: Peak credit; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.270 & 415/AGR/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 & 2006-07 ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS. M/S. A.K. S HIVHARE & COMPANY, RANGE-3, GWALIOR. HAT ROAD, GUNA. (PAN: AALFA 1266 H). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.C. TOMAR, I.T.P. DATE OF HEARING : 21.05.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 08.06.2012 ORDER PER A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TWO DIFFERENT ORDERS DATED 20.02.2009 & 29.06.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A), GWALIOR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY. ITA NO.270/AGR/2009 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 BY THE REVENUE 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS :- ITA NOS.270 & 415/AGR/2009 A.YS. 2005-06 & 2006-07 . 2 (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.17,74,861/- BE ING THE AMOUNT OF WORK DONE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 31.03.2005 AS PER MEASUREMENT DONE BY G.M., M.P.R.R.D.A. RAISEN AND WHICH WAS NOT REFLECTED IN ITS CONTRACT RECEIPTS BY THE ASSESSEE. (II) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,11,586/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED CLOSING STOCK BECAUSE THIS AMOUNT IS SHO WN IN THE BALANCE SHEET BUT IS NOT SHOWN IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT. (III) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20,000/- B EING PROVISION FOR LEGAL AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES DEBITED TO PROFIT & L OSS ACCOUNT, ALTHOUGH NO EXPLANATION FOR ITS ADMISSIBILITY WAS S UBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. (IV) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ADDITIONS AS MENTIONED IN GROUND NO.1, 2 & 3 ABOVE ARE COVERED IN THE SURRENDER OF RS.5 LACS M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S WHEREAS THE SAID SURRENDER BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY TO COVER UP THE POSSIBLE LEAKAGE OF INCOME DUE TO MISSING BILLS AND VOUCHERS AS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS LETTER DATED 28.12 .2007 AS WELL AS PER ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 28.12.2007. (V) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINS TO ADDITION OF RS.17,74,861/-. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS A CONTRACTOR DOING WORK FOR DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE COM PLETE VOUCHERS AND SUPPORTING BILLS. ON CONFRONTATION OF DEFICIENCY, THE ASSESSE E VIDE LETTER DATED 28.12.2007 ITA NOS.270 & 415/AGR/2009 A.YS. 2005-06 & 2006-07 . 3 SURRENDERED AN INCOME OF RS.5,00,000/- IN ADDITION TO INCOME DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN TO COVER UP THE POSSIBLE LEAKAGE DU E TO MISSING OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, INFOR MATION WAS RECEIVED FROM G.M., M.P.R.R.D.A., RAISEN WHO HAS INFORMED THAT RS .13,07,622/- AND RS.4,67,239/- WAS PAYABLE TO THE ASSESSEE S ON 31.0 3.2005. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS WORK IN PROGRESS OF SUB-CONTACTORS. THE A.O. NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE F ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.17,74,861/-. 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE NEITHER COMPLETED THE WORK OF G.M., M.P.R.R.D.A. NOR HAD RA ISED ANY BILL NOR ANY SUCH AMOUNT HAS EITHER BEEN RECEIVED OR SHOWN AS REASONA BLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEES FIRM, NOR ANY SUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN REMIT TED AFTER MAKING TDS TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE G.M., M.P.R.R.D.A. IT WAS SUBMITTE D THAT THE AMOUNT PERTAINED TO NEXT ACCOUNTING YEAR AND THE SAME IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE NEXT YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE SAME IN THE NEXT YEAR AFTER AC COUNTING FOR IT IN THE RECEIPT ACCOUNT. IT IS ALSO SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THA T THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN DETERMINED AS PAYABLE AND IF SO WHY THE SAME WAS NOT SUBJECTED TO TDS BECAUSE WHATEVER THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN DETERMINED AS PAYABLE ON FINAL SUBM ISSION OF BILLS ARE SUBJECTED ITA NOS.270 & 415/AGR/2009 A.YS. 2005-06 & 2006-07 . 4 TO TDS AND ONCE THE TDS HAS BEEN MADE IN THE A.Y. 2 006-07 AND SO ALSO THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID AND CREDITED IN ASSESSEES ACC OUNT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 THE SAME CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. IT IS ALSO SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A.O. HAS UTILIZ ED INFORMATION DIREICTLAYA COLLECTED FROM THE OFFICE OF M.P.R.R.D.A. WITHOUT P ROVIDING DETAILS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ACCEPTIN G THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION. THE CIT(A) ALSO HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS ACCEPTED THE SURRENDER OF RS.5,00,000/-, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO MA KE SUPPORTING ADDITION OF RS.17,74,861/-. THE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PAR TIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. BEFORE US, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT TED THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPTS FROM G.M., M.P.R.R.D.A. WHICH IS RS.24,36,247/-. HOWEVER, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WITH REF ERENCE TO THE LETTER DATED 06.12.2007 OF M.P.R.R.D.A SUBMITTED THAT THE DIFFER ENCE WAS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRACT RECEIPT BUT THE AMOUNT WAS PAYABLE AS THE AWARDER HAS DEDUCTED SOME AMOUNT FROM G.M., M.P.R.R.D.A CONTRACT RECEIPT ON A CCOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY FOR 25%, E.W. FOR OTHER REASONS FOR NON-EMPLOYMENT OF T ECHNICAL STAFF ETC. IT IS RELEVANT TO REPRODUCE THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE US WHICH READS AS UNDER :- ITA NOS.270 & 415/AGR/2009 A.YS. 2005-06 & 2006-07 . 5 AS PER COPY OF LETTER DATED 6.1.207 (PARA 5) OF TH E AFORESAID LETTER THE AMOUNT PAYABLE AS ON 31.03.2005 HAS BEEN INFORMED BY MPRRDA, RAISE N AS UNDER : AS PER AGREEMENT NO.40/PM/GSY/04 DT. 10.03.2004 1307622.00 41/PM/GYS/04 DT. 10.03.2004 467239.00 THE A.O. HAS TREATED THIS AMOUNT AS UNACCOUNTED FO R CONTRACT RECEIPTS. WHEREAS THESE ARE THE DEDUCTIONS MADE BY THE CONTRA CTEE OUT OF GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS FOR VARIOUS REASONS SUCH AS E.D. FOR 25% E.W., E.W. FOR OTHER REASONS FOR NON EMPLOYMENT OF TECHNICAL STAFF ETC. AS PER DETAILS GIVEN ON PAGE 6 & 7 AND IS CLEAR FROM THE FOLLOWING. REGARDING RS.1307622/- (40/PMGSY/04) DT. 10.03.2004 AS PER PAGE 6 THE TOTAL OF DEPOSIT ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION OUT OF GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS UNDER VARIOUS HEADS AS SHOWN AT COL. 17 RS.1437622.00 FOR ARRIVING AT THE FIGURE OF RS.1307622/- THE DEPA RTMENT HAS SUBTRACTED THE FOLLOWING FIGURES - E.D. FOR ROYALTY (CO. 15) RS.50000.00 - E.D. FOR OTHER REASONS (COL.14) RS.50000.00 - FOR NON-EMPLOYMENT OF TECH. STAFF. (COL.12) RS.2 500000 - FOR TEST REPORT (COL.11) RS.5000 RS.130000.00 RS.1307622.00 THUS THE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE CONTRACTOR AS ON 31. 03.2005 AS INFORMED BY THE CONTRACTEE IS RESIDUE AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTIO NS MADE FROM THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPT. THUS THE A.O. HAS ERRED IN PRESUMING THAT THESE ARE UNACCOUNTED FOR CONTRACT RECEIPTS WHERE AS THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS WHICH INCLUDE RS.1307622/- HAD ALREADY BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS A S PER DETAILS EXPLAINED ABOVE. REGARDING RS.467239/- AS PER AGREEMENT NO.41/PMGSY/ 04) DT. 10.03.2004 SIMILAR IS THE POSITION IN RESPECT OF AFORESAID AGR EEMENT. AS PER PAGE 7 THE TOTAL OF DEPOSIT ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTIONS OUT OF GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS UNDER VARIOUS HEADS AS SHOWN AT COL. 16 RS.606020.00 FOR ARRIVING AT THE FIGURE OF RS.1307622/- THE DEPA RTMENT HAS SUBTRACTED THE FOLLOWING FIGURES - E.D. FOR TIME EXTENSION (COL.11) RS.118781.00 - DEDUCTION FOR TECH. STAFF RS.20000.00 RS.138781.00 RS.467239.00 ITA NOS.270 & 415/AGR/2009 A.YS. 2005-06 & 2006-07 . 6 THUS THE FIGURE OF RS.467239/- STATED TO BE PAYABLE AS ON 31.0.2005 DOES NOT REPRESENT THE UNACCOUNTED FOR CONTRACT RECEIPTS. I N FACT THIS FIGURE REPRESENT THE DEDUCTION MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT UNDER VARIOUS HEAD S OUT OF GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS AS EXPLAINED ABOVE AND ARE SUBJECT TO RETURN. THE A.O . HAS NOT DISPUTED THAT THERE IS ANY DIFFERENCE ON ACCOUNT OF ACCOUNTING FOR THE GROSS C ONTRACT RECEIPTS DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER LETTER ISSUED BY MP PRDA AND ARE DU LY MATCHED WITH THE PAYMENTS MADE AND ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE AS PER D ETAILS GIVEN ON PAGE 4, 5, 6 & 7. 7. AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO REPRODU CE THE RELEVANT ABSTRACT OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) FROM P AGE 6 OF CIT(A) WHICH READS AS UNDER :- THE A.O. HAS ADDED THIS AMOUNT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SUM WAS STATED TO BE PAYABLE BY THE AFORESAID AUTHORITY TO THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31.03.2005. THE FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N EITHER COMPLETED THE WORK OF THE AFORESAID SUM FOR GM, MPRRDA NOR HAD HE RAISED ANY BILL FOR THE SAME, NOR ANY SUCH AMOUNT HAS EITHER B EING RECEIVED OR SHOWN AS RECEIVABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE S FIRM, NOR ANY SUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN REMITTED AFTER MAKING TDS TO T HE APPELLANT BY THE SAID GM, MPRRDA. IN FACT, IT RELATES TO NEXT A CCOUNTING YEAR AND THE SAME IS FOUND CREDITED IN NEXT YEAR AND THE APP ELLANT HAS ALSO OFFERED THE SAME IN THE NEXT YEAR AFTER ACCOUNTING FOR IT IN THE RECEIPTS. THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. BEING WITHO UT BASIS IS INCORRECT. IT MAY BE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT INC LUDED BY THE AO IN ASSTT. YEAR 05-06 ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEI VED FROM THE GM MPRRDA DOES NOT MENTION ANY DETAILS AS TO HOW THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AND THE AMOUNT IF ANY WAS REALLY DE TERMINED PAYABLE AND IF SO WHY THE SAME WAS NOT SUBJECTED TO TDS BEC AUSE WHATEVER, THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN DETERMINED AS PAYABLE ON FINAL SUBMISSION OF BILL ARE SUBJECTED TO TDS AND ONCE THE TDS HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 AND SO ALSO THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID A ND CREDITED IN ASSESSEES ACCOUNT IN THE SAID ASSTT. YEAR 06-07 TH E SAME CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN ASSTT. YEAR 05-06. THEREFORE, TH E ASSESSEE HAD RIGHTLY INCLUDED THE AFORE SAID PAYMENT IN THE CONT RACT RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 06-07 ON THE BASIS OF TDS CERTIFICA TE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT MPRRDA, RAISEN IN A.Y. 06-07. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES TO TAX THE SAME WILL BE TAXED AGAIN IN ASSTT. YEAR 05-06 WILL BE GROSS INJUSTICE AND AGAINST THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGU LARLY FOLLOWED BY ITA NOS.270 & 415/AGR/2009 A.YS. 2005-06 & 2006-07 . 7 THE ASSESSEE AND ACCEPTED BY DEPARTMENT MERE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION WITHOUT APPRECIATION OF CORRECT FACTS O F THE CASE AS AFORESAID. THE AO HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO TDS IN ASST. YEAR 06-07 AND CAN O NLY BE RIGHTLY INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE I N ASSTT. YEAR 06-07 AND NOT IN A.Y. 05-06 ON THE BASIS OF TS CERTIFICAT E ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR ASTT. YEAR 06-07. IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSTT. YEAR 06-07 THE AFORESAID CONTRACT RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE APPELL ANT HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS BEING TAXABLE ON THE BASIS OF TDS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE AOS A CTION IN BRINGING TO TAX IN ASSTT. YEAR 05-06 IS ILLEGAL, AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AGAINST THE ACCOUNTANCY PRINCIPLE AND METHOD OF ACC OUNTING REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE A.O. HAS UTILIZED INFORMATION DIRECTLY COLLECTE D FROM THE OFFICE OF MPRRDA RAISEN FOR MAKING ADDITION OF RS.17,74,861/- BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THEM BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT RAISED ANY BILL NOR ANY PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE, THEREFORE I T IS NOT UNDERSTAND HOW CAN THE DEPTT. GIVEN SUCH A CERTIFIC ATE. THE LEARNED A.O. HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY COPIES OF INFORMATION U TILIZED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED, 8. ON READING OF EXPLANATION BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND BEFORE US THESE ARE CONTRARY SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. WHATEVER SUB MISSIONS BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AT THIS STAGE THE FACTS CANNOT BE VE RIFIED. IF THE ISSUE IS TO BE SEEN FROM THE POINT OF ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE, THE EXPLANA TION OF THE ASSESSEE IS VERY SIMPLE AND FORTIFIED BY THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IF THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX THIS S UBMISSION CAN BE EXPLAINED VERY WELL BY FURNISHING THE RELEVANT ABSTRACT OF BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF FURNISHING SUCH REASONABLE DOCUMENTS, TRIED TO FURT HER EXPLAIN WHICH IS JUST ITA NOS.270 & 415/AGR/2009 A.YS. 2005-06 & 2006-07 . 8 CONTRARY TO THE EARLIER EXPLANATION THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAYABLE ON ACCOUNT OF E.D. ROYALTY AND OTHERS ETC. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO STA TE THAT THIS EXPLANATION FURNISHED BEFORE US IS ALSO NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RELEVANT ABS TRACT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH IS VERY WELL IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH SUCH INFORMATION AND DETAILS OF DOCUMENTS T O ASCERTAIN THE CORRECT FACT. THE LAW OF MANDATE PROVIDES THAT A PERSON POSSESSIN G THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AND NOT FURNISHING BEFORE THE COURT, AN ADVERSE INFERENCE C AN BE TAKEN AS HELD BY HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KRISHNA VENI AMMAL, 158 ITR 826 (MAD). IN THE SAID CASE, THERE WERE CROSSED CHEQUE S BUT THE SAME WERE NOT PRODUCED. THE COURT HELD AS UNDER :- HELD, (1) THAT, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL ACTED ON THE SOLE INTERESTED STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN THOUG H CROSSED CHEQUES WERE AVAILABLE, THEY WERE NOT PRODUCED AND, HENCE T HE TRIBUNALS CONCLUSION WAS NOT CORRECT. (2) THAT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DIFFERENCE IN PEAK CREDIT TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1956-57 A ND 1957-58 (UNDER REFERENCE), A SUM OF RS.16,000 WAS THE INCOM E EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OF INTEREST SAID TO HAVE BEEN PAID ON THE HUNDI LOANS. 9. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE FIND TH AT THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITION SIMPLY RELYING ON ASSESSEES S UBMISSIONS WITHOUT VERIFYING THE RELEVANT FACTS. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CONTRADICTO RY SUBMISSIONS BEFORE US AND ITA NOS.270 & 415/AGR/2009 A.YS. 2005-06 & 2006-07 . 9 BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH CORRECT FACTS/INFORMATION. THUS, AN ADVERSE VIEW IS TAKEN AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE FA CTS, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND ORDER OF THE A.O. IS RESTORED ON THE ISSU E. THE SET OFF ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) AGAINST SURRENDER OF RS.5,00,000/- IS NOT CO RRECT AS THIS ADDITION OF RS.17,74,861/- WAS INDEPENDENT ADDITION. THE SURRE NDER OF RS.5,00,000/- WAS FOR DEFICIENCIES IN VOUCHERS ETC. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A ) IS NOT CORRECT IN ALLOWING SET OFF AGAINST THIS ADDITION OF RS.17,74,861/-. THE O RDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IS ALSO REVERED. THE SET OFF CLAIM OF THE ISSUE IS RE JECTED. 10. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE SECOND GROUND ARE THAT D URING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. NOTICED THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOW N CLOSING STOCK OF RS.6,11,586/- IN THE BALANCE SHEET BUT THE SAID AMO UNT WAS NOT SHOWN IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE FOLLOWED T HE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM WHEREIN THE STOCK OF PURCHASE WERE REDUCED IN RESPECTIVE PU RCHASE ACCOUNT OF THE CLOSING STOCK HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, H E MADE ADDITION OF RS.6,11,586/-. BEFORE THE CIT(A) SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE NOTED FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AT PAGE 7 IS AS UNDER :- THE ITEM WISE DETAIL OF CLOSING STOCK IS GIVEN AS UNDER :- S.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. REPAIR AND MAINT. 120000.00 ITA NOS.270 & 415/AGR/2009 A.YS. 2005-06 & 2006-07 . 10 2. PARTS TYRE TUBE 39750.00 3. BITUMEN 239796.00 4. DIESEL 200990.00 5. MATERIAL 11050.00 --------------- TOTAL 611586.00 WE ARE SUBMITTING HEREWITH COPIES OF ACCOUNTS OF TH E ABOVE EXPENSES AS REQUIRED. FURTHER, WE ARE PRODUCING HE REWITH CASH BOOK, LEDGER, BILLS & VOUCHERS FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. FR OM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROPERLY RECORDED DET AILS OF CLOSING STOCK. 11. WE FIND SUBSTANCE IN ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FOLLOWED A SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES TO TAK E NET AMOUNT OF REPAIR & MAINTENANCE, PART TYRE TUBE, BITUMEN, DIESEL AND MA TERIAL EXPENSES. THIS FACT IS VERIFIABLE FROM THE COPIES OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK. WHEN PURCHASES EXPENSES HAVE BEEN DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT BY NET AMOUNT, NAT URALLY THE STOCK IN HAND IN THIS ACCOUNT REMAINS IN THE RESPECTIVE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUN T WHICH CAN BE SAID TO BE INDIVIDUAL TRADING ACCOUNT. THE CORRESPONDING EFFE CT OF THE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES ARE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE AS SESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACT. WE, THEREFORE, FIND THAT THIS ADDITION IS NOT WARRANTED. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DELETED ON THE REASONS DISCU SSED ABOVE AND NOT FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) FOR DELETING THIS ADDIT ION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUNDERED RS.5,00,000/- WHICH COVERS THIS ADDITION A LSO AND ADDITION OF ITA NOS.270 & 415/AGR/2009 A.YS. 2005-06 & 2006-07 . 11 RS.6,11,586/- ON ACCOUNT OF CLOSING STOCK IS NOT WA RRANTED. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND SUBSTANCE IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE AND THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 12. THE THIRD GROUND IS IN RESPECT OF DELETION OF A DDITION OF RS.20,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR LEGAL AND CONSULTANCY CHAR GES. THE A.O. DISALLOWED THE SAID AMOUNT AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY E XPENSE REGARDING THE PROVISION FOR LEGAL AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES. THE CIT(A) DELE TED THIS ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED RS.5,00,000/-. 13. AFTER HEARING THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PA RTIES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AS THE ASSESSEE HA S SURRENDERED RS.5,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PRODUCING THE RELEVANT BILLS AND VOU CHERS. THIS RS.20,000/- CONSULTANCY INCLUDES IN THAT DEFICIENCY. THEREFORE , THE SEPARATE ADDITION IS NOT WARRANTED. THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDI TION. 14. GROUND NO.4 IS IN IN CONNECTION WITH GROUND NOS .1 TO 3 REQUIRES NO SEPARATE FINDING. THUS, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALL OWED. ITA NOS.270 & 415/AGR/2009 A.YS. 2005-06 & 2006-07 . 12 ITA NO.415/AGR/2009 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 BY THE REVENUE 15. GROUND NOS.1, 2, 3 & 4 ARE IN RESPECT OF FOLLOW ING ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS LIABILITIES:- 1) RS.39,08,700/- ON ACCOUNT OF WAGES. 2) RS.22,57,700/- ON ACCOUNT OF GITTY 3) RS.12.22.500/- ON ACCOUNT OF GOODS 4) RS.18,74,711/- ON ACCOUNT OF MATERIAL EXPENSE. 16. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. NOTI CED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CREDIT BALANCE IN LABOUR ACCOUNT RS.40,81,200 /- PERTAINING TO 3 MONTHS JANUARY, FEBRUARY & MARCH. THE A.O. FURTHER NOTICE D THAT OUT OF THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF RS.40,81,200, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.1 ,00,500/- IN THE NEXT F.Y. 2006- 07 FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2006 TO 31.03.2007. THE AS SESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH NECESSARY CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF BALANCE LIABIL ITY OF RS.39,08,700/- . SIMILAR FACTS WERE FOUND IN RESPECT OF OTHER OUTSTANDING LI ABILITIES. THE A.O. NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE CONFIRMATORY LETTERS RE GARDING THESE OUTSTANDING LIABILITIES. ON EXAMINATION, THE A.O. FOUND THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE CAPACITY OF THESE PARTIES FOR HAVING SUCH HUGE OUTS TANDING BALANCES. THE A.O. HAS ALSO EXAMINED THE ISSUE FROM THE ALLOWABILITY OF TH E EXPENSES AND NOTED THAT SEPARATE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXP ENSES ARE BEING NOT MADE AS THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS LIABILIT Y TO AVOID DOUBLE ADDITION. ITA NOS.270 & 415/AGR/2009 A.YS. 2005-06 & 2006-07 . 13 17. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION AS UNDER : - (CIT(A) PAGE 7) RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON CASE OF CIT VS. PANCHA M DAS JAIN 205 CTR (ALL) 444. IN A RECENT DECISION THE H ONBLE ITAT AGRA BENCH IN CASE OF HARYANA BIDI UDAYOG ITA NO.212/AG/ 2005 FOR A.Y. 2001-02 HAS DECIDED THE SIMILAR ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND ALSO THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LEARNED A.R. AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AS REGARDS OUTSTANDING WAGES ARE CONCERNED, IT HAS BEE N THE PRACTICE OF THE APPELLANT TO PAY WAGES LATE FROM LAST SEVERAL Y EARS. THE PAYMENT OF WAGES IS DULY SUPPORTED BY LABOUR PAYMENT REGIST ER WHICH HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY THE A.O. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS .39,08,700/- DOES NOT SURVIVE WHICH IS HEREBY DELETED. SIMILARLY ADDITIONS OF RS.12,22,500/-. RS.22,57,700 /- AND RS.18,74,411/- TOWARDS LIABILITIES RELATING TO THE GITTI, MATERIAL, GITTI, HATHTURAI, SAND ETC. IS GENUINE AS THESE EXPENSES A RE NOT CHALLENGED AND THE A.O. HAS NOT POINTED OUT IF THE CASH PAYMEN T HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE TO THE SUPPLIERS AND ONLY BOGUS LIABILITIES AR E APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE CASE OF THE A.O. IS THAT THE SU PPLIERS ARE NOT PERSONS OF MEANS BUT THIS PRESUMPTION HAS NO REALIS TIC BASIS ON ONE HAND, WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND EVEN A PERSON WITH NO SUBSTANTIAL MEANS MAY BE INVOLVED IN SUPPLIES OF GOODS LATE AND MAY RECEIVE PAYMENTS DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES . IT IS FOR THE A.O. TO ESTABLISH WHETHER THE EXPENSES CLAIMED ARE EXCESSIVE OR PAYMENTS TOWARDS EXPENSES HAVE BEEN MADE EARLIER AN D ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS HAVE NOT BEEN DONE. THE A.O. HAS NOT REJECTE D BOOKS, SHOWS THAT THEY ARE CORRECT. HENCE THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1 2,22,500/-, RS.22,57,700/- AND RS.18,74,411/- ARE ALSO HEREBY D ELETED. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PA RTIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. THE LD. A.R. FILED A COMPARATIVE CHART OF THE RESUL T OF COMPUTATION OF POSITION OF LABOUR AND MATERIAL EXPENSES BUT THAT DOES NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE AS THE CASE OF THE A.O. WAS THAT THESE WERE OUTSTANDING LIABILITIES FO R WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THESE LIABILITIES WERE IN FACT OUTSTANDI NG. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ITA NOS.270 & 415/AGR/2009 A.YS. 2005-06 & 2006-07 . 14 PROVE GENUINENESS OF THESE LIABILITIES. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE A.O. HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE EXPENDITU RE WHEREAS THE A.O. IN HIS ORDER CLEARLY HELD THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS UNVERIFIABLE AND HE IS NOT MAKING SEPARATE ADDITION AS HE MADE THE ADDI TION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS LIABILITIES. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE A.O. IS P RODUCED FROM PAGE NO.6 AS UNDER :- THE FOLLOWING LIABILITIES ARE STANDING ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF GITTI, HATHTURAI, SAND MATERIAL AND LABOUR ETC. ON PURCHASES OF SUPPLY OF GITTI ETC. (I) RS.34,80,200/- (II) RS.18,74,411/- (III) RS.39,08,700/- THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENSES DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2005- 06 ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR PAYMENT AND PURCHASE OF GIT TI ETC. THE PURCHASES OF GITTI, SAND, HAVE BEEN MADE WITHOUT VO UCHERS. THE PAYMENT TO THE PURCHASERS HAVE BEEN MADE BELOW RS.2 0,000/-. THE PURCHASES ON ACCOUNT OF GITTI ETC. AND LABOUR TO TH E EXTENT BEING UNVERIFIABLE AND MENTIONED AS BELOW ARE DISALLOWED. (I) RS.34,80,200/- (II) RS.18,74,411/- (III) RS.39,08,700/- THE SEPARATE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE O N THESE EXPENSES IS NOT BEING MADE IN TRADING ACCOUNT BECAUSE ADDITI ON HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNCONFIRMED/BOGUS LIABILITY OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.03.2006 IN BALANCE-SHEET. 19. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT C ORRECT IN DELETING THE ADDITION. THERE IS NO OTHER ARGUMENT OR EXPLANATION IN RESPEC T OF FINDING OF THE A.O. IN THE ITA NOS.270 & 415/AGR/2009 A.YS. 2005-06 & 2006-07 . 15 LIGHT OF THE FACTS, THE ORDER OF A.O. IS REQUIRED T O BE RESTORED AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION REGARDIN G HUGE OUTSTANDING BALANCES ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES DISCUSSED ABOVE. WE, T HEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ORDER OF A.O. AND ADDITION OF RS.39,08,700/- ON ACCOUNT OF OUTSTANDING WAGES, RS.22,57,700/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNC ONFIRMED/BOGUS LIABILITY, RS.12,22,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF LIABILITY WHERE CONFIR MATION LETTER NOT FILED AND RS.18,74,411/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED UNCONFIRME D LIABILITY ARE CONFIRMED. THEREFORE, GROUND NOS.1, 2, 3 & 4 ARE DECIDED IN FA VOUR OF THE REVENUE AS ABOVE. 20. GROUND NO.5 IS IN RESPECT OF DELETION OF ADDITI ON OF RS.7,08,444/- ON ACCOUNT OF WORK IN PROGRESS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS THE A.O. CALLED THE DETAILED CLOSING STOCK INCLUDING WORK IN PROGRESS. THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM MPRRDA THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CONTRACT RECEIPT FOR RS.7,08,444/- ON 31.05.2006 BUT WORKING OF THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT DONE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE F.Y. 2005-06 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2006-07. THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS INCLUDED IN WORK IN PROGRES S AMOUNTING TO RS.26,38,639/-. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN THE YEAR 2006-07 AND SAME HA S BEEN CONSIDERED AS CONTRACT RECEIPT IN THE YEAR 2006-07. THE A.O. MADE ADDITIO N OF RS.7,08,454/- OBSERVING AS UNDER :- (A.O. PAGE NO.7) ITA NOS.270 & 415/AGR/2009 A.YS. 2005-06 & 2006-07 . 16 THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED VIDE THIS OFFI CE LETTER DATED 18.11.08 TO FURNISH DETAILS OF CLOSING STOCK IN THE FOLLOWING PROFORMA :- 1. AMOUNT OF WIP 2. BASIS FOR WORK IN AMOUNT OF WIP 3. NAME OF DEPARTMENT FOR WHICH WIP IS COMPUTED 4. DETAILS OF OTHER LOOSE MATERIAL IN QUANTITY, RAT E AND VALUE AND BASIS ON WHICH THIS VALUATION IS ADOPTED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF C LOSING STOCK AS CALLED FOR IN THE PROFORMA AS ABOVE. THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AMOUNTING TO RS.708444/- IS INCLUDED IN THE WI P AMOUNTING TO RS.2638639/- IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN AS HOW THIS AMOUNT IS INCLUDED IN WIP OF RS .26,38,639/-. FURTHER, IF THIS AMOUNT WAS INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSE E IN CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31.3.06, THIS AMOUNT SHOULD BE APPEARING IN T HE DEBIT SIDE OF BALANCE-SHEET IN THE NAME OF MPRRDA, RAISEN. THERE IS NO ENTRY APPEARING IN THE DEBIT SIDE OF BALANCE-SHEET FOR TH E AMOUNT OF RS.708444/- IN THE NAME OF MPRRDA, RAISEN. HENCE, THIS AMOUNT OF RS.7,08,444/- WILL BE TREATED AS WIP OF THE ASSESSE E FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 06-07. 21. THE CIT (A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION AS UNDER :- (CIT(A) PAGE NO.8) I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE BASIS OF ADDITION OF RS.7 ,08,444/- MADE BY THE A.O. AND I HAVE GONE THROUGH ORDER AND SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED A.R. IT IS APPARENT FROM RECORDS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN WORK IN PROGRESS RS.26,38,639/- AND IS ALSO A CCEPTED BY THE LEARNED A.O. THE AMOUNT OF RS.7,08,444/- IS OUT OF THE SAID WORK IN PROGRESS AS STATED BY THE LEARNED A.R. CANNOT BE BR USHED ASIDE AS SUCH. IT WAS THEREFORE FOR THE A.O. TO ESTIMATE WO RK IN PROGRESS AND IF IT WAS MORE THAN RS.26,38,639/- AS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT, THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN ADDED. ON THE PRINCIPLES OF A CCOUNTING ALSO THE APPELLANT IS CORRECT, AS THE BILLS ARE NOT ISSU ED THE AMOUNT CANNOT BE SHOWN AS SUNDRY DEBTORS IN THE NAME OF MPRRDA RA ISEN. NOTWITHSTANDING THE SAME, THE ENTRY IN WIP OR RECEI VABLE AMOUNT WOULD NOT EFFECT THE QUANTUM OF PROFIT ANYWAY AND H ENCE THERE WAS NO ISSUE INVOLVED FOR AN ADDITION IN INCOME ON THIS SC ORE. THE ADDITION OF ITA NOS.270 & 415/AGR/2009 A.YS. 2005-06 & 2006-07 . 17 RS.7,08,444/- IS, THEREFORE, NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME IS HEREBY DELETED. 22. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PA RTIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT BEFORE US ALSO THE ASSESS EE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT THE WORK IN PROGRESS OF RS.26,38,639/- INCLUDES THIS AMOUNT OF RS.7,08,444/-. THE CIT(A) WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FACT DELETED THE ADDITION MERELY BY ACCEPTING SUBMISSION S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE DETAILED DISCUSSION WHICH WERE MADE WHILE D ECIDING APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2005- 06 IN PARAGRAPH NOS.6 TO 9 OF THIS ORDER WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE LAW OF MANDATE PROVIDES THAT A PERSON POSSESSING THE RELEV ANT MATERIAL AND NOT FURNISHING BEFORE THE COURT, AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE TAKEN AS HELD BY HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KRISHNA VENI AMMAL , 158 ITR 826 (MAD). FOLLOWING THE SAID DISCUSSION, THE ADDITION OF RS.7 ,08,444/- IS WARRANTED FOR WANT OF EXPLANATION AS PER THE ABOVE LAW OF EVIDENCE. I N THE LIGHT OF THE FACT, WE SET SIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE AND RESTORE THAT O F THE A.O. AND CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.7,08,444/- MADE BY THE A.O. 23. AS RETARDS THE DECISION CITED BY THE LD. A.R. O F WHICH COPIES HAS BEEN PLACED IN PAPER BOOK IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOTAN LIME KHA NIJ UDHYOG, 256 ITR 2453 (RAJ), ORDER OF I.T.A.T. AGRA BENCH IN ITA NO.117/A GR/2008 ORDER DATED ITA NOS.270 & 415/AGR/2009 A.YS. 2005-06 & 2006-07 . 18 13.02.2009 AND I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CAS E OF VISHAL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED VS. ACIT, 104 ITD 537 (HYD) WHICH DO NOT HE LP THE ASSESSEE AS THOSE CASES HAVE BEEN DECIDED CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF TH E RESPECTIVE CASES WHICH ARE NOT SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATIO N. IN THOSE JUDGEMENTS/ORDERS, THE ISSUE RELATED TO INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 (3) OF THE ACT AND MADE ADDITION. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE CAS E OF THE A.O. IS NOT REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATION OF INCOME. THU S, THOSE DECISIONS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOV E DISCUSSION, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO ALLOWED. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE IS ALLOWED. 24. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO.270/AGR/2009 FOR A.Y. 200 5-06 OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND ITA NO.415/AGR/2009 FOR A.Y. 200 6-07 OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PBN/* ITA NOS.270 & 415/AGR/2009 A.YS. 2005-06 & 2006-07 . 19 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY