ACIT, Cuttack V. M/s New Age Data Net (P) Ltd, Cuttack

ITA 416/CTK/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 41622114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 68; 142(1); 5(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE : SHRI K.K.GUPTA, AM, AND SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JM ITA NO. 416/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.13/CTK/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08) (C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE) ASST.COMMISS IONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), CUTTACK. VERSUS M/S.NEW AGE DATA NET (P) LTD., C/O.MULTI TECH COMPUTER, HIGH COURT SQUARE, CHANDINI CHOWK,CUTTACK. PAN:AACCN 1654 Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SMT. PARAMITA TRIPATHY, CIT - DR FOR THE RES PONDENT SHRI AMBIKA PRASAD MOHANTY,AR DATE OF HEARING : 13.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.03.2012 ORDER SHRI K.K.GUPTA, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ' 01. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF 40,89,000 MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY THROUGH SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. 02. THE FINDING OF THE LD. APPELLATE AUTHORITY AT THE PARAGRAPH 5(2) OF THE I.T.APPEAL NO:0035/2010 - 11 DATED 25.07.2011 FOR THE A/Y:2007 - 08 IS TOTALLY PERVERSE AND BASED ON NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LEARNED APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE AR OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 21.12.2 009 DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICATION RECEIPT BY THE COMPANY OF 40,89,000 FULL NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND PHOTOCOPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS IS BASELESS. AS A MATTER OF FACT THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE ON RECORD ON 21.12.2009 EXCEPTING ANNEXUR - A IN WHICH THE LD.COUNSEL HAS MENTIONED 100 NAMES AGAINST WHOM VARYIN G AMOUNT RANGING BETWEEN 15,000 TO 2,00,000 HAS BEEN CREDITED IN THE COMPANYS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. THE APPELLANT HAD NOT PRODUCED COMPLETE ADDRESS OF SUCH 100 PERSONS AGAINST WHOM SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF 40,89,000 HAS BEEN CREDITED. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH 100 PERSONS BY FILING A NY CONFIRMATION OF SUCH PERSONS DATE WISE APPLICATIONS MADE TOWARDS SHARE CAPITAL / MODE OF PAYMENT SUCH AS BY CASH/CHEQUE/DD/PAY ORDER ITA NO.416/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.13/CTK/2012 2 ETC. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO NOT ESTABLISHED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SUCH 100 PERSONS AGAINST WHOM THE COMPANY HAS SHOWN RECEIPT OF 40,89,000 AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. NOR THE APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED PAN OF SUCH PERSONS, INCOME TAX RETURN COPY FILED BY SUCH PERSONS IF ANY TO ESTABLISH THEIR GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS. TO THIS EXTENT, THE REASONING GIVEN BY LEARNED APPELLATE AUT HORITY IS BASED ON INCORRECT APPRECIATION OF MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. THE LD.CIT(A) IS TOTALLY INCORRECT TO IGNORE THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ALL THE 100 PERSONS ARE RELATIVE OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY AND THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS WERE NO T PROVED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OR APPELLATE PROCEEDING. 03. THE LD.CIT(A) IS TOTALLY ERRONEOUS TO RELY ON THE RATIO OF DECISION OF HONBLE SC IN THE CASE OF CIT VRS LOVELY EXPORT (P) LTD TO HOLD THAT WHILE PROCEEDING U/S.68 OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 , THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS WHOSE NAMES ARE FOUND IN BOOKS OF THE COMPANY AS SHARE APPLICANTS. 04. THE LD.CIT(A) IS TOTALLY ERRONEOUS TO IGNORE THE RULING GIVEN BY HONBLE ITAT DELHI B BENCH, DELHI IN THE CASE OF ITO 13(NEW DELHI) VRS OMEGA BIOTECH (NEW DELHI) DATED 31.12.2009. THE HONBLE ITAT IN THIS CASE HAS EXAMINED THE IMPLICATION OF SHORT RULING GIVEN BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN LOVELY EXPORT (P) LTD CASE AND HAS OBSERVED THAT WHERE THE EXISTENCE OF THE ALLEGED SHARE APPLICANTS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED AND ALSO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY MATERIAL EVIDENCES, THE RATIO OF DECISION OF HONBLE SC IN THE SHORT RULING GIVEN IN LOVELY EXPORT (P) LTD CANNOT BLINDLY BE APPLI ED TO EACH AND EVERY CIRCUMSTANCES . 05. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE U/S.68 OF THE I.T.ACT OF 53,94,971 ON THE REASONING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED RELEVANT CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE SUNDRY CREDITORS DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDING. THE LD.CIT(A) TOTALLY IGNORED THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE XEROX COPY OF CERTAIN STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT SUBMITTED ON THE BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS A S ON 31.03.2007 DID NOT SPECIFY ANY DATE OF SUCH CONFIRMATION NOR PAN OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS HAVE BEEN INDICATED. 06. ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL THAT M AY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ITA NO.416/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.13/CTK/2012 3 2. A CROSS OBJECTION HAS ALSO BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE - RESPONDENT RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUND. 1. FOR THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW & FACT BY NOT DECIDING ON THE FIR ST & FOREMOST GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TIME BARRED, NOT HAVING BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT AS ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 153(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HENCE THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEED TO BE DECLARED NULL & VOID. 2. FOR THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND FACT IN CONFIR MING THE ADDITION OF 70,168 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY DISALLOWING BUSINESS EXPENSES OF 70,168 INCURRED TOWARDS DONATION & SUBSCRIPTION DURING THE YEAR. HENCE THE UNWARRANTED ADDITION OF 70,168 NEED TO BE DELETED. 3. THE RELE VANT FACTS AS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A C OMPANY DERIVING INCOME FROM TRADING OF ORES AND MINERALS. IT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 15.11.2007 AT A INCOME OF 1,68,120 . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER CASS. STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 142(1) AND 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.144, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTER ALIA BROUGHT TO TAX THE SUM OF 40,89,000 BEING THE AMOUNT OF INCREASE IN SHARE C APITAL AND A SUM OF 53 ,94,971 BEING THE INCREASE IN SUNDRY CREDITORS BALANCE FROM 18,30,045 TO 72,25,016 BETWEEN 1.4.2006 AND 31.3.2007. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO CONSIDERED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND G RANTED RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. LOVELY EXPORTS P. LTD (216 CTR 195) AND CIT V. STELLER INVESTMENT LTD (251 ITR 263). HE ALSO DELETED THE ADDITION WITH RESPECT TO THE SUNDRY TRADE CREDITOR BY NOTING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE OBTAINED THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE PARTIES WHEN THE PRIMARY ONUS HAVING BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF BOOKING THE ITA NO.416/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.13/CTK/2012 4 PURCHASES HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON A FINDING THAT IT APPEARS NOT TO BE A GENUINE CONFIRMATION. HOWEVER, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF 70,168 ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF SUBSCRIPTION/DONATION AND 1,58,000 ON ACCOUNT DISALLOWANCE ON TRE ATMENT OF FILING FEES AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION RAISING THEIR RESPECTIVE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED EARLIER. 5. THE LEARNED CIT - DR INITIATING HER ARGUMENTS , AS REGARDS DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF 40,89,00, SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON MISINTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS INSOFAR AS HAVING CONSIDERED THE ENHANCEMENT IN THE SHARE CAPITAL WAS ON THE BASIS OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES WAS A SINGLE SHARE HOLDER NAMELY SHRI PRASANT SINGH WHO WAS ALLOTTED SHARES ON 25.6.2010 ON BORROWED MONEY OF SMALL AMOUNTS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS WHO COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN THE LENDERS OF THE MONEY FOR THE PURCHASE OF SHARES IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ESTABLISHING THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE INSOFAR AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT BEING CIT V. LOVELY EXPORTS P. LTD (216 CTR 195). THE ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED U/S.144 WHEN THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS CATEGORICALLY GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE LIST OF SHARE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED WHICH CONTAINS THE NAME AND ALLOTMENT AMOUNT OF SHARE, APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM 10 0 SUBSCRIBERS TOTALING TO 40,89 ,000. THIS CLEARLY INDICATES THAT TH E ALLOTMENT WAS NOT MADE TO THE 100 SUBSCRIBERS THE ASSESSEE BEING A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TO EXPLAIN HOW BORROWINGS WERE IN IT INVESTED IN THE SHARE CAPITAL AND NOT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SOURCE BEING THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE 100 SUBSCRIBERS. SHE PRAYED THAT THIS AMOUNT BE CONFIRMED FOR ADDITION AS ITA NO.416/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.13/CTK/2012 5 THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED IT FOR DELETION CITING THE CASE LAWS , WHICH FACTS ARE DIFFE RENT . 5.1. ON THE SECOND ISSUE RELATING TO THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF 53,94,971 , THE LEARNED CIT - DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT CONFIRMATIONS FOR VERIFICATION WHEN THE LEARNED CIT(A) MERELY OBSERVED THAT THE PRO OF OF ESTABLISHING THE INITIAL ONUS LIED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN FRAMED U/S.144 REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THOSE BILLS WHICH CONFIRMED THAT THE SAID TRADE CREDITORS WERE NOT CASH CREDITORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DETAI LED THE PARTIES WHICH REQUIRED THEIR CONFIRMATION, IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS. 5.2. THE LEARNED CIT - DR CONTENDED THAT BOTH THESE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN ERRONEOUSLY DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHICH MAY BE RESTORED AS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. 6. CONTRARY TO THIS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HA S CONSIDERED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ENTIRETY WHICH THE LEARNED CIT - DR IS PUTTING FORTH IN PART INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED U/S. 144 WHEN THE APPEARANCE OF THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N HIS ORDER. THEREFORE, IT WAS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF NOT HAVING BEEN EXPLAINED BOTH THESE ADDITIONS WHICH ONUS LIED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 BEING THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED. HE, THEREFORE, FULLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR HIS PART SUBMISSIONS INSOFAR AS THE REVENUES APPEAL IS CONCERNED . HOWEVER, PLACING RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT MADE THE ORDER I N ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T.ACT WHEN THE ORDER PURPORTEDLY HAVING BEEN PASSED ON 29.12.2009 HAS BEEN SERVED ON TH E ASSESSEE ON 16.4.2010. THIS ISSUE WAS ITA NO.416/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.13/CTK/2012 6 RAISED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS PER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FORMING PART OF THE APPEAL MEMO MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS IT WOULD INDICATE THE CRUX OF HAVING PASSED THE ORD ER U/S.144 INSPITE THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS AND WHEN THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. ADJUDICATING ON THE REVENUES APPEAL FIRST, WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN PASSED U/S.144 INSPITE OF THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURNISHING THE REQUISITE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE HELD TO BE ONUS DISCHARGED BY THE AS SESSEE AS NOTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT - DR HAS CATEGORICALLY GIVEN A FINDING WHICH WAS ERRONEOUSLY NOT OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLOTMENT OF SHARES AMOUNTING TO 40,89,000 HAS BEEN RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF SHRI PRASANT SINGH AS PER THE RETURN OF ALLOTMENT TENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE COMPANIES ON 19.7.2010. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE 100 SUBS CRIBE R S WERE TO BE ALLOTTED SHARES WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE INSOFAR AS NO SUBSCRIBER WOULD PART WITH FUNDS FOR ALLOTMENT OF SHARES IN SOMEBODYS ELSE NAME. WE FIND THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED CIT - DR RELEVANT TO THE FACT THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) E RRED IN APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LOVELY EXPORTS (SUPRA) WHICH FACTS ARE NOT IDENTICAL WITH THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF ADVANCE OR LOAN RECEIVED FROM SHRI PRASANT SINGH BEING THE MAJOR SHARE HOLDER IN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY IF ASSUMED THAT THE 100 SUBSCRIBERS HAD ACTUALLY SUBSCRIBED ON BEHALF OF SHRI PRASANT SINGH. ON THIS ISSUE, THEREFORE , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW, REQUIRES FRESH ADJUDICATION BY ITA NO.416/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.13/CTK/2012 7 THE LEARNED CIT(A) INSOFAR AS THE MATTER HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY AS PARTLY CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON FACTUAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE 100 SUBSCRIBERS WERE THE ULTIMATE ALLOTTE E S OF THE SH ARES SUBSCRIBED. 7.1. HOWEVER, ON THE ISSUE OF DELETION OF SUNDRY CREDITORS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS ARE NOT CASH CREDITORS WHEN THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO FURNISH THE CONFIRMATIONS WHICH RESULTED IN THE CRE DIT S REMAINING AGAINST THE NAMES AS BROUGHT ON RECORD BUT WERE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR TAXATION U/S.68 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AS ON 1.4.2006 VIS - - VIS 31.3.2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF NOTED THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS ACTUAL OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.3.2007 WAS 64,99,437 WAS AGAINST TRADE TRANSACTIONS THEREFORE COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED FOR TAXATION U/S.68. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY NOTED THAT THE ONUS SHIFTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTABLISH THAT THESE TRADE CREDITORS ARE BOGUS AND THAT TOO WITHOUT IDENTIFYING THE AMOUNT OF THE TRADE CREDITORS OF 53,94,971. THEREFORE, THIS DELETION BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS UPHELD. 8. ON THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE - RESPONDENT , WE DO FIND THAT TH E ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE ON 31 . 12.2009 U/S.144 BUT HAS BEEN RECEIVED N THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 16.4.2010 WHEN THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHIN 30DAYS THERE OF. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FIRST GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM, WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON HAVING CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON QUANTUM ADDITIONS ONLY. THEREFORE, WE DO FIND THAT THIS ISSUE MUST ALSO BE DELIBERATED ITA NO.416/CTK/2011 AND C.O.NO.13/CTK/2012 8 UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH GROUND WE RESTORE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR CONSIDERATION. 8.1. AS REGARDS THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION OF 76,108 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DONATION/SU BSCRIPTION , WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS HAVE CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ADDUCE ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS EXPENDITURE HAVING A DIRECT BEARING ON THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT FURNISHING OF LEDGER ACCOUNT . THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONTROVERT SUCH FINDING OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND AS SUCH, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED BY DISMISSING THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTIO N. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL AND THE C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CONSIDERED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. SD/ - SD/ - (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER (K.K.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 16.03 .2012 H.K.PADHEE, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT: ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), CUTTACK. 2. THE RESPONDENT: M/S.NEW AGE DATA NET (P) LTD., C/O.MULTI TECH COMPUTER, HIGH COURT SQUARE, CHANDINI CHOWK,CUTTACK. 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A), 5. THE DR, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLICATE) TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SE NIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY.