The Income-tax Officer, Jammu V. M/s. Soma TRG Joint Venture, Jammu

ITA 475/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 47520914 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SHARDA
• Keywords: Advance ruling
• Section: 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (JAMMU CAMP; JAMMU ) BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S.KAPOOR, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.475(ASR)/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMMU. VS. M/S SOMA TRG JOINT VENTURE, 29, N.R.H.C., GAURIMAL COMPLEX, JAMMU. PAN: AADFC0132G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. R.K. SHARDA (DR.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. R.K. GUPTA (CA.) DATE OF HEARING: 04.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT:15.12.2015 ORDER PER T.S.KAPOOR (A.M): THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), JAMMU, DATED 11.06.2015 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2010-11. 2. ONLY ONE GROUND HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE REVENUE, W HICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: WHETHER THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S, JAMMU WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT CONTRACT RECEIPTS ARE NOT TAXABLE IN THE HAND OF JOINT VENTURE AS BOTH PARTNERS OF JOINT VENTURE HAS BEEN TAXED SEPARATELY FOR RESPECTIVE SHARES ? 2. ITA NO.47 5(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR 201 0-11 3. THE BRIEF FACTS AS NOTED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED NIL INCOME UNDER THE STATUS OF AOP. THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT HAD RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,03,12,635/- FROM RAILWAY AUTHORITIES ON ACCOUNT OF EXECUTION OF CONT RACT AWARDED TO IT AND OUT OF THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED AMOUNT OF RS.6,09,378/- W AS PAID TO M/S SOMA ENTERPRISE LTD. AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,97,03,257/- W AS PAID TO M/S TRJ ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE SE PAYMENTS WERE REFLECTED IN RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT ACCOUNT AND NO PROFIT AND L OSS ACCOUNT WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME. THE AS SESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE PROFITS AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND WAS ALSO ASKED TO GIVE DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURRED. HE FURTHER ASKED AS TO WHY PROFIT RATE BE NOT APPLIED TO WORK OUT THE PROFITS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON EXECUTION OF THIS CONTRACT. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REPLY SUBMITTED THAT THE AOP CONSISTED OF INDEPENDE NT LIMITED COMPANIES INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 NAMELY M/ S TRG INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. AND SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD. AND AOP WAS FORMED W ITH THE SOLITARY OBJECTIVE OF SUBMISSION OF TWO TENDERS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION O F TWO TUNNELS OF NORTHERN RAILWAY ON THE KATRA REASI SECTION OF UDHAMPUR SRIN AGAR. IN THIS RESPECT THE ASSESSEE FILED A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT AND SUBMITTE D THAT THE PARTICIPATION OF EACH PARTY WAS 50/50. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AOP WAS FORMED AS M/S TRG WAS NOT MEETING WITH THE QUALIFYING CONDITIONS FOR SUBMISSIONS OF TENDER AND THEREFORE, IT WAS ONLY M/S SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD . WHO HAD NECESSARY 3. ITA NO.47 5(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR 201 0-11 QUALIFYING REQUIREMENT OF THE TENDER AND THEREFORE, AOP WAS FORMED TO ENABLE M/S TRG TO OBTAIN THE TENDER AND TO EXECUTE THE TEN DER. THEREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ONLY A CONDUIT TO OBTAIN THE TENDER. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE SOMA ONLY ENABLED TO T RG TO OBTAIN THE CONTRACT THEREFORE, IT HAD RECEIVED 3% OF THE CONTRACT VALUE AND M/S. TRG RECEIVED 97% OF CONTRACT VALUE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO WORK WAS INTENDED TO BE DONE BY AOP AND NOR WAS DONE BY THE APPELLANT AND A LL EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY M/S TRG. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER , DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE AND APPLIED NET PROFIT RATE @ 10% ON GROSS RECEIPTS AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.20,39,263/-. 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE TH E CIT(A) AND LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER: THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TWO SEPARATE AND INDEP'ENDENT LIMITED COMPANIES INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 NAMELY, M/S TRG INDUSTRIES (P) LTD AND M/S SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD. ENTERED INTO TWO SEPARATE JOINT VE NTURE AGREEMENTS DATED 23.7.2002 AND 12.9.2002 FOR FORMATION OF M/S SOMA TRG JOINT VENTU RE (THE APPELLANT) WITH THE SOLE OBJECTIVE OF SUBMISSION OF TWO TENDERS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF T WO TUNNELS OF NORTHERN RAILWAY ON THE KATRA- REASI SECTION OF UDHAMPUR-SRINAGAR- BARAMULLA RAIL LINK PROJECT. THE OBJECTIVE BEHIND FORMATION OF M/S SOMA TRG JOINT VENTURE WAS THAT M/S TRG INDU STRIES (P) LTD WAS NOT MEETING WITH THE QUALIFYING CONDITIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF TENDER FLOA TED BY NORTHERN RAILWAYS AS IT HAD NO REQUISITE EXPERIENCE OF CONSTRUCTION OF TUNNELS ON RAIL LINK PROJECTS. IT WAS M/S SOMA ENTERPRISES WHO HAD THE NECESSARY QUALIFYING REQUIREMENT OF THE TENDER AND, THEREFORE A 'FACADE' IN THE NAME OF SOMA TRG JOINT VENTURE WAS CREATED TO ENABLE M/S TR G INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. TO OBTAIN THE TENDER AND EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT. TWO CONTRACTS ALLOTTED I N THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT WERE SOLELY EXECUTED BV M/S TRG INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. AS PER S IDE AGREEMENTS DATED 19.6.2003 AND. 16.2.2004 ENTERED BETWEEN M/S TRG INDUSTRIES (P) LT D. AND M/S SOMA ENTERPRISES SUBSEQUENT TO 4. ITA NO.47 5(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR 201 0-11 OBTAINING THE TENDER IN THE N OF THE APPELLANT WHO HAD MERELY FACILITATED FOR THE ALLOTMENT OF THE CONTRACTS. THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE ME ARE THAT THE AGGREGATE RECEIPTS WERE ALLO CATED TO THE JOINT VENTURES PARTNERS AS PER THE JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT READ WI TH THE SIDE AGREEMENT AND THEREFORE NO INCOME ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS WAS PROVIDED IN T HE AGREEMENT THAT 97% OF THE RECEIPT WILL THAT OF M/S TRG INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. AND REMAINING 3 % IS THAT OF SOMA ENTERPRISES, THE APPELLANT ALSO HAD NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE ON THE SAID P ROJECT, AS THE APPELLANT WAS FORMED MERELY TO OBTAIN THE CONTRACT FROM NORTHERN RAILWAYS. NEITHER THE APPELLANT DID NOT WORK, NOR ANY EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY IT. THE ASSOCIATION WAS PURELY FOR M/S TRG INDUSTRIES (P) LTD., FOR CO- ORDINATION IN EXECUTING THE CONTRACT, SO THAT M/S T RG INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. COULD MAKE ITS OWN PROFIT. M/S TRG INDUSTRIES IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME HAS DULY REFLECTED IN ITS TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS 50,57,37,938.32P. THE RECEIPTS OF RS 1,97,032 53-, WHICH IS HIS MAJOR CHUNK OF SHARE (97%) FROM THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THIS JOINT VENTURE, THE APPELLANT IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSOCIATION BY VIRTUE OF THIS JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT WAS NOT WITH THE OB JECT OF (EARNING INCOME BUT FOR CO-ORDINATION IN EXECUTING THE CONTRACT. UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE HON'BLE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS IN THE CASE OF VAN OQRD ACZ. BV. IN RE REPORTED IN (2001) 248 ITR 399 (AAR) HAS HELD THAT 'SUCH ASSOCIATION WAS UNDOUBTEDLY FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT BUT SUCH ASSOCIATION WILL NOT MAKE THEM A SINGLE ASSESSABLE UNIT AND LIABLE TO TA X AS AN AOP .IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN ORDER TO CONSTITUTE AN AO THERE WILL HAVE TO BE A COMMON PU RPOSE OR COMMON ACTION AND THE OBJECT OF THE ASSOCIATION MUST BE TO PRODUCT INCOME JOINTLY. IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THE PERSONS RECEIVE THE INCOME JOINTLY. BOTH THE ENTITIES I.E., M/S TRG IND USTRIES (P) LTD. AND SOMA ENTERPRISES HAVE OFFERED TO TAX IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURNS THE SHAR E OF 97% AND 3% RESPECTIVELY AS CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND TECHNICAL FEES RESPECTIVELY, ON WHICH PARTICULARLY IN THIS YEAR ,TAX UNDER RESPECTIVE SECTION OF TDS VIZ., 194C & 194J STAND'S DEDUCTED T HUS BY APPLYING THE CASE OF M/S POOJA CONSTRUCTION CO. 69 ITD 147 IF THIS JOINT VENTURE I S ASSESSED AT 10% ON THE GROSS RECEIPT, SHALL AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION THE SUBMISSION ALSO GETS SUPPORT FROM CASE LAW OF HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATH MOTOR SERVICE A ND CANARA PUBLIC CONVEYANCES, 197 ITR 321 (KAR.) 'THAT SUCH METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER WOULD RESULT DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAME INCOME, SINCE GROSS RECEIPTS DISTRIBUTED AMONG ST THE TWO JOINT VENTURE PARTNERS WAS INCLUDED AS RECEIPTS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE CASES'. TH AT NO WORK IS CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT, IT HAS ACTED AS A CONDUIT BETWEEN THE RAILWAY AND TWO CONC ERN CONSTITUTING THIS JOINT VENTURE 5. ITA NO.47 5(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR 201 0-11 (APPELLANT WHEREIN THE WORK EXECUTING CONCERN IS G ETTING 97% AND OTHER ONE FOR TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY IS GETTING 3% WHEREBY THEIR SEPARATE, A ND NEATLY IDENTIFIED, WORK AREAS ARE CONCERNED. A MERE EXISTENCE OF THE AOP (APPELLANT) CANNOT LEAD TO TAXABILITY IN THE HANDS OF THE AQP (APPELLANT) UNLESS IT RECEIVES MONIES IN ITS OW N RIGHT. THIS VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT PUNE BENCH IN ITO VS. RAJDEEP & PMCC INFRASTRU CTURE. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEAL THAT THE ADDITION @ 10% OF GROSS RECEIPTS HA S BEEN MADE AFTE< REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SEC.145 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. LT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT R RESPECT OF CONTRACTS - EXECUTED ON CONSTRUCTIONS OF TUNNEL NO.08; 09 & 10 GIVING HEAD WISE DETAIL OF EXPENSES INCURRED WHILE EXECUTING THESE WORKS. HOWEVER, IT I S SEEN THAT THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT GIVES COMPLETE DETAIL OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS MADE AGAIN THESE RECEIPTS. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT INCOME OF 10% COUL D HAVE BEEN ASSESSED, HAD THERE BEEN RECEIPTS OVER AND ABOVE BY 10% OF RS.2, 03,127631/- OR EXPENSES IN THE SHAPE OF PAYMENTS TO M/S TRG INDUSTRIES PVT LTD. OF RS.2,03,12,631/- AND TO M/S SOMA ENTERPRISE OF RS.6,09,378/- BEEN LESS BY RS.20,31,263/- IS ALSO CORRECT AND HAS GOT WEIGHT. THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.2,03,12,631/- AGAINST WHICH THE EXPENSE/PAYMENTS INCURRED ARE ALSO RS.2,03,12,631/-. ALTHOUGH FOR SIMILAR TYPE OF ADDITION MADE BY THE A O IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, I HAVE HELD THAT THAT INCOME SHOULD NOT ONLY BE ASSESSED B UT SHOULD BE ASSESSED IN THE RIGHT HANDS THEREBY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. AT THAT TIME SUCH F ACTS, THAT IS RETURN OF INCOME OF M/S TRG INDUSTRIES P. LTD., LEDGER ACCOUNT OF_SOMA ENTERPRI SES IN THE BOOKS OF APPELLANT' HAVING ISSUED PAYEES ACCOUNT CHEQUES FOR ITS 3% SHARE AFTER DULY DEDUCTING TPS U/S 194J OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AND THE COPIES OF TDS CERTIFICATES IN THIS REGARD, WERE NOT BROUGHT BEFORE ME AS IS DONE NOW. THEREFORE, I HAVE TO REVISE MY EARLIER STAND FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND BELOW. WHEN BOTH THE PARTNERS OF JOINT VENTURE (APPELLANT) HAVE OFFERED THE TOTAL GROSS RECEIPTS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURNS OF INCOME AS PER THEIR SHA RES THEN AS HELD BY HON, BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA THEY ARE THE RIGHT HANDS FOR ASSESSMENT OF T HEIR RESPECTIVE SHARES AND NOT THE JOINT VENTURE. ACCORDINGLY, THE RATIO AS HELD BY THE HON' BLE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT, AMRITSAR IN THE CASE OF POOJA CONSTRUCTION CO. REPORTED IN 69 ITD 147 I S MISISCONCEIVED AND NOT RELEVANT TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WHILE MAKING ADDITION OF @ 10% GROSS 6. ITA NO.47 5(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR 201 0-11 RECEIPTS, THE A. O. HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH DATED 22.01.2010 IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE PERTAINING TO AS SESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 2006- 07 IN ITA NOS.477 (ASR)/2008 & 367(ASR)/2009 RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER, THE FACTS ON WHICH ADDITION CONFIRMED BY HON'BLE ITAT IN THESE CASES WERE ALSO ENTIRELY ON DIFFERENT FARTS. TH. HON'BLE ITAT HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IN RE SPECT OF ADDITION MADE BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF U/S 40(A) (LA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE PLEA THAT TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON PAYMENTS MADE TO SUB-CONTRACT ORS I.E.; M/S SOMA ENTERPRISES & M/S TRG INDUSTRIES IN THE RATIO OF 3:97. I AM CONVINCED NOT TO WITHSTAND WITH THE ADDITION I MPOSED BY A.O. BY TAXING 10% OF GROSS RECEIPTS IN THE HAND OF APPELLANT MORE PARTICULARLY ON THE REASONING BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION NOW AS GIVEN BY HON'BLE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULIN GS IN THE CASE OF VAN OORD ACZ BV, IN RE (SUPRA) THAT THE APPELLANT VIZ. THE JOINT VENTURE W ITH TWO ENTITIES IS NOT WITH THE OBJECT OF EARNING INCOME BUT ONE ENTITY M/S SOMA ENTERPRISES IS FOR TECHNICA L COORDINATION IN EXECUTING THE CONTRACT, SO THAT THE OTHER ENTITY M/S TRG INDUSTRI ES PRIVATE LIMITED COULD MAKE ITS OWN PROFIT. THIS JOINT VENTURE WAS UNDOUBTEDLY FOR MUTUAL BENEF IT BUT SUCH ASSOCIATION WILL NOT MAKE THEM A SINGLE ASSESSABLE UNIT AND LIABLE TO TAX FOR SUCH I NCOME. BASED ON FACTS PLACED NOW BEFORE ME, I AM INCLINED TO GO BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT (SUPRA) AND TO HOLD THAT THIS ADDITION OF 10% ON GROSS RECEIPTS IN THE HANDS OF A PPELLANT SHALL NOT BE THE RIGHT HANDS FOR ASSESSMENT. BOTH THE ENTITIES HAVE BEEN TAXED FOR T HEIR RESPECTIVE SHARES AND THE APPELLANT WHILE DISTRIBUTING THE RESPECTIVE SHARE HAS DULY DEDUCTED THE DUE TAXES AT SOURCE UNDER THE RESPECTIVE SECTIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION THIS ADDITION WILL BE AMOUNT TO DOUBTED TAXATION. 5. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LEARNED DR HEAVILY PLACED HIS RELIANCE O N THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS AN INDEPEND ENT ENTITY HAVING SEPARATE PAN NO. AND THEREFORE, RECEIPTS BY IT WERE LIABLE T O BE TAXED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT AND HAS ALLOWED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. ITA NO.47 5(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR 201 0-11 7. THE LEARNED AR, ON THE OTHER HAD, HEAVILY PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEAR NED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ON THE BASIS OF JUD GMENTS OF AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS IN THE CASE OF VAN OORD ACZ. BV IN RE REPORTED IN (2001) 248 ITR 399 (AAR) HAS HELD THAT SUCH ASSOCIATION WA S UNDOUBTEDLY FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT BUT SUCH ASSOCIATION WILL NOT MAKE THEM AS A SINGLE ASSESSABLE UNIT AND LIABLE TO TAX AS AN AOP. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED ANY EXPENDITURE AND GROSS RECEIPTS AS I T WERE DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN THE MEMBERS OF AOP IN THE RATIOS OF 3% AND 97%. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) H AS PASSED THE DETAIL AND SPEAKING ORDER AND HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS IN THE CASE OF VAN OORD ACZ. BV IN RE REPOR TED IN (2001) 248 ITR 399 (AAR), WE FIND THAT THE IT IS FACT THAT ASSESSE E HAD DISTRIBUTED GROSS RECEIPTS RECEIVED BY IT IN THE TWO COMPANIES NAMELY M/S TRG INDUSTRIES LTD. AND M/S SOMA ENTERPRISES WITHOUT CLAIMING ANY EXPEN DITURE. THE RESPECTIVE COMPANIES HAVE DECLARED THEIR PART OF GROSS RECEIPT S IN THEIR PROFITS AND LOSS ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGH TLY HELD THAT THE PURPOSE OF AOP WAS NOT TO EARN INCOME AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT WORK AND NOR ANY EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY IT. THE WHOLE OF THE EX PENDITURE IN EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED BY M/S TRG INDUSTRIES LTD .. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO DISTINGUISHED THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE 8. ITA NO.47 5(ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR 201 0-11 ITSELF FOR ASST. YEAR 2005-06 AND 2006-07 AS IN THO SE YEARS THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY AUTHOR ITIES BELOW BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT., WHEREAS THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE LEARNED DR ALS O COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) NOR HE WAS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PRESENT CASE HAD SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS IN ASST. YEAR 2005-06 AND 2006-07 AS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TH EREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMIT Y IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVEN UE IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVEN UE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15TH D ECEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (A.D.JAIN) (T.S.KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 15.12.2015 PK/PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: 2. THE 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.