M/s.Sona Processors India Ltd., BHILWARA V. JCIT, BHILWARA

ITA 482/JODH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 48223314 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N A JOSHI
• Section: 133(6); 194C; 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JODHPUR BENC H : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO.482/JODH/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) M/S. SONA PROCESSORS INDIA LTD., VS. JCIT, BHILWA RA RANGE, 2, SANGAM TOWER, OLD R.T.O. ROAD, BHILWARA. GANDHI NAGAR, PUR ROAD, BHILWARA. PAN NO. AACCS 9287 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.A. JOSHI- D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 10/01/2014. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/02/2014. O R D E R PER N.K.SAINI, A.M THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 05/08/2013 OF LD. CIT (A), AJMER. THE FOLLOWING GR OUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WAS NOT CORRECT IN C ONFIRMING THE ORDER OF JOINT COMMISSIONER HOLDING THAT A LUMP-SUM ADDIT ION OF RS. 5 LAC IS MADE IN THE VIEW TO COVER ALL THE POSSIBLE LEAKAGE SINCE MOST OF THE SAID PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN PAID IN CASH WHICH IS BEYON D THE FACTS. 2 2. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WAS NOT CORRECT IN CO NFIRMING THE ORDER OF JOINT COMMISSIONER HOLDING THAT A SUM OF RS. 4,3 3,207/- DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(B) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PRE VAILING CONDITION UNDER WHICH THE SAID PURCHASES IS BEING TAKEN PLACE FROM M/S. SHORYA BUILDCON (I) LTD. (PAN - AAJCS 7807 H) INSTEAD OF REGULAR SUPPLIER M/S KANAK INDUSTRIES AND OTHER PARTIES. 2 THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE CONF IRMATION OF THE LUMP-SUM ADDITION OF RS. 5 LAC. 3. THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS E-RETURN OF INCOME ON 03/09/2009 DECLARING AN INCOM E OF RS. 95,39,420/- THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENTS AGAINST THE FREIGHT. HE ASKED THE ASSESSE E TO FURNISH COMPLETE ADDRESSES, PAN , DESIGNATION OF AO AND CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES:- (I) BHAGYA SHREE CARRIER TRANSPORT CO. (II) K.S. TRANSPORT (III) MRL TRANSPORT P. LTD. (IV) RAMDEV BULK CARIERS (V) SHUBHAM TRANSPORT CORPORATION (VI) BANSARI TRANSPORT (VII) GOPAL JOSHI (VIII) NEW SHREE TRANSPORT CO. (IX) RAJASTHAN TANKER TRANSPORT (X) RAJVI LOGISTICS (XI) SHREEJI CARRIERS (XII) SHREE GANPAT LAL ONKAR LAL AGARWAL & CO. 3 ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE FAILE D TO FURNISH THE REQUIRED DETAILS, CONFIRMATION AND FURNISHED COPY O F FORM NO. 16A ISSUED TO THE 5 PARTIES AND NAME & ADDRESSES AND PAN NUMBE R IN RESPECT OF OTHER PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMON S TO 3 PARTIES MENTIONED AT SERIAL NO. III, V & VII, OUT OF WHICH ONLY ONE I.E. MRL TRANSPORT LIMITED ATTENDED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ASKED THE INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1 961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT IN SHORT) FROM REMAINING 8 PARTIES. HOWEVER, ONLY M/S RAJASTHAN TANKER TRANSPORT RESPONDED AND IN CAS E OF THE PARTIES MENTIONED AT SERIAL NO. VII, X & XII, LETTERS WERE RECEIVED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES AS UNSERVED. THE ASSESSING OF FICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW-CAUSE AS TO WHY THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY IT ON ACCOUNT OF ABOVE SAID PARTIES SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AND ADD ED TO ITS TOTAL INCOME. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 29/11/2011 SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- WE WISH TO CLARIFY THAT COMPANY IS USED TO PROCURE GMDC LIGNITE & HARD COAL & PETCOCK ETC FROM THESE PARTIES .AS THESE PAR TIES ARE NOT SUPPLYING LIGNITE THESE DAYS TO US. WE ARE ATTACHING THE PHO TOCOPY OF THE LORRY RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THEM ALONG WITH STATEMENT SHOWIN G NAME OF DRIVER, DATE, TRUCK NO ETC. AS REFERENCE TO THEIR 'FULL ADD RESS & OTHER DETAILS AND IN CASE ANY CHANGE OF ADDRESS IS THERE THEN WE ARE NOT AWARE AT THIS POINT OF TIME. 4 AS EARLY AS SUBMITTED THAT THEY ARE NOT HAVING FLE ET OF TRUCKS & WORKING AS AGENTS. ARRANGING / HIRING TRUCKS FROM OPEN MARKET AND ENGAGING THEM FOR TRANSPORT OF GOODS FROM THE PLACE WHERE GOODS AVAIL ABLE FROM SUPPLIER SITE TO THE ASSESSEE FACTORY PREMISES. THE LR ISSUED BY THEM IS A SECURITY FOR DELIVERY OF GOODS AGAINST WHICH THEY ARE GETTING CE RTAIN AMOUNT AS COMMISSION FROM DRIVERS AND TDS IS DEDUCTED ON FREI GHT AMOUNT REMAIN WITH THEM AS INCOME. WE ARE MAKING PAYMENT MOSTLY IN CASH TO THE DRIVER OF THE TRUCKS WHO MIGHT BE OR NOT THE OWNER OF THOSE TRUCKS. ALL GOODS ARE WEIGHTED AT INDEPENDENT DHARMA KANTA & ON THE BASIS OF NET WEIGHT PAYMENTS ARE MADE AT DECIDED RATES OF THEM M ENTIONED ON LR. THE DHARMA KANTA WEIGHMENT SLIP IS A OUTSIDE EVIDE NCE / PROOF THAT GOODS HAS ARRIVED IN FACTORY WHICH IS NOTED AT FACTORY GA TE THAN AT FACTORY STORE DEPT.& ON APPROVAL OF GOODS IN ALL RESPECT LR/ BILT Y IS PASSED BY STORE DEPT & SEND TO THE ACCOUNTS DEPT. WHERE AFTER FOLLOWING TH E PASSING PROCEDURE BY THE FINANCE OFFICER, CASHIER MAKES PAYMENT TO DRIVE R. THERE EXISTS A PROPER CONTROL WHICH DOESN'T LEFT A NY LOOPHOLE OVER COMPANY RESOURCES AS COMPANY IS PROFESSIONALLY MANAGED. IF SUMMONED PERSONS DO NOT ATTEND NOTICES U/S 131 THEN DEPT HAS POWER TO PENALIZE HIM WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 272 A (I)(C). THIS IS AN INDEPENDENT COURSE OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE DEPT / PO WER ASSOCIATED WITH YOU. WHEN WE HAVE SUBMITTED CORRECT ADDRESS OF PARTIES TO WHOM INFORMATION U/S 133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IS ASKED BY Y OUR GOOD SELF AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED BY THEM FOR WHICH REASONS HAS BEE N KNOWN TO THEM AND WE HAVE NO ROLE. REGARDING THE RETURN OF SPEED POST UNSERVED LETTER BY PARTIES AT SERIAL NO. VIII, X & XII MAY BE DUE TO CHANGE IN ADDRESS OR TH EY MAY HAVE NOT LIKED TO RECEIVE THE MAIL LOOKING DEPT. ADDRESS ON ENVELOPE OR MAY HAVE MANAGED POSTMAN. 5 ON ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS WHERE INCOME TAX DEPT. HAS NOT RECEIVED DETAILS BY RETURN POST IN DESIRED FORMAT ETC. FROM ALL THE TRANSPORTER, THEY MIGHT HAVE NOT FOUND IT PROPER TO REPLY AS ALL CASH PAYMENTS ARE NOT ACCOUNTED IN BOOKS AS PAYMENT IS COLLECTED AND KEPT BY DRIVER OF SMALL-SMALL TRUCK FLEET OWNER WHO ARE ALSO OUTSIDER & NOT HAVIN G FIX PLACE OF WORK. WE REQUEST YOUR GOODSELF TO KINDLY PRACTICALLY LOO K INTO THE NATURE OF TRANSPORT ACTIVITIES WHICH IS SPREAD THROUGHOUT IND IA. A TRUCK WHICH IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ANY RENOWNED TRUCK ORGANIZATION HAS NO SYSTEMATIC SYSTEM OF WORKING. LOOKING TO THEIR PRACTICE PROBLEM IN F.Y. 2009-10 GOVT. HAVE ALREADY EXEMPTED TRANSPORTER FROM DEDUCTION OF TDS, WHERE T HEY SUBMIT PAN . FURTHER SERVICE TAX BURDEN HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM T RANSPORTER AND NOW SERVICE RECEIVER IS DEPOSITING SERVICE TAX AS PAYME NT OF TRANSPORTATION. ASSESSEE COMPANY IS REGULARLY PAYING SERVICE TAXES AS APPLICABLE. WE ARE PROCURING FULL TRUCK LOAD FROM SUPPLIERS WH O ARE DELIVERING GOODS TO US FROM TRUCKS WHO VENDORS FROM PLACE TO PLACE IN S EARCH OF AVAILABILITY OF GOODS TO BE DELIVERED FROM, OTHER PLACE TO DESTINAT ION FALL IN THEIR TOUR TAKING /ACCEPT GOODS IN RETURN SO INCOME CAN BE GEN ERATED & THEY HAVE NOT TO RETURN EMPTY. WE ARE PRODUCING FULL SET OF PAPERS WHILE MAKING P AYMENT TO ALL 12 TRANSPORTER MENTIONED IN YOUR LETTER AS SAMPLE ONE WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THE WORKING PATTERN & SYSTEM OF THE COMPANY. WE ARE ENCLOSING THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT COPIES OF S UPPLIERS OF GOODS OF WHOM THESE TRANSPORTERS HAS BROUGHT GOODS TO OUR FA CTORY TO WHOM PAYMENT IS MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES ONLY, IN S UPPORT OF PROVING GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS . ON THE STRENGTH OF ALL ABOVE DOCUMENTS, PROCEDURE & EXPLANATIONS WE HOPE MATTER IS CLEAR TO YOUR GOOD SELF AND NO OTHER INFE RENCE WILL DRAWN OVER NON 6 SUBMISSIONS OF DESIRED DETAILS BY ABOVE TRANSPORTER WHO ARE IN ACTUAL AGENT AND NOT THE OWNER OF TRUCKS ON RUNNING REGULAR TRAN SPORT. THE TRUCK NO. IS ALSO MENTIONED IN LR. THE NAME OF THE DRIVER IS ALS O APPEARING ON CASH PAYMENT VOUCHER. THUS THERE IS COMPLETE AND PROPER SYSTEM FOLLOWED BY THE COMPANY. AS TRANSPORTER IS NOT SUBMITTING DESI RED OR NOT ATTENDING YOUR OFFICE IS NOT TO MEAN THAT OUR TRANSACTION IS DOUBTFUL & NOT GENUINE AS WE ARE SUBMITTING FULL CHAIN OF DOCUMENTS TO EXPLAI N TRANSACTION PROPERLY IN EVERY MANNER THE ASSESSEE FURTHER VIDE LETTER DATED 11/10/2011 SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- AS ALREADY EXPLAINED TO YOUR GOOD SELF THAT AS T HEY ARE NOT HAVING THEIR OWN TRUCKS AND ISSUING THEIR OWN LR AS SAFETY AND SURETY OF DELIVERING OF GOODS TO US FROM SUPPLIER SO TO PROVIDE CONFIRMA TION & THEIR A.O. DETAILS, IS NOT EASY FOR US TO BE SUBMITTED AS COMPANY IS NO T DEALING WITH THEM NOW THESE DAYS & ALSO NOT IN TOUCH WITH THEM. WE ARE HAVING ALL DOCUMENTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PAYMENTS ARE MADE TO TRUCK DRIVERS WHO BROUGHT THE GOOD TO US ON THEIR BEHALF & HIRING PAYMENT RECEIPT IN OUR POSSESSION. WE HAVE COMPLET ED OUR DUTY BY DEDUCTING TDS U/S 194C WHERE EVER APPLICABLE & FULL FILL THE OBLIGATION AS LAID DOWN ON US BY THE ACT 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT IT COULD NOT BE DENIED THAT FREIGHT TO THE ABOVE PARTIES HAD BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND TDS WAS D EDUCTED ON ALL THOSE PAYMENTS WHICH WAS VERIFIABLE FROM THE TDS RETURN F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE, YET, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH CONFIRMATIONS N OR DID THE SAID TRANSPORTERS REPLIED TO THE LETTER ISSUED TO THEM W HICH SHOWS THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLEARLY S PECIFY THE TOTAL FREIGHT 7 AMOUNT CLAIMED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERV ED THAT THE TOTAL CONSUMPTION OF THE ASSESSEE OF STEAM, COAL, LIGNITE & PET COKE WAS RS. 5,57,75,193/- AND TOTAL CONSUMPTION OF DIESEL AS PE R DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 27,69,665/- AND THE EXPENSES U NDER THOSE HEADS ALSO INCLUDED EXPENDITURE ON FREIGHT. HE ALSO OBSE RVED THAT THERE WERE VARIOUS OTHER HEADS UNDER WHICH FREIGHT HAD BEEN CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW TH AT THE TOTAL FREIGHT PAID WAS NOT COMPLETELY VERIFIABLE. HE, THEREFORE, TO COVER ALL POSSIBLE LEAKAGE MADE A LUMP-SUM ADDITION OF RS. 5 LAC. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER T O THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- ASSESSEE APPELLANT DURING THE CASE OF HEARING SUB MITTED ALL THE BILL/BUILTY, VOUCHER, LEDGER COPY OF FUEL EXPENDITURE, PRODUCED ALL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DULY AUDITED & PROVIDED ALL EXPLANATION & EVIDENCES RELATED TO FREIGHT PAYMENT TO TRUCK DRIVER FOR BRINGING FUEL, STORES E TC FROM SUPPLIER DESTINATION TO ASSESSEE FACTORY PREMISES. BESIDES, THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IS FULLY VOUCHED AND VERIFIABLE. ALL GOODS ARE BROUGHT TO FACTORY PREMISES AND ACCO UNTED PROPERLY & BEING IN TURN PAID BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE WHICH ARE BEIN G PERUSED BY THE AO. NOT A SPECIFY DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY WHICH AO CAN MAKE ANY PRESUMPTION ABOUT ANY EXCESSIVE OR WITHOUT SUPPORTI NG ACTUAL ACTIVITY PAYMENT AGAINST TOTALLY EVIDENT BOOKED EXPENSES. TIME TO TIME QUESTIONS AS ASKED BY AO BEING REPLIE D, TDS DEDUCTED PROPERLY SERVICE TAX ON GTA (GOODS TRANSPORT AGENCY ) HAD BEEN PAID IN TIME. 8 THIRD PARTY IF NOT REPLYING TO NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF I.T.ACT, 1961 FOR ANY OF REASON AS UNGENUINE WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIF IC DEFECT / DEFICIENCY IN RECORDS OR ALL RELEVANT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. FURTHER, AGENTS ARE OF BHUJ (GUJRAT) AROUND 900 KM FROM BHILWARA WITH WHOM CO IS NOT DEALING IN PAST 2-3 YEAR AS NO COAL SALE BY GMDC, GUJRAT & TRUCK OWNERS ARE NOT HAVING ANY FIX ADDRESS. ALL T HE INFORMATION AS AVAILABLE WITH ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE AO WHICH ARE RELIABLE & RELATED TO ITS BUSINESS OF WHICH OTHER PART IS THE GOODS SUPPLIERS TO WHOM PAYMENTS ARE MADE BY A/C PAYEE CHEQUE & DHARAM KANT A WEIGHMENT SLIPS ARE PROOF OF ARRIVAL OF GOODS AT FACTORY PREM ISES ARE DAY TO DAY BASIS PAYMENTS, RATES OF FREIGHT ARE ACTUAL AS PER PREVAI LING MARKET RATES QUITE COMPARABLE & REASONABLE NO EXCESSIVE ELEMENT OF PAY MENT FOUND BY AO DURING CHECKING OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS VOUCHES BILLS/ INVOICES ETC AS CLEAR FROM ORDER OF AO. THEREFORE, AN ASSESSMENT BASED ON MERE CONJECTURE, SURMISE OR SUSPICION OR IRRELEVANT AND INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCES AND MATERI AL IS BAD AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW & BE DELETED AS HELD BY HON'BL E APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF LAL CHAND BHAGAT AMBIKA RAM VS. CIT (1959) 37 IT R 288 (SC). THEREFORE, KINDLY DELETE THE ADHOC, LUMP SUM ADDITI ON SO MADE BY AO OF RS. 5,00,000/-. 6 . LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING IN PARA 6.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER:- 6.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPE LLANT AS WELL AS ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLA IMED THE FREIGHT EXPENSES FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF COAL, LIGNITE AND PET COKE A ND EXPENSES WERE INCLUDED IN THE COST OF FUEL COST ITSELF. THE AO R EQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE VARIOUS DETAILS OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE CONFIRMATIONS OF FOLLOWING PARTIES:- (I) BHAGYA SHREE CARRIER TRANSPORT CO. 9 (II) K.S. TRANSPORT. (III) MRL TRANSPORT P. LTD. (IV) RAMDEV BULK CARRIERS (V) SHUBHAM TRANSPORT CORPORATION (VI) BANSARI TRANSPORT (VII) GOPAL JOSHI (VIII) NEW SHREE TRANSPORT CO. (IX) RAJASTHAN TANKER TRANSPORT (X) RAJVI LOGISTICS (XI) SHREEJI CARRIERS (XII) SHREE GANPAT LAL ONKAR LAL AGARWAL & CO. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATI ONS OF THE ABOVE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF FORM NO. 16A ISSUED TO 5 PARTIES AND NAME, ADDRESSES AND PAN IN RESPECT OF OTHER PARTIES. THE REAFTER, THE AO ISSUED SUMMONS TO 3 PARTIES I.E. M.R.L. TRANSPORT LTD., SH UBHAM TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND GOPAL JOSHI OUT OF WHICH ONLY M/S M .R.L. TRANSPORT PVT. LTD. ATTENDED. THE INFORMATION WAS CALLED REGARDIN G PAYMENTS U/S 133(6) FROM REMAINING 8 PARTIES AS PER THE LIST MENTIONED BY AO AT PAGE NO.6 OUT OF WHICH ONLY 1 PARTY, M/S RAJASTHAN TANKERS SUPPLI ED THE TRANSPORT COMPANY, RAJIV LOGISTICS AND SHRI GANPATLAL ONKARLA L AGARWAL & COMPANY HAVE BEEN RETURNED BACK UNSERVED. FROM ABOVE, IT I S CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FILE THE CONFORMATION OF THE A BOVE PARTIES. FURTHER, IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS U/S 131/INFORMATION CALLED U/S 133(6), ONLY 2 PARTIES M/S M.R.L. TRANSPORT PVT. LTD. AND M/S RAJASTHAN TA NKERS TRANSPORT HAVE ATTENDED OR FILED INFORMATION OUT OF 11 PARTIES. T HE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE FREIGHT EXPENSES AND ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE FACT OF PAYMENT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESS EE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS OF THE AO, THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/- IS CONFIRMED. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 7 . LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PROPER AND COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF EACH AND EVERY TRANSPORTER WA S GIVEN TO THE 10 ASSESSING OFFICER AS PRINTED ON THEIR LR. IT WAS F URTHER STATED THAT THE SAID PARTIES WERE HIRING THE TRUCKS FROM OPEN MARKE T AND WORKING ON COMMISSION BASIS AND THE COMMISSION WAS RECEIVED FR OM SUCH TRUCK OWNERS WHO WERE COLLECTING PAYMENT IN CASH FROM THE ASSESSEE BY SIGNING ON VOUCHERS AS PER THE PREVAILING COMMON PRACTICE I N THIS TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE NAME, COMPLETE ADDRESS AND PAN NUMBER OF ALL THE 12 TRANS PORTERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO VERIFIED THE SAME AND OBSERV ED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED TDS ON TRANSPORTATION CHARGES BEFORE MAKIN G PAYMENTS AND ISSUED FORM NO. 16A AND THAT THE SERVICE TAX ON GOO DS TRANSPORTED WAS PAID IN GOVERNMENT TREASURY IN TIME. THEREFORE, TH E LUMP-SUM ADDITION OF RS. 5.00 LAC WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE LD. CIT(A ) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 8 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADMI TTED AT PAGE NO. 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TDS ON ALL THE 11 PAYMENTS AND THE SAID FACT WAS ALSO VERIFIABLE FROM THE TDS RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, SO IT COULD NOT BE DENIED THAT THE FREIGHT TO THOSE PARTIES HAD BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRES ENT CASE WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADMITTED THAT THE FREIGHT WAS PAI D BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PARTIES, THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO MAKE A LUMP-S UM DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5 LAC PARTICULARLY WHEN NO INSTANCE WAS POINTED OUT WHERE THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT RELATED TO IT S BUSINESS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS IN RIGHT PER SPECTIVE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY T HE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LAC MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DELETED. 10 . THE ANOTHER ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 4,33,207/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. 11 . FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASES OF DYES AND CHEMICALS AMOUNTING TO RS. 49.38 LAC 12 FROM ITS SISTER CONCERN M/S. SHORYA BUILCON (I) LTD . HE REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH JUSTIFICATION OF THOSE PURCHASE S. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ITEMWISE CHART ALONG WITH QUANTITY PURCHA SED FROM ITS SISTER CONCERN AND COMPARATIVE RATE OF THIRD PARTY WHICH R EAD AS UNDER:- S.NO ITEM QTY. PURHCASE RATE (NET AFTER 15% DISCOURNT) COMPARATIVE RATE OF THIRD PARTY 1 SULFER BLACK GXE 1000 131.75 126.85 2 TERNIX SCARLET F2RL 200 240 159 3 NOVATIC GREY 3B 90 1408 1379 4 TERNIIX NAVY BLUE EXSF 300% 150 523 264 TERNIX NAVY BLUE EXSF 300% 500 468 264 5 NOVATIC BROWN R 18 3216 3150 6 NOVATIC BLUE BC 30 3233 3167 7 TERNIX NAVY BLUE F2GRL 200% 200 523 236 8 TERNIX BLUE C2R 500 523 302 9 TERNIX BLUE FBL 500 616 504 TERNIX BLUE FBL 1500 506 504 10 TERNIX ORANGE F3RL 200% 500 249 206 TERNIX ORNAGE F3RL 200% 250 213 206 11 TERNIX SCARLET F2GL 100 299 197 12 TERNIX RUBINE FGL 125 345 304 12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED FROM THE RE PLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASKED TO SHOW-CAUSE AS TO WHY DISALLOW ANCE OF THE PURCHASES MADE FROM SISTER CONCERN SHOULD NOT BE MA DE ON ESTIMATE BASIS. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDE R:- WE HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED OUR STAND THROUGH LETTE R DATED 22.11.2011. WE FURTHER WISH TO SUBMIT THAT FOLLOWING FACTORS MUST BE KEPT IN MIND WHILE PROCURING ANY RAW MATERIAL BY ASSESSEE CO. & BY ANY ORGANIZATION - A. AVAILABILITY OF MATERIAL/ SCARCITY B. QUANTITY 13 C, DELIVERY SCHEDULE D. URGENCY IN PRODUCTION E, PAYMENTS TERNS F, DISCOUNTS 6. QUALITY H. COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES- CHINA IS MAIN MANUFACT URE OF DYES & DUE TO CHINA OLYMPIAD AS IMPROVED DYES WERE NOT AVAILABLE & INDIAN DYES BECOME COSTLIER AS IN SHORTAGE THESE ALL FACTORS HAVE THEIR OWN IMPORTANCE FOR PLA CING ANY PURCHASE ORDER THUS, THE RATE IS NOT THE SOLE CRITERIA FOR DECIDIN G ANY BUSINESS DEAL WHETHER ITS IS FROM A SISTER CONCERN OR FROM ANY OTHER PART IES. BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAD CONSIDERED ALL FACTORS BEFOR E ORDERING TO M/S SONA PROCESSORS (I) LTD. ALSO INTERESTED DIRECTORS HAS M ADE DISCLOSER TO BOARD AS PER RULES OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956. IN THE CASE OF M/S KANAK INDUSTRIES WHO HAS GIVEN L OWER LATE QUOTATION DATED 6-6-2008 AND WHEN COMPANY HAS PLACED PURCHASE ORDER BEFORE IT FOR SUPPLY OF DYES WHO IN TURN REFUSED TO SUPPLY AS DYE S WEREN'T AVAILABLE FOR WHICH NECESSARY LETTERS ARE ALREADY SUBMITTED TO YO U ALONG WITH OUR PURCHASE ORDER. WHEN GOODS ARENT AVAILABLE THERE IS NO VALUE OF L OWER RATES QUOTATIONS AS EXPLAINED ABOVE. THEREFORE, ITS NOT WORTHWHILE TO COMPARE THE CASE WITH SISTER CONCERN. IN THE CASE OF M/S. ROOPATUL IF WE DEDUCT 15% DISC OUNT AS ALLOWED FROM BILLING VALUE OF M/S. SHORYA BUILDCON (I) LTD., THE N RATES ARE VERY SIMILAR AS M/S ROOPATUL WHO IS ALLOWING ONLY CREDIT OF 10 DAYS AND NO DISCOUNTS. THE PAYMENTS MADE TO SHORYA BUILDCON (I) LTD. IN A PERIOD OF 3-4 MONTHS FROM DATE OF PURCHASE WHICH ALSO PLAYS CRUCIAL ROLE IN DECIDING THE RATE AND SELECTION OF SUPPLIERS IN TOUGH TIME 13. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE LETTER FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. KANAK 14 INDUSTRIES ONLY PERTAINED TO THE MONTH OF JUNE AND BEGINNING OF JULY AND IT DID NOT COVER THE PERIOD BEYOND IT. HE ALSO OBS ERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PURCHASES FROM SISTER CONCERN FROM THE MONTH O F JUNE TO SEPTEMBER WHICH IMPLIED THAT GOODS AFTER BEGINNING OF JULY TILL THE END OF SEPTEMBER WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE OUTSIDE PARTIES B UT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THEM FROM ITS SISTER CONCERN AT A HIGHER PRICE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT AFTER DEDUCTING 15% DISCOUNT AS ALLOWED FROM BILLING VALUE FROM THE ASS ESSEE, THE RATES CHARGED BY M/S. ROOPATUL WERE SIMILAR TO THAT OF M/ S. KANAK INDUSTRIES AND M/S. SHORYA BUILCON (I) LTD. HOWEVER, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING PAYMENT AS EXCESSIVE AND U NREASONABLE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. SHORYA BUILDCON (I) LT D.:- S.NO. ITEM QTY. PURCHASE RATE (NET AFTER 15% DISCOUNT) COMPARATIVE RATE OF THIRD PARTY (2 3) = 4 (HIGHER RATE CHARGED BY SISTER CONCERN) (1 X 4) = 5 (TOTAL QUANTUM EXCESS CHARGED BY SISTER CONCERN) 1 2 3 4 5 1 SULFER BLACK GXE 1000 131.75 126.85 4.9 4900 2 TERNIX SCARLET F2RL 200 240 159 81 16200 3 NOVATIC GREY 3B 90 1408 1379 29 2610 4 TERNIIX NAVY BLUE EXSF 300% 150 523 264 259 38850 TERNIX NAVY BLUE EXSF 300% 500 468 264 204 102000 5 NOVATIC BROWN R 18 3216 3150 66 1188 6 NOVATIC BLUE BC 30 3233 3167 66 1980 15 7 TERNIX NAVY BLUE F2GRL 200% 200 523 236 287 57400 8 TERNIX BLUE C2R 500 523 302 221 110500 9 TERNIX BLUE FBL 500 616 504 112 56000 TERNIX BLUE FBL 1500 506 504 2 3000 10 TERNIX ORANGE F3RL 200% 500 249 206 43 21500 TERNIX ORNAGE F3RL 200% 250 213 206 7 1750 11 TERNIX SCARLET F2GL 100 299 197 102 10200 12 TERNIX RUBINE FGL 125 345 304 41 5125 TOTAL 433207 ACCORDINGLY, AN ADDITION OF RS. 4,33,207/- WAS MADE . 14. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER T O THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AS INCORPORATED IN PARA 10 .2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WERE AS UNDER:- 1. ALL THE FACTS & PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCE OF PUR CHASING DYES FROM ABOVE COMPANY OF WHICH JUSTIFICATIONS ARE ELABORATIVE EXP LAINED & SUBMITTED WITH AO DULY SUPPORTED BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION, CONSIDERING VARIOUS RELEVANT FACTORS WHICH ARE ALSO NARRATED BY THE AO IN ORDER AT PAGE NO. 13 TO 17. 2. SHRI NARESH GATTANI IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INTERE STED IN ASSESSEE COMPANY AS HOLDING MUCH LESS THAN 20% VOTING POWER AS DEFINED IN SECTION 40A(2)(B) READ WITH SECTION 92BA & 92F. 3. COMPARISON SUPPLIER M/S KANAK INDUSTRIES UDAIPU R WAS NOT HOLDING STOCK OF DYES AS DEMANDED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY AT TH E TIME OF NEED, SO WHATSOEVER LOWER PRICE QUOTATION GIVEN OF 06/06/200 8 IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT AND USELESS. ONE CANNOT STOP ITS ACTIVITIES IN WAN T OF MATERIAL WHICH IS NOT AVAILABLE AT ANY RATE AGAINST MARKET PREVAILING ODD SITUATION WHEN THERE WAS OLYMPIAD AT CHINA WHO IS MAIN SUPPLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD OF DYES 16 AND STOP THE PRODUCTION DUE TO ENVIRONMENTAL PRECAU TION RESULTED IN WORLD VIDE SHORT SUPPLY. 4. AS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS DEMPO & CO. PVT. L TD. (2011) 37 (I) ITCL 47 (BOM-HIGH COURT OR (2011) 196 TAXMAN 193. THE A SSESSEE IS A COMPANY & SUPPLIERS M/S SHORYA BUILDICON (I) LTD. IS ALSO A COMPANY. THE RATE OF INCOME TAX APPLICABLE IN THE BOTH CASE IS SAME. TH EREFORE, BUYING DYES EVEN AT HIGHER RATE THERE IS NO REDUCTION OF TAX RATE TH EREFORE, THERE IS NO CASE OF EVASION OF TAX. IT IS HELD THAT IF THE RATE WOULD HAVE BEEN LESS T HE ASSESSEE IS PROFIT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE BUT THE PROFIT OF THE SELLER WOULD H AVE BEEN LESS AND BOTH BEING TAXABLE AT SAME HIGHEST RATE, THERE WOULD BE NO DIFFERENCE IN AGGREGATE TAX PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITS SISTE R CONCERN. THEREFORE, CALCULATION MADE BY AO ON CONSUMPTION WI TH A SUPPLIER WHO WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO SUPPLY ANY GOODS ALSO EVEN WHE N A NUMBER OF REASONS EXPLAINED BY MAINTAINING FULL TRANSPARENCY BY ASSES SEE COMPANY. THERE FOR ADHOC ADDITION IS BEYOND THE FACTS, UNWARRANTED AND BAD IN LAW SO WHOLE AMOUNT OF RS. 433207/- TO BE SET ASIDE BY YOUR GOOD SELF. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- WITH DUE RESPECT DURING THE HEARING IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSEE COMPANY ON 12/10/2012 WE SUBMIT THAT ASSESSEE IS A LISTED COMP ANY AT JAIPUR STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITED (998) AND DELHI STOCK EXCHANGE ASS OCIATION LIMITED (9343/NR) AND A WIDELY HELD COMPANY THE DIRECTORS IN BOTH COMPANIES SHREE NARESH KUMAR GATTANI, SMT. PREM DEVI GATTANI AND SMT. RANJANA GATTANI ARE COMMON. THE EQUITY SHARES OF SONA PROCESSORS (INDIA) LIMITE D IS 5051400 OF RS. 10 EACH AND SHREE NARESH GATTANI HOLDING SHARES 47930A ND 12000 TOTALLING TO 59930 WHICH IS 1.19% OF TOTAL SHARE CAPITAL SO THAT FAR BELOW OF 20% REQUIRED FOR SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST. WE ARE ENCLOSIN G THE SHARE HOLDING LIST OF BOTH THE DIRECTORS IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. FURTHE R, SUBMIT THAT SMT. RANJANA GATTANI IS NOT HOLDING ANY SHARE. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 433207/- ON THE PURCHASE OF DYES CHEMICAL FROM M/S SHORYA BUILDCON (I) LIMITED IS NO T FOLLOWING UNDER THE 17 CATEGORY OF A COMPANY IN WHICH PURCHASING COMPANY D IRECTORS HAVE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST. AS REGARDING THE SHAREHOLDING PATTERN, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BY LETTER DATED 05/08/2013 AS UNDER:- 2. THE SHARE HOLDING IN BOTH COMPANY OF ABOVE DIR ECTOR IS AS ON 31/03/2009 AS UNDER:- NAME OF SHARE HOLDER SONA PROCESSORS (I) LTD. SHORYA BUILDCON (I) LTD. SHRI NARESH KUMAR GATTANI 47930 10000 SMT. RANJAN GATANI NIL 17500 SMT. PREM DEV GATTANI 12000 27100 LADU LAL GA TTANI HUF 179200 NIL NARESH GATTANI HUF 182300 NIL TOTAL (A) 421430 54 600 TOTAL ISSUED SHARES ( B ) 5051400 121000 % OF HOLDING (A / B) 8.34 45.12 FROM ABOVE TABLE IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT H OLDING IN ANY SHARE IN SHORYA BUILDCON(I) LIMITED. WE ARE ENCLOSING THE LI ST OF SHAREHOLDER OF BOTH THE COMPANIES FOR YOUR PERUSAL. 3. AS PER PROVISION OF SEC. 40(A)(2)(IV) & (V) THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS NO SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE BUSINESS OF SHORYA BUIL DCON (I) LTD. AS NOT HOLDING MORE THAN 20% SHARES. 15. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN DETAI LS OF PURCHASES AND DYES AND CHEMICALS MADE FROM M/S. SHORYA BUILDCON ( I) LTD. AND PREVAILING MARKET RATE OF THE SAME ITEMS AS PER CHA RT AT PAGES NO. 15 & 16 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE FURTHER OBSERVED TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION GIV EN BY THE ASSESSEE IN 18 RESPECT OF THE RATES OF M/S. KANAK INDUSTRIES AND M /S. RUPATUL AND HAD SHOWN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE EXCESSIVE PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF 12 DYES AND THE CHEMICALS TO ITS SISTER CONCERN. HE F URTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD POINTED OUT THAT M/S. SHORYA BUILD CON (I) LTD. WAS NOT THE SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE COMMON DI RECTORS I.E. SHRI RAMESH GATTANI, SMT. RANJAN GATTANI AND SMT. PREM D EVI GATTANI DO NOT HAVE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE BUSINESS OF THE AS SESSEE AS THEY HAD ONLY 8.34% SHARES. LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DETAILS OF THE SHARE CAPITAL OBTAINED FROM THE ASSESSEE REVEALED THAT S HRI NARESH KUMAR GATTANI, SMT. RANJAN GATTANI, SMT. PREM DEVI GATTAN I WHO WERE THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEECOMPANY OWNED 45.12% SHAR ES OF M/S. SHORYA BUILDCON (I) LTD. TO WHOM THE PAYMENT FOR THE PURCH ASE OF DYES HAD BEEN MADE. SO, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD MADE THE PAYMEN T TO A PERSON IN WHOSE BUSINESS DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBSTA NTIAL INTEREST. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS COVERED UNDER SECTION 4 0A(2)(B) OF THE ACT AND THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE AS SESSEES SISTER CONCERN HAD ALSO PAID THE TAX ON THE ABOVE EXCESS P AYMENT AT THE SIMILAR RATES AS THAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) C ONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 19 16. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SU BMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED WHILE COMP ARING THE RATE OF THE TRADER I.E. M/S. KANAK INDUSTRIES WHO WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO SUPPLY DYES WHEN IT WAS EXTREMELY SHORT IN SUPPLY DUE TO OLYMPI AD AT CHINA WHO IS THE MAIN COUNTRY IN THE WORLD TO PRODUCE THE DYES. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE DYES AVAILABLE FROM M/S. SHORYA BUILDCON ( I) LTD. WAS OF THE BETTER QUALITY WITH RATES WHICH WERE COMPETITIVE IN THE PREVAILING MARKET SITUATION. IT WAS EMPHASIZED THAT THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PROCUREMENT OF DYES, PASSED A NECESSARY RESOLUTION IN THEIR MEETING ON 31/03/2008 AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HIGHLIGHTED THE IMPORTANT FACTORS FOR PURCHASE OF GOODS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND ONLY THE BASIS OF SIMPLY MADE C ALCULATION, ADDITION WAS MADE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT FOR ANY PURCH ASE, THE RATE OF MATERIAL WAS NOT ONLY SOLE CRITERIA OF PROCUREMENT PARTICULARLY WHEN 5 OF THE DYES, OUT OF THE 12 WERE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE M ARKET EVEN ON THE RATES QUOTED/CHARGED BY M/S. SHORYA BUILDCOM (I) LT D. WHO FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 12/09/2009 AND HAD PAID THE TAX ON THE PR OFIT AT A SIMILAR RATE AS WAS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE OBS ERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THA T M/S. SHORYA 20 BUILDCON (I) LTD. HAD ALSO PAID THE TAX AT A SIMILA R RATES AS THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WRONG. IT WAS CONTENDED T HAT EVEN THE PROFIT OF RS. 4,33,207/- OVER A TURNOVER OF RS. 49,38,000/- W AS 8.77% WHICH WAS QUITE REASONABLE WHEN THE PAYMENT TERMS WAS FOR 3-4 MONTHS PERIOD AGAINST PREVAILING THE MARKET TERMS OF ABOUT 15-30 DAYS IN DYES AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES. THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE WA S CALLED FOR. 17. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE RELEVAN T OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AN D THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 18. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE VITAL FACT RELATING TO SH ORTAGE OF THE DYES IN THE MARKET AND THE RATES ON THOSE DYES HAD NOT BEEN CON SIDERED EITHER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BY THE LD. CIT(A). SIMILARLY THE IMPACT OF THE PAYMENTS BEING 3-4 MONTHS TO BE MADE TO THE SISTER CONCERN AS AGAINST PREVAILING MARKET RATE OF 15-30 DAYS HAD ALSO NOT B EEN CONSIDERED WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE. WE, THEREFORE, DEEM IT APPROPRI ATE TO SET ASIDE THIS 21 ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SAID FACTS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 19 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2014). SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2014. VR/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD.CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, JODHPUR.