SATNAM TRANSPORT COMPANY, Indore V. THE ACIT CIRCLE-5(1), Indore

ITA 514/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2351 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALCHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: GIRISH AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.248/IND/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S. SATNAM TRANSPORT COMPANY 137, TRANSPORT NAGAR, INDORE / VS. CIT - II INDORE ( APPELLANT ) ( REVENUE ) P.A. NO. AARFS4063L ITA NO.514/IND/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 M/S. SATNAM TRANSPORT COMPANY 137, TRANSPORT NAGAR, INDORE / VS. D CIT - 5(1) INDORE (APPELLANT) (REVENUE ) P.A. NO.AARFS4063L ITA NO.285/IND/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 DCIT - 5(1) INDORE / VS. M/S. SATNAM TRANSPORT COMPANY 137, TRANSPORT NAGAR, INDORE ( REVENUE ) ( RESPONDENT ) P.A. NO.AARFS4063L APPELLANT BY SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL & SUBHASH JAIN CA RESPONDENT BY SHRI LAL CHAND, CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING: 02.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19.01.2018 SATNAM TRANSPORT CO. 2 / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE PER TAINING TO THE A.Y. 2008-09 DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE O RDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DATED 25.03.2013 & 11.02.2013 RESPECTIVELY. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL PERTAINING TO THE A.Y. 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS LATE DEPOSIT OF TDS . AS A MATTER OF FACTS TDS WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE SINCE THE FREIGHT W AS NOT PAYABLE BUT WAS ACTUALLY PAID. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED THE SAME AND PAID TO THE CENTRAL GOVT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT ERRONEOUS IN AS MUCH AS THE AO RIGHTLY ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 40(IA) OF THE IT, ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PREJ UDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IN ANY EVENT TDS IS DEDUCT ED THIS YEAR, IS DEFINITELY DEDUCTIBLE IN THE NEXT YEAR EVEN THE VIEW OF THE CIT IS ACCEPTED. THIS WOULD RESULT IN MULTIPLICITY OF T HE LABOUR WITH NO RESULT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE CIT OF HIS OWN DID NOT CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD BUT ACTED ON THE BASIS OF THE OBJECTION OF THE AUDIT HENCE THE ORDER OF THE CIT BE QUASHED. 2 . THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS APPEAL IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE LD. CIT-II, INDORE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 RE VISED THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 30.12.2010 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS THAT THE DEDUCTION C LAIMED IN RESPECT SATNAM TRANSPORT CO. 3 OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWABLE I N VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEPOSITED THE TAX SO DEDUCTED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBM ISSIONS AS MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE F ACTS WHICH ARE UNDISPUTED THAT THE TAX WAS DEPOSITED LATE AFTER DE DUCTION. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AO DULY MADE INQUIRY WITH RE GARD TO PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND DEDUCTION OF TAX L D. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT IS EMPOWERED INVOKING PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 263 ONLY IN THE EVENT WHERE TWINE CONDITION S ARE SATISFIED VIZ. ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THER EFORE, HE CONTENDED THAT ERRONEOUS ORDER WHICH IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, CANNOT BE REVISED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. SIMI LARLY, A PREJUDICIAL ORDER WHICH IS NOT ERRONEOUS CANNOT BE REVISED. IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAWAHAR LAL AGRAWAL (2014) 23 ITJ 5 5 (M.P.). THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON 'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LIMITED [2000 ] 243 ITR 83 (SC). THE LD. COUNSEL PLACED FURTHER RELIANCE ON TH E JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF N AZIR SINGH (2001) 252 ITR 820(MP). THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER PLACED REL IANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SATNAM TRANSPORT CO. 4 CIT V. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA [2010] 194 TAXMAN 504 AND ALSO JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VIKAS POLYMERS [2010] 194 TAXMAN 57(DEL). LD. COUNSEL ALS O PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF DESIGN & AUTOMATION ENGINEERS (BOMBAY) P. LTD. [200 8] 323 ITR 632. 4. PER CONTRA LD. DR OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PL ACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V. CIT(SUPRA) AND SMT. TARA DEV I AGGARWAL V. CIT 88 ITR 323(SC). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PAR TIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IS TO BE EXAMINED WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT FOR REVISING THE ASSESSMENT O RDER IS JUSTIFIED UNDER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WI TH REGARD TO THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX W HICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE A SSESSEE DID NOT DEPOSIT THE TAX WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER TH E LAW IN FORCE. THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER CAN BE REVISED BY THE LD. CIT U/S 263 IF IT SATISFIED T WINE CONDITIONS EMBODIED INTO THE PROVISIONS THAT IS THE ORDER SOUG HT TO BE REVISED ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT ERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT-DR, TH E ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEPOSIT THE TAX IN RESPECT OF THE TAX D EDUCTED. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE LD. CIT, THE ASSESSEE MAD E A PAYMENT OF FREIGHT OF RS.42,20,599/- WAS MADE ON 20.02.2008 AN D DEDUCTED SATNAM TRANSPORT CO. 5 TAX OF RS.10,551/- WAS DEDUCTED ON SAME DATE AND TH E AMOUNT OF TDS WAS DEPOSITED ON 12.04.2008 ON THE GOVERNMENT A CCOUNT. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS REQ UIRED TO BE DEPOSITED BY 31 ST MARCH 2008. NON DEPOSIT OF THE TAX ATTRACTED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE SAID PROVISIONS THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE DISALLOWED THE ENTI RE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF AKAL SAHAI CA RRIER. THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE IN RESPECT OF THE PROPOSITION THAT LAW IS REQUIRED TO BE APPLIED WHICH IS IN FORCE, IN RESPEC T OF PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 20 08-09. THE AMENDMENT IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) CA ME INTO FORCE SUBSEQUENTLY, AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) A S IT WAS INFORCE WHEREIN IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTE D ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR OR HAS BEEN DEDUCTED IN THE PREVIOU S YEAR BUT PAID IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AFTER EXPIRY OF THE TIME PER IOD SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139; SUCH SUM SHALL BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH TAX HAS BEEN PAID. 6. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTI ON IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACTED CONTRARY TO TH E LAW IN FORCE. IN OUR VIEW SUCH ORDER IS CERTAINLY ERRONEOUS AS PER T HIS PROVISIONS, THE EXPENDITURE AS CLAIMED WAS REQUIRED TO BE DISAL LOWED WHICH ADMITTEDLY IS NOT DONE BY THE AO. THIS HAS CAUSED P REJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT THE TWINE CONDITIONS AS EMBODIED U/S 263 ARE SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE. SATNAM TRANSPORT CO. 6 THE CASE LAWS AS RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT H AVE APPLICATION AS THOSE ARE IN THE CONTEXT OF PROPOSITION THAT IF ONE OF THE CONDITION OUT OF THE TWO CONDITIONS ARE NOT SATISFIED, THEN, THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT EXERCISE THIS POWER U/S 263. THEREFORE, WE D O NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE DECISION OF LD. CIT, SAM E IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL ARE DIS MISSED. 7. AS A RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . NOW COMING TO THE CROSS APPEALS OF THE PARTIES ARE PERTAINING TO THE A.Y. 2009-10. FIRST WE TAKE OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IN I.T.A.T. NO.5 14/IND/2013. 8. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE CORRECTLY REJECTED U/S 145(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. BY T HE AO WHILE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DULY AUDITED U /S 44AB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.261018/- IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED DIFFERENCES IN THE FREIGHT RECEIPT AMOUNT R ELATING TO TDS WITH THE ACCOUNTS OF OTHER PARTIES. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.42500 00/- OUT OF TRUCK PLYING EXPENSES. 4. ANY OTHER RELIEF WHICH THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FIND FIT AND PROPER FOR RELIEF. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD TO AMEND TO ALTER OR TO MODIFY ANY OF ABOVE GROUNDS AND TO PURSUE ANY OTHER OR FURTHER GROUNDS AS MAY BE REQUIRED. 9. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143( 3) OF THE SATNAM TRANSPORT CO. 7 INCOME TAX ACT 196(HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 30 TH DECEMBER 2011. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.65,26,760 /- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS WITH FORM NO.26AS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE ADDITIO N ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF RS.85,00,000/-. 10. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPE AL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL THEREBY, HE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,6 1,068/- AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.65,26,707/- AND FURTHER SUSTAINE D ADDITION OF RS.42,50,000/- OUT OF 85,00,000/- IN RESPECT OF DIS ALLOWANCE OF TRUCK EXPENSES. 11. AGAINST THIS ORDER BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND REVENU E HAVE COME IN APPEAL. 12. GROUND NO.1 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GRANTED BY THE AO AN D THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REJECTED WITHOUT GIVING ANY NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS AGAINST THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW. THE LD. COUNSEL REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE IN THE WRITTEN S UBMISSIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TH E ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, CASH BOOK, LEDGERS & VOUCHERS, ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS TRUCKS, FULL DETAILS OF TRUCK EX PENSES ALONG WITH BILLS AND VOUCHERS, DETAILS OF DIESEL EXPENSES AND THEIR BILLS PERTAINING TO AMOUNT INCURRED ON OWN TRUCKS AND WER E DULY EXAMINED BY THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT METHOD OF ACC OUNTING AS SATNAM TRANSPORT CO. 8 EMPLOYED OF THE ASSESSEE IS MERCANTILE. HE SUBMITTE D THAT IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FINDING OF THE AO THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS OR INSTANCES IN ORDER T O CORROBORATE HIS FINDINGS. HE CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BUT NO ESTIMATION OF PROFIT WAS MADE BY TH E AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE DULY AUDIT ED U/S 44AB OF THE ACT AND NO SPECIFIC INSTANCE HAS BEEN STATED BY THE AUDITORS WHICH NEGATE THE MANNER IN WHICH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. ALSO, NO ADVERSE REMARK S OR FINDINGS ARE STATED IN THE AUDIT REPORT. HE SUBMITTED THAT T HE LD. CIT(A) IN MECHANICAL MANNER ACCEPTED THE REJECTION OF BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD IN RIGHT PROSPECTIVE. UNDER THESE FACTS SERIOUS PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISI ON OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SUPR EME TRANSPORT CO. ITA NO.544/IND/2012 DATED 31.10.2013. HE FURTHE R RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ROOPCHAND THARANI (2012) 20 TAXMANN.COM 204 DATED 0 1.11.2011. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO PLACED UPON RELIANCE ON THE VA RIOUS OTHER CASE LAWS AS STATED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE LD. COUNSEL URGED THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO ON REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAY BE REVERSED AND THE TRADING RESULT AS DECLARED IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAY BE ACCEPTED. 13. ON THE CONTRARY LD. DR OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SU BMITTED THAT THE AO HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENC E IN THE RECEIPT SATNAM TRANSPORT CO. 9 RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REFLECTED IN FORM NO.2 6AS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS CATEGORICALLY RECORDED TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO VERIFY THE BOOKS, SO THAT IT CAN BE AS CERTAINED THAT AMOUNT WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS. UNDER THESE FACTS THE EXPENSES ARE NOT VERIFIABLE, THERE IS A H UGE DIFFERENCE IN THE RECEIPTS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DISCLOSED IN THE FORM NO.26AS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RE QUIRED TO RECONCILE THE ENTRIES AS DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND AS WERE RECORDED IN FORM NO. 26AS. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. SO FAR THE QUESTION ON REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS CONCERNED THE AO, THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THE AO IS EMPOWERED TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IF IN HIS OPINION THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SO PLACED BEFORE HIM, DOES NOT ENABLE THE AO TO DED UCE THE CORRECT FIGURE OF PROFIT. IN THE CASE IN HAND WHERE THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN RECEIPTS AND ALSO THE TRU CK EXPENSES WERE NOT VERIFIABLE. IN OUR VIEW, THESE WERE SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, IS A GIVEN CASE. BUT THE LAW IS ALSO WELL SETTLED THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE REJECTED A UTOMATICALLY WHEREVER THE AO FIND ANY DEFECT, THE AO IS REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE DEFECT. IF ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO RECONCILE THE ENTRIES, THERE WOULD NO NEED TO REJEC T BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 15. IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND FROM THE RECORDS TH ERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TIME TO VERIFY THE ACCOUNTS AND MAKE INQ UIRIES INDEPENDENTLY. THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF SATNAM TRANSPORT CO. 10 REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND RESTORE IT TO T HE FILE OF THE AO FOR VERIFYING THE VERACITY OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS THAT IN EARLIER YEARS TRUCK EXPENSES AS CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AND BEFORE REJECTI NG BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPO RTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS CASE. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE AO TO D ECIDE THE ISSUE ON REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AFRESH AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 16. APROPOS GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST THE SUSTAINING T HE ADDITION OF RS.2,61,018/- LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISS IONS AS MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. HE VEHEMENTLY ARGU ED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT DUE T O NATURE OF BUSINESS THE ENTRIES ARE GIVEN EFFECT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. DR OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS SINCE WE HA VE ALLOWED GROUND NO.1 FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES RELATING TO RE JECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS; WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE A S WELL TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECISION AFRESH. WE, THEREFORE, RESTO RE THIS GROUND AS WELL TO THE AO FOR VERIFYING THE VERACITY OF THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 18. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST THE SUSTAINING DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.42,50,000/- OUT OF TRUCK PLYING EXPENSES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE S UBMISSION AS MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND CONTENDED THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE REASONABLE. THE REVENUE HAS BEEN ALLOW ING IN EARLIER SATNAM TRANSPORT CO. 11 YEAR. THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITIES HAVE WRONGLY DISAL LOWED THE SAME. 19. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. DR OPPOSED THE SUBMISSI ONS AND SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 20. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE FIND TH AT THE AO REJECTED ON THE BASIS THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS EXCES SIVE AS IN THE ABSENCE OF VERIFICATION OF THE VOUCHERS. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE. WE HAVE ALREADY RESTORED THE ISSUE OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE AO. UNDER THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR MAKING NECESSARY INQUIRY REGARDING THE EXPENDITURE AS RELA TED TO TRUCK PLYING. THUS, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. 21. GROUND NO. 4 & 5 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE GENERAL IN NATURE THUS, THE SAME DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. NOW WE TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA.NO.285/IND/2 013 THE REVENUE HAS FILED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRED IN:- 1. RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.65,26,707/- TO RS.2, 61,078/- APPLYING N.P. RATE ONLY ON THE PORTION OF THE RECEI PT NOT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHILE IN THE CASE OF APPL ICATION OF N.P. RATE THE SAME SHOULD BE APPLIED ON ENTIRE RECE IPT. 2. RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.85,00,000/- TO 42,50 ,000/- BY APPLYING N.P. RATE OF 4% WHILE THE CORRECT FIGURE I S WORKED OUT AT RS.77,98,051/- BY APPLYING THE RATE ADOPTED BY T HE LD. CIT(A). 22. BOTH THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES HAVE ADOPT THE SAME ARGUMENT AS WERE ADDRESSED IN GROUND NO. 2 & 3 OF T HE ASSESSEES SATNAM TRANSPORT CO. 12 APPEAL IN ITA NO.514/IND/2013 SINCE WE HAVE SET ASI DE THE ORDER OF THE AO ON REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER GROUNDS ARE ALSO TO THE FILE OF THE AO. UNDER THE FACTS OF THE PRESE NT CASE WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THESE GROUNDS TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE IT AFRESH AFTER MAKING DUE INQUIRY. 23. BOTH GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE RESTORE D TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECISION AFRESH. 24 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AN D REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 .01.2 018. SD/- (MANISH BORAD) SD/- (KUL BHARAT) CCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER INDORE; DATED : 19/ 01/2018 CTX? P.S/. . . COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUA RD FILE. BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY/DDO, INDORE