M/s S.D Traders, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer, Kanpur

ITA 54/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78457 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.54/LKW/2014 A.Y.:2006 - 07 M/S S. D. TRADERS, 115/241 - A, MASWANPUR, KANPUR. PAN:ABHFS5237M VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) STAY PETITION NO.03/LKW/2014 (IN ITA NO.54/LKW/2014) A.Y.:2006 - 07 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), KANPUR. VS. M/S S. D. TRADERS, 115/241 - A, MASWANPUR, KANPUR. PAN:ABHFS5237M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI ABHINAV MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 07/02/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 1 /04/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT ( A) - II, KANPUR DATED 14/11/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 2007. 2. G ROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IS AS UNDER: 2 1(A) BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KANPUR HAS COMMITTED ILLEGALITY IN CAUSING AN ENHANCEMENT TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR EXPENDITURE AND SUNDRY CREDITORS, WHEN NO SUCH GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE C I T(A) . 1(B) BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KANPUR HAS COMMITTED GROSS ILLEGALITY WHILE EXERCISING ITS POWER TO MAKE ENHANCEMENT TO THE RETURNED INCOME, AS THE JURISDICTION OF THE AUTHORITY ( CIT ( A) IS RESTRICTED TO ISSUES, WHICH ARE IN APPEA L BEFORE THE SAME. 1(C) BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KANPUR HAS GROSSLY ABUSED THE POWER VESTED IN HIM BY VIRTUE OF SECTION OF 251A, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND PREPONDOROUS. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ADMITTEDLY, AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS KASHI NATH CHANDIWALA [2006] 280 ITR 318 (ALL) , THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED BY HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BUT THIS JUDGMENT IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED. THEREAFTER, HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS SARDARI LAL AND CO. AS REPORT ED IN [2001] 251 ITR 86 (DEL) , THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APE X COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS GURJARGRAVURES P. LTD. AS REPORTED IN [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC) . 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLA HABAD HIGH COURT 3 RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS KASHI NATH CHANDIWALA [2006] 280 ITR 318 (ALL) SHOULD BE FOLLOWED AND THE ISSUE SHOULD BE DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE JUDGMENT CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. FIRST OF ALL , WE EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF KASHI NATH CHANDIWALA (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE , IT WAS HELD BY HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT THAT CIT ( A) C AN MAKE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ITEM NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, WE REPRODUCE PARA 9 OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, WHICH IS AS UNDER: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) HAD NO POWER OF ENHANCEMENT IN RESPECT OF AN ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT THE SUBJECT - MATTER OF THE APPEAL. 5.1 IN THE LIGHT OF THIS JUDGMENT, NOW WE EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS THAT OUT OF TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.2,26,765.75, AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,90,746/ - WAS ON ACCOUNT OF TRADE TAX DEDUCTED AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.36,019.75 WAS REGARDING OTHER DEDUCTIONS LIKE ELECTRICITY AND WATER CONSUMPTION ETC. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH EVIDENCE, NO EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF ANY ADVI CE BY THE DEDUCTOR COULD BE FURNISHED. HE HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE CONTRACTORS, DEDUCTION IN THE FORM OF SECURITY IS ALSO MADE AND IT WAS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE DEDUCTION OF RS.36,019/ - WAS REPRESENTING THE AMOUNT OF SECURITY DEPOSITE D. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20,000/ - OUT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR WELFARE EXPENSES RS.26,383/ - , MISC. 4 EXPENSES OF RS.49,985/ - AND FOR STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES OF RS.18,653/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS OBSERVED THAT MOST OF THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH AND DETAILS OF THE PAYEE ARE NOT AVAILABLE. THEREAFTER, HE HAS OBSERVED THAT CONSIDERING THE UNVERIFIABLE NATURE AND POSSIBLE NON BUSINESS USE, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20,000/ - IS MADE. ON THESE ISSUES, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN THE COURSE OF DECIDING THIS ISSUE, THE CIT(A) ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONG WITH THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR EXPLAINING AND SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITU RE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE CLAIM OF SUNDRY CREDITORS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. IT WAS OBSERVED IN PARA 4 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED EITHER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR BILLS AND VOUCHERS. THEREAFTER, HE HELD THAT IN ABS ENCE OF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BILLS AND VOUCHERS, 50% OF THE LABOUR EXPENDITURE AND PAYABLE SUNDRY CREDITORS ARE LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED. HE HAS GIVEN A NOTICE IN THIS REGARD TO THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 17/10/201 3 AND 24/10/2013. THEREAFTER, OUT OF TOTAL CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING LABOUR AND WAGES AT RS.23,81,260/ - , THE CIT(A) MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11.50 LAC EFFECTING ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME ALTHOUGH HE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.36,019/ - AND RS.20,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, SINCE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF LABOUR WELFARE EXPENSES, MISC. EXPENSES AND STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES WAS VERY MUCH BEFOE THE CIT(A) AND IN THE COURSE OF DECIDING THIS ISS UE ITSELF, HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONG WITH THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT BEFORE THE CIT(A). EVEN IF IT IS HELD THAT THE ISSUE REGARD ING ALLOWABILITY OF LABOUR AND WAGES EXPENSES OF RS.23,81,260/ - WAS NOT BEFORE CIT(A), EVEN THEN AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, THE CIT(A) HAS POWERS OF ENHANCEMENT EVEN IN RESPECT OF AN 5 ISSUE, WHICH WAS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPE AL. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND AS PER THE SAME, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS TECHNICAL ASPECT THAT WHETHER HE COULD MAKE EN HANCEMENT OR NOT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. 5.2 REGARDING THE RELIANCE PLACED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT NOTED ABOVE, WE WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT WHE N AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT , THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, A JUDGMENT OF A DIFFERENT HIGH COURT CANNOT BE FOLLOWED BY IGNORING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. 5.3 LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON A JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS GURJARGRAVURES P. LTD. AS REPORTED IN [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC) . IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IS NO T APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE APEX COURT WAS DIFFERENT. IN THAT CASE, THE DISPUTE WAS NOT REGARDING ANY ENHANCEMENT MADE BY THE CIT(A). THE DISPUTE WAS THAT AS TO WHETHER A CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION, WHICH WAS NOT MADE B EFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER AND NO MATERIAL WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM, THEN WHETHER SUCH CLAIM CAN BE RAISED BEFORE THE AAC. HENCE, THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT, CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT RENDERING ANY HE LP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 5.4 IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT 6 RENDERED IN THE CASE OF KASHI NATH CHANDIWALA (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 IS REJECTED. 6. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL IS AS UNDER: 2. BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CAUSED ENHANCEMENT OF RS.26.50 LACS, IN AN ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED MANNER BY MAKING A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11.50 LACS TOWARDS LABOUR AND WAGES AND RS.15 LACS TOWARDS CREDITORS IN AN AD HOC MANNER EVEN AFTER RECORDING A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DULY AUDITED AND ACCEPTING THE BOOK RESULTS BY DELETING ADDITIONS MADE BY T HE LD. AO ON ISSUES RAISED IN GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE HIM. 7. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS ADDITION MADE BY LEARNED CIT(A) IS ON AD HOC BASIS AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 8. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARN ED CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND WE FIND THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED BY HIM, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED EITHER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR BILLS AND VOUCHERS. THERE AFTER, HE MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11.50 LAC OUT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF LABOUR AND WAGES AT RS.23,81,620/ - AND ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.15 LAC OUT OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AT RS.27,76,180/ - OUT OF WHICH THE PAYABLE IS SHOWN AT RS.16,63,69 2/ - . W HEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PRODUCING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONG WITH THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR CIT(A) IS LEFT WITH ONLY TWO CHOICES. EITHER HE HAS TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BLINDLY BECAUSE HE CANNOT PIN POINT ANY DEFECT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR HE HAS TO MAKE AN AD HOC DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION ON THE REASONABLE BASIS. THE FIRST ACTION OF BLINDLY ACCEPTING THE ENTIRE CLAIM EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED A S A CORRECT 7 APPROACH AND THEREFORE, THE APPROACH ADOPTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) OF MAKING AD HOC DISALLOWANCE / ADDITION HAS TO BE UPHELD ALTHOUGH IT HAS TO BE SEEN AS TO WHETHER THE SAME IS REASONABLE OR NOT. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN PROD UCED BEFORE US IN THE FORM OF COMPARATIVE CHART OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND IN THE PRECEDING OR AND SUCCEEDING YEAR TO BRING ON RECORD THAT THE ADDITION/ DISALLOWANCE MADE BY CIT(A) IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. HENCE, IN OUR CONSID ERED OPINION, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL IS ALSO REJECTED. 10. GROUND NO. 3 TO 8 OF THE APPEAL ARE TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS AND THESE GROUNDS ARE AS UNDER: 3. BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KANPUR HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN DETERMINING THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AT RS.30,56,485/ - I.E. @ OVER 30% OF GROSS RECEIPT WHICH IS AN IMAGINARY FIGURE, AND IMPOSSIBLE TO EARN AND BEYOND PARAMETER TO WOR K OUT PROFIT OF A CONTRACTOR. 4. BECAUSE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW BY NOT STATING THE BASIS ON WHICH PROFIT ON 30% HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AND POINTING OUT ANY INCREASING ENTRY TRANSACTION AND WITHOUT REJECTING BOOK RESULTS. 5. BECAUSE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LA W MAKING ADDITION ON FILING GROUNDS AND AFTER ACCEPTING BOOK RESULTS. 6. BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DID NOT PROVIDE ANY DUE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD AND WAS ON LEAVE DUE TO SUDDEN DEMISE OF HIS FATHER ON 30 - 10 - 2013, BEING THE DATE OF HEARING. NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO ASSESSEE AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 14 - 11 - 2013 HAS RATHER GROSSLY VIOLATE THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 8 7. BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT (A) SUFFERS FROM ILLEGALITY AND CON TRARY TO FROM BEING BAD IN LAW DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 8. THE HUMBLE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR LEAVE TO INTRODUCE ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL AS MAY BE FOUND DESIRABLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS THE HON'BLE COURT MAY GRACIOUSLY ALLOW TO BE R AISED. 11. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. THAT THE AMOUNT ASSESSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IS AN IMPOSSIBLE ASSESSMENT BECAUSE THE INCOME ASSESSED BY CIT(A) IS OVER 30% OF GROSS RECEIPTS WHICH IS IMAGINARY FIGURE AND IMPOSSIBLE TO EARN AND BEYOND PARAMETER T O WORK OUT PROFIT OF A CONTRACTOR. 12. REGARDING GROUND NO. 6 OF THE APPEAL I.E. OPPORTUNITY, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT LAST DATE WAS FIXED BY CIT(A) ON 30 TH OCTOBER, 2013 BUT ON THIS DATE , CIT(A) WAS NOT AVAILABLE BECAUSE OF SUDDEN DEMISE OF HIS FATHER AND THEREAFTER , THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY HIM ON 14/11/2013 WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY FURTHER OPPORTUNITY AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM IS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. H E ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT S : ( I ) STATE OF ORISSA VS MAHARAJA SHRI B.P. SINGH DEO [1970] 76 ITR 690 (SC) ( II ) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS RANICHERRA TEA CO. LTD. [1994] 207 ITR 979 (CAL) ( III ) BRIJ BHUSHAN LAL PARDUMAN KUMAR VS COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME - TAX [1978] 115 ITR 524 (SC) ( IV ) STATE OF KERALA VS VELUKUTTY (C.) [1966] 60 ITR 239 (SC) ( V ) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS LAXMINARAIN BADRIDAS (PC) [1937] 5 ITR 170 13. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FIRST WE DEAL WITH GROUND NO. 6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING PROVIDING OF SUFFICIENT 9 OPPORTUNITY. IT IS NOTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) THAT TWO OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED BY HIM, WHICH WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH BY LEA RNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. REGARDING THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT LAST DATE FIXED BY CIT(A) WAS 30 TH OCTOBER, 2013 AND HE WAS ON LEAVE ON THAT DATE, NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE US. EVEN NO AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN FURNISHED. EVEN IF WE ACCEPT THI S CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN ALSO , IT HAS TO BE SEEN THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO CIT(A) ON 30 TH OCTOBER, 2013 OR THEREAFTER. EVEN BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY COMPARATIVE CHART OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH HE COULD HAVE FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A). UNDER THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN GROUND NO. 6 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 15. REGARDING OTHER GROUNDS, AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS CONTENDING THAT THE INCOME ASSESSED BY THE CIT(A) IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EARN, WE WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT NEITHER BEFORE THE CIT(A) NOR BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND DETAILS NOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY COMPARATIVE CHART OF A COMPARABLE CASE OR OF THE ASSESSEES PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING YEARS TO BRING HOME ITS POINT THAT THE INCOME ASSESSED BY CIT(A) IS UNREASONABLE. WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED WHILE DECIDING GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONG WITH THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS, THE AUTHORITIES HAVE TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME OR TO MAKE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DISALLOWED 50% OF THE E XPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE, UNDER THE HEAD LABOUR CHARGES AND HE HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.15 LAC S OUT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS THAT THE CREDITORS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31/03/2006 WERE SUBSEQUENTLY PAID 10 BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF BRINGING THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE CONCERNED CREDITORS ON RECORD. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN NOT TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND OTHER DETAILS REGARDING EXPENSES AND CREDITORS, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES COMPLAINT ABOUT THE INCOME ASSESSED BY CIT(A) PARTICULARLY WHEN NO COMPARATIVE CHART HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME ASSESSED BY CIT(A) IS UNREASONABLE OR IMPOSSIBLE TO EARN, AS HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 3. THEREFORE, ON THIS ASPECT ALSO, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 16. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO ARGUE THE STAY PETITION, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE BENCH THAT THE APPEAL WILL BE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND, THEREFORE, THE STAY PETITION BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. BOTH THE SIDES AGREED TO THIS PROPOSITION AND HENCE, THE STAY PETITION IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 17. IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL AND STAY PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 4 /04/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR