ACIT, Sawai Madhopur V. SAMPAT KUMAR JAIN, BUNDI

ITA 624/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2147 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L CHANDEL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANURAG KALAVATIA AVOCATE DHK
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 194C; 68; 6; 37

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 624/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE-SAWAI MADHOPUR. CUKE VS. SHRI SAMPAT KUMA R JAIN, PROP. M/S UTSAV CONSTRUCTION, DEI DISTT. BUNDI-324009. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. ABJPJ 3169 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI S.L. CHANDEL (ADDL. CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANURAG KALAVATIA (AVOCATE ) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 14.07.2017. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/08/2017. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), KOTA, DATED 14.03.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 -11. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL :- ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN:- (1) DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 92,19,029/- WITH RESPECT T O 40 CREDITORS SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD STONE EXPENSES (GITTI), GSB EXPENSES AND HIRE CHARGES AND CRANE LOADER EXPENSES ON THE BASIS OF THE VERIF ICATION OF ONLY 10 CREDITORS DIRECTED U/S 250(4) WITHOUT EXAMINING THE IDENTITY OF THE REMAINING CREDITORS, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GEN UINENESS OF TRANSITIONS; (2) DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 2,36,994/- OUT OF TOTAL AD DITION OF RS. 3,36,994/- MADE BY DISALLOWING STONE EXPENSES; (3) DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 2,20,066/- OUT OF TOTAL AD DITION OF RS. 3,36,994/- MADE U/S 37 BY DISALLOWING LABOUR EXPENSES; 2 ITA NO. 624/JP/2016. SHRI SAMPAT KUMAR JAIN. (4) DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 3,05,455/- MADE U/S 37 BY DISALLOWING SAND EXPENSES; (5) DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 76,978/- MADE U/S 37 BY DI SALLOWING HIRE CHARGES AND CRANE LOADER EXPENSES; (6) DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 3,35,000/- OUT OF TOTAL AD DITION OF RS. 5,44,160/- MADE BY DISALLOWING JCB (HOT MIX PLANT); (7) DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 1,60,000/- MADE U/S 40A(3) ; (8) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LIBERTY TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GR OUND AND TO MODIFY AMEND THE GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF GIVEN RISE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL AR E THAT, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (H EREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE ORDER DATED 25.03.2013. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF STONE EXPENSES LIABILITY OF RS. 56,18,294/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER MADE DI SALLOWANCE U/S 37 OF THE ACT TO RS. 3,36,994/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER MADE ADDITION BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT AND ALSO MAD E DISALLOWANCE ON VARIOUS EXPENSES I.E. GITTI EXPENSES, SIDE CLEARING AND ALS O MADE ADDITION BY DISALLOWING THE GRANULAR SUB BASE EXPENSE AND DISALLOWANCE OF REPAI R MAINTENANCE OF ROAD EXPENSES, LABOUR EXPENSES, OUT OF DIESEL & PETROL EXPENSES, HIRE CHARGES AND CRANE LOADER & ITS LIABILITY ETC. THUS, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER COMPUTED TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,46,92,501/- AGAINST THE INCOME DECLARED AT RS . 18,96,927/-. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. C IT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. WHILE PARTL Y ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THE LD. 3 ITA NO. 624/JP/2016. SHRI SAMPAT KUMAR JAIN. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF OU TSTANDING BALANCES CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO THE EXTENT TO RS. 1,98,458/-, AND DELETED THE BALANCE OF RS. 92,19,029/- TREATING AS THE SAME AS EXPLAINED. 3. FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A) OUT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,36,994/- IN RESPECT OF STONE EXPENSES RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE E XTENT OF RS. 1 LACS. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF GITTY EXPENSES OF RS. 11,975/-, SIDE CLEARING OF RS. 33,674/-, GRANULAR SUB BASE EXPENSES OF RS. 97, 162/- EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIR MAINTENANCE OF ROAD RS. 10,11,693/- AND RES TRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF OUT OF LABOUR EXPENSES AND CONFIRM THE DIESEL AND PETRO L OF RS. 1,87,908/- , THE SAND EXPENSES AND ITS LIABILITY OF RS. 3,05,455/- DELETE D THE OUT OF HIRE CHARGING AND CRANE EXPENSES OF RS. 76,978/-, IN RESPECT OF DISAL LOWANCE OF JCB EXPENSES, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME HOWEVER CONFIRMED THE DISAL LOWANCE ON TELEPHONE EXPENSES OF RS. 4,642/-, THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO DELETE D THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH PAYMENT MADE TO SHRI SATYA NARAYAN NAGAR BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT AND THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) TO RS. 12,252/-. HENCE, LD. CIT(A) PARTLY AL LOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGAINST THIS, ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEA L. 5. GROUND NO. 1 , IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 92,19,029/ -. 5.1 LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A), WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE, DELETED THE ADDITION. LD. D/R SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE. 4 ITA NO. 624/JP/2016. SHRI SAMPAT KUMAR JAIN. 5.2 HOWEVER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ADVERSELY REPORTED IN RESPECT OF THESE EXPENSES . 5.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE AS UNDER:- I HAVE GONE THROUGH ASSESSEES SUBMISSION AND AOS FINDINGS. THE MAIN BASIS OF ADDITION IN THIS CASE WAS THAT TH E AO HAD ISSUED NOTICES FOR APPEARANCE TO THE VARIOUS SUPPLY CREDITORS OUTSTAND ING AT THE END OF THE YEAR FOR EXPENSES ETC. AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAI NING TO THE EARLIER YEARS. THE MAIN SUPPLIERS WERE THOSE OF STONE, GRANULAR SU B-BASE AND CREDITORS IN RESPECT OF HIRE CHARGES & CRANE LOADER EXPENSES. BESIDES THE ABOVE, THE AO ALSO MADE ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF CURRENT YEARS PURCHASES ON THE ADHOC BASIS. THE AO HAD INITIALLY NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED ONLY COPY OF LEDGER WITHOUT ANY BILLS & VOUCHERS. THE CONFIRMAT IONS PRODUCED WERE REQUIRED TO BE TEST CHECKED THROUGH STATEMENTS OF S OME OF THESE CREDITORS. OUT OF THE VARIOUS PERSONS WHOM THE AO HAS LISTED O UT FOR EXAMINATION UNDER DIFFERENT CATEGORIES LIKE STONE PURCHASES, GRANULAR SUB-BASE AND HIRE CHARGES, CRANE LOADER & ITS LIABILITY, THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T PRODUCE 2 PERSONS NAMELY SH. SATYA NARAYAN NAGAR FOR STONE PURCHASE & SH. DE V KARAN FOR GSB EXPENSE. SH. SATYANARAYAN NAGAR GAVE STATEMENTS CO NTRADICTORY TO THE ASSESSEES VERSION AND DEV KARAN VERIFIED THE STATE MENT AS PER THE ASSESSEES VERSION. 5 ITA NO. 624/JP/2016. SHRI SAMPAT KUMAR JAIN. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDING, THE AO, CONSIDERING THA T THE CONFIRMATION RELATED TO THESE EXPENSES WERE BOGUS AND FABRICATED, ADDED THE OUTSTANDING BALANCES CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESEE U/S 6 8 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AS BOGUS CREDITS. APART FROM THE ABOVE ADDITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ALSO MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF THE EXPENSES OF THE CURRENT YEAR IN THE A BSENCE OF BILLS & VOUCHERS U/S 37 FROM THE EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THESE HEADS. SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE MADE UNDER THE HEAD OF GRANU LAR SUB-BASE AND ITS LIABILITY AND IN RESPECT OF HIRE CHARGES OUTSTANDIN G ALONG WITH PART DISALLOWANCE IN THE CURRENT YEARS EXPENSES. IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, MY PREDECES SOR CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE INQUIRY IN THIS CASE WAS CONDUCTED AT THE FAG END OF THE F.Y. THE AO IS THEREFORE BEING DIRECTED TO EXAMINE ALL THE REMAINI NG CREDITOR & REPORT. THESE DIRECTIONS ARE BEING ISSUED U/S 250(4) OF INCOME TA X ACT. HE FURTHER DIRECTED ASK AO TO EXAMINE ALL THE CRED ITORS (REMAINING OUT THE CREDITORS SELECTED BY HIM). THE EXAMINATION SHOULD BE IN PRESENCE OF A OR HIS A/R & A SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE TH EM. CONSEQUENT TO A CLARIFICATION SOUGHT BY THE AO ACIT SAWAI MADHOPUR, VIDE LETTER DATED 12.02.2015, THE CIT(A) AGAIN ISSUED DI RECTIONS TO THE AO ON 24.02.2015 TO EXAMINE ANY OTHER CREDITORS (TOTAL 1 0). VIDE LETTER DATED 23.03.2015, THE ACIT CIRCLE SAWAI MADHOPUR REPORTED THAT HE HAD ISSUED LETTERS TO 10 PERSONS OUT OF TOTAL CR EDITORS AND ALSO TO PRODUCED THE PERSONS FOR CROSS EXAMINATION WHO WERE ALREADY EXAMINED BY THE THEN AO. SUBSEQUENTLY 9 PERSONS APPEARED & THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED ON OATH AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO PRESENT THEN. THUS INCLU DING THE EARLIER 2 PERSONS, 6 ITA NO. 624/JP/2016. SHRI SAMPAT KUMAR JAIN. STATEMENTS OF 11 PERSONS WERE RECORDED BY THE AO IN ALL AS PER THE COMPLIANCE DIRECTED U/S 250(4) BY MY PREDECESSOR CI T(A). A FINAL REPORT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE AO DATED 08.12 .2015 IN WHICH THE AO HAS ATTACHED STATEMENTS RECORDED BY ALL THE 9 CREDI TORS. ALL THE PERSONS HAVE CONFIRMED THE ACCOUNT RELATED TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE SH. SAMPAT KUMAR JAIN. THE CREDITORS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE DULY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE & HIS ACCOUNTANT. HE WA S ALSO PROVIDED COPIES OF IDENTITY DOCUMENTS, CONFIRMED AMOUNTS & NOTE DIARIE S ETC. WHICH HAD DETAILS OF ACCOUNTS OF THESE PARTIES IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESS EE. IN HIS FORWARDING LETTER, THE AO HAS NOT COMMENTED ADVERSELY ON THE FINDINGS REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONS MAD E IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER. APPARENTLY THE CREDITORS NAMED BY THE ASESSEE IN TH E ORIGINAL LIST WERE NOT BOGUS IF ON TEST CHECK BASIS STATEMENT OF THE 9 PER SONS WHO WERE EXAMINED BY THE AO VIDE REMAND PROCEEDINGS ARE TO BE CONSIDE RED. ON HIS PART THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, EXCEPT FOR THOSE CREDITORS WHO ON CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE AO EITHER DID NOT CONFIRM THE ASSESSEES VER SION OR THOSE WHO DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO FOR EXAMINATION VIZ. SH. RAMDE V GURJAR, THE OTHER CREDITORS OUTSTANDING COULD BE SAID TO BE VERIFIED ON TEST CHECK BASIS. THUS OUT OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO UNDER THE F OLLOWING HEADS- STONE & GITTI PURCHASE OUTSTANDING RS. 56,18,294/- GSB EXPENSE OUTSTANDING RS. 18,06,648/- HIRE CHARGES & CRANE LOADER EXPENSES OUTSTANDING RS . 19,92,545/- 7 ITA NO. 624/JP/2016. SHRI SAMPAT KUMAR JAIN. THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT AS ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ABO VE PERSON AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,98,458/- IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED. DISALLOW ANCE OF RS. 1,98,458/- IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING AMO UNT OF RS. 92,19,029/- IS CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE B Y THE AO IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED TO THAT EXTENT. 5.4 FROM THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ASKED FOR REMAND REPORT AND THE REMAND REPORT WAS F URNISHED VIDE LETTER DT. 8/12/2015. THE REPORT IS ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 138-139 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT COMMENTED UPON THE GENUIN ITY OF EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MERELY STATED THAT GSB EXPENS ES ARE OF THE NATURE OF WORK CONTRACT WHICH IS LIABLE TO BE TDS U/S 194C OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, HE RECOMMENDED THAT THESE EXPENDITURES ARE LIABLE TO THE DISALLOWE D U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT MACHINERY HIRE CHARG ES ARE ALSO ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TDS, BUT THESE EXPENSES ARE BELOW THE LIMIT WHICH A TTRACTS TDS U/S 194-I OF THE ACT. ADMITTEDLY, THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT DISALLOWED BY I NVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THERE IS NO GROUND BY THE REVENUE IN THIS RESPECT. THEREFORE, IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT THE GENUINITY OF EXPENDITURE IS NOT DOUBTED BY THE AO. UNDER THESE FACTS WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE INTO THE ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A), SAME IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO. 2, IS AGAINST RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT AS 1 LACS OUT OF THE STONE EXPENSES. 8 ITA NO. 624/JP/2016. SHRI SAMPAT KUMAR JAIN. 6.1 LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6.2 ON THE CONTRARY, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SP ECIFIC INSTANCES IN RESPECT OF ABSENCE OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS. WE FIND THAT, AT TH E ONE HAND LD. CIT(A) IS ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS ABSENCE OF BILLS AND VOUCHE RS ON THE OTHER HAND LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION. 6.3 THIS APPROACH OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS SELF-CONTRAD ICTORY, THEREFORE, SAME CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANY BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR SUPPORTING ITS CLAIM. HENCE, HE RESTO RES THE FINDING OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. ON THE OTHER HAND HE RESTRICTED THE DISALLO WANCE ON ADHOC BASIS. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND CONFIRM TH E FINDING OF AO. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7. GROUND NO.3, IS AGAINST RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE OUT O F THE LABOUR EXPENSES. 7.1 LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7.2 ON THE CONTRARY, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, THE LD. CI T(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE ON ADHOC BASIS AT THE ONE HAND HE HAS CONFIRMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT KEEPING PROPER RECORD AND THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE @ OF 5% OF THE TOTAL LABOUR EXPENSES THAT APPEARS TO BE JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, WE SET 9 ITA NO. 624/JP/2016. SHRI SAMPAT KUMAR JAIN. ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE FINDI NG OF THE AO. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8. GROUND NO. 4 IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 3,05,455/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE ON SAND EXPENSES. 8.1 LD. D/R SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER. 8.2 PER CONTRA LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 8.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, THE LD. CI T(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE BY FOLLOWING ITS ORDER IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 2. SI NCE GROUND NO. 2 BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IS PART OF GROUND NO. 1 IN THIS APPEAL. GROUND NO. 1 HAS BEEN DISMISSED. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISS ED FOR THE SAME REASONING. 9 GROUND NO. 5 IS AGAINST DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 76,978/- M ADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES TO HIRE CHARGES AND CRANE LOADER EXPENSES. 9.1 LD. D/R SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING TH E FACTS IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. 9.2 WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) DELETE THE ADDITION IN THE BASIS, THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN SPECIFIC INSTANCE. THERE IS NO DISPU TE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THIS EXPENDITURE WAS MADE ON ADHOC BASIS. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON INTO THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY AFFIR MED. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10. GROUND NO. 6 , IS RESTRICTING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DI SALLOWANCE OF JCB (HOT MIX PLANT) OF RS. 5,44,160/- 10.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A SPECIFIC FINDING ON FACT WHICH IS READ AS UNDER:- 10 ITA NO. 624/JP/2016. SHRI SAMPAT KUMAR JAIN. I HAVE GONE THROUGH ASSESSEES SUBMISSION AND AOS FINDINGS. AS REGARDS SH. ZAKIR HUSSAIN BEING A CREDITOR FOR O UTSTANDING HOT MIX PLANT RELATED EXPENSES FOR RS. 2,09,160/-, HE HAD EARLIER DENIED ANY TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE. LATER ON HE FAILED TO APPEAR BE FORE THE AO IN THE SECOND ROUND (HIS AFFIDAVIT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REPLACEMENT FOR HIS PHYSICAL PRESENCE). IN HIS ABSENCE THE ADDITION MA DE COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE UNJUSTIFIED AND ACCORDINGLY THE AMOUNT SHOWN AGAINS T HIS NAME IS ALSO CONSIDERED NOT VERIFIED & THE DISALLOWANCE IS CONFI RMED. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSIONS ABOVE IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 2, THE B ALANCE ADDITION OF RS. 3,35,000/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 10.2 ABOVE FINDING ON FACT IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY T HE REVENUE. WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE INTO THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A), SAME IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. GROUND NO. 7, IS DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,60,000/- MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. 11.1 THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTI FIED. 11.2 ON THE CONTRARY, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS BASED HIS FINDING ON THE BASIS OF THE REVISED STATE MENT OF SHRI SATYA NARAYAN NAGAR, IT IS NOT ADVERSELY COMMENTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. 11.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION, WE FIND TH AT LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SATYA NARAYAN NAGAR WHO STATED IN THE REVISED STATEMENT THAT NO PAYMENT WAS MADE EXCEEDING TO RS. 20,000/-. THE REV ENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INVOKED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 11 ITA NO. 624/JP/2016. SHRI SAMPAT KUMAR JAIN. 40A(3) ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SATYA NARAYN NAGAR WHO SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED THE STATEMENT AND MADE A FRESH STATEMENT. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE INTO THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMI SSED. 12. GROUND NO. 8, IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO SEPARATE ADJUDIC ATION. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 624/JP/2016 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 04 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017. SD/- SD/- ( HKKXPUN ( DQY HKKJR ) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 04/08/2017. POOJA/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X, CIRCLE- SAWAI MADHOPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT SHRI SAMPAT KUMAR JAIN, BUNDI-32 4009. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 624/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 12 ITA NO. 624/JP/2016. SHRI SAMPAT KUMAR JAIN.