ITO, Meerut V. Sh. Suraj Bhan Sharma, Meerut

ITA 768/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 76820114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUSHA KHURANA
• Assessee Lawyers: P N SHASTRI ARS
• Keywords: Assessment record; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 142(1); 133(6); 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI G BENCH BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI,, JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, AM ITA NO.768/DEL/2010 ITA NO.768/DEL/2010 ITA NO.768/DEL/2010 ITA NO.768/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), MEERUT V/S V/S V/S V/S. SHRI SURAJ BHAN SHARMA, PROP., M/S SURAJ & CO., 74, KONARK COLONY, ROORKEE ROAD, MEERUT [PAN:ABTPS 6989 C] [PAN:ABTPS 6989 C] [PAN:ABTPS 6989 C] [PAN:ABTPS 6989 C] (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- S/SHRI M.P. RASTOGI & P.N. SHASTRI, ARS REVENUE BY:- MS. ANUSHA KHURANA, DR DATE OF HEARING:- 13-09-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:- 16-09-2011 O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA: A.N.PAHUJA: A.N.PAHUJA: A.N.PAHUJA:- -- -THIS APPEAL FILED ON 19.02.2010 BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST AN ORDER-DATED 8 TH DECEMBER, 2009 OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS), MEERUT, RA ISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF `11,59,658/- DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE PROVIDENT FUND OF `11,59,658/- (`15,46,342 3,86,554) WAS NOT PAID BY HIM AND HENC E THE SAME WAS CLEARLY & CATEGORICALLY DISALLOWABLE? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF `7,32,3 56/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT /THE RECEIPTS OF THE ABOVE AM OUNT I.E. OF `7,32,356/- WERE SUPPRESSED IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH WAS CATEGORICALLY AND ADMITTEDLY PROVE D BY THE CONTRACTEES ACCOUNT? ITA NO.768/DEL/2010 2 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE NOT ACCOUNTI NG FOR THE CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS PROPERLY WAS MERELY BONAFIDE MISTAKE? 4. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDE R OF CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. 2. ADVERTING TO GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 IN THE APPEAL, FACTS, IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF `2,99,050/- FILED ON 31.07.2006 BY THE ASSESSEE, A CONTRACTOR, AFTER BEING P ROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE SERVICE OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ISSUED ON 24 TH JULY, 2007. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, DESPITE REQUEST MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT), THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR TO HAVE PRODUCED REL EVANT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BILLS AND VOUCHERS ETC.. THE AO NOTICED THA T THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENSES OF `15,47,242/- PAID TOWARDS PF. TO A QUERY BY THE AO, SEEKING EPF ACCOUNT NUMBER AND DETAILS OF AMOUNT OF EPF DEPOSITED WITH THE GOVERNMENT AS ALSO COPY OF THE CHAL LAN(S), THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THESE DETAILS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT RESPOND TO VARIOUS NOTICES, THE AO COLLECTED INFORMAT ION FROM M/S DAURALA SUGAR WORKS U/S 131 OF THE ACT AND FOUND THAT M/S DAURALA SUGAR WORKS DEDUCTED ONLY AN AMOUNT OF `3,86,584/- T OWARDS PF FROM THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE ASSESSEE. WHEN CONFRONTED, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO NOTICE DATED 2 ND DECEMBER, 2008 U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT NOR TO SUBSEQUENT OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED BY THE AO. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF `11,59,6 58/- (`15,46,242 `3,86,584). 2.1 FURTHER ON RECONCILIATION OF RECEIPTS AS PER T DS CERTIFICATES VIS-A- VIS SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE AO FOUND DIFFERENCE OF ITA NO.768/DEL/2010 3 `7,32,356/-; `1,61,53,468/- SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WHILE TDS CERTIFICATES REVEALED `1,68,85,824/-. DESPITE NO TICES DATED 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2008, 3 RD NOVEMBER, 2008 AND 2 ND DECEMBER, 2008, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY , THE AO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF `7,32,756/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF RECEIPTS. 3. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR A RE PORT FROM THE CONCERNED CA WHO CLARIFIED IN HIS LETTER DATED 8 TH DECEMBER, 2008 AS UNDER:- I HAVE EXAMINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE AFORESAI D FIRM FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND FOUND THAT THERE IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR UNDER THE HEAD PF AS WELL AS IN LABOUR CHARGES. THE AMOUNT OF PF HAS BEEN DEBITED WRONGLY AT `15,46,242/- IN THE P & L ACCOUNT. IN F ACTS, AS PER THE RECORDS, IT IS `3,86,584/- ONLY. IN THIS RESPE CT, THE RECTIFIED P&L ACCOUNT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY MYSELF, WH ICH IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THE ABOVE STATED MISTAKE HAD HAPPENED BY MY JUNIOR STAFF AND DUE TO MY ILL HEALTH AT THE TIME OF AUDITING OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 3.1 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID REPORT OF THE CA AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE CONCERNED AO. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT A ND REJOINDER OF THE ASSESSEE THEREON AS ALSO DETAILS OF LABOUR CHARGES VIS- A-VIS THE CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS IN THE PRECEDING YEARS AND SUBSEQU ENT YEARS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- 11.2.1. REGARDING THE DISCREPANCY THAT EXISTED IN TH E P&L ALC IN RESPECT OF PROVIDENT FUND OF AN AMOUNT OF `11 ,59,658/-, THE AR HAS GIVEN HIS EXPLANATIONS THROUGH H IS SUBMISSION AND HAS ALSO ADDUCED EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS. THE GIST OF HIS EXPLANATION IS THAT THERE WAS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR UNDER THE HEAD P.F. AS WELL AS LA BOUR CHARGES. IN THIS RESPECT, THE VERIFIED P&L ALC HAS BEEN PREPARED BY THE FCA. AS CLAIMED, THIS MISTAKE WAS COMMITTED BY A JUNIOR STAFF OF THE CA WHO AUDITED TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN THIS RESPECT, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AL ONG ITA NO.768/DEL/2010 4 WITH RECTIFIED P&L ALC, LETTER OF ADMITTANCE OF FAC TS AND CONFESSION OF THE CA HAVE BEEN FILED. 11.2.2. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS SHOWS THAT THE AO CALLED FOR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY ORDER-SHEET NOTING DATED 15.5.2008. AFTER THAT ON THE NEXT DATES OF COMPLIANCES, I.E. ON 8.7.2008 AND 5.8.2008, THE AO H AS MENTIONED THAT THE CASE WAS 'PARTLY DISCUSSED' ON BOTH T HE OCCASIONS. IT CAN, THEREFORE, BE ASSUMED THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED BECAUSE THE AO HAS NOT MENTIONED TO THE CONTRARY. AS STATED BY THE AR, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ALONG WITH WRITTEN EXPLANATION WERE PRODUCE D BEFORE THE AO ON 24.12.2008, BUT THE AO DID NOT TAK E COGNIZANCE OF THAT. LEAVING ASIDE THE STATED COMPLIAN CE ON 24.12.2008, I FIND THAT EVEN ON EARLIER OCCASIONS, TH E AO COULD NOT VERIFY THE DISCREPANCIES FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE DETECTED BY HIM ON GATHERING INFORMATION FROM MIS. DAURALA SUGAR WORKS ULS 133(6) O F THE ACT. EVEN AT THE STAGE OF REMAND REPORT, THE AO COULD NOT FIND IT POSSIBLE TO VERIFY FACTS FROM BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. RATH ER THAN VERIFYING FACTS FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE A O HAS JUST OBSERVED IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 14.9.2008 THA T THE AR'S EXPLANATIONS WERE AN AFTER-THOUGHT AND A CONCOCTED STORY. 11.2.3. IT IS NOTICED FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS THAT TH E AO DID NOT MAKE ANY NOTING ON THE ORDER-SHEET ON 8.7.2008 AND 5.8.2008 REGARDING THE PRODUCTION OF B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHEN THE CASE WAS PARTLY DISCUSSED AS NOTED. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT TRANSPIRES FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TEST-CHECKED THE WAGES REGISTER, VOUCHERS ETC. IT WAS ASSESSING OFFICERS PRIME DUTY TO VERIFY THE DISCREPANCY FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DURI NG THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE REACHING ANY CONCLUSION. HE FAILED TO DO SO EVEN AT THE TIME OF R EMAND PROCEEDINGS. 11.2.4. I AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE AR THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE FIGURE OF PROVIDENT FUND TOOK PLA CE ON ACCOUNT OF TABULATION WHILE SEGREGATING THE P.F. AND EXPENSES FROM THE CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNT OF LABOUR CHARGES, MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPICTION IN THE P&L ALC. THE AR'S ARGUMENT THAT IF ALL THE FIGURES OF LABOUR EXPEN SES, P.F. & SERVICE-TAX WERE SUMMED UP TOGETHER AND PUT ITA NO.768/DEL/2010 5 UNDER THE HEAD 'LABOUR CHARGES', AS DONE IN EARLIER Y EARS, AND THE CONSOLIDATED FIGURES WERE COMPARED TO CONTRAC TUAL RECEIPTS IN THE RATIO OF SUCH CHARGES CLAIMED IN EARLI ER YEARS, THE CONSOLIDATED FIGURE WILL WORK OUT ON A LOW ER SIDE. 11.2.5. ON A PERUSAL OF LOOSE-SHEETS OF LABOUR CHARGES BROUGHT ON ASSESSMENT RECORDS BY THE AO AND COPIES OF P&L ALC OF EARLIER YEARS OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS ESTAB LISHED THAT THE LABOUR CHARGES INCLUDED LABOUR SALARY, PROVI DENT FUND ETC. COMBINEDLY AND THE CA GOT PREPARED THE P& L ALC AFTER ADOPTING THE COMMON HEAD OF LABOUR CHARGES AS I N EARLIER YEARS. 11.2.6. I ALSO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE AR T HAT DEPICTION OF ENTRIES, NO DOUBT PRIMA FACIE IS A GOOD PIECE OF EVIDENCE, BUT IT IS THE REAL NATURE OF EXPENSES WHICH IS IMPORTANT AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE SEEN WITH REFERENCE TO THE NATURE OF EXPENSES INCURRED AND NOT THE HEAD UNDER WHICH THE DEPICTION IS MADE. 11.2.7. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE, IT EMERGES THAT UNDOUBTEDLY THE MISTAKE WAS INITIALLY COMMITTED BY THE CA, BUT IT WAS A BONAFIDE MISTAKE. T HE MISTAKE HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN RECTIFIED AND THE CA HAS ALSO GIVEN HIS CONFESSION LETTER. LOOKING TO THE FACTS A S NOTED ABOVE INCLUDING THE RATIO OF LABOUR CHARGES TO TOTAL CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS AND RATIO OF NET PROFIT TO TOTA L CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS OF EARLIER YEARS, I DO NOT SEE AN Y GOOD REASON TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF `11,59,658/- ON ACCO UNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES TOWARDS PROVIDENT FUND. THE CASE-LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE AR ALSO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS. THE ADDITION IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 3.2 AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF `7,32,356/- ON AC COUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF RECEIPTS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- 11.3.1. AS REGARDS ADDITION OF `7,32.356/- ON ACCOUN T OF NOT DISCLOSING CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS, THE EXPLANATIONS O F THE AR DO HAVE SOUND REASONS. I AGREE WITH THE AR THAT THE TOTAL CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS WERE DULY CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES ONLY. IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT, ALL RECEIPTS ARE DULY CREDITED AND IT WAS RECONCILED ALSO AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF BALANC E SHEET, WHICH IS CLEAR FROM THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERE NCE IN ITA NO.768/DEL/2010 6 THE BALANCE OF BANK AS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT O F THE ASSESSEE AND AS THAT STANDING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE BANK. IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALSO, ALL THE RECEIPTS AS RECEIVED FROM MIS DAURALA SUGAR WORKS A RE DULY ENTERED. HOWEVER, THE MISTAKE IN THE DEPICTION OF THE ENTRIES IN THE P&L ALC WITH REGARD TO CONTRACT RECEI PTS AS PREPARED BY C.A. TOOK PLACE DUE TO THE FACT THAT MI S DAURALA SUGAR WORKS HAD ISSUED THE TDS CERTIFICATES ON FORM NO.16-A ON 14-04-2006 ONLY FOR THE RECEIPTS OF `L,61,53,468/- AND NOT FOR REMAINING AMOUNT OF `7,3 2,356/- WHEREIN THE AMOUNT OF CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS HAD BEEN SHOWN AT `L,61,53,468/- AND THE TDS HAD BEEN DEDUCTE D AT `3,58,596/- ALONG WITH EDUCATION CESS OF `7,172/-. TH E DETAILS OF PAYMENT AS WELL AS DEDUCTION OF TDS WITH TH E TDS CERTIFICATES ISSUED FROM MSS DAURALA SUGAR WORKS ARE ON RECORD. THE C.A. WHILE CONSIDERING & RECONCILING THE RECEIPTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE TDS CERTIFICATES AS ISSUE D BY MIS DAURALA SUGAR WORKS ALSO NOTICED SUCH DIFFERENCE BU T BECAUSE THE EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO DIFFERENCE NO T FORTHCOMING FROM MIS DAURALA SUGAR WORKS, THE CONCERN ED C.A. INSTEAD OF SHOWING THE FULL ACTUAL RECEIPTS AS REC EIVED FROM MIS DAURALA SUGAR WORKS WHICH WERE DULY ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AT `L,69,02,802/-, HAD SHOWN TH E AMOUNT IN P&L ALC. AT `L,61,53,468/-, WHICH WAS ALSO SHOWN BY MIS DAURALA SUGAR WORKS IN ITS TDS CERTIFICATE (FRO M NO 16-A) AND THE REMAINING BALANCE OF `7,32,356/- WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE LABOUR CHARGES. IN OTHER WORDS, TH E ACTUAL LABOUR CHARGES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ABATED BY AN AMOUNT OF `7,32,356/-. 11.3.2. THE AR'S ARGUMENT THAT THE MISTAKE DOES NOT AF FECT THE FIGURES OF NET PROFIT AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE DIFFERENCE IN DEBIT AND CREDIT ENTRIES OF EQUAL AMOUNT NEUTRALIZES ITS EFFECT WHILE WORKING OUT THE N ET PROFIT AS PER P&L A/C AND AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS A LSO CORRECT. 11.3.3. AS REGARDS [HE OBSERVATION OF THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT REGARDING THE CLAIMING OF TDS OF `16, 478/. WITHOUT DECLARING THE CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS OF `7,32, 356/-, THE SAME IS NOT VERY SIGNIFICANT IN VIEW OF THE FACT T HAT THE TAX-EFFECT ON SUCH AMOUNT OF UNDECLARED RECEIPTS COME S TO `4,000/- ONLY (APPROX.). (TAX ON NET PROFIT OF `12, 523/- ARRIVED AT BY APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE OF 1.7% OF R ECEIPTS OF `7,32,356/-). THIS AMOUNT IS PETTY AND NEGLIGIBLE. ITA NO.768/DEL/2010 7 11.3.4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE CASE-LAWS RELIE D UPON BY THE AR LEAD ME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS A BONAFIDE MISTAKE THAT TOOK PLACE AT THE TIME OF AUDI T OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY RECTIFIED. THE ADDITION IS, THEREFORE, DELETED. 4. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTL Y SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AR ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE REITERATING THEIR SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) CONTENDED IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SMALL LABOUR CONTRACTOR AND SUPPLIED LABOUR TO M/S DAURALA SUGAR WORKS FOR THE LAST SO MANY YEARS AS WELL AS IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE ASSESSEE REGULARLY MAINTAINED HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ALL THE EXPENSES RELATING TO THE WAGES, DEDUCTION OF PF BY DAURALA SU GAR WORKS AND SERVICE TAX WERE DEBITED IN A SINGLE ACCOUNT NAMED 'L ABOUR CHARGES ACCOUNT'. THE CONSOLIDATED TOTAL AMOUNT DEBITED TO T HE LABOUR CHARGES ACCOUNT ON SUCH ACCOUNT WAS `L,56,21,304J- WHILE THE TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM DAURALA SUGAR WORKS WAS `L,69,02,802/- THOUGH THE TDS CERTIFICATES REFLECTED PAYMENT OF `L,61,53,468/-. T HE STAFF OF THE CA, WHILE PREPARING THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, SEGREGATED THE AMOUNT DEBITED TO LABOUR CHARGES ACCOUNT UNDER DIFFERENT HE ADS AND IN SUCH PROCESS, MADE SOME TABULATION MISTAKES WHILE DEPICTING I NTO WAGES AND PF AND HAD ALSO MADE THE ADJUSTMENT OF EXCESS RECEI PT OF `7,49,334/-, BEING THE AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THE AM OUNT SHOWN IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DAURALA SUGAR WORKS, IN THE LABOUR CHARGES ACCOUNT IN ORDER TO MATCH THE RECEIPT AS SHOWN IN TDS CERTIFICATE . SINCE THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY HIS STAF F WAS ADMITTED BY THE CA AND DISCREPANCIES WERE RECONCILED, THE LD. CI T(A) DELETED BOTH THE ADDITIONS AFTER HAVING A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. THE DETAILS OF MISTAKES COMMITTED BY THE CA WHILE PREPARING THE PROF IT & LOSS ACCOUNT ARE TABULATED IN THE FOLLOWING FORM: ITA NO.768/DEL/2010 8 LABOUR CHARGES GRAND TOTAL ACTUAL AMOUNT OF ITEMS ENT RY SEGREGATED AND AS PER BOOKS COMPRISED IN LABOUR CHARGES DEBITED IN P&L A/C OF ACCOUNT. AS SHOWN IN RECASTED P&L PREPARE D BY CA. ACCOUNT. `1,56,21,304 LABOUR `1,50,59,914 LABOUR `1,40,7 5,162 SALARY CHARGES PF `3,86,584 LESS: `7,49,334/- DEDUCTED EXCESS RECEIPT FROM DAURALA SUGAR WORKS NOT SHOWN BY COMPANY IN TDS. ------------------------ SERVICE `1,74,806BALANCE `1,33,25,728 TAX PF ` 15,46,242 ------------------ ---------------- TOTAL `1,56,21,304 `1,48,71,960 ------------------------ DIFFERENCE ` 7,49,334 --------------- RECEIPTS: SHOWN IN ORIGINAL P&L ACCOUNT `1,61,53,468/- SHOWN IN RECASTED P&L ACCOUNT `1,69,02,802/- (`1,61,53,468 + `7,49,334) THE TRANSFER OF RECEIPT OF `7,49,334 J - (BEING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN TDS CERTIFICATE) FROM THE LABOUR CHARGES ACCOUNT TO RECEIPTS ACCOUNT RESULTED IN INCREA SE IN LABOUR CHARGES AND RECEIPT ACCOUNTS BOTH IN RECASTED PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT THOUGH NEUTRALIZED THE EFFECT, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER HAVING A REPORT FROM THE CONCERNED CA AND REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO CONCLUDE D THAT THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DISCREPANCIES POIN TED OUT BY THE AO ITA NO.768/DEL/2010 9 ,WERE DUE TO BONAFIDE MISTAKES COMMITTED BY THE CONC ERNED CA AT THE TIME OF FINALIZATION OF ACCOUNTS. SINCE THE DISCREPA NCIES HAVE BEEN RECONCILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALL THE RECEIP TS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHILE THE REVEN UE HAVE NOT PLACED BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL IN ORDER TO CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF FACTS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) , THERE IS NO BASIS TO INTERFERE WITH THESE FINDINGS. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND N OS. 1 TO 3 IN THE APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO.4 IN THE APPEAL BEING MERE PRAYER NO R ANY SUBMISSIONS HAVING BEEN MADE BEFORE US ON THIS GROUND, DOES NOT RE QUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION AND IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 7. IN RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (A.N. PAHUJA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) NS CPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), MEERUT. 2. SHRI SURAJ BHAN SHARMA, PROP. M/S SURAJ & CO. 74, KONARK COLONY, ROORKEE ROAD, MEERUT. 3. CIT (APPEALS), MEERUT. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR, ITAT,G BENCH, NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY/ // /ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, DELHI