M/s Bedi Automobiles, Hoshiarpur V. The Income-tax Officer, Hoshiarpur

ITA 86/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5583 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R S KALRA
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH.T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.86(ASR)/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. BEDI AUTOMOBILES, PIPLAWALA, JALANDHAR ROAD, HOSHIARPUR. PAN:AAGFB-3866P VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-(3), HOSHIARPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. R.S.KALRA (CA) RESPONDENT BY: SH. RAHUL DHAWAN (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 17.05.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.07.20 17 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT, JALANDHAR, DATED 16.12.2014 FOR ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1.THAT ASSESSMENT FRAMED IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED A ND UNCALLED FOR. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ASSESSING OFFICER HA S LEGALLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.16,23,468/- ON A CCOUNT OF UNPAID SALES TAX, APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SEC.43B OF I. T. ACT. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ASSESSING OFFICER HA S LEGALLY ERRED ON LAW AND FACTS, MAKING ADDITION OF RS.2,40,000/- APPLYIN G PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A)(IA) SEC.194 OF I.T. ACT. 4. THAT LEARNED CIT(A) AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LE GALLY ERRED ON LAW AND FACTS ADDING RS.45000/- APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) AND SEC.194J. 5. THAT LEARNED CIT(A) AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LE GALLY ERRED IN TREATING ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS AS SALE DURING THE YEAR THU S ADDING INCOME OF RS.9,60,208/-. NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE SPECIFICA LLY WHEN INCOME ON THIS SALE IS ASSESSED IN A.Y.2011-12 ALTERNATIVELY ADDITION MADE IS EXCESS. ITA NO.86 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 2 6. THAT LEARNED CIT(A) AND A.O HAS LEGALLY ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.31,290/-. 3. THE ABOVE APPEAL WAS EARLIER DISMISSED FOR NON P ROSECUTION VIDE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 13.06.2016. HOWEVER, THE SA ID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS RECALLED VIDE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 17. 02.2017 AND THE APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON MERITS. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST ADDITION SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF UNPA ID VAT TAX BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SEC.43B OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN FACT NO VAT TAX LIABILITY WAS OUTSTANDING FOR THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS THE ENTIRE VAT AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED AND RATHER T HERE WAS AN EXCESS DEPOSIT OF VAT AS ON 31.3.2010, AND IN THIS RESPECT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO (PB-3) WHERE THE DETAIL WORKING OF OPENI NG VAT AND OUTPUT VAT ALONG WITH DETAILS OF PAYMENTS WAS PLACED. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILIN G OF RETURN WHICH WAS ON 15.10.2010 AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION U/S 43B W AS NOT WARRANTED. THE LD. AR ALSO TOOK US TO VAT PAYABLE ACCOUNT AND VAT PAID ACCOUNT PLACED AT (PB 6 TO 8) AND SUBMITTED THAT THESE LEDG ER ACCOUNTS ALSO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO VAT LIABILITY WAS OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.03.2010. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.3 & 4 REGARDING NON DEDUCTION OF TDS FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE AS RENT AND LEGAL FEE, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT PAYEES HAD DECLARED THESE PAYMENTS IN THEIR RESPECT IVE RETURNS OF INCOME ITA NO.86 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 3 AND THEREFORE, AS PER THE CASE LAW OF HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE .. VS COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE FOR NON DEDUCTION AT TDS. AS REGARDS THE FIFTH GROUND OF APPEAL REGARDING SU PPRESSION OF SALES THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVANCES RECEIV ED BY ASSESSEE WERE SETTLED BY MAKING SALES DURING THE NEXT FINANCIAL Y EAR AND BY MAKING REFUNDS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A NORMAL P RACTICE IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING CARS THAT BOOKING ARE DONE BEFO RE 31 ST MARCH, AT THE EXISTING RATES AND DELIVERIES ARE MADE IN THE NEXT YEAR. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT CUSTOMERS GENERALLY BOOK THIER CARS IN ADVANCE IN ORDER TO GET THE VEHICLES AT EXISTING PRICES AS EXCISE DU TY RATES AND SALES PRICES OF VEHICLES GENERALLY INCREASE WITH W.E.F 1 ST APRIL. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THESE CARS AFTER 31. 3.2010 AND THE PURCHASE INVOICES ISSUED BY THE COMPANY WERE IN THE LAST WEEK OF MARCH SO AT THE TIME OF CLOSING OF YEAR SOME OF THESE CAR S WERE IN TRANSIT AND THEREFORE, THE SALES AGAINST THESE BOOKINGS PERTAIN ED TO NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR AND IN THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR THESE WERE INCL UDED IN THE SALES AND DUE TAXES WERE ALSO PAID AND THEREFORE, APPLYING GR OSS PROFIT RATE ON ADVANCES WILL LEAD TO DOUBLE TAXATION ON SAME INCOM E WHICH CANNOT BE TAXED AS TWICE. RELIANCE IN THIS RESPECT WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LAXMIPAT SINGH ANIA VS. CIT [72 ITR 291] (SC) WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAD HELD THAT TAXING STATUTE SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED IN SUCH A MANNER THAT ITS EFFECT WILL CAST A BURDEN TWICE OVER THE PAYMENT OF TAX ON THE TAXPAYER UNLESS THE ITA NO.86 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 4 LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE IS SO COMPELLINGLY CERTAIN THAT THE COURT HAS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE THAN TO ACCEPT IT. THE LD. AR SUB MITTED THAT THE WHOLE EXERCISE WAS REVENUE NEUTRAL AS TAX RATES FOR BOT H THE YEARS WERE SAME I.E., 30% AND FURTHER NO EXEMPTION LIMIT IS ALLOWED TO PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO LOSS TO THE DEPARTMENT. THE LD. AR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO VARIOUS CONFIRM ATIONS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS AS PLACED AT (PB 9 TO 34) AND HE ALSO TOOK US TO (PB 35 TO 50) TO HIGH LIGHT THAT BILLS FOR SALES OF THESE VEHICLES TO THESE PERSONS WERE MADE IN THE NEXT YEAR. THE LD. AR ALSO TOOK US TO (PB 50 TO 57) WHERE THE BILLS OF SAID CARS ISSUED BY CHEVEROL ET SALES INDIA PVT. LTD. DATED FROM 25.03.2010 TO 30.03.2010 WERE PLACED AND IN VIEW OF THESE ARGUMENTS THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION SU STAINED BY LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HEAVILY PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO INVITED OUR AT TENTION TO LD. CIT(A) ORDER PAGE-5 WHERE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT BE FORE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAD CHOSEN NOT TO PRESS GROUND NO.2 THAT I S WHY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GO NE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. AS REGARDS THE GROUND OF APPEAL R EGARDING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF VAT LIABILITY OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.03.20 10 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.43B, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD FI LED COPIES OF VAT PAYABLE AND VAT PAID ACCOUNT AND HAS ALSO FILED DET AILED CALCULATIONS ITA NO.86 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 5 WITH RESPECT TO VAT PAYABLE DURING THE YEAR AND VAT PAID DURING THE YEAR. FROM THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF VAT PAYABLE AND VAT PAID ACCOUNT AND FROM THE CALCULATION SHEET SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE, WE FIN D THAT THERE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE OUTSTANDING LIABILITY OF VAT RELATING TO THIS YEAR AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION U/S 43B WAS NOT WARRANTED. HOWEVER, WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE COMPLETE RECONCILIATION OF VAT PAID AND VAT PAY ABLE WERE NOT SUBMITTED TO ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE OFFICE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHOULD EXAMINE THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITY OF VAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION ONLY AND IF ON RECONCILEMENT HE FINDS THAT NO VAT WAS OUTSTANDI NG FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALL THE PAYMENTS FOR VAT RE LATING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD BEEN DEPOSITED BEFORE THE D ATE OF FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN THEN HE SHOULD DELETE IT. THEREFO RE, GROUND NO.2 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.3 & 4 REGARDING NON DEDUCTION OF TDS ON PAYMENTS OF RENT AND LEGAL FEE, WE FIND THAT LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYEES HAD DEPOSITED THE TAXES IN THIER RESPECT IVE RETURNS. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE .. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS HELD THAT IF THE PAYEES HAD DISCLOSED THE RECEIPT OF INCOME IN THIER RETURN S OF INCOME NO DEDUCTION U/S 40 (A) (IA) IS WARRANTED. THE RELEVAN T FINDINGS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT ARE REPRODUCED BELOW. 7. THE TRIBUNAL UPON REHEARING THE APPEAL HELD THA T THOUGH THE APPELLANT- ASSESSEE WAS RIGHTLY HELD TO BE AN 'ASSESSEE IN DEF AULT', THERE COULD BE NO RECOVERY OF THE TAX ALLEGED TO BE IN DEFAULT ONCE A GAIN FROM THE APPELLANT ITA NO.86 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 6 CONSIDERING THAT PRADEEP OIL CORPORATION HAD ALREAD Y PAID TAXES ON THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE APPELLANT. IT IS REQUIRED TO NOTE THAT THE DEPARTMENT CONCEDED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE RE COVERY COULD NOT ONCE AGAIN BE MADE FROM THE TAX DEDUCTOR WHERE THE PAYEE INCLUDED THE INCOME ON WHICH TAX WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SHORT DEDUCTE D IN ITS TAXABLE INCOME AND PAID TAXES THEREON. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WHATSOEVER THAT PRADEEP OIL CORPORATION HAD ALREADY PAID THE TAXES DUE ON ITS INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE APPELLANT AND HAD RECEIVED REFUND FROM THE TAX DEPARTMENT. THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE RIGHT CONCLUSI ON THAT THE TAX ONCE AGAIN COULD NOT BE RECOVERED FROM THE APPELLANT (DE DUCTOR- ASSESSEE) SINCE THE TAX HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID BY THE RECIPIENT OF I NCOME. 8. THE HIGH COURT INTERFERED WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER DATED 12.7.2002 OF THE INCOME -TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAS ATTAINED ITS FINALITY SINCE THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE SAME BY THE APPELLANT WAS DISMISSED BY THE HIGH COURT ON 21.5.2004; THE POINT BASED ON GROUND NO. 7 WAS NOT TAKEN UP IN THE APPEA L PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE INCOME- TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER DATED 12.7.2002 GOT ITSELF MERGED INTO THE ORDER PASSED BY IT ON 21.5.2004 DISMISSING THE APPE AL OF THE APPELLANT HEREIN. THE HIGH COURT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TRIBUNAL COULD NOT HAVE REOPENED THE MATTER FOR ANY FURTHER HEARING. 9. WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO REOPEN THE MATTER FOR FURTHER HEARING AS REGARDS GR OUND NO. 7 HAS ATTAINED ITS FINALITY. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HIGH COURT COULD NOT HAVE INTERFERED WITH THE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPEL LATE TRIBUNAL. 10. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE CIRCULAR NO. 275/201/95- IT(B) DATED 29.1.1997 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, SHOULD PUT AN END TO THE CONTROVERSY. THE CIRCULAR DECLARES 'NO DEMAND VISUALIZED UNDER SECTION 201 (1) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT SHOULD BE ENFORCED AFTER THE TAX DEDUCTOR HAS SATISFIED THE OFFICER-IN -CHARGE OF TDS, THAT TAXES DUE HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE DEDUCTEE-ASSESSEE. HOWEVE R, THIS WILL NOT ALTER THE LIABILITY TO CHARGE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201 (1 A) OF THE ACT TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF TAXES BY THE DEDUCTEE-ASSESSEE OR THE LIABILITY FOR PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT.' 11. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAD PAID THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201 (1 A) OF THE ACT AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE TAX DUE HAD BEEN PAID BY DEDUCTEE- ASSESSEE (M/S PRADEEP OIL CORPORATION) . IT IS NOT DISPUTED BEFORE US THAT THE CIRCULAR IS APPLICABLE TO THE FA CTS SITUATION ON HAND. 12. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO GO IN DETAIL AS TO WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL COULD HAVE AT ALL REOPENED THE APPEAL TO RECTIFY THE ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. WE DO NOT WISH TO EXPRESS ANY FIRM VIEW ON THIS ASPECT. 13. THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT IS ACCO RDINGLY SET ASIDE. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. ITA NO.86 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 7 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, GROUND NO.3 & 4 IS ALSO REST ORED TO ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHOULD EXAMINE THE INCOME TAX RETURNS O F THE PAYEES TO DETERMINE AS TO WHETHER THOSE PAYEES HAD DECLARED T HE INCOMES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIER RETURN OF INCOMES AND HAD PAI D TAXES THEREON AND IF THE PAYEES HAD PAID THIER TAXES ON SUCH INCOME THEN ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD DELETE THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, GROUN D NO.3 & 4 IS ALSO RESTORED TO ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW COMING TO GROUND NO.5, WE FIND THAT THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT OF ASSESSEE THAT IN AUT OMOBILE INDUSTRY GENERALLY ADVANCES ARE RECEIVED AT THE END OF FINAN CIAL YEAR TO GET VEHICLES AT OLD RATES WITHOUT THE EFFECT OF INCREASE IN EXCI SE DUTIES WHICH GENERALLY COME INTO OPERATIONS W.E.F. FROM FIRST APRIL. THE A SSESSEE HAD FILED SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH WERE ALSO BE FORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CUSTOMERS HAD GENUINE LY MADE ADVANCES OF AMOUNTS TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST BOOKINGS OF CARS AND IN THIS RESPECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAD OBTAINED CONFIRMA TIONS FROM THE SAID CUSTOMERS WHICH ARE PLACED AT (PB 9 TO 34). THE ASS ESSEE HAD ALSO FILED COPIES OF INVOICES ISSUED BY IT TO THESE CUSTOMERS WHICH ARE PLACED AT (BP 35 TO 49). THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED THE PURCHASE BILLS OF THESE CARS ISSUED BY CHEVEROLET SALES INDIA PVT. LIMITED WHICH ARE DATED 25.03.2010 TO 30.03.2010 AND THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THESE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE GOT ANY BENEFIT BY POSTPONI NG THE SALES AS THE ITA NO.86 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 8 TAX RATE IN BOTH THE YEARS ARE SAME I.E. 30%. THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LAXMIPAT SINGHANIA VS. CIT 72 (SUPRA ) AS HELD AS UNDER: VIEW ON SAME LINES WAS HELD IN LAXMIPAT SINGHANIA V. CIT (72 ITR 2.91) (SC). TAXING STATUTE SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED IN SUCH A MANNER THAT ITS EFFECT WILL BE TO CAST A BURDEN TWICE OVER THE PAYMENT OF TAX ON THE TAXPAYER UNLESS THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE IS SO C OMPELLINGLY CERTAIN THAT THE COURT HAS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE THAN TO ACCEPT I T. FURTHER THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. REALEST BUILDERS AND SERVICES LIMITED(2008) 307 ITR 202 HEL D AS UNDER: 'IN CASES WHERE THE DEPARTMENT WANTS TO TAX AN ASS ESSEE ON THE GROUND OF THE LIABILITY ARISING IN A PARTICULAR YEAR, IT S HOULD ALWAYS ASCERTAIN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E PAST AND WHETHER CHANGE IN METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WAS WARRANTED ON THE GROUND THAT PROFIT IS BEING UNDERESTIMATED UNDER THE IMPUGNED METHOD OF A CCOUNTING, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THER E IS UNDERESTIMATION OF PROFITS, HE MUST GIVE FACTS AND FIGURES IN THAT REG ARD AND DEMONSTRATE TO THE COURT THAT THE IMPUGNED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AD OPTED BY THE ASSESSEE RESULTS IN UNDERESTIMATION OF PROFITS AND IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED. OTHERWISE, THE PRESUMPTION WOULD BE THAT THE ENTIRE EXERCISE IS REVENUE NEUTRAL. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THAT EXERCISE HAD NEV ER BEEN UNDERTAKEN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE BOTH THE METHODS, ONE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER BY THE DEPART MENT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE WAS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WIT H THE CONCLUSION GIVEN BY THE HIGH COURT' IN CIT (A) VS NAGRI MILLS CO. LTD. BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD 'WE HAVE OFTEN WONDERED WHY THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES, IN A MATTER SUCH AS THIS WHERE THE DEDUCTION IS OBVIOUSLY A PERMISSIBLE DEDU CTION UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, RAISE DISPUTES AS TO THE YEAR IN WH ICH THE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THE QUESTION AS TO THE YEAR IN W HICH A DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE MAY BE MATERIAL WHEN THE RATE OF TAX CHAR GEABLE ON THE ASSESSEE IN TWO DIFFERENT YEARS IS DIFFERENT; BUT I N THE EASE OJ INCOME OF A COMPANY, TAX IS ATTRACTED AT A UNIFORM RATE, AND WH ETHER THE DEDUCT ION IN RESPECT OJ BONUS WAS GRANTED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1952-53 OR IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CORRESPONDING TO THE ACCOUNTING YEA R 1952, THAT IS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1953-54, SHOULD BE A MATTER OJ NO C ONSEQUENCE TO THE DEPARTMENT; AND ONE SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE DE PARTMENT WOULD NOT FRITTER AWAY ITS ENERGIES IN FIGHTING MATTERS OF TH IS KIND. BUT, OBVIOUSLY, JUDGING FROM THE REFERENCES THAT COME UP TO US EVER Y NOW AND THEN, THE DEPARTMENT APPEARS TO DELIGHT IN RAISING POINTS OF THIS CHARACTER WHICH DO NOT AFFECT THE TAXABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE TA X THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS LIKELY TO COLLECT FROM HIM WHETHER IN ONE YEAR OR T HE OTHER. ' IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN VIE W OF THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS RELIED ON BY LD. AR WE DELETE THE ADDITI ON SUSTAINED BY LD. ITA NO.86 (ASR)/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 9 CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES AND THERE FORE, GROUND NO.5 IS ALLOWED. AS REGARDS THE LAST GROUND OF APPEAL REGARDING ADD ITION SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF IN UN-RECONCILED BALANC E, WE FIND THAT LD. AR HAS NOT ARGUED THIS GROUND BEFORE US AND NEITHER WE FIND ANY MENTION OF THE ARGUMENTS RELATING TO THIS GROUND IN THE WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED, PARTLY DISMISSED AND PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.07. 2017 . SD/- SD/- (N.K.CHOUDHRY ) (T. S. KAP OOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:14.07.2017. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER