DCIT, Jaipur V. KRISHNA BUILHOME PVT. LTD., Jaipur

ITA 901/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2114 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY GOYAL C A DHK
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 68

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. 901/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. M/S KRISHNA BUILDHOME PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AACCK 4621 J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL. CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY GOYAL (C.A.) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 24.04.2017. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/05/2017. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-II, JAIPUR DATED 21.10.2014 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2010-11. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL :- (I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING DISALLO WANCE OUT OF CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,71,782/-. (II) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) AS ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOW ANCE OUT OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 24 ,521/- (III) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING DISALLO WANCE U/S 24(A) AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,68,000/-. (IV) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITIO N OF RS. 75,50,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN TRA NSACTIONS. 2 ITA NO. 901/JP/2014 M/S KRISHNA BUILDHOME PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. (V) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITIO N OF RS. 53,32,044/- ,MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN TR ANSACTIONS. (VI) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING DISALLO WANCE OF INTEREST OF RS. 4,99,584/- MADE BY DISALLOWING THE SAME ON THE EXCESS PAYMENT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. (VII) THE APPELLANT CRAVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U NDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2010. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO MADE ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES OF RS. 1,71,782/-, DISALLOWAN CE OUT OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES OF RS. 2,45,211/- DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/ S 24(A) OF RS. 1,68,000/- AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CREDIT OF RS. 75 ,50,000/- ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN TRANSACTIONS OF RS. 53,32,044/- AN D INTEREST OF RS. 4,99,584. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPE AL. THEREBY, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE OUT OF CONSTRUCTION E XPENSES OUT OF MAINTENANCE EXPENSE OF RS. 24,521/-, DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE M ADE U/S 24(A) OF RS. 1,68,000/- AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 53,32,044/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN TRANSACTIONS AND DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTERE ST OF RS. 4,99,584/-. AGAINST THIS THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL. 3. THE FIRST GROUND IS DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF CONSTRUCTION EX PENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,71,782. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL RE PRESENTATIVES SUPPORTED THE 3 ITA NO. 901/JP/2014 M/S KRISHNA BUILDHOME PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT L D. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE EXPENSES ARE UNVOUCHED AND MADE IN CASH PAYMENT. 3.1 ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE IN THE WRITTEN BRIEF. HE SUBMITTED THAT GR OSS PROFIT IS HIGHER THAN THE PREVIOUS YEARS. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSES SEE ARE AUDITED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT AS WELL AS THE COMPANIES ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEM TO PREVENT T HE LEAKAGE. 3.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING THAT NO SPECIFIC INSTANCE HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT, WHERE EXPENSES ARE UNVOUCHED. BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AS WELL, THE LD. DR WAS UNABLE TO POINT OU T THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY TO AFFIRMED, THE GROUND RAISED IN TH IS APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. APROPOS TO GROUNDS NOS. 2 & 3, ARE AGAINST DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES OF RS. 24,521/- AND DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 24(A) AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,68,000/-. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4.1 ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESEE AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER IMPUGNED BEFORE US. 4.3 APROPOS TO GROUND NO. 2, THE REVENUE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SPECIFIC INSTANCE, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS D ISMISSED. 4 ITA NO. 901/JP/2014 M/S KRISHNA BUILDHOME PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. 4.4 QUA TO GROUND NO. 3 IS, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE FACTS, THAT T HE PROPERTY GIVEN ON RENT TO M/S MOBITEL TELELINK PVT. LTD; BEING STOCK IN TRADE OF THE ASSESSEE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER WOULD N OT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE INCOME SO LONG IT WAS OCCUPIED FOR THE PURPOSE OF B USINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY CONT RARY MATERIAL SUGGESTING THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUETION WAS OCCUPIED FOR BUSINESS O F THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE INTO THE ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT(A),SAME IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF THE OF THE REVENUES APPEA L IS DISMISSED. 5. GROUND NO. 4 IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 75,50,000/- MADE BY AO U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE LD. DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVES SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TREATED THE ADVANCES FROM TWO CUSTOMERS NAMELY SHRI VIJAY K UMAR LODHA OF RS. 61,00,000/- AND NIKKI EXPORTS PRIVATE LTD. OF RS. 14,50,000/- A S UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUS TIFIED IN DELETING THE SAME. 5.1 ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER FAI LED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ADVANCE OF RS. 61,00,000/- IS STANDING AS OPENING B ALANCE IN ACCOUNT OF THIS PERSON. ONLY CREDIT ENTRY OF THE CURRENT YEAR WOULD FALL UN DER THE SCOPE OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUP PLIED THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION, THAT IS IN SUPPORT OF HI S CLAIM I.E. CONFIRMATION OF THE CONCERNED PARTY, BOOKING APPLICATION FORM OF THE PA RTY, COPY OF PAN CARD OF PARTY, COPY OF INCOME-TAX RETURN, COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INC OME AND BALANCE SHEET OF CONCERNED PARTY, COPY OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE A SSESSEE AND ACCOUNT OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR LODHA. FROM THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD PROVED THAT THE 5 ITA NO. 901/JP/2014 M/S KRISHNA BUILDHOME PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM SAID PARTY ARE GENUINE. IN R ESPECT OF ADVANCES FROM M/S NIKKI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. OF RS. 14,50,000/-HE SUBMIT TED THAT OUT OF RS. 14,50,000/- THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS. 10,00,000/- AS ADVANC E IN DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THEREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF A.Y. 2010-11. HE SUBMITTED THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMI TTED THE COPY OF CONFIRMATION OF THE PARTY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID PARTY EXP RESSED ITS UNWILLINGNESS TO BUY THE OFFICE FROM THE ASSESSEE AND REQUESTED TO ASSESSEE TO CANCEL HIS BOOKING AND RETURN BACK HIS ADVANCE, THUS THE ASSESSEE REFUNDED BACK I TS ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THIS PARTY ON 19/02/2010. UNDER THESE FACTS, HE SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGED THE ONUS. 5.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN PA RA 2.3 TO 2.5.2. 2.3 I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSES SMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THIS IS A CASE WHERE ADVANCES FROM TWO CUSTOMERS NAMELY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR LODHA (ADVANCE OF RS. 61 LAKHS) AND NIKKI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. (ADVANCE OF RS. 14,50,000/-) HAS BEEN TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ROUTED THROUGH T HE ABOVE NAMED PERSONS. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS ADVANCE WAS FOR BOOKING OF OFFIC ES IS A CONCOCTED STORY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS OF PR OVING THE CREDIT COMPLETELY. 2.4.1 THE FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ENTIRE A DVANCE OF RS. 61 LAKHS FROM VIJAY KUMAR LODHA HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN A. Y. 2009-2 010 AND THE CREDIT BALANCE IN HIS NAME APPEARS AS AN OPENING BALANCE I N THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED, DURING THE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, THE CONFIRMATION, COPY OF PAN CARD, COPY OF BOOKING APP LICATION FORM, COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME WITH BALANCE SHEET FOR A. Y 2009-2 010 AND A. Y. 2010-2011, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF VIJAY KUMAR LODHA FOR F. Y 2008-2009 WHEN THE ADVANCE WAS GIVEN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJEC TED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE CREDITO R WAS VERY LOW AT RS. 2,08,948/- AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE SHRI VIJAY KUMAR LODHA. THAT THE RETURNED INCOME OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR LODHA IS VERY LOW DOES NOT 6 ITA NO. 901/JP/2014 M/S KRISHNA BUILDHOME PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. HAVE ANY BEARING SINCE THE COPY OF HIS BANK STATEME NT SHOWS THE SOURCE OF THIS ADVANCE WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN REFLECTED IN THE B ALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SHOWN OR EVEN INDICATED H OW THE SOURCE OF THIS ADVANCE IS FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE APPELLANT HAS ST ATED THAT THE BOOKING OF OFFICES MADE BY THE CUSTOMER WAS CANCELLED IN F. Y. 2010-2011 AND THE MONEY WAS RETURNED BACK TO THE CUSTOMER. THE DISCU SSION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE EXPLANATION OF BOOKING O F OFFICES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS A CONCOCTED STORY IS NOT GERMANE TO THI S ISSUE BECAUSE WHAT HAS TO BE EXAMINED IN THIS MATTER, IS THE NATURE AND SO URCE OF THE ADVANCE. 2.4.2 IN MY VIEW, THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT TO THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSA CTION AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR, IS SATISFACTORY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE ABOVE EXPLANATION. ALS O THE ADVANCE OF RS. 61 LAKHS HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION BUT HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. THEREFORE, THE ADD ITION OF RS. 61 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT IS DI RECTED TO BE DELETED. 2.5.1 THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT AN ADVANCE OF RS. 10 LAKH WAS RECEIVED FROM NIKKI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. IN A. Y. 2009-2010 AND THIS CREDIT BALANCE IN ITS NAME APPEARS AS AN OPENING BALANCE IN THIS ASSESSME NT YEAR. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,50,000/- WAS RECEIVED DURING THE YE AR. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE CO NFIRMATION, COPY OF PAN CARD, COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE RETURN OF INCOM E OF A. Y. 2009-2010 AND 2010-2011, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF NIKKI EXPO RTS PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE THE DIREC TOR OF M/S. NIKKI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF NIKKI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. SHOWS THE SOURCE OF THIS ADVANCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SHOWN OR EVEN INDICATED HOW THE SOURCE OF THIS ADVANCE IS FROM TH E ASSESSEE. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE BOOKING OF OFFICES MADE BY THE CUSTOMER WAS CANCELLED AND THE MONEY WAS RETURNED BACK TO THE CUSTOMER IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE DISCUSSION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT T HE EXPLANATION OF BOOKING OF OFFICES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS A CONCOCTED STO RY IS NOT GERMANE TO THIS ISSUE BECAUSE WHAT HAS TO BE EXAMINED IN THIS MATTE R, IS THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE ADVANCE. 2.5.2 IN MY VIEW, THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT TO THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSA CTION AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OFF THE CREDITOR, IS SATISFACTORY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE ABOVE EXPLANATION. ALS O THE ADVANCE OF RS. 10 LAKHS HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION BUT HAS BEEN 7 ITA NO. 901/JP/2014 M/S KRISHNA BUILDHOME PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. RECEIVED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,50,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THIS GROUND IS, THEREFORE, ALLOWED. 5.3 WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTY AND ALSO THE IDENTITY IS ALSO ESTABLISHED, ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCES SO PLACED ON RECORD. THE REFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE INTO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. THUS, GROUND NO. 4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO. 5 IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 53,32,044/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN TRANSACTION. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO TAKEN AN ADDITIONAL GROUND IN RESPECT OF THIS ISSUE. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AS UNDER:- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O TH E CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING NEW EVIDENCE IN CONTR AVENTION OF RULE 46A OF IT RULES AND DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 53,32,044/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN TRANSACTIONS. 6.1 LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES VEHEMENTLY ARG UED THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION BY ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE EVIDENCES PLACED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WER E NOT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6.2 ON THE CONTRARY, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE O PPOSED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE IN THE WRITTEN BRIEF. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISPUTE ON TH E ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO REPAYMENT IN RESPECT OF SHRI ANUJ BADAYA, SHRI KESH AV DAS AGARWAL, SHRI MOHAN DAS AGARWAL, SMT. SANGITA KHANDELWAR (BADAYA). HE SUBM ITTED THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE ABOVE NAMED PARTIES WERE SUBMITTED TO ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF 8 ITA NO. 901/JP/2014 M/S KRISHNA BUILDHOME PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 73-76 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS REGARD T O THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE SAME WAS MADE SOLELY FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WAS THE D IFFERENCE IN REPAYMENT OF LOAN TO AFOREMENTIONED PERSONS AS SHOWN IN THE ANNEXURE-C & D OF TAX AUDIT REPORT AND SHOWN IN CASH FLOW STATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DIFFERENCE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF WRO NG FIGURE REPORTED BY THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASH FLOW STATEME NT PREPARED FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH-10 WHEREIN THE FIGURES OF FEB-10 WERE REPRODU CED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON THE SAME WITHOUT EXAMINING THESE CASH FLO W STATEMENTS FROM BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR CONFIRMING THE SAME FROM ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE COPY OF COPES OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. A O IS AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 77-83. HE SUBMITTED THAT FROM EXAMINING OF THE CASH FLOW S TATEMENT FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH-10 AND FEB-10 IT CAN EASILY BE INFERRED TH AT FIGURE OF OUTFLOW OF FEB-10 WERE REPEATED. THIS WAS A HUMAN ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROCESS OF COPY PASTE OF THE FIGURE S. IT CAN BE SEEN AS PER THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT ON MARCH-10. THE TOTAL OUT FLOW SHO WN IN RS. 2,05,91,151/- WHILE IF WE MAKE THE TOTAL OF ENTRIES REPORTED IN CASH FLOW STATEMENT THE SAME COMES FROM RS. 1,48,32,484/- WHICH IS TOTAL OF OUTFLOWS OF FEB -10. THUS, THE MISTAKE ACCRUED DUE TO WRONG REPORTING THE FIGURES IN CASH FLOW OF MARCH-10 AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LD. AO IN MECHANICAL MANNER WITHOUT EXAMINING IT PROPERLY OR ASKING THE CLARIFICATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PART IES. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FINDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ASKED ASSESS EE TO PREPARE A MONTH WISE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. WHILE MAKING CASH FLOW STATEMENT C ERTAIN TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR 9 ITA NO. 901/JP/2014 M/S KRISHNA BUILDHOME PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. OCCURRED, WHILE DID NOT TALLY WITH THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS AND THE AUDIT REPORT. IN THE CASES OF SHRI ANUJ BADAYA, SHRI KESHAV DAS AGARWAL, SHRI MOHAN DAS AGARWAL, SMT. SANGITA KHANDELWAL (BADAYA) THE ASSESSING OFFICER C ONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE HIS EXCESS PAYMENT FROM THE UNDISCLOSED SOURCE OF TAX, THE SAME ACCORDINGLY. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THIS FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT AS THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TH E SOURCE REFLECTED FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CORRECT CASH FLOW STATEMENT. TH IS FINDING IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON REC ORD. THEREFORE, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DIVIDING OF ANY MERIT, HEN CE, DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO. 6 IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF INTEREST OF RS. 4,99,584/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS PAYMENT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 7.1 ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT WHATEVER PAYMENT OF I NTEREST WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MADE THROUGH THE ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND VERIFIABLE FROM THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ACCOUNT FILED BEFORE THE AO. 7.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, THE LD. CI T(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE DIFFERENCE ON ACCOUNT OF TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR WHICH IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUESS APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO. 7 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO SEPARATE ADJUDIC ATION. 10 ITA NO. 901/JP/2014 M/S KRISHNA BUILDHOME PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 901/JP/2014 IS DISMISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MAY 2017. SD/- SD/- ( HKKXPUN ( DQY HKKJR ) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 15/05/2017. POOJA/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT M/S KRISHAN BUILDHOME PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 901/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR