Major Surinder Singh, Mohali V. Addl. CIT, Mohali

ITA 918/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80905 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 234B; 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 918/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 MAJOR SURINDER SINGH V ADDL CIT, R-VI, MOHALI 2237, SEC 61 MOHALI ALXPM 4355 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH DATE OF HEARING 8.9.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17.9.2014 O R D E R PER T.R. SOOD, A.M THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29. 6.2012 OF THE LD CIT(A), CHANDIGARH. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE A DDITION OF RS. 22,74,600 UNDER THE HEAD COMMISSION PAID TO VARIOUS PERSONS LISTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ONLY ON SUSPICION, CONJECTU RES AND SURMISES IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE EXPLANATIONS RENDERED AND EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE A DDITION OF RS. 20,80,000 OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 28,54,351 ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS UNDER DIFFERENT HEAD OF EXPENDITURE LISTED IN THE ORDER ITSELF ONLY SUSPICION, CONJECTURES AND SURMISES IN UTTER D ISREGARD OF THE EXPLANATIONS RENDERED AND EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS ARBITRAR Y AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2 3 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING DISAL LOWANCE OF S ALARY OF RS. 10,19,399 OUT OF TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 11,33,000 IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE EXPLANATIONS RENDERED AND EV IDENCE PLACED ON RECORD DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ONLY ON A HYPOTHETICAL BASIS WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFI ED. 4 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDIN G THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B & 234C OF THE ACT WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3 GROUND NO. 1 - AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED VARIOUS EXPENSES WHICH WERE PAID IN CA SH ONLY. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH VARIOUS BILLS ETC. AN D TO EXPLAIN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH ONLY CASH WAS PAID. THE ASS ESSEE CAME OUT TO SURRENDER A SUM OF RS. 30 LAKHS AND AFTER SO ME FURTHER ENQUIRY AN OFFER WAS MADE FOR SURRENDER OF RS. 50 L AKHS. 4 IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND IT WAS SEEN THAT OUT OF T OTAL COMMISSION EXPENDITURE OF RS. 34,24,600 A SUM OF RS . 22,74,600 WAS PAID IN CASH. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO FUR NISH PARTICULARS OF TDS DEDUCTED FROM COMMISSION PAYMEN T AND WAS ALSO REQUESTED TO FURNISH FURTHER DETAILS LIKE NATU RE OF SERVICE PROVIDED BY THE PARTY, COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT, COMP LETE NAME AND ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM COMMISSION WAS PAI D ETC. IN RESPONSE IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT COMMISSION WAS PAID TO VILLAGERS ON THE BASIS OF PERFORMANCE BUT NO INFORMATION WA S FILED. LATER ON VIDE LETTER DATED 17.10.2011 THE ASSESSEE FURN ISHED A LIST OF PERSONS TO WHOM COMMISSION WAS PAID BUT COMPLETE AD DRESSES WERE NOT GIVEN. THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN REQUESTED TO GIVE COMPLETE ADDRESSES SO THAT ENQUIRY CAN BE MADE U/S 133(6) OF THE 3 ACT. IT WAS MAINLY STATED THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE POSTAL ADDRESS. IT WAS PLEADED THAT COMMISSION PAID TO EA CH PERSON WAS LESS THAN RS. 20,000 AND THEREFORE NO TDS WAS DEDUC TED. IN THIS BACKGROUND COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS. 22,74,600 WA S HELD TO BE BOGUS. 5 ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE SUBMISSIONS M ADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE REITERATED. THE L D. CIT(A) DID NOT FIND FORCE IN THE SAME AND DISMISSED THIS GROUN D. 6 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITE RATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R FOR THE REVENUE ST RONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ULTIMATELY CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS OF R S. 53,50,000 OUT OF TOTAL ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AMOUNTING TO RS. 1.12 CRORES APPROXIMATELY. IT HAS TO BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF VOLUNTARILY OFFERED TO SURREND ER A SUM OF RS. 50 LAKHS IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF, THEREFOR E TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 53,50,000 IS TOTALLY JUSTIFIED. 8 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULL Y. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE VIDE PARA 3.3 WHICH I S AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE. OUT OF THE TOTAL COMMISSION CLAIMED OF RS . 34,24,600, COMMISSION OF RS. 22,74,600 HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE IMPUGNED COMMISSION PAYMENT IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE VILLAGERS AND IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THA T TDS WAS DEDUCTED WHEREVER APPLICABLE, BUT THIS IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, WHATSOEVER, TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF ETH APPELLANT THAT THE COMMISSION PAID IN CASH IS GENUINE. FURTH ER EVEN IF IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE COMMISSION CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN P AID IN CASH IS GENUINE, TDS WAS TO BE DEDUCTED ON EACH OF THE PAYM ENT EXCEEDS RS. 4 2500 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H WHICH H AS NOT BEEN DONE. NON DEDUCTION OF TDS ALSO RAISES A SERIOUS DOUBT AB OUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE COMMISSION PAID IN CASH. HENCE IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION DISALLOWED AT RS. 22,74,600 AND HIS ACTI ON IN THIS REGARD IS UPHELD. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 IS DISMISSED. IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY DECIDE D THE ISSUE. APART FROM THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. D.R FOR THE R EVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF OFFERED TO SURRENDER A SUM OF RS. 50 LAKHS, THE BURDEN IS ALWAYS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE C LAIM OF EXPENDITURE. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSION PAYMENT THE ASSESSEE WAS DUTY BOUND TO GIVE ADDRESSES AS WELL AS DESCRIP TION AND THE NATURE OF SERVICES WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE. FURTHE R EVEN TDS HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED, THEREFORE WE FIND NOTHING WR ONG IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND CONFIRM THE SAME. 9 GROUND NO. 2 DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INC URRED VARIOUS EXPENSES IN CASH AS PER FOLLOWING DETAILS: S NO. NATURE OF ACCOUNT TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED MODE OF PAYMENT 1 SELF WELFARE EXPENDITURE 89,188 CASH 2 TYPING AND LEGAL PAGES EXPENSES 48,900 CASH 3 BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES 3,80,025 CASH 4 OFFICE EXPENSES 1,00,905 CASH 5 GENERATOR EXPENSES 2,18,150 CASH 6 PANTRY EXPENSES 2,00,297 CASH 7 REPAIR AND UPGRADE EXPENSES 1,87,870 CASH 8 FESTIVAL EXPENSES 3,00,000 CASH 9 TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES 3,14,500 CASH 10 CAR RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE 2,16,796 CASH 11 ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE 81,315 CASH 12 REFRESHMENT AND ENTERTAINMENT EXPENDITURE 1,69,365 CASH 5 13 SITE EXPENSES 2,69,000 CASH 14 PRINTING AND STATIONARY EXPENSES 97,840 CASH TOTAL 28,54,351 ON ENQUIRY THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE RELEVANT BILLS AND ONLY SIMPLE VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED. VARIOUS PARTICULARS WERE GIVEN BUT THE SUPPORTING BILLS WERE NOT PRODUCED AND THER EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 28,54,351. 10 ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS MAINLY S UBMITTED THAT WITHOUT INCURRING THE EXPENDITURE THE BUSINESS COUL D NOT HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT SO ME DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS ALSO AND EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS 11.16% , 6.42% IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND ULTIMATELY COMPARATIVE CHART WAS ALSO GIVEN. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT ANY LEAKA GE IN SUCH EXPENDITURE WOULD BE COVERED BY THE SURRENDER OF RS . 50 LAKHS. 11 THE LD. CIT(A) EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL AND MADE COMPARISON WITH THE EARLIER YEAR AND ULTIMATELY DIS ALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 20,80,000. 12 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REIT ERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND L D. CIT(A). 13 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R FOR THE REVENUE R EITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN RESPECT OF EARLIER GROUNDS. 6 14 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VIDE PARA 4.3, 4.3.1 AND 4.3 .2 WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COU NSEL. A COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGE OF EXPENSES VIS--VIS RECEIPTS OF CURREN T YEAR WITH THE EARLIER YEAR REVEALS THAT THERE IS A WIDE VARIATION IN THE PERCENTAGE OF EXPENSES OVER THE YEARS AND THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN THE EXPENSES CLAIMED AND THE RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE CASH EXPENDITURE, SINCE THE A PPELLANT HAS NOT MAINTAINED PROPER VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF THE SAME. THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT NO BUSINESS CAN BE RUN WITHOUT EXPENDIT URE MADE IN CASH. I AM ENTIRELY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT NO BUSINESS CAN BE RUN WITHOUT EXPEND ITURE MADE IN CASH AND IT IS MORE SO IN THE KIND OF BUSINESS, THE APPELLAN T IS. SIMPLY BECAUSE THE APPELLANT DID NOT MAINTAIN PROPER VOUCHERS, DOES NO T MEAN THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT INCUR ANY EXPENSES IN CASH. THE V OUCHERS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN GENUINE, BUT THAT DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE EXPENSES WERE ALSO NOT GENUINE. HENCE, ONE HAS TO A NALYSE THE EXPENSES UNDER VARIOUS HEADS OF THE CURRENT YEAR AND ALLOW G ENUINE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. THE TOTAL HEADWISE EXPENSES MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE EXPENSES MADE IN CASH (WHICH HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER) ARE TABULATED AS UNDER: SR.NO. HEAD OF EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED (RS.) EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH (RS.), DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. 1 STAFF WELFARE EXPENDITURE 2,29,079/- 89,188/- 2 TYPING & LEGAL PAGES EXPENSES 1,22,622/- 48,900/- 3 BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES 9,73,276/- 3,80,025/- 4 OFFICE EXPENSES 2,35,271/- 1,00,905/- 5 GENERATOR EXPENSES 3,00,006/- 2,18,150/- 6 PANTRY EXPENSES 2,60,032/- 2,00,297/- 7 REPAIR & UPGRADE EXPENSES 3,71,742/- 1,87,870/- 8 FESTIVAL EXPENSES 3,98,060/- 3,00,000/- 9 TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES (CONVEYANCE EXPENSES) 3,24,370/- 3,14,500/- 10 CAR RUNNING & MAINTENANCE 6,46,491/- 2,16,796/- 11 ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE 1,65,024/- 81,315/- 12 REFRESHMENT & ENTERTAINMENT EXPENDITURE 4,71,596/- 1,69,365/- 13 SITE EXPENSES 4,63,000/- 2,69,000/- 14 PRINTING & STATIONARY EXPENSES 1,57,186/- 97,840 /- TOTAL 51,17,755/- 26,74,151/-* * WRONGLY MENTIONED AS RS. 28,54,351/- IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER. THE TOTAL WORKS OUT TO RS. 26,74,151/- 4.3.1 A COMPARISON OF THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE V IS--VIS TOTAL EXPENDITURE UNDER VARIOUS HEADS REVEALS THAT UNDER SOME OF THE HEADS MUCH MORE THAN 50% OF THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN DISALLOWED. FO R EXAMPLE, OUT OF GENERATOR EXPENSES, MORE THAN RS. 2 LACS HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED OUT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 3 LACS. SIMILARLY OUT OF PANTRY EXPENSES OF RS. 2.60 LACS AND REPAIR AND UPGRADE EXPENSES OF RS, 3.71 LACS CL AIMED, AMOUNTS OF RS. 2 LACS AND 1.88 LACS HAVE RESPECTIVELY BEEN DISALLOWE D. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION 7 OF FESTIVAL EXPENSES, TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES, SITE EXPENSES AND REFRESHMENT AND ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT A LARGE PORTION OF EXPENDITURE UNDER THESE HEADS IS TO BE I NCURRED IN CASH AND AS ALREADY DISCUSSED, DISALLOWING THE ENTIRE EXPENSES INCURRED IN CASH WAS NOT PROPER. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, IT WOULD BE APPROPRI ATE TO DISALLOW FOLLOWING EXPENSES OUT OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN CASH: SR.NO. HEAD OF EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED (RS.) EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CASH (RS.), DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. EXPENDITURE TO BE DISALLOWED (RS.) 1 STAFF WELFARE EXPENDITURE 2,29,079/- 89,188/- 70,000/- 2 TYPING & LEGAL PAGES EXPENSES 1,22,622/- 48,900/- 40,000/- 3 BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES 9,73,276/- 3,80,025/- 3,00,000/- 4 OFFICE EXPENSES 2,35,271/- 1,00,905/- 80,000/- 5 GENERATOR EXPENSES 3,00,006/- 2,18,150/- 1,50,000/- 6 PANTRY EXPENSES 2,60,032/- 2,00,297/- 1,80,000/- 7 REPAIR & UPGRADE EXPENSES 3,71,742/- 1,87,870/- 1,20,000/- 8 FESTIVAL EXPENSES 3,98,060/- 3,00,000/- 2,20,000/- 9 TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES (CONVEYANCE EXPENSES) 3,24,370/- 3,14,500/- 2,00,000/- 10 CAR RUNNING & MAINTENANCE 6,46,491/- 2,16,796/- 2,00,000/- 11 ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE 1,65,024/- 81,315/- 70,000/- 12 REFRESHMENT & ENTERTAINMENT EXPENDITURE 4,71,596/- 1,69,365/- 1,20,000 13 SITE EXPENSES 4,63,000/- 2,69,000/- 2,50,000/- 14 PRINTING & STATIONARY EXPENSES 1,57,186/- 97,840/- 80,000/- TOTAL 51,17,755/- 26,74,151/-* 20,80,000/- 4.3.2 THUS, OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED I N CASH AND DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 28,54,351/- (ACTUAL AM OUNT SHOULD BE RS. 26,74,151/-), THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 20,80,000/- I S CONFIRMED. APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS. 7,74,351/- (28,54,351-20,80,000) [ AS PER THE CALCULATION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER.] GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADOPTED VERY REA SONABLE APPROACH AND WE FIND NOTHING WRONG IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). MOREOVER THE DISALLOWANCE FOR EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE SEEN IN THE 8 CONTEST OF OFFER OF SURRENDER OF RS. 50 LAKHS BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS BACKGROUND W E FIND NOTHING WRONG IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND CONFIRM THE SAME. 15 GROUND NO. 3 - AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 18,87,147 ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY AS PER FOLLOWING DETAIL: S NO NAME OF EMPLOYEE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SALARY PAID MODE OF PAYMENT 1 AMIT 96,000 CASH 2 DILBIR 96,000 CASH 3 HARDEV 96,000 CASH 4 JASBIR 84,000 CASH 5 JATINDER 96,000 CASH 6 KRISHAN 84,000 CASH 7 KULDEEP 84,000 CASH 8 MANDAKINI 2,11,500 CHEQUE 9 MANPREET 15,000 CASH 10 MOHIT 96,000 CASH 11 MUKESH 94,000 CASH 12 RAJINDER 64,942 CHEQUE 13 RAM PAL 48,000 CASH 14 RANJIT 52,000 CASH 15 ROHIT 96,000 CASH 16 SANDEEP 33,000 CHEQUE 17 SANJAY 96,000 CASH 18 SANJEEV 1,00,750 CHEQUE 19 VAJINDEDR 2,36,455 CHEQUE 20 YOGESH 1,17,500 CHEQUE TOTAL 18,87,147 THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH COMPLETE ADDRESSE S OF THESE PERSONS INCLUDING FATHERS NAME ETC. SO THAT ENQUIR Y COULD BE 9 MADE. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A DETAIL OF NAMES BUT FATHERS NAME OF THE EMPLOYEES WAS NOT THERE DESPITE REPEATE D REQUESTS. FURTHER THE LETTERS WRITTEN U/S 133(6) COULD NOT BE SERVED ON THESE PERSONS AND THIS FACT WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSE E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT SALARY PAYMENT HAS BEEN SHOWN IN CASH TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 11,33,000. ULTIM ATELY THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NOT KEPT ANY IDENTIT Y OF THE EMPLOYEES. IN THIS BACKGROUND SALARY ON ACCOUNT OF CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 11,33,000 WAS DISALLOWED. 16 ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IDENTITY PROOF O F SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES WAS FURNISHED AND IT WAS PLEADED THAT NO IDENTITY PROOF WAS AVAILABLE FOR OTHER EMPLOYEES. IT WAS STATED T HAT IN ANY PRIVATE ORGANIZATION SALARY IS JOINTLY PAID IN CASH . FURTHER SINCE EMPLOYEES DO NOT STAY PERMANENTLY IT IS VERY DIFFIC ULT TO FIND OUT THEIR WHEREABOUTS. COMPARATIVE CHART FOR SALARY EX PENSES WAS ALSO FURNISHED. 17 THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS ALLOWED PART RELIEF AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTEN T OF RS. 10,19,399. 18 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REIT ERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND T HE LD. CIT(A). 19 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R FOR THE REVENUE S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 10 20 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE VIDE PARA 5.3 WHICH I S AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 CLAIM OF SALARY OF RS. 7,8 8,862 WAS ALLOWED IN APPEAL. BY ASSUMING THAT THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEE S WITH THE APPELLANT REMAINED SAME AND THE SALARY PAID INCREAS ED BY 10%, THE CLAIM TO BE ALLOWED IN THIS YEAR WOULD BE RS. 8,67, 748. THUS OUT OF THE SALARY CLAIM RS. 18,87,147, SALARY OF RS. 8,67, 748 IS ALLOWED. THE DISALLOWANCE ON THIS ACCOUNT WOULD WORK OUT TO RS. 10,19,399 (RS. 18,87,147 8,67,748). AS THE DISALLOWANCE MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF RS. 11,33,000 THE APPELLAN T GETS RELIEF OF RS. 1,13,601 (RS. 11,33,000 10,19,399). GROUND O F APPEAL NO 4 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH EVEN THE ADDRESS PROOF OF THE EMPLOYEES AND ALSO THE FACT THAT A SURRENDER OF RS. 50 LAKHS WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY DECIDED THE ISSUE. FURTHE R IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS COMPARED THE SALARY W ITH LAST YEAR AND HAS ALSO ALLOWED 10% INCREMENT. THEREFORE IN O UR OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY DECIDED THE ISSUE AND WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER. 21 GROUND NO. 4 THE ISSUE REGARDING LEVY OF INTER EST U/S 234B AND 234C IS OF CONSEQUENTIAL NATURE AND THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO LEVY INTEREST IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 22 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.9.2014 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 17.9.2014 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/THE DR 11