The JCIT, Special Range-1, Visakhapatnam v. M/s Gowthami Steels Pvt Ltd,

ITA 280/VIZ/2001 | 1997-1998
Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 28025314 RSA 2001
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number ITA 280/VIZ/2001
Duration Of Justice 8 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant The JCIT, Special Range-1, Visakhapatnam
Respondent M/s Gowthami Steels Pvt Ltd,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 15-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 15-02-2010
Assessment Year 1997-1998
Appeal Filed On 08-08-2001
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH: VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SRI B.R. BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.280/VIZAG/2001 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1997-98 JT. CIT SPECIAL RANGE-1 VISAKHAPATNAM VS. M/S. GOWTHAMI STEELS (P) LTD. VISAKHAPATNAM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) GIR NO.G-23 I.T.A. NO.291/VIZAG/2002 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-99 ACIT CIRCLE-5(1) RANGE-5 VISAKHAPATNAM VS. M/S. GOWTHAMI STEELS (P) LTD. VISAKHAPATNAM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) GIR NO.G-23 APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.S.S. GOPINATH DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI CA O R D E R PER B..R. BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. THESE TWO APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY LD CIT(A) VISAKHAPATNAM AND THEY RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98 AND 1998-99 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE BOTH THE A PPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER WE FIND IT CONVENIENT TO DISPOSE THEM OF BY THIS CO MMON ORDER. 2. THE SOLITARY ISSUE URGED IN THE APPEAL RELAT ING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997- 98 IS WHETHER LD CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN REDUCING TH E DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE ON SALES COMMISSION FROM 50% TO 25%. 2 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE DISCUSSE D IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED SALES COMMISSION TO THE TUNE OF RS.19 63 55 7/- DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR AS AGAINST RS.5 299/- CLAIMED IN THE IMMEDIATELY PR ECEDING YEAR. IN RESPONSE TO THE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE AO THE ASSESSEE COUL D SUBMIT THE LEDGER ACCOUNT COPY FOR THE PERIOD FROM 13.12.1996 TO 31.3.97. TH E AO ALSO NOTICED THAT EXCEPT A SUM OF RS.3.00 LAKHS PAID TO A CONCERN NAMED M/S PREETHI ENTERPRISES ALL OTHER ITEMS WERE SUPPORTED ONLY BY SELF MADE VOUCHE RS. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS OF ADDRESSES OF PAYEES AGREEME NTS ETC. ACCORDINGLY THE AO DISALLOWED 50% OF THE EXPENDITURE TREATING THE SAME AS EXCESSIVE/UNPROVED. IN THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE LD CIT(A) RED UCED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 25%. HENCE THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SALES TURNOVER IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR WAS RS.2.53 CRORES WHILE THE TURNOVER DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS RS.31.73 CRORES. ACCORDING TO LD AR THE ASSES SEE COULD ACHIEVE SUCH A HUGE SPURT IN THE TURNOVER DUE TO THE PAYMENT OF SA LES COMMISSION TO MANY SMALL PARTIES. EVEN OTHER WISE THE SALES COMMISSION PA ID BY THE ASSESSEE WORKS TO ONLY ABOUT 0.6% WHICH IS QUIET REASONABLE WHEN COM PARED WITH THE INCREASE IN THE TURNOVER. CONSIDERING THESE FACTUAL ASPECTS LD CIT(A) REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 25% TO TAKE CARE OF DEFICIENCIES IN THE MAINTENANCE OF VOUCHERS. ACCORDINGLY LD AR CONTENDED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE M ADE BY THE LD CIT(A) IS QUIET REASONABLE AND PRAYED FOR ITS SUSTENANCE. ON THE OTHER HAND LD DR CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS WITH THE LD CIT( A) FOR REDUCING THE DISALLOWANCE TO FROM 50% TO 25% AND ACCORDINGLY PRA YED FOR RESTORATION OF THE ORDER OF THE AO. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE. TH E UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE SALES TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION HAS INCREASED MULTI FOLD FROM 2.53 CRORES TO 31.73 CRORES. ACCOR DING TO THE ASSESSEE IT COULD ACHIEVE SUCH A MULTI FOLD INCREASE ONLY DUE TO PAYM ENT OF SALES COMMISSION TO MANY SMALL PERSONS WHO PROCURED BUSINESS TO THE AS SESSEE. WE NOTICE THAT THE AO HAS COMPARED THE ABSOLUTE FIGURE OF THE SALES CO MMISSION PAID DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WITH THE AMOUNT RELATING T O THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING 3 YEAR AND ACCORDINGLY DREW ADVERSE INFERENCES. SUCH A COMPARISON MAY NOT BE CORRECT WHEN THERE IS MULTI FOLD INCREASE IN THE SA LES TURN OVER. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY RELATING TO ANY EXPE NDITURE SHOULD BE JUDGED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE BUSINESS MAN. BESIDE S THE ISSUE OF INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE THE AO HAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE VOUCHERS RELATING TO THIS EXPENDITURE WERE MOSTLY SELF MADE VOUCHERS AND SOME OF THE VOUCHERS WERE ALSO SUFFERING FROM CERTAIN DEFICIENCIES. SINCE TH ERE WERE TWO TYPES OF ADVERSE FEATURES IN THE VIEW OF THE AO HE THOUGHT IT FIT T O DISALLOW 50% OF THE EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER THE LD CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE FACT OF MULTI FOLD INCREASE IN THE TURN OVER AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THE SALES COMMISSION PAID AC TUALLY WORKS OUT TO ABOUT 0.6% OF THE SALES TURNOVER. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO TOOK INT O ACCOUNT THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE MAINTENANCE OF VOUCHERS SUPPORTING THE EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY LD CIT(A) THOUGHT IT FIT TO REDUCE THE DISALLOWANCE TO 25% OF THE SALES COMMISSION EXPENDITURE. IN OUR VIEW IT APPEARS THAT THE AO H AS NOT CONSIDERED THE PECULIAR FACTS RELATING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AL SO WE DO NOT FIND ANY BASIS FOR THE LIMIT OF 50% DETERMINED BY THE AO. ON THE OTHE R HAND THE LD CIT(A) HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND DETER MINED THE DISALLOWANCE AT 25%. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS WE DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SAME. 6. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. FOLLOWING ISSUES ARE CONTESTED IN THIS AP PEAL. A. INTEREST ADDITION - RS.4 75 760/- B. SALES COMMISSION - RS.4 53 382/- C. SHARE APPLICATION MONEY - RS.15.03 LAKHS D. SHARE APPLICATION MONEY REFUNDED RS.3.47 LAK HS 7. THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO THE DELETION OF I NTEREST ADDITION OF RS.4 75 760/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED AN OUTSTANDING DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.26 43 109/- UNDER THE HEAD OTHER ADVANCES. IT INCLUDED ADVANCES TO THREE SISTER C ONCERNS TO THE TUNE OF RS.13.16 LAKHS. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE COU LD HAVE USED THESE FUNDS TO REPAY THE LOAN TAKEN FROM BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTI TUTIONS AND THUS COULD HAVE SAVED INTEREST. ACCORDINGLY HE SOUGHT TO DISALLOW THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST 4 EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY THE AO CALCULATED THE INT EREST @ 18% ON THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF RS.26 43 109/- WHICH WORKED OUT TO RS.4 75 760/- AND DISALLOWED THE SAME. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE ASSE SSEE FURNISHED ACCOUNT COPIES OF THE SISTER CONCERNS RELATING TO THE SUCCE EDING YEAR AND THE AO PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE BY COMMENTING ON THE ENTRIES RECORDED IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. LD CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID AD DITION. 7.1 LD DR SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ADDITION WAS M ADE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AND THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY LD CIT (A) BY REDUCING THE RATE OF INTEREST TO 15%. THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO ACCEPT THE SAID DECISION IN THAT YEAR AND HENCE DID NOT PREFER APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER O F LD CIT(A). IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION LD CIT(A) DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OUT CONSIDERING HIS PREDECESSORS ORDER. FURTHER THE LD CIT(A) HAS CON SIDERED CERTAIN FRESH EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF ACCOUNT COPIES IN VIOLATIO N OF RULE 46A WITH OUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE AO. ACCORDINGLY LD DR C ONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO SHOULD BE RESTORED. 7.2 ON THE CONTRARY LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE P RINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS AND HENCE THE A CCEPTANCE OF EARLIER YEARS ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE ORDER OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. LD AR FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING BOTH INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND INTEREST BE ARING FUNDS AND IT IS WRONG ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE TO PRESUME THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS DIVERTED ONLY THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS TO MAKE SUCH ADVANCES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVANCES WERE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH TRADE TRANSAC TIONS AND THERE WAS NO CONTRACT FOR CHARGING INTEREST. THE LD AR PLACED R ELIANCE ON THE ORDER DATED 11- 11-2009 PASSED BY THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF T.RAMAC HANDRA PRABHU IN ITA NO.482 & 483/VIZAG/2006 WHEREIN THIS BENCH BY PLA CING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HIGH WAYS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (199 ITR 702) HELD THAT THE AO IS NOT ENTITLED TO CHARGE NOTIONAL INTEREST. LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY GROUND ABOUT VIOLATION OF RULE 46A THE LD DR SHOULD NOT HAVE RAISED THE SAME AT THIS STAGE. 5 7.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAR EFULLY PERUSED THE RECORD. IN A SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT IT IS NORMALLY EXPECTED THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL GO THROUGH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS NOT DISCERNIBL E FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHETHER THE AO HAS VERIFIED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR NOT. THE CASE OF THE AO IS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE ACCOUNT COP IES OF THE SISTER CONCERNS RELATING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH NOR MALLY FORM PART OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO WE NOTICE THAT THE AO HAS CALCULATED THE NOTIONAL INTEREST ONLY ON PRESUMPTIONS. THE AO HAS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL ABOUT THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT IN THE SUCCEEDIN G YEAR WHICH HAS NO RELEVANCE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS POINTED OUT B Y LD AR WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING BOTH INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND INTEREST BEARIN G FUNDS IT IS WRONG ON THE PART OF THE AO TO PRESUME WITHOUT ANY BASIS THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS DIVERTED ONLY THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADVANCE S. IN THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE VIZ. HIGHWAYS CONSTRUCTION PV T. LTD. VS. CIT (199 ITR 702) THE HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HAS HELD AS UNDER: THERE IS NO FINDING OF THE FACT TO THE EFFECT TH AT ACTUALLY LOAN HAD BEEN GRANTED TO MANAGING DIRECTOR OR ANY OTHER PERSON ON INTEREST OR THAT INTEREST HAD ACTUALLY BEEN COLLECTED AND THE COLLECTION OF T HE INTEREST WAS NOT REFLECTED ON THE ACCOUNTS. THE FINDING OF THE ITO IS THAT THE A SSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE COLLECTED INTEREST. IN OTHER WORDS IN THE VIEW OF THE ITO I S THAT THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE COLLECTED INTEREST. IN OTHER WORDS IN THE VI EW OF THE ITO WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE AS A GOOD BU SINESS CONCERN SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED INTEREST FREE LOAN OR SHOULD HAVE INS ISTED ON PAYMENT OF INTEREST. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BARGAINED FOR INTEREST OR HAD NOT COLLECTED INTEREST ONE FAILS TO SEE HOW THE IT AUTHORITIES CAN FIX A NOTIO NAL INTEREST AS DUE OR COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ATTENTION HAS NOT BEEN INVITED T O ANY PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT EMPOWERING THE IT AUTHORITIES TO INCLUDE IN THE INC OME INTEREST WHICH WAS NOT DUE OR NOT COLLECTED. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED BEF ORE LD CIT(A) THAT THE NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SISTER CONCERNS ARE ONLY TRADING RELATIONSHIP AND THERE WAS NO CONTRACT TO CHARGE IN TEREST. THE SAID FACT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD CIT(A) AND THE REVENUE DID NOT P RODUCE ANY MATERIAL TO CONTROVERT THIS FINDING. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EXPL AINED THAT IT HAD RUNNING ACCOUNT WITH THOSE CONCERNS AND THE BALANCES WERE F LUCTUATING THROUGH OUT THE 6 YEAR. IN THAT CASE IT IS NOT LOGICAL TO PRESUME THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.26.43 LAKHS WAS OUTSTANDING THROUGH OUT THE YEAR. AS CO NTENDED BY THE LD AR THE PRINCIPLE OF RES-JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO THE INC OME TAX PROCEEDINGS. THERE MAY BE MORE THAN ONE REASON FOR NOT PREFERRING APPE AL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND HENCE IT CANNOT BE P RESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION IN PRINCI PLE. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DEC ISION OF LD CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS NOTIONAL INTEREST. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE O F SALES COMMISSION/DISCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED A SUM OF RS.19.88 LAKHS UNDER THE HEAD SALES COMMISSION/DISCOUNTS. IN THE ACCOUNT COPY PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ENTRIES AGGREGATING TO RS.15.35 LA KHS WERE CONTAINING THE NARRATION TO CREDIT NOTE A/C TRANSFER TO SALES C OMMISSION. BALANCE AMOUNT WAS PAID TO SEVERAL PARTIES. THE AO WAS NOT SATISF IED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED 50% OF THE EXPE NDITURE. BEFORE LD CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SUM OF RS.15.35 LAKHS CLA IMED BY THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY REPRESENT DISCOUNT GIVEN TO THE CUSTOMERS BY WAY OF CREDIT NOTES. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE SAID PAYMENTS BY WAY OF JOURNAL ENTRIES I.E. BY CREDITING THE CUSTOMERS ACCOUNT AND DEBITI NG THE SALES COMMISSION/DISCOUNTS ACCOUNT. THE LD CIT(A) ACCEPT ED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION RELATING TO 15.35 LAKHS. ON THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF 4 53 LAKHS THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE D ISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 25%. 8.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON THIS ISSUE. LD DR CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY VOUCHERS IN SUPPOR T OF THE SAID CLAIM. HOWEVER LD AR SUBMITS THAT THE DISCOUNT OF RS.15.35 LAKHS WERE NOT GIVEN BY WAY OF CASH PAYMENT BUT GIVEN BY CREDIT NOTES. HEN CE THE ASSESSEE HAS PASSED THE JOURNAL ENTRIES BY CREDITING THE ACCOUNT OF THE CUSTOMERS. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE CREDIT NO TES ARE ISSUED THE CUSTOMER GETS AN ACTIONABLE CLAIM OVER THE ASSESSEE ON THE B ASIS OF THE CREDIT NOTES SO 7 ISSUED. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THESE DISCOUNT S WERE GIVEN TO THE CUSTOMERS ONLY BY CREDITING THEIR RESPECTIVE ACCOUNT MEANING THERE BY THE ASSESSEE HAS FORE GONE HIS RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE AMOUNT FROM ITS CUSTOMERS TO THE EXTENT OF THE CREDIT NOTES. EFFECTIVELY IT TANTAMOUNT TO DISCOUN T ONLY. HENCE IN OUR VIEW THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION PERTAINI NG TO RS.15.35 LAKHS AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN HIS DECISION. ON THE BAL ANCE AMOUNT HE HAS REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE FROM 50% TO 25% SINCE IT WORKED OUT TO JUST 0.1% OF THE TURN OVER. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH H IS DECISION ON THIS ISSUE. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE SHARE APPLICATIO N MONEY ADDED U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.15 03 880/- WAS ADDED BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE AC T. THE LD CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.15 03 880/- BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V STELLAR INVESTME NT CO. (251 ITR 263). 9.1 THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HAS BEEN NOW SETTLED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LOVEL Y EXPORTS (P) LTD (216 CTR (SC) 195). IT HAS BEEN HELD IN THAT CASE BY THE HO NBLE APEX COURT THAT ONCE THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE IDENTIFIED THEN THE DEPARTME NT IS FREE TO PROCEED TO RE- OPEN THE INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW BUT IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON ANOTHER DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT TO GRANT RELIEF. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 10. THE AO ALSO ADDED A SUM OF RS.12 67 300/- BEING THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY REFUNDED TO THE SUBSCRIBERS WITHOUT ALLOTTING THE SHARES. IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE LD CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE WHILE COLLATING RELEVANT FIGURES I.E. . AN AMOUNT OF RS.17 500/- W AS WRONGLY TAKEN AS RS.1 75 000/- BY THE AO. ON CORRECTING THE SAID MI STAKE THE TOTAL AMOUNT ACTUALLY STOOD AT RS.11 09 800/-. THE LD CIT(A) NO TICED THAT A SUM OF RS.1 10 000/- RECEIVED FROM SMT. BHARATHI AND ANOTH ER SUM OF RS.80 000/- 8 RECEIVED FROM SMT. SUJATHA WERE RECEIVED BY WAY OF DEMAND DRAFTS AND THEY WERE ALSO REPAID BY WAY OF CHEQUES. HENCE THE LD C IT(A) CONSIDERED THESE TWO AMOUNTS AS PROPERLY EXPLAINED AND DELETED THE SAME. BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.9 19 800/- WAS CONFIRMED BY LD CIT(A). 10.1 AS CAN BE SEEN THAT THERE WAS A TYPOGRAPHI CAL MISTAKE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 57 500/- (RS.1 75 000/- (-) RS.17 500/-) HE NCE THE RELIEF OF RS.1 57 500/- PERTAINING TO TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE NEEDS NO INTERF ERENCE. THE BALANCE TWO AMOUNTS AGGREGATING TO RS.1 90 000/- WAS RECEIVED A ND REPAID THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND FURTHER THEY PERTAIN TO THE SHARE APPL ICATION MONEY. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A). 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 15/02/2010 SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VISAKHAPATNAM DATE : 15 TH FEBRUARY 2010 A COPY OF THIS ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 01 THE JT. CIT SPECIAL RANGE-1 VISAKHAPATNAM 02 THE ACIT CIRCLE-5(1) RANGE-5 VISAKHAPATNAM 03 M/S. GOWTHAMI STEELS (P) LTD. GOWTHAMI HOUSE O PP. STEEL CITY BUS DEPOT KURMANNAPALEM VISAKHAPATNAM-530 040 03 CIT (A) VISAKHAPATNAM 04 CIT VISAKHAPATNAM 05 DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM 06 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH