THE MASTER MECHANICAL WORKS, MUMBAI v. ACIT 20(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5410/MUM/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 541019914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAAFT2629E
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 5410/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant THE MASTER MECHANICAL WORKS, MUMBAI
Respondent ACIT 20(3), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 21-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 29-11-2010
Next Hearing Date 29-11-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 29-09-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP AM AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO JM I.T.A.NO. 5410/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 THE MASTER MECHANICAL WORKS MASTER HOUSE PLOT NO.54 ROAD NO.15 MIDC MAROL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI 400 093 PAN: AAAFT 2629 E VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -20(3) MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJESH KOTHARI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHISHIR SRIVASTAVA O R D E R PER V. DURAGA RAO JM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 24 TH JULY 2009 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XXXII MUMBAI AND RELATES TO THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE GROUNDS TAKEN IN THIS APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING RS. 6 16 810 /- PERTAINING TO ADVANCES RECEIVED IN EARLIER YEARS FR OM THE CUSTOMERS AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT UNDER SECT ION 28(I) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE ADVANCES ARE TAXABLE BECAUSE THEY WERE TIME BARRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THESE ADVANCES AS NON-GENUINE ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES THOUGH THE GENUINENESS WAS NEVER DOUBTED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED OR THEREAFTER IN ANY SUBSEQU ENT YEAR ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW. ITA NO.5410/M/09 THE MASTER MECHANICAL WORKS 2 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF BOTTLIN G PLANTS/PACKAGING MACHINERIES. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILE D ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 14.1 0.2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 10 13 239/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTIC ED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.40 58 852/- APPEARED UNDER THE HEAD OF ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS ON THE LIABILITY SIDE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DETAILS OF DATE FROM WHI CH THESE ADVANCES WERE OUTSTANDING AND ITS SUBSEQUENT SETTLE MENT AND PRESENT STATUS ALONG WITH CONFIRMATION OF ALL THE P ARTIES IN WHOSE NAME THEY APPEAR IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE AMOUNTS RECE IVED. THE SAME WAS EXTRACTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAGE NOS. 2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE DETA ILS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE BALANCE OF MANY PARTIES WERE APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASS ESSEE SINCE MANY YEARS AND NO SUBSEQUENT SALES WERE MADE TO THE SE PARTIES AND NO PAYMENT WAS RETURNED EITHER TO THESE PARTIES . THE A.O. WAS ASKED FURTHER AS TO WHY THESE AMOUNTS WERE NOT TREATED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 28(IV) OF THE ACT. IN REPLY THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED VIDE ITS LETTER D ATED 26.11.2007 WHICH READS AS UNDER: IN OUR LAST MEETING ON 23 RD NOVEMBER 2007 DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ABOVE STATED ASSESSM ENT YEAR YOU PROPOSED TO ADD CERTAIN AMOUNT APPEARING U NDER THE HEAD ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS TO OUR INCOME OF T HE A.Y. 2005-06 TAKING RECOURSE TO SECTION 28(IV) AND SECTION 41(1) OF THE IT ACT 1961. IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION THE ITA NO.5410/M/09 THE MASTER MECHANICAL WORKS 3 SAME CANNOT BE DONE IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR CONSIDE RING THE FOLLOWING:- 1. DEPOSITS RECEIVED BY TRADING CONCERN U/S.28. IF A DEPOSIT IS RECEIVED BY A CONCERN IN SUBSTANCE PARTAKE OF THE NATURE OF A TRADING RECEIPT THAN OF A SECURITY DEPOSIT SUCH DEPOSIT WOULD BE TAXABLE AS REVENUE INCOME IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT. INSTRUCTION NO. 971(F.NO.226/12/76-IT(A-III) DATED 08.07.1976 [SOUR CE 51ST REPORT (1977-78) OF THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE PP.43-44] 2. FOR CHARGING ANY RECEIPT AS BUSINESS INCOME U/ S.41(1) AS PROPOSED BY YOU THE FOLLOWING TWO CONDITIONS SHO ULD BE SATISFIED. CONDITION 1 IN ANY OF THE EARLIER YEARS A DEDUCT ION WAS ALLOWED TO THE TAX PAYER IN RESPECT OF LOSS EXPENDITURE (REVENUE OR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE) OR TRA DING LIABILITY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONDITION -1: DURING THE CURRENT PREVIOUS YEAR THE TAXPAYER - A) HAS OBTAINED A REFUND OF SUCH TRADING LIABILITY (IT MAY BE IN CASH OR ANY OTHER MANNER OR B) HAS OBTAINED SOME BENEFIT IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRADIN G LIABILITY BY WAY OF REMISSION OR CESSATION THEREOF (REMISSION OR CESSATION FOR THIS PURPOSE INCLUDES UNILATERAL ACT OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF WRITING OF F OF SUCH LIABILITY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ALL THAT CONDITION ONE REQUIRES IS THAT EXPENDITUR E HAD BEEN ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT FOR ANY EARLIER YEAR. THERE IS NO FURTHER REQUIREMENT THAT ASSESSMENT MUST RESULT IN A POSITIVE INCOME CIT V /S. CHAUDHARY COTTON GINNING AND PROCESSING FACTORY [20 04] 27 ITR 17 (PUNJ.R. HARYANA). 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION WER E NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION TO POSTPONE THE TAX LIABILITY AND TO M INIMIZE THE TAX BURDEN OF DIFFERENT YEARS AND THEREFORE HE ACCORD INGLY BY INVOKING SECTION 28(IV) ADDED RS. 12 82 010/- AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPE ALS). ITA NO.5410/M/09 THE MASTER MECHANICAL WORKS 4 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE NOTICED THAT DURING THE CURRENT YEAR A S WELL AS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS SOME OF THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS WERE WRITTEN BACK AS INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE AND OFFERED FOR TAXATION. FROM THE MATERIALS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IT WAS NOTICED THAT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CE REGARDING OTHER 12 CUSTOMERS HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED. AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE EVEN THE PURCHASE ORDERS OR LETTE RS FROM THE 12 CUSTOMERS HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADVANCES IN RESPECT OF OTHER 12 PARTIES ARE EITHER NOT GENUINE OR THEY ARE NO MORE A LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE CIT(A) W AS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN BACK THE ADV ANCES RECEIVED FROM THE 12 CUSTOMERS AS INCOME AS IT IS NOT ONLY TIME BARRED BUT ALSO THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAME IS NOT PROVED. HE ACCORDINGLY TREATED THE TOTAL AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF THESE 12 PARTIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 6 16 810/- AS INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITIO N IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6 65 200/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE ABOV E ADDITION. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ARE EXTRACTED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLAN T AS WELL AS THE ARGUMENTS GIVEN BY THE AO IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF BOTTLING PLANTS AND PACKAGING MACHINERIES. HE HAD RECEIVED ADVANCES FROM TIME TO TIME FROM VARIOUS CUSTOMERS IN EARLIER YEARS. IT IS SEEN THAT DURING THE CURRENT YEAR AS WELL AS IN SUBSEQUENT YE ARS SOME OF THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS WE RE WRITTEN BACK AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND OFFERED FOR TAXATION. HOWEVER THE OTHER AMOUNTS AGGREGATING TO RS. 12 82 010/- WHICH ARE OUTSTANDING FOR MORE THAN 3 Y EARS AND HAVE BECOME TIME BARRED HAVE NOT BEEN OFFERED TO TAX. THE APPELLANTS DEFENCE IS THAT THESE AMOUNTS ARE STILL ITA NO.5410/M/09 THE MASTER MECHANICAL WORKS 5 OUTSTANDING IN RESPECT OF THE CUSTOMERS WHO ARE ST ILL IN BUSINESS. SINCE THESE CUSTOMERS ARE STILL LIKELY TO PLACE ORDERS TO THE APPELLANT IN FUTURE THE ADVANCES ARE SHOWN AS LIABILITY AND HAVE NOT BEEN WRITTEN BACK AS INC OME OF THE APPELLANT. IN THIS REGARD AS STATED ABOVE O A QUERY MADE BY THE UNDERSIGNED THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHE D COPIES OF LETTERS/PURCHASE ORDERS IN RESPECT OF SIX CUSTOMERS IN RESPECT OF WHOM THESE DOCUMENTS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER ANY DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCE REGARDING OTHER 12 CUSTOMERS HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED. THE APPELLANT WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED BY THE UNDERSIGNED TO ANALYSIS THESE ADVANCES AND FURNISH SUCH DETAILS. IN SPITE OF THIS THE APPELLANT IS NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE EVEN THE PURCHASE ORDERS OR LETTERS FROM OTHER 12 CUSTOMERS. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT THEREFORE T IS EVIDENT THAT THE ADVANCES IN RESPECT OF OTHER 12 PARTIES AR E EITHER NOT GENUINE OR THEY ARE NO MORE A LIABILITY OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT SHOULD THEREFORE HAVE WRI TTEN BACK AS INCOME THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE BALAN CE OF 12 CUSTOMERS AS IT IS NOT ONLY TIME BARRED BUT ALSO ITS GENUINENESS IS NOT PRODUCED THROUGH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THE TOTAL AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF THESE 12 PARTIES IS RS. 6 16 810/- WHICH DESERVE TO BE TREATED AS IN COME OF THE APPELLANT. SO FAR AS THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE AO CANNOT TAX THIS AMOUNT UI/S.28(IV) OF THE ACT ARE CONCERNED I AGREE THAT IT IS NEITHER BENEFIT NOR P ERQUISITE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 28(IV) OF THE ACT. TH E AMOUNT IS THEREFORE TAXABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME OF T HE APPELLANT U/S.28(I) OF THE ACT WHICH THE APPELLANT ITSELF HAS DECLARED IN THE CURRENT AND IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS BY WRITING BACK SIMILAR OTHER ADVANCES IN RESPECT OF S OME OF THE CUSTOMERS. IN VIEW OF THIS THEREFORE I UPHOLD THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 6 16 810/- MADE BY TH E A.O. HOWEVER THE SAID AMOUNT WILL BE TAXABLE U/S.28(I) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE BALANCE OF RS. 6 65 200/- AND HAS ALSO FURNI SHED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN THIS REGARD AND ALSO IT IS CLAIMED THAT THESE PARTIES ARE STILL IN BUSINESS T HE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.6 65 200/- IS HEREBY DELETED. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE AO AND THE CIT(A) HAD WRONGLY INVOKED SECTION 28 OF THE ACT AS THERE IS LIABILIT Y ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPLY OF THE MACHINE WHENEVER THERE IS A DEMAN D FROM THE ITA NO.5410/M/09 THE MASTER MECHANICAL WORKS 6 PARTIES OR TO REPAY THE ADVANCES RECEIVED. THE LE ARNED COUNSEI FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNTS REC EIVED FROM THE PARTIES ARE NOT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IT IS ONLY THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THEM. IN SUPPORT OF THIS SUB MISSION THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON VA RIOUS CASE LAWS WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- TIME BARRED DEBTS NOT EXTINGUISHMENT OF DEBTS N OT TAXABLE 1. CIT V. SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS (P) LTD. (152 CTR 46) (SC) 2. ITO VS. AHUJA GRAPHIC MACHINERY P.LTD. (111 ITJ 445)(TM)(MUM) 3. DSA ENGINEERS (BOMBAY)_ V. ITO (2009) 39 SOT 31 (MUM) 4 CIT V. MOTOR & GENERAL FINANCE LTD. (94 ITR 582 )(DEL.) S.68 TAXABLE IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPTS AND NOT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR 1. CIT V. USHA STUD AGRICULTURAL FARMS LTD. (301 IT R 384)(DEL.) 2. TRIDENT SHIPPING AGENCIES LTD V. JCIT (98 TTJ 881)(MUM) 3. BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO. 971 DATED 8.7.1976 TIME BARRED DEBTS IS INCOME ONLY IF CREDITED TO PR OFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT 1. CIT V. T.V. SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS LTD. (136 CTR 444)(SC) 2. CIT VS. BATLIBOI & CO. PVT. LTD. (149 ITR 604)(BOM ) 3. PIONEER CONSOLIDATED CO. OF INDIA LTD. V. CIT (85 I TR 410)(ALL.) ITA NO.5410/M/09 THE MASTER MECHANICAL WORKS 7 UNILATERAL WRITE OFF OF DEBTS NOT TAXABLE PRIOR TO AMENDMENT LIABILITY EXISTS 1. CIT V. KESARIA TEA CO. LTD. (173 CTR 394(SC) 2. THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD. VS. DY./JT.CIT (105 TTJ 317)(MUM) 3. J.K. CHEMICALS LTD. V. CIT (62 ITR 34 )(BOM) NON-APPLICABILITY OF S.28(I) 1. POONA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO.LTD. V. CIT (57 ITR 521)(S C) 2. MADEVA UPENDRA SINAI VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (98 ITR 209) (SC) NON-APPLICABILITY OF S.28(IV) 3. CIT V. ALCHEMIC PVT. LTD. (130 ITR 168)(GUJ.) 4. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. V. CIT (182 CTR 34)(BOM) 5. MINDTECK (INDIA) LTD. V. ITO (124 TTJ 830(MNM) 9. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF ADV ANCE RECEIVED FROM PARTIES WAS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS AND THEREFORE IT IS A BUSINESS RECEIPT AND IT COULD NOT BE TAXED ACCORDING TO SECTION 28(I) OF THE ACT. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAG ED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF BOTTLING PLANTS AND PA CKAGING MACHINERIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ADVANCES FRO M VARIOUS PARTIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLYING THE MACHINERY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM SOME OF THE PARTIES FOR TAXATION. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS AP PEAL IS IN ITA NO.5410/M/09 THE MASTER MECHANICAL WORKS 8 RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCES RECEIVED AGGREGA TING TO RS.12 92 010/- WHICH WAS NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION. WHEN THE A.O. HAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE DISPUTED AMOUNT IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE ADV ANCED RECEIVED AS REVENUE RECEIPT AND THE SAME HAS TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS RECEIVED. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLA INED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS NOT ALLOWED AS AN EXPENDITURE IN EARLIER YEAR AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED AN Y BENEFIT THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE A SSESSEE. HOWEVER THE A.O. HAS NOT AGREED WITH THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY INVOKING SECTION 28(IV) HE ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 12 82 010/- AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE. 10.1 ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WRONGLY INVOKED SECTION 28(IV) AND THE CIT(A) CALL ED FOR THE DETAILS IN RESPECT THE AMOUNT WHICH IS IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY SUBMITTED THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF FIVE P ARTIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 6 65 200/- AND IN RESPECT OF OTHER PARTIES ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE ANY DETAIL S. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF THE ADVAN CES RECEIVED FROM THE PARTIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 6 65 200/- AND CO NFIRMED THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF RS . 6 16 810/-.ON THE GROUN D THAT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED IS NOT ONLY TIME BARRED BUT ALSO I TS GENUINENESS IS NOT PROVED THROUGH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. BEF ORE US THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW WRONGLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28 AND UPHELD THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 6 16 810/-. WHEN WE SPECIFICALLY ITA NO.5410/M/09 THE MASTER MECHANICAL WORKS 9 POINTED OUT TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANY REQUEST WITH REGARD TO SU PPLY OF THE MACHINERY/REFUND OF THE ADVANCES THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ANY REQUEST WITH REGARD TO THE SUPPLY OF THE MACHINE NOR REPAYM ENT OF THE ADVANCES. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF RS. 6 16 810/- ON TWO COUNTS NAMELY I) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED/BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL EVIDENC E TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED TH E ADVANCES AND II) THE ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE T IME BARRED. AS REGARDS THE FIRST REASON EVEN BEFORE US EXCEPT STA TING THAT THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE SUPPLY OF THE MACHINES NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED THEREFORE THE CI T(A) DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE ADVANCES WHICH IN OUR HUMBL E OPINION IS JUSTIFIED. AS REGARDS THE SECOND REASON REGARDING T IME BARRED WE FIND THAT THE SAME IS EVIDENT FROM THE PAGE 5 OF PA PER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSEE ALREADY CROSSED 6 TO 10 YEARS AS EVEN TODAY NO PAYM ENT IS MADE TO THE PARTIES. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6 16 81 0/- BY INVOKING SECTION 28(I) OF THE ACT. AS REGARDS VARIOUS CASE L AWS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEY ARE D ISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE CAS ES. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. ITA NO.5410/M/09 THE MASTER MECHANICAL WORKS 10 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21ST DA Y OF JANUARY 2011. SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (V. DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED THE 21 ST JANUARY 2011. KN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3. THE CIT-20 MUMBAI 4. THE CIT(A)-XXXII MUMBAI 5. THE DR E BENCH MUMBAI BY ORD ER /TRUE COPY/ ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI