Loading judgment…
Facts
The case involves cross-appeals arising from an assessment framed under Section 143(3) following survey proceedings for Assessment Year 2019-20. The key disputes were additions made by the Assessing Officer concerning (i) shortage of stock, (ii) alleged low yield of rice bran, (iii) unaccounted cash receipts/bogus purchases, (iv) consequential Gross Profit (GP) addition, and (v) interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii). The assessee, engaged in manufacturing grain oil, contested these additions, which were partly upheld by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal. For shortage of stock, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 5 Lacs was confirmed, but the remaining larger addition was deleted due to lack of evidence for out-of-book sales. Additions related to the yield of rice bran, bogus purchases (Rs. 1.96 Crore), and the consequential GP addition were entirely deleted, finding no concrete evidence or sound logic for the AO's allegations. However, the interest disallowance of Rs. 1.12 Lacs under Section 36(1)(iii) was confirmed as the assessee failed to provide substantial evidence to support its plea.
Key Issues
Whether the additions for stock shortage, alleged lower rice bran yield, bogus purchases, and consequential Gross Profit were justified based on the evidence; and whether the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) for non-business use of cash was correctly upheld.
Sections Cited
143(3), 68, 69C, 145(3), 250(6), 36(1)(iii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH.
Before: HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/s Ritish Agro Private Ltd. DCIT-Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Malerkotla Road, Rasulra Ludhiana Khanna – 141 401 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACCR-7743-J (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2019-20) DCIT-Central Circle-1 M/s Ritish Agro Private Ltd. बनाम/ Vs. Ludhiana Malerkotla Road, Rasulra Khanna – 141 401 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACCR-7743-J (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) & Ms. Muskan Garg (CA) – Ld. ARs ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Ms. Tarundeep Kaur (CIT) – Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 24-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1.1 Aforesaid cross-appeals arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana dated 26-07-2022 2 in the matter an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) on 30-09- 2021. 1.2 The grounds as raised by the revenue read as under: - 1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition to the extent of Rs.15,71,636/- as against Rs.25,34,454/- made by the A.O. on account of applying GP rate on short stock found during the course of survey, ignoring the facts involved in this case? 2.(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in segregating the raw material into Rice Bran and Husk and by calculating the percentage yield of RBO separately on consumption of rice bran @ 16.71 % and on consumption of Phak @ 7% in this year which was not done by any of the AOs in any of the assessment years (year in question as well as in subsequent years 2017-18 & 2018-19)? 2(b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in giving a finding separate from the assessment proceedings which has resulted in excess relief of Rs.3,43,28,409/- been provided to the assessee in present appeal by ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case? 3.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,91,38,676/- made by the A.O. on account of bogus purchases u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating that in view of non-existent creditors or paper creditors without financial or commercial substance, the burden of assessee in establishing the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions as required u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act could not be said to have been discharged? 4.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made on account of bogus purchases u/s 68 r.w.s. 69C in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumit Dayal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 214 801 1995 and N.K. Industries Ltd Vs. CIT vide SLP (C) No. 769 of 2017 which is squarely applicable in this case? 5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,95,88,973/- on account of applying G.P. rate @ 7.5% instead of 5.32% as claimed by the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act and applying GP on total turnover declared by the assessee ignoring the facts involved in this case based on forensic report, accepting the reply of the assessee and its purported findings in this behalf have been arrived at by ignoring the relevant material and/ or by taking into consideration irrelevant and/or extraneous material and /or are otherwise arbitrary unreasonable and perverse ?
1.3 The grounds as raised by the assessee read as under: -
1. 1. That the order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to arbitrarily uphold the disallowance of Rs.1,12,749/- out of interest account disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. That the Learned CIT(A) further was not justified in arbitrarily uphold an addition of Rs. 15,71,636 out of total addition of Rs. 25,34,454/- by applying arbitrary G.P. rate of 7% on alleged stock difference worked out at Rs. 2,24,51,954/-.
3 3. That he further gravely erred in upholding an addition of Rs.1,51,99,149/- out of total addition of Rs. 27,79,48,000/- on account of alleged unaccounted sales by upholding that the yield declared by the appellant is low. 4. That he further gravely in not adjudicating the ground relating to the maintenance of books of accounts.
1.4 The Ld. CIT-DR advanced arguments supporting the assessment as framed by Ld. AO. The Ld. AR also advanced arguments and referred to the findings of Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under. The assessee being resident corporate assessee is stated to be engaged in manufacturing of various types of grain oil. The assessee group was subjected to survey proceedings on 25-04-2018 wherein certain incriminating documents were found which form the very basis of impugned assessment on the assessee. As is evident, the issues that fall for our consideration are – (i) Addition of Shortage of Stock; (ii) Addition on account of yield of rice bran; (iii) Unaccounted cash receipts / bogus purchases; (iv) Addition of Gross Profit; (v) Interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii). The same are adjudicated as uder.
Addition of Shortage of Stock 2.1 During survey, physical stock was taken at the business premises of the assessee and also at three godowns located at various other places. The stock per books was Rs.1611.49 Lacs whereas physical stock was valued at Rs.1249.42 Lacs and thus, shortage in physical stock was found for Rs.362.06 Lacs. The Ld. AO alleged that the assessee made out-of-book sales. However, the assessee stated that two tankers containing crude bran oil were under lock and key of ICICI 4 Bank and the value of the same was not considered while working out the actual stock. Some stock was stated to be lost due to theft / misappropriation. However, Ld. AO rejected the same on the ground that the assessee did not submit any certificate from the bank. Further, the said stock of oil tankers was already included in the stock inventory prepared on the date of survey. No documentary evidence was furnished for theft / misappropriation of stock. The assessee reflected Gross Profit (GP) rate of 5.32%. The Ld. AO estimated enhanced GP rate of 7% on shortage of stock which resulted into an addition of Rs.25.34 Lacs in the hands of the assessee. 2.2 During appellate proceedings, the assessee reiterated that the main difference arose on account of the fact that the two tankers containing Crude Bran Oil were under lock & key with ICICI Bank as the same were pledged for availing the credit facility. The value of the same was not considered while working out actual / physical stock at the time of survey. The value of such stock, as per bank certificate, was Rs.89,20,940/-. The assessee further contended that the value of Hydrogen Gas was not taken correctly. The value of 11,840 cylinder was taken to be Rs.32,86,595 as against the fact that the total purchase for the entire financial year was only Rs.3,80,415/- and up-to the date of survey, it was Rs.2,27,510/- only. In support, the assessee furnished purchase ledger. It was stated that the Hydrogen was continuously consumed and by no means, the total stock of Hydrogen Gas could be to the extent of Rs.32,86,595/-. It was also submitted that consumption of Hydrogen Gas was not accounted for in the books and generally taken at the time of finalization of the accounts. Similar explanation was 5 furnished with regard to stock of Nickel Catalyst with value of stock at Rs.5,17,000/- as per books and the same was consumed till the date of survey and thereby, there was an excess stock taken as per books to the extent of Rs.15.47 Lacs. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) concurred with assessee’s submissions and factored-in above three components aggregating to Rs.137.54 Lacs and arrived at remaining stock difference of Rs.224.51 Lacs. Against the same, estimation of GP of 7% was confirmed. In other words, the impugned addition was restricted to the extent of Rs.16.71 Lacs. Aggrieved, the assessee as well as revenue is in further appeal before us. Our findings on this this issue 3. It emerges that during survey proceedings, shortage of physical stock has been quantified at Rs.362.06 Lacs and accordingly, Ld. AO has alleged that the assessee has made out-of-book sales. However, no such evidence of out-of-book sales have been found by the survey team. There is no finding that the assessee received unaccounted cash by selling the stock out of its regular books of accounts. From the findings of Ld. CIT(A), it is clear that the contents of two tankers containing crude bran oil, though found during survey, was under lock and key of ICICI Bank and the value of the same was not considered while working out the actual stock by the survey team. The same is also evident from the valuation stock inventory prepared by the survey team which is placed on Page Nos. 199 to 208 of the paper-book. Upon perusal of the same, we find that the value of stock contained in these two tankers have not been considered while computing the stock. The 6 assessee’s claim is also backed by bank certificate which is placed on record by Ld. AR. It is another finding of Ld. CIT(A) that the value of Hydrogen Gas was not taken correctly. The total purchase made by the assessee for this material, up-to the date of survey, was only Rs.2,27,510/- which is evident from the purchase ledger. This material is continuously consumed during production process which fact has not been considered by survey team. The stock of the Hydrogen Gas was not accounted for in the books and generally taken at the time of finalization of the accounts. Similar finding has been rendered for stock of Nickel Catalyst. On these facts, the addition to the extent of Rs.137.54 Lacs has correctly been deleted by Ld. CIT(A). However, on the remaining shortage of Rs.224.51 Lacs, Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed application of Gross Profit (GP) rate of 7% which is an arbitrary addition since no trace of unaccounted out-of-book sales has been found by the survey team and this estimation is not backed by any sound logic. Nevertheless, to plug any possible leakage of revenue and considering the fact that this claim could not be fully substantiated by the assessee, we confirm lumpsum addition of Rs.5 Lacs in this regard and delete the remaining addition as made by Ld. AO. The grounds of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. The assessee’s grounds of appeal
stand partly allowed.
4. Addition on account of yield of rice bran 4.1 This addition stem from the allegation of Ld. AO that the rice bran oil to rice bran ratio as shown by the assessee was far less than the expected ratios. As per data of National Agricultural Library, United States Department of Agriculture, rice bran contained 15-22% of rice 7 bran oil (RBO). The market enquiries revealed that the said percentage was around 15-20% depending on the variety. However, the assessee reflected yield close to 14% which could not be accepted. To support the same, Ld. AO elaborated the manufacturing process of extraction of oil and referred to oil yield registers which were impounded vide Annexures A-5 to A-9. It was alleged that the assessee was manipulating yield ratio to suppress its profits. The same was done by inflating the purchases of raw material and making unaccounted sales. 4.2 It was observed by Ld. AO that the physical structure of the rice grains includes the husk layers which accounts for 20% of the weight of the paddy. On removal of the husk, rice is known as brown rice. The brown rice contains bran layer which accounts for 7.5% to 8% weight of the paddy. The balance i.e., 70% to 72% is the white rice which is sold in the market in different varieties as a main product. Besides, during milling process, 2% to 3% khudiphakis would also be generated. Rice Bran oil is actually the oil extracted from Rice Bran which is the outer layer of rice kernel. Rice Bran refers to the thin coating removed from the brown rice during the process of milling. The rice barn removed during milling is 7.5 to 8% and it may contain oil content ranging from 15% to 22% depending on the Rice variety and the milling process utilized. The crude rice bran oil is extracted through the solvent extraction plant. This crude oil is not fit for human consumption due to mixture of wax and other impurities. From this crude oil, edible rice bran oil is extracted through refinery plants. After extracting oil from Rice Bran, the bran is processed to manufacture De-Oiled Rice Bran (DORB) for use as Cattle Feed, Poultry Feed and 8 Fish Feed. The rice bran yield of 14% as shown by the assessee was alleged to be substantially lower than the industry norms. 4.3 The assessee assailed the allegation of Ld. AO and stated that yield of rice bran depends on the type of rice bran being used by the company. There were mostly two types of rice i.e., raw rice and sella rice bran. It was also submitted that majority area under cultivation in Punjab was of raw rice Bran in which Oil extraction ranges between 14% to 16% and only in district of Amritsar and Jallalabad, sella rice bran giving yield between 17% to 22% was cultivated. In Uttar Pradesh variety, the yield ranges between 12% to 15%. In other words, it was stated that the ratio of oil extraction in raw rice bran ranges between 14% to 16% whereas this ratio for sella rice bran was 17% to 22%. In assessee’s case, 95% of purchases as made by the assessee was from shellers who had raw rice bran which was evident form the purchases as made by the assessee. In earlier years also, the production yield was in the range of 15% to 16% which was accepted by the department. The comparison made with USA study was unpracticable and unreasonable. The objection had no factual basis. The contention of Ld. AO that the director accepted higher yield in its statement was also negated by drawing attention to the recorded statement of Shri Sahil Gupta. It was further submitted that all the registers did not contain the production yield of rice bran oil. Most of these include lab test reports which contain figures relating to lab testing reports noted during routine running of the plant. Further, the mentioned figures were shown as high as 21% and as low as 3% to 4% which would prove that these were not oil yield figures as alleged by Ld. AO.
9 4.4 However, rejecting the submissions of the assessee, Ld. AO finally adopted yield rate of 20% for rice bran oil and yield rate of 80% for de- oiled rice bran and computed the alleged excess production as under: - (In Quintals) Raw Qty. Item Qty. shown to be Qty. by Difference Material Consumed Manufactured manufactured by applying in yield the assessee higher yield Rice Bran 399800 Rice Bran Oil 68914 119450 50536 Phak 78000 De-oil Rice Bran 406244 358350 --- The excess yield of 50536 Quintals was valued at Rs.5500/- per Quintals and accordingly, addition of Rs.2779.48 Lacs was considered as unaccounted sales of the assessee and added to its income. 4.5 During first appeal, the assessee assailed estimation of yield on the basis of USA study. It was also stated there could never be 100% yield out of available oil content and yield-loss of about 0.5 to 1% was normal in this line of trade. The Ld. AO had not given any details of the so-called market enquiries. The assessee reflected oil yield of 15.87% from rice bran whereas Ld. AO held that the yield should be 20%. The assessee assailed the same on the ground that production yield from two types of raw material would be quite different. There could be several reasons for higher production yield in USA than in India, such as better quality of Rice Bran, better and modernized plant & machinery and better way of extraction etc. and therefore, no addition could be made on the basis of USA study which was developed country whereas the India was a developing economy and hence, the two could not be compared. The comparison, if any, could be made on similarly placed units using similar types of raw material. It was also argued that in the case of the assessee till Financial Year 2015-16, the declared yield of 10 14%-15% was accepted by the department. In the assessment orders for AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19, Ld. AO determined the yield at 16.71% on the basis of weighted average and increased the production of Rice Bran Oil accordingly. If this ratio is applied, the excess yield would only be 3353 Quintals. In such a case, the corresponding quantity of De- oiled Rice Bran would get reduced but the AO did not give effect to this variation. 4.6 The Ld. CIT(A) concurred with the submissions of the assessee and after accepting yield of 16.71% and yield of Phak @7%, the net variation in yield was arrived at Rs.151.99 Lacs and the impugned addition was reduced to that extent only. Aggrieved, the assessee as well as the revenue is in further appeal before us. Our findings on this this issue 5. From the facts, it could be gathered that Ld. AO has referred to the data of National Agricultural Library, United States Department of Agriculture to make the impugned additions in the hands of the assessee. As per this study, rice bran could contain 15% to 22% of rice bran oil (RBO). The Ld. AO has referred to vague market enquiries to hold an opinion that the yield could be 15% to 20% depending on the variety. Firstly, no such results have been confronted to the assessee. Secondly, no analysis of the rice variety being used by the assessee has been done by Ld. AO. It was the submissions of the assessee that there were mostly two types of rice varieties i.e., raw rice and sella rice bran which would have different yield. It was also submitted that majority area under cultivation in Punjab was of raw rice Bran in which Oil content would range between 14% to 16% and in assessee’s case, 11 95% of purchases as made by the assessee was from shellers who supplied raw rice bran. The assessee also furnished purchased details to support the same. The said contention has never been controverted by lower authorities. We are of the opinion that comparison made with USA study was unpracticable and unreasonable since the variety of raw material and the production process being used to extract the oil would significantly impact the production yield. No such parity has been brought on record by Ld. AO. Another pertinent fact is that the figures mentioned in seized registers were shown as high as 21% and as low as 3% to 4% which would prove that these figures could not form a reliable basis to reject the production yield of the assessee.
We find that Ld. AO has, in fact, applied exorbitant rice bran yield rate of 25% (25% of 477800=119450) to arrive at impugned additions as against the conclusion that yield rate of 20% is to be applied. The same is completely an arbitrary addition and devoid of any merits. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to extract production yield of the assessee in this year as well as in past two years as under: - (In Quintals) AY Rice Bran & RBO from RBO from Total Rice De-oiled Shortage Phuck Rice Bran Phuck, Bran Oil Rice Bran processed Hollerphuck produced produced 2017-18 430015 59790 1179 60969 367951.80 1093.90 (14.57%) (14.17%) (85.57%) (.26%) 2018-19 256410 36825 830 37655 218241.50 512.90 (15.18%) (14.68%) (85.12%) (.20%) 2019-20 477800 63454 5460 68914.10 403744.35 5141.55 (15.87%) (14.42%) (84.51%) (1.07%) It could very well be seen that the assessee has consistently shown overall production yield in the range of 14% to 15% during these years and there is no abnormal variation in the production yield of this year.
12 Moreover, Ld. AO, though accepted fact of wastage during production process, has not considered any shortage in the case of the assessee which fact is highly unlikely considering the fact that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing process of oil extraction wherein some shortage is bound to happen during production process. The yield of 16.71% as adopted by Ld. CIT(A) is merely on the basis of assessment orders for AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 wherein Ld. AO has determined this yield on the basis of weighted average. In our considered opinion, the allegation of higher yield has to be backed up by traces of unaccounted sales which ingredient is missing in the present case. As noted earlier, no evidence of unaccounted sales and generation of unaccounted cash by carrying out out-of-book sales has been brought on record by survey team. Therefore, the impugned addition could not be sustained in law in toto. Accordingly, we delete the impugned addition as confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) in its order. The grounds of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. The assessee’s grounds of appeal stand allowed.
7. Unaccounted cash receipts / bogus purchases 7.1 During survey, computer data was copied and analyzed and it was alleged that the assessee maintained separate set of books by the name “Estimate” in Tally software. Though Shri Sahil Gupta denied having knowledge about the said separate books, Ld. AO alleged that the assessee received cash from various parties against purchases as made by the assessee in its regular books. The assessee booked bogus purchases from 4 parties for Rs.196.38 Lacs which are tabulated in Page-22 of the assessment order as under: - No. Name of the concern Amount of Purchases 1. Gurteg Rice & General Mills, Philaur 92,63,095/- 2. Khatra Rice Mills 64 59,076/- 3. Jwalaji Agro Cheema, Village Cheema 32,61,062/- 4. Verma Rice & General Rice Mills, Khanna. 6,45,443/- TOTAL 1,96,38,676/- Since the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving these purchases, the same were added u/s 68 r.w.s. 69C of the Act to the income of the assessee. 7.2 During first appeal, it was contended by the assessee that nothing was brought on record to prove that cash was received back from these parties and the addition was made arbitrarily on mere surmises and conjectures. There was no evidence on record to even remotely suggest that the purchases made from these parties were not genuine. These purchases were fully supported by purchases bill and payments were made to the parties through account payee cheques only. All the purchases made from these four parties were after November, 2018 whereas the survey took place at the business premises of the assessee on 25-04-2018. It was also contended that addition was made without there being any adverse material on record. 7.3 The Ld. CIT(A), upon perusal of ledger of these parties, observed that the ledger of M/s Gurteg Rice & General Mills reflected an opening balance of Rs.7,49,997/- and the first purchase as made from this party during the year was on 27-11-2018. Therefore, no data related to purchases made in November, 2018 onwards could have been available at the time of survey which was conducted on 25-04-2018. Till the date of survey, there were payments towards brought forward balances which were not related to purchases made during the year.
14 Therefore, no disallowance could have been made for this party. Similarly, the first purchase was made from M/s Khatra Rice Mills on 21- 11-2018. Similar was the position with regard to M/s Verma Rice & General Mills wherein first purchase was made on 03-11-2018. In the case of M/s Jwalaji Agro, the first purchase was made on 14-12-2018. On these facts, no disallowance of purchases could be made for the year under consideration. While discussing the bogus purchases and receiving back of cash, Ld. AO mentioned the names of M/s. Prestige Oil Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Lakshmi Rice Mills, M/s. Nanda & Sons, Khanna, M/s. JK Rubber & Chemical and M/s. Gulati Industries but no addition in respect of purchases made from these parties was made and Ld. AO made addition in respect of 4 parties against whom there was no such allegation and / or evidence of receipt back of cash. On these facts, the impugned addition was deleted against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. Our findings on this issue 8. The findings rendered by Ld. CIT(A) remain uncontroverted before us. It could very well be seen that survey has happened on the assessee on 25-04-2018. The first purchase as made by the assessee from M/s Gurteg Rice & General Mills is on 27-11-2018 which is much after the date of survey. The payments made up-to that date were towards settlement of opening balance only. Similar is the finding for other entities. On these facts, no disallowance is called for on account of alleged bogus purchases as made by Ld. AO. Further, the allegation of receipt back of cash is an unsubstantiated one and there is no concrete evidence on record to prove receipt of cash by the assessee 15 from these 4 parties. No independent examination / verification has been done by Ld. AO from these 4 parties and no material has been brought on record to prove the allegation beyond doubt. It is trite law that no addition could be made on mere presumptions, conjectures and surmises. Therefore, the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) finds our concurrence. The grounds of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed.
Addition of Gross Profit 9.1 This addition is based on the allegation of Ld. AO that the assessee’s books did not depict true trading results. Accordingly, the books were rejected. The assessee had reflected GP rate of 5.32%. After adding alleged bogus purchases from 4 entities, the effective GP rate was computed as 7.35%. This rate was applied to total turnover of Rs.96.49 Crores and accordingly, separate GP addition of Rs.195.88 Lacs was made in the hands of the assessee. 9.2 Since the addition of alleged bogus purchases was deleted by Ld. CIT(A), the consequential addition made by applying new GP rate on gross turnover was also deleted. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 9.3 This is consequential addition only. Since we have confirmed the stand of Ld. CIT(A) qua addition of alleged bogus purchases, this addition has no legs to stand. We order so. The revenue’s corresponding grounds of appeal
stand dismissed.
10. Interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) for Rs.1.12 Lacs 10.1 The physical cash at the time of survey was Rs.74,200/- whereas cash as per books was Rs.10,13,775/- leaving a gap of Rs.9,39,575/-. The Ld. AO alleged that the assessee used the cash for non-business 16 purposes and accordingly, disallowed interest u/s 36(1)(iii) @12% and made addition of Rs.1,12,749/-. 10.2 The assessee assailed the impugned addition in first appeal and contended that its factory was located in a village and to avoid theft at night as a matter of routine, the director would carry cash with them for safety purposes only leaving small amount for routine petty expenses and cash would again be brought back as per the requirement. It was also contended that in the absence of any other evidence of cash usage for non-business purposes, the disallowance was not justified. However, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the impugned addition against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 10.3 We find that the aforesaid plea of the assessee is not backed by any substantial evidence. No such facts could be stablished before us also. Therefore, no interference is required in the impugned order on this issue. The corresponding grounds of assessee’s appeal stand dismissed. Conclusion 11. The revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. The assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated in the order. Order pronounced on 04-08-2025.