Noble Construction Company, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1077/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7443 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 69C; 40A(3); 143(3); 133A

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO.1077/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 NOBLE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ATHARVA FARIYAZ PLAZA, PUNE SATARA ROAD, DHANAKWADI, PUNE. PAN : AAEFN2290B . / APPELLANT V/S DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1), PUNE. . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ACHAL SHARMA, ADDL.CIT. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EMANATING OUT OF T HE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) 11, PUNE DT.27.0 2.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD ARE AS UNDER :- 2.1 ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WORKS. ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETU RN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON 14.10.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF / DATE OF HEARING : 29.08.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13.09.2017 2 RS.38,93,990/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.30.01.2013 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.72,55,605/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE C ARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DT.27.02.2015 DISMISS ED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF L D.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THE AMOUNT OF RS.75,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES, WHEN THE APPELLANT HAD ACCOUN TED FOR THE SAME IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND WHEN THE EXPENDIT URE WAS SUPPORTED BY VOUCHERS AND OTHER EVIDENCE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THE ENTIRE INCOME FROM P RIVATE WORKS AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT FOR EARNING SUCH INCOME INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE WAS NE CESSARY AND THEREFORE GROSS PROFIT RATIO SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLI ED. 3. THE CASE FILE REVEALS THAT ON EARLIER OCCASION SINCE NO BODY APPEARED, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 29.08.2017 AND THE DATE OF HEARING WAS INTIMATED TO THE ASSESSEE. ON THE PRESENT DATE OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY R EQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX -PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD AND AFTE R HEARING OF THE LD.D.R. 4. FIRST GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS.75,000/-. 4.1. A SURVEY ACTION U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 10.02.2011 AT THE OFFICE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. STATEME NT OF SHRI RAJENDRA S. KUTTE, PARTNER OF THE FIRM, WAS RECORDED WHEREIN 3 HE MADE TOTAL DISCLOSURE OF RS.73,53,000/- (THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE LISTED AT PAGE 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER.) THEREA FTER, ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON 14.1 0.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.38,93,990/-. AO NOTICED THAT TH E ADDITIONAL INCOME DISCLOSED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE ASKED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT DIS CLOSED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY NOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME. WITH RESPECT TO THE EXPENSES WHICH WERE NOT SUPPORTED, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES ARE ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS AND THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY CHEQUES. THE SUBMISSIO N OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO AS NO DE TAILS OF PAYMENTS AND PURPOSE FOR MAKING THE PAYMENTS WERE GIVE N BY THE ASSESSEE. AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT MERELY BY MAKING THE PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE DOES NOT QUALIFY THE EXPENDITURE TO BE A GENUINE EXPENDITURE. HE ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERED THE AMOUNT OF EX PENDITURE OF RS.75,000/- AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO CO NFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 4 .4 THE CONTENTIONS PUT FORTH BY THE APPELLANT ARE C AREFULLY EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS FOUND AND IM POUNDED, STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY AND THE MATERI AL PLACED ON RECORD. THE FIRST DISPUTE RAISED BY THE APPELLANT I N THE PRESENT APPEAL RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.75,000/- MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED EXPENDITURE. ON PERUSAL OF THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS I.E. PAGES 35 & 36 OF BUNDLE NO.1, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AMOUNT COMPRISE S SITE EXPENSES OF RS.50,000/- PAID ON 18.11.2009 AND SALARY EXPENS ES OF RS.25,000/- FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 2010 PAID ON 15.02.2010. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 10.02.2011, PARTNER SHRI RAJENDRA SHANKAR KUTTE VIDE HIS REPLY TO QUESTION NO.9, STAT ED THAT THE EXPENSES RECORDED ON THE SAID VOUCHERS ARE NOT SUPP ORTED BY THE BILLS AND IT IS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT FIRM. 4 4.4.1 HOWEVER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE APPELLANT CHANGED HIS STAND AND CLAIMED THAT THE SITE EXPENSE S OF RS. 50,000/- WAS PAID BY CHEQUE VIDE CHEQUE NO. 301436 DRAWN ON KARNATAKA BANK LTD. AND IT IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS ON 18/11/2009. IN SUPPORT OF ITS FRESH CLAIM, THE APPE LLANT ALSO FURNISHED LEDGER A/C IN THE NAME OF 'ADVANCE TO BHAVEN SHAH'. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR THE REASON THAT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY THE APPELLANT CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT THE AMOUN T OF RS.5 O,OOO/- REPRESENTS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT. EVEN THE PAGE NO. 36 OF THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS (BUNDLE NO.1) DOES NOT INDICATE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID BY CHEQUE. ON THE CONTRARY, THE CAPTION OF THE VOUCHER IS 'CASH VOUCHER'. A COPY OF THE IMPOUNDED CASH VOUCHER IS ATTACHED TO THE ORDER AS EXHIBIT-A FOR IMMEDIATE REFERENCE. IT IS ALSO NOTABLE THAT AS PER LEDGER ETC 'ADVANCE TO BHAVEN SHAH', THE AMOUNT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY CHEQUE ON 18.11.2009 WAS RETURNED ON 20.11.2009 BY CASH. IN T HE LEDGER ETC, VOUCHER NO. INDICATED IS 2866, WHEREAS IN THE IMPOU NDED CASH VOUCHER, NO SUCH VOUCHER NO. IS INDICATED. THEREFOR E, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT PAYMENT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY CHEQUE AND REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF A/C IS ONE AND THE SAME AS THE PAYMENT SHOWN IN THE IMPOUNDED CASH VOUCHER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANC ES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE PAYMEN T AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE INCURRED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS AS ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. 4.4.2 IN THE CASE OF SALARY EXPENSES OF RS. 25,000/ - RECORDED IN THE IMPOUNDED CASH VOUCHER MARKED AS PAGE 35 OF BUN DLE NO.1, THE NEW CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE AO IS THA T THIS AMOUNT WAS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN TWO PA RTS VIZ. ONE AMOUNT OF RS. 15,000/- ON 15/02/2010 AND THE OTHER AMOUNT OF RS. 10,000/- ON 18/02/2010. THIS CLAIM OF THE APPEL LANT IS NOTHING BUT AN AFTERTHOUGHT TO AVOID THE RIGORS OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3). IN THE IMPOUNDED CASH VOUCHER, IT IS CLEARL Y RECORDED BOTH IN FIGURES AND IN WORDS THAT SUM OF RS. 25,000/- WA S PAID BY CASH TOWARDS SALARY FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2010. A COPY OF IMPOUNDED CASH VOUCHER IS ATTACHED TO THE ORDER AS EXHIBIT-B FOR READY REFERENCE. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING T HE SURVEY, THE PARTNER HAS ALSO ADMITTED THAT IT IS UNEXPLAINED EX PENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT. THUS, NO CREDENCE CAN BE GIVEN TO THE FRESH CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PA ID IN TWO PARTS AND SHOWN IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHE N THE IMPOUNDED CASH VOUCHER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT WAS PA ID AS ONE AMOUNT OF RS.25,000/-. THEREFORE, IN THIS CASE ALSO , THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPL AINED EXPENDITURE AS ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AT THE TIM E OF SURVEY. EVEN OTHERWISE, PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) ARE ATTRA CTED TO SUCH CASH PAYMENT AS IT EXCEEDS RS. 20,000/- AND THEREFO RE THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE. 4.4.3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 75, 000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXP ENDITURE UNDER 69C DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INFERENCE AND THE S AME IS UPHELD. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 FAILS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APP EAL BEFORE US. BEFORE US, LD.D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AN D LD.CIT(A). 5 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.D.R. AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT WHILE UPHOLDING THE ADDITION, LD.CIT(A) WITH RESPECT TO PAYMENT OF RS.75,000/- HAS NOTED THAT ASSE SSEE HAS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT PAID REPRESENTED UNEXPLAINED EX PENDITURE BUT SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID BY CHEQUE. LD.CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENT S DID NOT INDICATE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID BY CHEQUE. HE HA S FURTHER NOTED THAT IN THE MAJOR ACCOUNT SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM, TH E VOUCHER NUMBER IS INDICATED BUT IN THE IMPOUNDED CASH VOUCHER, NO VOUCHER NUMBER IS INDICATED. HE THEREFORE HELD THAT THE PAYMENT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY CHEQUE AND REFLECTED IN TH E REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO BE ONE AND THE SAME. HE ACCORD INGLY UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.50,000/-. WITH RESPECT TO SALARY EXPENS ES OF RS.25,000/-, HE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE CASH VOUCHER IMPOUNDED AND THE STATEMENT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY INDICATED THE EXPENDITURE TO BE AN UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT . HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF MAKING TH E PAYMENT ON TWO DIFFERENT DATES TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT. HE ACCORD INGLY UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY AO. BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD.C IT(A) AND IN SUCH A SITUATION WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND THUS, THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. 2 ND GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS.32,00,000/-. 6.1 AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ACTION, AN AMOUNT OF RS.32,00,000/ - WAS SHOWN IN ANNEXURE AND IT WAS STATED TO BE INCOME R ECEIVED FROM PRIVATE WORKS. HOWEVER, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE SAME 6 WAS NOT OFFERED AS INCOME FILED SUBSEQUENT TO SURVEY. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THOUGH IT WAS NOT DISCLOS ED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BUT ONLY GROSS PROFIT RATIO S HOULD BE APPLIED TO THE INCOME FROM PRIVATE WORK INSTEAD OF ASSESSIN G GROSS RECEIPTS . THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO AS HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ALL THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED AGAINST EARNING INCOME INCLUDING RS.32,00,000/- HAS ALREADY BEEN BOOKED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AN D AT THE TIME OF SURVEY NO EVIDENCE FOR INCURRING SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO NOT PRO VIDED ANY DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE. THE AO THEREFORE CONSIDERED THE A MOUNT OF RS.32,00,000/- AS ADDITIONAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGR IEVED WITH THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 4.5.1 IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE DETAILED REPLIES GIVE N BY THE PARTNER IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY THAT HE WAS NOT AT ALL IN CONFUSED STATE OF MIND AND THE RE PLIES OF THE APPELLANT ARE SPECIFIC AND TO THE POINT, WHICH CLEA RLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE STATEMENT WAS GIVEN VOLUNTARIL Y AND IN SOUND MIND. THE STATEMENT WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF COGENT EVIDENCES FOUND AND IMPOUNDED INDICATING GENERATION OF INCOME IN CASH OUTSIDE THE REGULAR BOOKS OF A/C AND THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT WAS OBTAINED FOR ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING THE SURVEY OPERATIONS. IT IS A TRITE LAW THAT THE INITIAL STATEMENT MADE BY A PERSON CARRIES MORE WEIGHT AND GREATER SANCTITY ABOUT A PARTICULAR STAT E OF AFFAIRS AND A STATEMENT MADE VOLUNTARILY BY THE APPELLANT C OULD FORM THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WHEN THE APPELLANT WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE INFORMATION GATHE RED DURING THE SURVEY, HE ADMITTED THAT INCOME TO THE EXTENT O F RS. 32,00,000/- WAS GENERATED FROM PRIVATE WORKS AND TH E PARTNER NEVER STATED THAT IT REPRESENTS GROSS RECEI PTS. IF THE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME IS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE APPELLANT WITHOU T ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE CANNOT SUBSEQUENTLY TURN AROUND A ND SAY DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE STATEMEN T RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY DOES NOT REFLECT THE COR RECT POSITION AND THE AMOUNT REPRESENTS GROSS RECEIPTS AND NOT NE T INCOME. IF THE APPELLANT HAD NOT MADE THIS CONFESSIONAL STA TEMENT, THE DEPARTMENT COULD HAVE INVESTIGATED THE ENTIRE MATTE R RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS FU RTHER. SINCE 7 THE APPELLANT HAS DECLARED UNDISCLOSED INCOME DURIN G THE SURVEY OPERATIONS, DEPARTMENT, IN ALL FAIRNESS, ACC EPTED THE DISCLOSURE OF SAID ADDITIONAL INCOME AND NOT CARRIE D OUT DISCLOSURE OR RS.32,00,000/- THE APPELLANT PRE-EMPTED THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF FURTHER INVESTIGATION AS THE DEPARTMENT ACCEPTED TH E DISCLOSURE AND CLOSED FURTHER INVESTIGATION. AFTER MAKING SUCH A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT BASED ON ENTRIES IN THE IMPO UNDED DOCUMENTS, WHICH WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMEN T WITHOUT ANY DEMUR, IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY AT A LATER STAG E THAT THE TRANSACTIONS DO NOT REPRESENT NET INCOME. THUS, THE FRESH CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT AFTER A TIME LAG OF SEVERAL M ONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ADMISSION IS ONLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND C ANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 4.5.2 EVEN OTHERWISE, AS COULD BE NOTICED FROM EXH IBIT-C, THE AMOUNTS REPRESENT HAND LOANS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT IN CASH AGGREGATING TO RS. 32,00,000/- TO ONE MUTHA SETH AT A PARTICULAR RATE OF INTEREST OUTSIDE THE REGULAR BOOKS OF A/E. THEREFORE, BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE CAS H AMOUNTS INDICATED IN THE SAID IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS ARE GROSS RECEIPTS OR TURNOVER AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. THE AMOUNTS R EPRESENT HAND LOANS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT IN CASH, POSSIBLY FOR EXECUTION OF PRIVATE WORKS, AND THE IMPORTANT ASPECT TO BE NO TED THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.32,00,000/- WAS OUTSTANDING AS ON 31/01/2010 AS RECORDED IN THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENT. T HE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRESIDENT INDUSTRIE S (258 ITR 654) AND OTHER DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT WE RE RENDERED ON A DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS, WHERE UNACCOUNTED TURN OVER WAS FOUND DURING THE SURVEY OPERATIONS AND IN THAT CONT EXT IT WAS HELD THAT ADDITION COULD BE MADE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF GROSS PROFIT EMBEDDED IN THE TURNOVER WHEN THERE IS NO FINDING O R MATERIAL ABOUT SUPPRESSION OF INVESTMENT IN ACQUIRING THE GO ODS WHICH ARE SUBJECT OF UNDISCLOSED SALES. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT IN AS MUCH AS THE IMPOUNDED D OCUMENTS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT CASH WAS GENERATED IN THE BUS INESS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ETC, THE CASH SO GENERATED WAS GIVEN AS HAND LOANS AT A PARTICULAR RATE OF INTEREST AND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 32,00,000/- WAS OUTSTANDING AS ON 31/01/2010. IN THESE CIRCUMST ANCES, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT ONLY GROSS PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SAID OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF RS. 32,00,000/- CAN BE B ROUGHT TO TAX HAS NO MERIT AND IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN A PPEAL BEFORE US. BEFORE US, LD.D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AN D LD.CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.D.R. AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. LD.CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION HAS NOTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS CASH LOAN AGGREGATING TO RS.32,00,000/- GIVEN TO ONE MUTHA SETH OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HE HAS FURT HER GIVEN A 8 FINDING THAT THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS INDICATE THAT THE CA SH WAS GENERATED IN THE BUSINESS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE CASH SO GENERATED WAS GIVEN AS HAND LOANS AT A PART ICULAR RATE OF INTEREST AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.32,00,000/- WAS OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.01.2010. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS , WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). THUS, THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 13 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER '! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; ! DATED : 13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017. YAMINI #$%&'('% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5. 6. CIT(A)-11, PUNE. PR.CIT (CENTRAL), PUNE. #$% &&'(, '(, / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; %-.// GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // / TRUE COPY / / // TRUE COPY // //T///// TRUE COPY 012&3'4 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY '(, / ITAT, PUNE.