ITO, Ludhiana V. M/s C.C. Cold Storage, Ludhiana

ITA 1137/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4884 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRA KANTA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHA, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1137/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 THE ITO VS. M/S C.C. COLD STORAGE WARD -3 (2) LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. AAAFC8197L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR REVENUE BY : SMT. CHANDRAKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 09/01/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09/04/2018 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN BY THE REVENUE ASSAILI NG THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 26/08/2016 OF CIT(A) 1 LUDHIANA PER TAINING TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE IN LAW, WAS THE LD. CIT(A) JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION WHEN IT I S ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE THAT DURING THE SURVEY IF ANY STOCK IS FOUND ON THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS TAKEN TO BE THE STOCK OF THE ASSESSEE UNLESS PROVEN OTHERWISE? 2. WHETHER IN THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E IN LAW, WAS THE LD. CIT(A) JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION WHEN NO C OHERENT REPLY SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM THAT 20957 BOXES OF APPLES (15 KG EACH) LYING IN TH E BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT UNDER HIS OWNERSHIP AND MERELY SU BMITTING THAT IT IS NOT HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN IDENTITY OF CUSTOMERS DU E TO NATURE OF BUSINESS ? 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AN D THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. THE LD. SR. DR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER DATED 27/03/2014 SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECTED TO A SURV EY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE T O ADDRESS THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ADIT(INV.)-IV, LUDHIANA VIDE HIS LETT ER DATED 20.07.2011. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY, 20957 BOXES OF APPLES (15KG EACH) WERE FOUND LYING IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSE E. THUS THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THERE WERE 3,14,355 KG. APPLES AVAILABLE WITH THE A SSESSEE. BY TAKING THE VALUE M/S C.C. COLD STORAGE ITA NO. 1137/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 2 OF APPLEAS @ RS. 50 PER KG. I.E THE MINIMUM COST OF APPLES AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, TOTAL VALUE WAS WORKED OUT TO RS. 1,57,17,750/- WHI CH THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF PARTIES TO WHOM THESE APPLES BELONGED TO NEITHER AT THE TIME OF SURVEY NOR DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY EXPLANATION THE ASSESSEE HAVING FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS PLACED UPON IT TO PROVE THAT THE STOCK LYING AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES DOES NOT PERTA IN TO IT LED TO THE MAKING OF ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASS ESSEE. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE WHERE ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT IDENTIFY BY WAY O F EITHER GIVING THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES OR ANY OF THE DETAILS ABOUT THE BOXES O F APPLES IT WAS SUBMITTED THESE HAVE CORRECTLY BEEN TREATED AS BELONGING TO T HE ASSESSEE AND THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES IT WAS SUBMITTED WAS CONTRARY TO THE FINDING OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WHICH IS CHALLENGED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS. INVITING ATT ENTION TO THE REMAND REPORT EXTRACTED BY THE CIT-A IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE SPECIFICALLY PAGE 10 IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT ADMITTEDLY THE IDENTITY NEI THER BY WAY OF A POSTAL ADDRESS OR THE PAN DETAILS OR ANY OTHER IDENTIFICAT ION COULD BE DEMONSTRATED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT HE W OULD HEAVILY RELY ON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND T HE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE CIT(A). REFERRING TO THE ORDER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BEFORE THE CIT(A) HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED IN P ARA 2.1 AT PAGES 3 TO 7 IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HEAVILY RELYING ON THESE SUBMIS SIONS LD. AR CARRYING US THROUGH THESE CANVASSED THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL GROUN D BE DISMISSED. INVITING ATTENTION TO PARAGRAPH 2.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE CIT-A HAS REMANDED THESE SUBMISSIONS TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND THE REMAND REPORT HAS BEEN EXTRACTED FROM PAGES 7 TO 10. CARRY ING US THE SAME THOUGH IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE'S REPLY THERET O IN PARA-2.3 AT PAGES 11 TO 15 HAS BEEN ALSO EXTRACTED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON T HESE SUBMISSIONS. CARRYING US THROUGH THE SAME AND THE FINDING OF THE CIT-A I N PARA-2.4 OF THE ORDER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RELIEF GRANTED MAY BE UPHELD. TH E RELEVANT FINDING WHICH IS CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: M/S C.C. COLD STORAGE ITA NO. 1137/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 3 2.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CA SE, THE BASIS OF THE ADDITION MADE AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR. THE APPELLANT FIR M IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING A COLD STORAGE. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY OPERATIONS , 20,00,957 BOXES OF APPLES, 15 KGS EACH, WERE FOUND LYING AT T HE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH CONFIRM ATIONS FROM THE SAID PARTIES WHICH COULD NOT BE FILED. THEREFORE, BY TAKING THE VALUE OF APPLES @ RS. 50/KG, THE SAID ADDITION WAS MADE BY TREATING THE SAID INCOME AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY MAINLY BY RELYING ON THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING. NO INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY WAS COND UCTED AND NO OTHER MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON FILE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. THE AR EXPLAINED THAT THE APPELLANT FIRM CHARGES MONTHLY RENT ON FRUIT AND KA RYANA AND FOR THE SEASON FOR POTATO STORAGE. NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND EITHER DURING THE SURVEY OR DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT FIRM IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING THE SAID ITEMS. FROM THE RECORD S FOUND DURING THE SURVEY, NO ADVERSE EVIDENCE COULD BE GATHERED TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN TRADING OF THE SAID ITEMS. THE MODUS OPERANDI OF TH E BUSINESS AS EXPLAINED BY THE AR IS THAT WHEN THE ITEMS ENTERS ITS PREMISES; THE DETAILS OF THE ITEMS ARE ENTERED IN THE RESPECTIVE REGISTERS WITH 'MARKA' AS SUGGEST ED BY THE PERSON WHO HAS BROUGHT THE ITEMS. LATER ON, WHEN THE GOODS ARE TO BE DELIVERED, THE RENT IS RECEIVED AS PER THE GATE PASS. THESE ITEMS ARE CARR IED TO AND FRO FROM THE COLD STORAGE IN TROLLEYS, REHRIS AND RICKSHAWS. AT THE T IME OF DELIVERY, THE GOODS ARE DELIVERED TO THE CONCERNED PERSON AGAINST THE RENT RECEIVED. THE AR EXPLAINED THAT THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS IS SUCH THAT THE AP PELLANT IS NOT BOUND OR REQUIRED LEGALLY OR OTHERWISE TO KNOW THE REAL IDENTITY OF T HE OWNERS OF THE ITEMS AND THEIR OTHER DETAILS. THE APPELLANT IS CONCERNED WITH THE RENT RECEIVED ONLY/AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY OF THE GOODS, CHARGES ARE RECEIVED AS P ER THE GATE PASS BY THE STAFF. THE SAID MODUS OPERANDI IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS EX PLAINED BY THE APPELLANT, HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED/CONTRADICTED OR COUNTERED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AS SUCH IN THE REMAND REPORT. THE RECEIPT FROM STORAGE OF R ENT OF DIFFERENT ITEMS IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ARE SHOWN AS UNDER:- BY STORAGE RENT KARYANA RS 15,96,412 BY STORAGE RENT FRUIT RS 21,98,861 BY STORAGE RENT VEGETABLE RS 3,83,951 BY STORAGE RENT ALU RS 16,46,625 TOTAL RENT RECEIPTS RS 58,25,849 TOTAL RECEIPT OF RS. 58,25,849/- HAS BEEN SHOWN FRO M STORAGE OF VARIOUS ITEMS, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT. THE NET PROFIT HAS BEEN SHOWN AS RS. 3,06,866/- BASED O N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE SHAPE OF STOCK REGISTER FOR VEGETABLES/SWEETS, STOC K REGISTER FOR FOOD, STOCK REGISTER FOR KARYANA, BOOKS FOR KARYANA GATE PASS, FOOD GATE PASS BOOK ETC. BESIDES REGULAR BOOKS SUCH AS LEDGER, CASH BOOK ETC . THESE RECORDS WERE IMPOUNDED DURING THE SURVEY AND WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT. ACCORDING TO TH E AR, FROM THE RECORDS LYING IMPOUNDED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS CLEAR T HAT THE SAID GOODS/ITEMS BELONG TO OTHER PARTIES AND NOT TO THE APPELLANT. THE RENT AL INCOME HAS BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. XEROX COPIE S OF FRUIT RECEIPT BOOKS, FRUIT GATE PASS BOOK, STOCK REGISTER OF FRUIT WAS PRODUCE D BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AS ACKNOWLEDGED IN TH E REMAND REPORT. NO DISCREPANCY WAS FOUND IN THE BOOKS AS SUCH AND NOTH ING ADVERSE IN THE SAID RECORDS WAS CONFRONTED TO THE APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPE LLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AR PRODUCED COPIES OF INCOMING RECEIPTS AND OUTGOING W HICH WERE TEST-CHECKED. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE R ENT RECEIVED FROM THE STORAGE OF DIFFERENT ITEMS IS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS. ACCORDING TO THE AR, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO KNOW THE COMPLETE POSTAL ADDRESS OF THE PERSONS WHOSE GOODS ARE STORED AND NEITHER IS THE APPELLANT IS UN DER ANY LEGAL OR OTHER OBLIGATION TO KNOW THE PAN NO. OF THESE PERSONS SIN CE THE GOODS WERE CARRIED BY M/S C.C. COLD STORAGE ITA NO. 1137/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 4 THE REHRI-WALAS AND RICKSHAW-WALAS. THE AR EXPLAINE D THAT APPELLANT COMPANY IS NOT LEGALLY ENTITLED TO ASK FOR THE PAN CARDS AS PE R THE NATURE AND PRACTICE IN TRADE OF COLD STORAGE, THE ASSESSEE CHARGES RENT ON LY ON THE ITEMS TO STAY IN THE BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED WITH THE MAXIMU M STORAGE AND TO EARN INCOME BY RENT FROM STORAGE. THE AR FURTHER EXPLAIN ED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE STARTS ENQUIRING ABOUT ALL THE DETAILS OF THE PERSON TO BR ING THE GOODS, HE IS BOUND TO LOSE THE BUSINESS AND THE SAID PERSONS WILL OPT FOR OTHER COLD STORAGES. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS, T HE OWNERS ARE VIRTUALLY THE PERSONS WHO BRING THE ITEMS OF STORAGE. IN VIEW OF THE SAID PRACTICE IN THE LINE OF BUSINESS OF COLD STORAGE EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT AND SUPP ORTED BY THE RECORDS MAINTAINED, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN COUNTERED/ QUESTIONE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ADDITION COULD NOT HAVE B EEN MADE MERELY BECAUSE THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE OWNERS WERE NOT PRODUCED . THE SAID EVIDENCE PROVES THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE APPLES A ND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING T HE ASSESSMENT TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT IS ACTUALLY THE OWNER OF THESE GOODS. THERE IS NOTHING RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT TO OTHER PARTIES AND NOT TO THE APPE LLANT. THE RENTAL INCOME HAS BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. X EROX COPIES OF FRUIT RECEIPT BOOKS, FRUIT GATE PASS BOOK, STOCK REGISTER OF FRUI T WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AS ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE REMAND REPORT. NO DISCREPANCY WAS FOUND IN THE BOOK S AS SUCH AND NOTHING ADVERSE IN THE SAID RECORDS WAS CONFRONTED TO THE A PPELLANT AT THE TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AR PRODUCED COPIES OF INCOMING RECEIPTS AND OUT GOING WHICH WERE TEST- CHECKED. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT THE RENT RECEIVED FROM THE STORAGE OF DIFFERENT ITEMS IS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ACCORDING TO THE AR, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO KNOW THE COMPLETE POSTAL ADDRESS OF THE PERSONS WHOSE GOODS ARE STORED AND NEITHER IS THE A PPELLANT IS UNDER ANY LEGAL OR OTHER OBLIGATION TO KNOW THE PAN NO. OF THESE PERSO NS SINCE THE GOODS WERE CARRIED BY THE REHRI-WALAS AND RICKSHAW-WALAS. THE AR EXPLAINED THAT APPELLANT COMPANY IS NOT LEGALLY ENTITLED TO ASK FOR THE PAN CARDS AS PER THE NATURE AND PRACTICE IN TRADE OF COLD STORAGE, THE ASSESSEE CHA RGES RENT ONLY ON THE ITEMS TO STAY IN THE BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED WIT H THE MAXIMUM STORAGE AND TO EARN INCOME BY RENT FROM STORAGE. THE AR FURTHER EX PLAINED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE STARTS ENQUIRING ABOUT ALL THE DETAILS OF THE PERSO N TO BRING THE GOODS, HE IS BOUND TO LOSE THE BUSINESS AND THE SAID PERSONS WILL OPT FOR OTHER COLD STORAGES. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS, T HE OWNERS ARE VIRTUALLY THE PERSONS WHO BRING THE ITEMS OF STORAGE. IN VIEW OF THE SAID PRACTICE IN THE LINE OF BUSINESS OF COLD STORAGE EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT AND SUPP ORTED BY THE RECORDS MAINTAINED, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN COUNTERED/ QUESTIONE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ADDITION COULD NOT HAVE B EEN MADE MERELY BECAUSE THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE OWNERS WERE NOT PRODUCED . THE SAID EVIDENCE PROVES THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE APPLES A ND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING T HE ASSESSMENT TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT IS ACTUALLY THE OWNER OF THESE GOODS. THERE IS NOTHING RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER EXAMINED THESE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE LYING IMPOUNDED WITH HIM. THUS, THE SAID EVIDENCE AND THE SUPPORTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE NOT BEEN DISCUSSE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE AR HAS MADE ANOTHER CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE GOODS AND RECEIPTS OF THE PARTIES WHO HAD STORE D OTHER ITEMS OF KARYANA, POTATOES, VEGETABLES ETC. THUS, ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT THESE OTHER GOODS STORED DID NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT. WHEREAS, ONLY THE OWNERSHIP OF BOXES OF APPLES WERE QUESTIONED AND NOT ACCEPTED. FURTHER, BOTH THE RECEIPT OF RENT FROM THE STORAGE OF APPLES AS WELL AS THE VALUE OF APPLES HA S BEEN TREATED AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS A MAT TER OF FACT THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF PURCHASE BILLS, TRANSFER RE CEIPTS OF GOODS, CARRIER ETC WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS THE ACTUAL OWNER OF THE APPLES FOUND. NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND TO THE EFFECT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED THE APPLES FOUND AT HIS PRE MISES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERSE EVIDENCE AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE LYING IMPOUNDED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN NO DISCREPANCIES WERE M/S C.C. COLD STORAGE ITA NO. 1137/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 5 POINTED OUT; THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN MAKING THE ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT MAKING THE ADDITION MERELY ON THE BASI S OF THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING, WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANY ENQUIRY OR BRINGING ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL, WHATSOEVER, ON RECORD. MOREOVER, THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS WHICH IF NOT FOUND RELIABLE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN REJECTED BEFORE M AKING THE SAID ADDITION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE. IN THE FACE OF THE EVIDENC E/ BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT ALONGWITH SUPPORTING RECEIPTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRADE PRACTICE AND IN THE NATUR E OF BUSINESS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT SOME CORROBORATIVE EVID ENCE ON RECORD RATHER THAN MERELY RELYING ON THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION W ING, IN THE FACE OF THE FACT THAT NO ADVERSE MATERIAL HAD BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURS E OF THE SURVEY POINTING TO THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN TRADING O F THESE ITEMS. NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING THE SURVEY AND NO CORROBO RATIVE EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE INVEST MENTS IN THE PURCHASE OF THE APPLES. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE SA ME, THE AR HAS STATED THAT HAD THE GOODS STORED IN THIS COLD STORAGE BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE, WHY WOULD RENT BE SHOWN AS A INCOME/RECEIPT IN THE BOOKS. THE AR MADE A VALID POINT BY STATING THAT SIMILAR MODUS OPERANDI HAD BEEN ACCEPT ED IN THE CASE OF OTHER FRUITS, LIKE ORANGE, GRAPES ETC, POTATO AND OTHER K ARYANA ITEMS. IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER ITEMS ALSO THE APPELLANT HAD NO POSTAL ADDRES S, PAN ETC. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO BASIS TO DECLINE THE SAME EXPLANATION REGARD ING THE APPLES. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BECAUSE THE C ONFIRMATIONS OF THE OWNERS WAS NOT FILED BY THE APPELLANT BUT RATHER A CASE WHERE THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THE PREVALENT PRACTICE IN THE BUSINESS OF THE COLD STORAGE AND THUS SHOWN WHY THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR KEEPING THE D ETAILS OF THE ACTUAL OWNERS OF THE ITEMS, THE SAID EXPLANATION NOT HAVING BEEN COU NTERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT. MOREOVER, FOR THE A.Y 2013-14; NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENTS IN ANY ITEMS STORED WAS MADE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS ACCEPTED THAT THE GOODS STORED IN THE COLD STO RAGE DO NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT. THERE IS NO FINDING IN THE SUBSEQUENT YE AR THAT THE APPELLANT IS INVESTING IN THESE ITEMS AND TRADING IN THEM. THE A R HAS PLEADED THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS DIFFERENT VIEW CANNOT BE TAKEN IN DIFFERENT A SSESSMENT YEARS. THE AR SATISFACTORILY ESTABLISHED THAT THE APPLES DID NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT BY EXPLAINING THE PREVALENT PRACTICE IN THE BUSINESS O F COLD STORAGE AND ALSO ON THE BASIS OF RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE FORM OF RESPECTIVE REGISTERS AS PER THE GENERAL PRACTICE IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS. IN VIEW OF THE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN MAKING THE SAID ADDITION AND THE SAME IS ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME WE FIND T HAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE NOTHING HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US IN ORDER TO UPSET THE FINDING ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT-A IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS. WE NOTE THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESE NT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED AT LENGTH BEFOR E THE TAX AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED WHICH HA VE BEEN EXTRACTED IN THE ORDER ITSELF BY THE CIT(A). WE HAVE ALSO GONE T HROUGH THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOTE THAT THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN UPSET BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN TH E PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND IN THE AB SENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO M/S C.C. COLD STORAGE ITA NO. 1137/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 6 THE CONTRARY NO JUSTIFICATION TO TAKE A CONTRARY ST AND. WE HAVE SEEN FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE MODUS OPERANDI IN THE PECULIAR BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS COLD STORAGE BUSI NESS WHEREIN THE CIT-A HAS CONSIDERED, EXAMINED AND CONCLUDED THAT AT THE TIME OF STORAGE OF THE GOODS AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE THE DETAILS ARE ENT ERED IN THE RESPECTIVE REGISTERS WITH AMARKA AS SUGGESTED BY THE PERSON WHO BRING S THE ITEMS. THE GOODS ARE DELIVERED BACK TO THE SAID PERSON ON THE RECEIPT OF THE RENT. THE ITEMS STORED IN THE COLD STORAGE IT HAS BEEN STATED ARE CARRIED TO AND FROM THE COLD STORAGE IN TROLLIES; REHRIES AND RICKSHAWS. IT HAS ALSO BEEN A RGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS SPECIFIC NATURE OF BUSINESS IS NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THE OWNERS OF THE ITEMS AND INSIST UPON PROPEL IDENTIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY INTERESTED IN THE RENT RECEIVED FR OM THE PERSONS WHO DELIVER THE GOODS FOR STORAGE AND THEN TAKE THESE BACK ON THE P AYMENT OF THE RENT AS PER THE GATE PASS. WE NOTE THAT IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT THE RENTAL INCOME HAS BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. W E FIND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REBUTTAL ON THE SPECIFIC TRADE PRACTICE RELI ED UPON BY THE CIT-A WHICH HAS NOT BEEN UPSET IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS IT CA NNOT BE FAULTED THAT ON THE RECEIPT OF THE RENT THE GOODS ARE HANDED OVER TO TH E PERSON WHO HAS BROUGHT THESE FOR STORAGE AND THE IDENTIFICATION IS BASED O N A NISHAN / MARK ACCEPTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THOUGH T HE LD. SR. DR HAS RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HOWEVER NOTHING HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD TO REBUT THIS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY THAT THE RE WAS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT OR MANDATE FOR A COLD STORAGE FACILITY TO ACCEPT PE RISHABLE GOODS FOR STORAGE ONLY FROM PEOPLE WHO HAD PAN CARD IDENTIFICATION PR OOFS ETC OR AFTER SATISFYING ITSELF COMPLETELY ABOUT THE REAL IDENTITY OF THE PE RSONS STORING HIS GOODS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ARGUED THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE WOULD START ENQUIRING ABOUT THE DETAILS OF THE PERSONS WHO BRIN G THE GOODS FOR STORAGE IT WAS THE ASSESSEES APPREHENSION THAT HE WAS BOUND TO LO SE BUSINESS TO SOME OTHER COLD STORAGE. WE NOTE THAT THE ARGUMENT THAT AS FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED THE OWNER IS VIRTUALLY THE PERSON WHO BRI NG THE ITEMS FOR STORAGE; PAYS THE RENT AND TAKES BACK THE GOODS STORED IS SUFFICI ENT. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ARGUED THAT SIMILAR MODUS OPERANDI HAS BEE N APPLIED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IN THE CASE OF OTHER FRUITS STO RED IN ITS COLD STORAGE FACILITY IN A LIKE MANNER DURING THIS VERY PERIOD LIKE ORANGES, G RAPES ETC AND SIMILARLY FOR M/S C.C. COLD STORAGE ITA NO. 1137/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 7 VEGETABLES STORED LIKE POTATO, KARYANA ITEMS. WE FI ND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF THOSE ITEMS RELYING ON THE SIMILAR M AINTENANCE OF RECORDS HAS ACCEPTED THAT THOSE WERE GOODS BELONGING TO THE OTH ERS THE VARIATION OF VIEW IN THE CASE OF APPLES STORED AND THE INSISTENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THE IDENTITY OF THOSE PERSONS BY WAY OF PRODUCING THE DETAILS OF PO STAL ADDRESS OR PAN DETAILS OF THE PERSONS WHO HAVE STORED APPLES BECOMES QUEST IONABLE WHEN ORANGES, GRAPES, POTATO SIMILARLY RECORDED ARE ACCEPTED. CON SIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN FOLLOWING THE SAME M ETHOD OF RECORDING DETAILS OF GOODS STORED IN ITS COLD STORAGE FACILITY FROM W HICH RENTAL INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AVAILABLE BEFOR E THE TAX AUTHORITIES COPIES OF FRUIT RECEIPT BOOKS, FRUIT GATE PASS BOOK , STOCK REGISTER OF FRUIT IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO ALSO WHEREIN NO DI SCREPANCY HAS BEEN FOUND OR BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, WE THUS FIND NO MER IT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. WE FIND THAT THE CIT-A WHILE ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION HAS SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUBSEQUENT YEAR WHEREIN O N SIMILAR SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED SI MILAR METHOD OF MAINTAINING BOOKS OF RECORDS AND ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCO RDINGLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY TO SHOW THAT THE APPLE S DID BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PR ESENT CASE WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO VARY THE CONCLUSION DRAWN. BEING SATISFIE D BY THE CONSISTENT EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WE UPHOLD THE I MPUGNED ORDER AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 5. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 09/04/2018 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR