ACIT, Tirunelveli V. T.ChinnaRamasivan, Tirunelveli

ITA 1162/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6119 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S NATARAJA
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Maximum Marginal Rate; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI ... , , # BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 1162/MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013-14 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, TIRUNELVELI. VS. SHRI T. CHINNARAMASIVAN, 122, KEELANEELITHANALLUR, YATHAVAR STREET, SANKARANKOIL, THIRUVELVELI 627 855. [PAN: ACCPC 7286Q] ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) %& / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S . NATARAJA, JCIT )*%& / RESPONDENT BY : NONE & /DATE OF HEARING : 03.07.2017 & /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.09.2017 /O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE REVENUE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, MADURAI IN ITA NO. 0015/16-17 DATED 27.02.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. :-2-: I.T.A. NO. 1162/MDS/2017 2. SHRI T. CHINNA RAMASIVAN, THE ASSESSEE, A CIVIL CONTRACTOR IS ENGAGED IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR WORKS OF ROAD AND OTHER CIVIL STRUCTURES ETC. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY TO THE REQUIREME NTS UNDER U/S 142 AND DID NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ETC, THE AO ISSUED S HOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 144 AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED T O THE BEST OF HIS JUDGEMENT BY TAKING 8% OF THE RECEIPTS AS NET PROFI TS FOR WHICH ALSO THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ESTIMATED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE , ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS. 10,58,45,016/- AT THE RATE OF 8%, AT RS. 84,67,601/-. FURTHER HE HELD THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH AT RS. 24,61,000/- IN SAVING BANK AC COUNT DURING THE YEAR FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE OFFERED NO EXPLANATIONS AND HENC E HE TREATED IT AS AN UNEXPLAINED MONEY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 69A AND TAXED THE SAME ON MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE INVOKING SECTION 115BBE. A GGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A)-3, MADURAI, FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENCE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE HELD THAT IT WOULD BE JUSTIFIED TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME AT 6% OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS. ON THE ADDITION U/S. 69A, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE AO HAS NOT RECORDING THE FINDING THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS IN WHICH CASH DEPOSIT WERE N OT DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT IN THE BALANCE SHEET. RELYING ON THE CO PY OF CASH BOOK CONTAINING THE BANK TRANSACTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE A SSESSEE, HE DELETED THE ADDITION. :-3-: I.T.A. NO. 1162/MDS/2017 3. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE FILED THIS APPEAL WITH T HE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 2. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT TH AT THE AO IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTIONS OR COMPLETENE SS OF THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED. 3. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 01.03.2016 CALLING FOR THE OBJECTION, IF ANY, TO THE PROPOSAL COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 RWS 1 45(3) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 ESTIMATING INCOME AT 8% BUT NO OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED BEFORE THE AO TO THE SAID PROPOSAL. 4. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THA T THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCED SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF CLAIM FOR VARIOUS EXPENSES DESPITE REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES AND THUS THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTION 144 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 5. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO INCOME-TAX PROCEE DINGS AND HENCE DECISION TAKEN IN A PARTICULAR YEAR IS NOT BINDING IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR. 6. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THE JUDGEMENT OF HONB LE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. A. VAJJRAM AND BR OS (TAX CASE APPEAL NO. 1266 OF 2008) (326 ITR 551) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT ESTIMATION OF 8% OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS IS JUDICIOUS AND REQUIRES NO INTERFERENCE. 7. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE OFFERED NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN A SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY TO THE AO AS PER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES 1962 TO VERIFY THE FRESH EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEED INGS BEFORE THE CIT(A). :-4-: I.T.A. NO. 1162/MDS/2017 4. THE DR TOOK US THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL VISA VIS THE CIT(A) ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ESTIMATION OF 8% OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS IS JUDICIOUS AND REQUIRES NO INTERFERENCE. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO CONS IDER THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE OFFERED NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE CASH DEPO SITS IN A SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AND HENCE HE OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO AS PER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES 1962 TO VERIFY TH E FRESH EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A) . NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESS EE. 5. WE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE OR DERS. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 142(1) ETC CALLING FOR REQUIRED PARTICULARS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY. FURTHER, HE ISSUED SPECIFIED QUESTIONNAIRE BY A LET TER DATED 16.11.2015 FOR WHICH PARTIAL SUBMISSIONS WAS MADE. FROM THE DETAI LS FURNISHED, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED THE ROUGH REGI STER AND SELF-MADE VOUCHERS AND THE EXPENSES WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY REL IABLE AND COGENT EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE AO REQUIRED SIGN/ATTESTED LEDGER FOLIOS ALONG WITH CERTAIN DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY. THE AO ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 144 AS TO WHY THIS ASSESSMENT SHOULD NO T BE COMPLETED TO THE BEST OF ASSESSING OFFICER JUDGEMENT BY TAKING 8% RE CEIPTS AS NET PROFITS FOR WHICH ALSO THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY. THE AO FOU ND THAT THE ASSESSEES GROSS RECEIPTS FROM CONTRACT IS AT RS. 10,58,48,060 /- AND THE NET PROFIT :-5-: I.T.A. NO. 1162/MDS/2017 REPORTED IS RS. 52,92,250/- WHICH IS EXACTLY 5% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSEE REPORTED LABOUR CHARGES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 5,02,62,500/- AS PER BOOKS WHICH IS 47.49% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. THE A SSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED MATERIAL PURCHASED TO THE TUNE OF RS 3,51,97,369/-. OUT OF LABOUR AND MATERIAL CHARGES CLAIMED RS. 2,35,07,275/- REMAINS OUTSTANDING AS EXPENSES PAYABLE AS PER BALANCE SHEET. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WA S ASKED TO PRODUCE DETAILS OF EXPENSES CLAIMED ALONG WITH THE SUPPORTI NG EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED NON-ATTESTED LEDGER FOLIOS AND ROUGH WAGE REGISTERS WITH SOME SIGNATURES WHICH WERE INCOMPLETE. CONSEQUENTLY, IT HAS BECOME IMPOSSIBLE TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON WAGES WHICH AMOUNTS TO RS. 5,02,62,500/- FOR WHICH NO VERIFIABLE LEDGERS H AVE BEEN PRODUCED NOR ANY VOUCHERS/RECEIPTS OF PAYMENTS/COMPLETE WAGES REGIST ER ETC AND THUS NO OTHER REFERENCE IS AVAILABLE FOR CROSS VERIFICATION. IT CREATED A DOUBT ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ALSO WHETH ER ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE LEAST. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY PREPARE D BY THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO REDUCE THE INCIDENCE OF TAX LIABILITY AND CIRCUM VENT THE PROVISIONS OF TDS AND OTHER COMPLIANCES. THE NET PROFIT IS CALCULATE D AT 5% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS AND THEN OTHER EXPENSES ARE CONTRIVED TO S UIT THE CALCULATION ARRIVED AT. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND NO GOOD REASON TO PLACE RELIANCE ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS FURNISHED BY THE :-6-: I.T.A. NO. 1162/MDS/2017 ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE PROCEEDED U/S. 144. HE ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 144 TO EXPLAIN WHY THE ASSESSMEN T SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGEMENT BY TAKING 8% OF TOTAL RECEIPTS AS NET PROFIT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY. RELYING ON T HE RATIO OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CGT VS A. VAJJRAM BROS., 326 I TR 551 (MAD) AND THE OBSERVATION OF THE ITAT IN THAT CASE THAT IN SECTIO N 44AD, WHERE CERTAIN BUSINESS TURNOVER OR GROSS RECEIPTS IN A YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED AN AMOUNT OF ONE CRORE RUPEES, 8% OF TOTAL RECEIPTS IS TAXED. E VEN THOUGH THIS SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE HERE, THERE IS NO GOOD REASON FOR ES TIMATING PROFIT AT A LOWER PERCENTAGE THAN AT 8% AS SMALL ASSESSEE WITH TURNOV ERS LESS THAN RS. 1 CRORES ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO OFFER TAX ON PROFIT ESTIMATED AT 8%, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS. 10,58,45,016/- AT THE RATE OF 8% AT RS. 84,67,601/-. IN THIS REGARD, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE CIT(A) ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 3.2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE REPRESENTATIVE D ID NOT SERIOUSLY CONTEST THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S AND ESTIMATION OF INCOME. HE ONLY SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CONTRACT OF L AYING THE ROAD WORK, THE APPELLANT WOULD NOT ABLE TO MAINTAIN PROPER VOU CHERS IN RESPECT OF MATERIAL PURCHASES AND WAGES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE WAGES RELATING TO THE LAST TWO OR THREE MONTHS WOULD BE OUTSTANDING A S THE APPELLANT WAS TO GET THE BILL AMOUNT FROM THE GOVERNMENT. HE SUBM ITTED THAT FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS WHEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT WERE REJECTED, THE INCOME WAS ESTIMATED AT 6% OF TH E CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND HE HAD NO OBJECTION FOR ASSESSING THE INCOME AT 6% OF THE GROSS :-7-: I.T.A. NO. 1162/MDS/2017 CONTRACT RECEIPTS. FOR THIS PURPOSE, HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 006-07 AND 2007- 08, IN WHICH THE INCOME WAS ESTIMATED AT 6% OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS. 3.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE REPRE SENTATIVE. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE GENUINENESS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE RELEVANT VOUCHERS AND, THEREFORE, REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND RESORTED TO ESTIMATION OF INCOME. THE REPRESENTATIVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING ACCEPTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS COULD BE REJECTED BUT ONLY SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTRACT INCOME COULD BE ESTIMATED AT 6% OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS A S IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08 AND SUBMITTED COPIES OF A SSESSMENT ORDERS. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143 (3) WAS COMPLETED ON 25.11.2008 BY INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), TIR UNELVELI ESTIMATING THE CONTRACT INCOME AT 6% OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS. SIMILARLY, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE CONTRACT INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WAS ESTIMATED AT 6% OF THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 6.10.2009 BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICE R, WARD 1, TIRUNELVELI. FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS IN THE ASSESS EE'S OWN CASE, I CONSIDER THAT IT WOULD BE JUSTIFIED TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT 6% OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS. ACCORDING LY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL WORK OUT THE INCOME FROM THE CONTRACT AT 6% OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS AS AGAINST 8% IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT COMPLY WITH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO, U/S. 144, REQU IRING HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED TO THE B EST OF HIS JUDGEMENT BY TAKING 8% OF TOTAL RECEIPTS AS NET PROFIT. HE HAS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS TO WHETHER, HE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIEN T CAUSE FROM PRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE INCLUDING THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY HI M BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE :-8-: I.T.A. NO. 1162/MDS/2017 CIT(A) HAS NOT EXAMINED AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE S TURNOVER, PAYABLES SHOWN AND OTHER BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT ETC IN THE EA RLIER YEARS PREVAILED ON SIMILAR SET OF FACTS ETC AS IS FOUND AND DELIBERA TED BY THE AO IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT BASED ON RELEVANT MATERIAL, HE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HIS DECISION AND HENCE, WE SET ASIDE T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE AO. 7. ON THE ADDITION MADE U/S. 69A, THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH AT RS. 24,61,000/- IN SAVINGS BANK A CCOUNT DURING THE YEAR FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE OFFERED NO EXPLANATIONS AND HENC E HE TREATED IT AS AN UNEXPLAINED MONEY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 69A AND TAXED THE SAME ON MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE INVOKING SECTION 115BBE. I N THIS REGARD, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS EXT RACTED AS UNDER: 4.2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE REPRESENTATIVE SUBM ITTED THAT IT IS NOT KNOWN WHEREFROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED T HE FIGURE OF CASH DEPOSITS AT RS.24,61,000/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER NEVER PROPOSED THIS ADDITION AND INVITED THE OBJECT IONS OF THE APPELLANT. HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF CASH BOOK AND POINTED OUT TH AT THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE BY THE APPELLANT WERE DULY REFLECTED IN THE CA SH BOOK. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT WITH KARUR VYSYA BANK, STATE BANK OF INDI A AND INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK IS ONLY RS.7,10,000/- AND THE APPELLA NT HAS ALSO WITHDRAWN RS.8,34,9001- FROM THE SAME ACCOUNTS DURI NG THE YEAR AS PER CASH BOOK. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT RECORD A :-9-: I.T.A. NO. 1162/MDS/2017 FINDING THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE NOT DISCLOSED T O THE DEPARTMENT IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED. ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF I NCOME. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DISCLOSED ALL THE BANK ACCOU NTS IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND EACH AND EVERY TRANSACTION IN THE BANK AC COUNT IS REFLECTED IN THE CASH BOOK MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT. 4.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE REPRE SENTATIVE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED A BRIEF ORDER ON THIS POIN T WITHOUT INCORPORATING THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOT KNOWN WHEREFROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE FIGURE OF RS.24,61,000/- IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS IN WHICH CASH WAS DEPOSITED WERE NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT IN THE BALANCE SHEET. IN THE ABSE NCE OF ABOVE FINDING, THERE IS NO CASE FOR ADDING THE CASH DEPOSITS. AS C ONTENDED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE, THE APPELLANT IS HAVING THREE BANK ACCOUNTS VIZ. STATE BANK OF INDIA, KARURVYSYA BANK, AND INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK AND THE TOTAL DEPOSITS MADE AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS ONLY RS.7,10,000/- THROUGH OUT THE YEAR AND FURTHER THE APPELLANT HAS PERIODICALLY WITHDRAWN MONEY FROM THE SAME ACCOUNTS TO THE EXTEN T OF RS.8,34,900/- . A COPY OF CASH BOOK CONTAINING ONLY THE BANK TRAN SACTIONS IS ENCLOSED TO THIS APPELLATE ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I FI ND THAT THE ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME IS DELETED. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE DRS SUBMISSIONS. THE CIT (A) IS CORRECT IN OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORD ED A FINDING ABOUT THE BANK ACCOUNTS IN WHICH CASH WAS DEPOSITED WHICH WER E NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT IN THE BALANCE SHEET. IT IS SEEN FROM TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE DEPARTMENT. IN SUCH CASE, THE C ASE RECORDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. FROM TH E ABOVE ORDER, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NEITHER EXAMINED THE CASE RECO RD NOR FORWARDED THE COPY :-10-: I.T.A. NO. 1162/MDS/2017 OF CASH BOOK CONTAINING ONLY THE BANK TRANSACTIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO AND SOUGHT HIS COMMENT. THE ENCLOSED COPY IS ALSO NOT ANY BANK STATEMENT BUT A SINGLE PAGE CASH BOOK EXTRACT SIGNE D BY THE ASSESSEE ALONE AND NOT BY AN AUDITOR. FOR THE DISCLOSED TURNOVER, HIS BOOKS SHOULD HAVE BEEN AUDITED U/S 44AB. FROM SUCH CASH BOOK EXTRACT, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DRAW ANY CONCLUSION. THE REVENUE MAKES OUT A CASE UNDER RULE 46A ALSO. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE AO FOR A FRESH EXAMINATION. THE AO SHALL AFFORD ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE AND THEN PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS TREATED A S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 27 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) !' /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) ' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 0 /DATED: 27 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017 JPV &)1232 /COPY TO: 1. %/ APPELLANT 2. )*% /RESPONDENT 3. 4 ( )/CIT(A) 4. 4 /CIT 5. 2) /DR 6. 7 /GF