Harish Chand Surana, Hyd, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Central Circle 2, Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 1183/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 118322514 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: E SUNIL BABU
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Peak credit; Additional evidence; Revised return
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ES A , HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 11 8 3 /H YD /201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 1 0 - 1 1 SHRI HARISH CHAND SURANA, HY DERABAD [PAN: A IRPS7926G ] VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 , HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI K.C. DEVDAS, AR FOR REVENUE : S HRI E. SUNIL BABU , DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 2 - 11 - 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 - 1 2 - 2015 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS ) - 11 , HYDERABAD , DATED 2 0 - 0 7 - 201 5 . THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REFERENCE TO AN ADDITION OF RS. 91,95,544/ - BEING CASH DEPOSITS MADE INTO THE AXIS BANK, KUKATPALLY BY A SSESSEE . 2. ASSESSEE HA S RAISED AS MANY AS 12 GROUNDS MOSTLY THE SUBMISSIONS IN THE FORM OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON THE ISSUE OF I.T.A. NO. 11 8 3 / HYD / 201 5 SRI HARISH CHAND SURANA : - 2 - : ADDITION SO MADE AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) T O THE EXTENT OF RS. 91,95,544/ - . GROUND NO. 8 IS AN ALTERNATE PRAYER WITHOUT PREJUDICE THAT ONLY PEAK OF THE DEPOSIT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED , CONSIDERING WITHDRAWALS MADE BY ASSESSEE. FURTHER, GROUND NO. 11 PERTAINS TO ANOTHER ALTERNATE PRAYER TH AT CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE A SSESSED A PERCENTAGE OF DEPOSITS AS INCOME AND NOT THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK A/C. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 27 - 07 - 2010 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 4,42,380/ - . IT WAS GATHERED FROM THE AIR INFORMATION THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL CASH DEPOSITS IN SB A/C AT AXIS BANK, KPHB, HYDERABAD. IN THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF ALL BANK ACCOUNTS HELD BY HIM FOR THE PERIOD 01 - 04 - 2009 TO 31 - 03 - 20 10. ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ONLY ACCOUNT IN SBI, SAIFABAD, A.P. VARDHAMAN MAHILA CO - OPERATIVE URBAN BANK, RANIGUNJ, SECUNDERABAD AND FIXED DEPOSIT IN STATE BANK OF INDIA. HE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT WITH AXIS BANK . THEREFORE, AO HAS R EQUISITIONED THE BANK ACCOUNT AND FOUND THAT THERE ARE CASH DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 91, 95,544/ - MADE IN ASSESSEES PERSO NAL ACCOUNT OF THAT BANK ON VARIOUS DATES DURING THE FY. 2009 - 10 RELEVANT FOR AY. 2010 - 11. THEREAFTER, SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ADDRES SED TO ASSESSEE ENCLOSING COPY OF THE ACCOUNT. IN REPLY, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TRANSACTIONS IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT RELATE TO CASH RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF M/S. KJ POLYMERS AND M/S. KRYSTAL POLY PRODUCTS (THE FIRMS IN WHICH ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNER) AGAINST THE GOODS SOLD TO CUSTOMERS. IT WAS THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT HAD BEEN DEPOSITED AGAIN INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE I.T.A. NO. 11 8 3 / HYD / 201 5 SRI HARISH CHAND SURANA : - 3 - : FIRMS. AO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON S: A. IN THE FINAL SHOW CAUSE LETTER THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO GIVE THE DETAILS OF THE SOURCES FOR THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. BUT FROM THE DETAILS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS OF ANY SOURCES FOR THE SAID CASH DEPOSITS. ALL THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE PERTAINED TO THE APPLICATION OF FUNDS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE. B. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF THE TWO FIRMS AGAINST THE SALE OF GOODS TO VARIOUS CUSTOMERS, HE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE FULL DETAILS OF THE CUSTOMERS/PERSONS FROM WHOM THE CASH WAS RECEIVED. C. THE TWO FIRMS NAMELY M/S. KJ POLYMERS AND M/S. KRYSTAL POLY PRODUCTS ARE INDEPENDENT ENTITIES AND MUST BE HAVING THEIR INDEPENDENT BANK ACCOUNTS. HENCE, THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE CUSTOMERS OF THE SAID FIRMS TO DEPOSIT THE VERSION THAT THE CASH WAS RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS OF THE SAID FIRMS, IS NOT BELIEVABLE AND FARFETCHED. D. IT IS NOTICED FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT THAT THE SAID B ANK ACCOUNT WAS OPENED AND CLOSED RUING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009 - 10 ITSELF AND DISCLOSE THE DETAILS OF THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GIVEN ANY REASON FOR NOT DISCLOSING THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT TO THE DEPARTMENT . FROM THESE FACTS IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS I.T.A. NO. 11 8 3 / HYD / 201 5 SRI HARISH CHAND SURANA : - 4 - : UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE CASH TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE KEPT OUT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, AO CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NO SATISFACTOR Y EXPLANATION TO OFFER FOR THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS INTO BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, ALL THE DEPOSITS MADE INTO THE ACCOUNT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 91,95,544/ - WERE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL INFORMAT ION CORRELATING THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT TO THAT OF DEPOSITS MADE INTO THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF FIRM S AND ALSO MADE OTHER SUBMISSIONS THAT THE CASH RECEIVED IS IN FACT SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SAID FIRMS. IN SUPPORT, ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN CONFIRMATION LETTER S FROM THE SO CALLED DEPOSITORS. T HESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE REFERRED TO THE AO BY CIT(A), WHO MADE ENQUIRIES AND SENT THE REPORT THROUGH ADDL. CIT WHICH WERE SUMMED UP BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 6 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THEREAFTER, LD. CIT(A) FORMULATED QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED AS UNDER: A) DO THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE GIVEN BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENT THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE FIRM(S) IN WHICH ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER: B) IF NOT, # CAN THE PEAK CREDIT METHOD BE APPLIED TO DETERM INE ASSESSEES LIABILITY; OR ALTERNATIVELY, # DOES THE ACCOUNT REPRESENT AN INCOME STREAM HITHERTO UNDISCLOSED, PERMITTING A PRESUMPTIVE ESTIMATE OF ASSESSABLE INCOME. 4.1. THEREAFTER, LD. CIT(A) ANALYSED THE ISSUES ELABORATELY FROM PARA 10 ONWARDS AND ULTIMATELY CONCLUDED VIDE PARA 13 AS UNDER: I.T.A. NO. 11 8 3 / HYD / 201 5 SRI HARISH CHAND SURANA : - 5 - : 13. TO SUM UP, THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS ARE IN ORDER: THE EXPLANATION FOR CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 91,95,544/ - MADE IN ACCOUNT NO. 193010100132671 IN THE NAME OF SHRI HARISHCHANDRA SURANA WITH AXIS BANK, KUKATPAL LY, HYDERABAD, ON VARIOUS DATES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009 - 10 (I.E ., AY. 2010 - 11), THAT THEY REPRESENT PROCEEDS OF CASH SALES OF THE FIRMS IN WHICH ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER DOES NOT HAVE EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT. THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS CASH FLOWED BACK TO THE FIRM(S) WAS ALSO NOT ESTABLISHED BECAUSE OF THE MISMATCH BETWEEN THE AMOUNT AND DATE OF WITHDRAWAL/DEPOSIT IN ANY GIVEN CASE. EVEN IF THE CASH TRANSFERRED TO FIRMS BANK ACCOUNT COULD BE SEEN HYPOTHETICALLY AS THE SAME CASH THAT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE AX IS BANK ACCOUNT, THIS DOES NOT DISCHARGE THE PRIOR ONUS CAST UPON ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS IN THE AXIS BANK ACCOUNT. IT WOULD THEN BE A CASE OF DEPLOYMENT OF WHAT ESSENTIALLY REMAINS MONIES UNEXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT. THE CONCEPT OF PEAK CREDIT HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE TRANSACTIONS OF THIS CASE BECAUSE A CYCLICAL CORRELATION WHEREBY WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE CHANNELED BACK INTO THE DEPOSITS COULD NOT BE DEMONSTRATED. FINALLY, INSOFAR AS THE REC EIPTS REMAIN UNEXPLAINED, NOT RELATABLE TO ANY ADMITTED BUSINESS ACTIVITY, AND OUTGOINGS CANNOT BE INVESTED WITH THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE, THERE CAN BE NO NETTING OF RECEIPTS OR DETERMINATION OF BUSINESS INCOME UNDER PRESUMPTIVE RATES. THEREFORE, THESE R ECEIPTS ARE LIABLE TO BE AGGREGATED WITH RETURNED INCOME AND TAXED ACCORDINGLY. 5. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT BOTH THE OFFICERS HAVE NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE , EVEN THOUGH THE FACTS ARE THAT THE MONEYS ARE DEPOSITED BY T HE CUSTOMERS OF THE SAID TWO FIRMS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE AND TRANSACTIONS PERTAIN TO THE FIRM. MOREOVER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE WITHDRAWALS HAVE ALSO BEEN ACCOUNTED IN THE FIRMS HANDS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRMS HAD THE PRACTIC E OF SHOWING CREDIT SALES ALSO AS CASH SALES AND MAINTAINING CASH BALANCE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE WITHDRAWALS ALSO ARE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE FIRMS BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNTS CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN ASSESSEES HANDS. IN TH E ALTERNATE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CONSIDERING THE WIT HDRAWALS AND THE DEPOSITS ONLY PEAK AMOUNT CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX, THE CONTENTIONS OF WHICH WAS ALSO NO T ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE LATER AY. I.E., 2012 - 13, ASSESSE E ADMITTED AN AMOUNT OF I.T.A. NO. 11 8 3 / HYD / 201 5 SRI HARISH CHAND SURANA : - 6 - : RS. 5 LAKHS BUT AO FURTHER ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LAKHS (ACTUAL AMOUNT ADDED SEEMS TO BE ONLY RS. 4 LAKHS MISTAKENLY) AND BASED ON THAT ORDER, IT WAS ALTERNATE SUBMISSION THAT ONLY A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME CAN BE ADDED A ND NOT ENTIRE AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT. 6. LD. DR , HOWEVER, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AO AND SUBMITTED THAT ALTERNATE CONTENTIONS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. HE REFERRED TO ORDER OF CIT(A) WITH REFERENCE TO PEAK CREDIT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CONCEPT OF PEAK CREDIT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. WITH REFERENCE TO THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT ONLY PERCENTAGE OF DEPOSITS CAN BE TREATED AS INCOME , HE SUBMITTED THAT LATER YEAR ORDER OF THE AO CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE PAPER BOOK PLACED ON RECORD RUNNING TO PAGES 249. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) IT CAN BE SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE ACCOUNT IN AXIS BANK INITIALLY. ONLY WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT , ASSESSEE OWNED UP THE ACCOUNT , BUT STATED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS PERTAIN TO THE FIRMS IN WHICH HE IS A PARTNER. EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEE TRIED TO CORRELATE THESE TRANSACTIONS WITH CERTAIN DEPOSITS IN THE RESPECTIVE FIRMS BANK ACCOUNTS , A S RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA S 10.1.2 , 10.2.1 & 1 0 .3 AND 10.4 , THERE IS NO CORRELATION AND THERE IS NO EXPLANATION FOR VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT. THUS, IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT MAY PERTAI N TO THE FIRMS TRANSACTIONS , BUT CERTAINLY HAS NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE FIRMS ACCOUNT. IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION, WE HAVE KEPT IN MIND THAT THE DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SMALL AMOUNTS OF LESS THAN RS. 49,000/ - . THE I.T.A. NO. 11 8 3 / HYD / 201 5 SRI HARISH CHAND SURANA : - 7 - : EXPLA NATION THAT THESE ARE CASH DEPOSITS OUT OF CREDIT SALES CANNOT BE ACCEPTED ON THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO DEPOSIT THE AMOUNTS INTO ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. AS ADMITTED, THOSE TWO FIRMS ALSO RECORDS CREDIT SALES AS CASH SALES , THEREBY SHOWIN G ARTIFICIAL CASH BALANCE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THIS ASPECT IS ALSO ACCEPTED WHILE EXPLAINING THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE DEPOSITS IN THE FIRMS ACCOUNT WITH THAT OF WITHDRAWALS OF ASSESSEE. SINCE, ASSESSEE ALSO ACCEPTS THAT CREDIT SALES ARE SHOWN AS CAS H SALES, THERE IS NO NEED TO DEPOSIT THE MONEYS IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. CERTAINLY THIS CAN ONLY INDICATE EITHER THE TRANSACTION PERTAIN TO TRANSACTIONS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF EITHER THE FIRMS OR THAT OF ASSESSEE IN DIFFERENT CAPACITY. EVEN THOUGH ASSE SSEE TRIED TO JUSTIFY THAT THE TRANSACTION S PERTAIN TO THE FIRM AND AS A PARTNER HE WAS PREVENTED IN UNDERTAKING SIMILAR BUSINESS , BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE P ARTNERSHIP ACT, THE CO NTENTIONS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED, O N THE FACTUAL SITUATION IN BUSINESS THAT MOST OF THE PARTNERS DO INDULGE IN INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS ACTIVIT IES APART FROM PARTNERSHIP BUSINESSES EITHER IN SIMILAR LINE OF BUSINESS OR ASSOCIATED AC TIVITIES AND FURTHER, CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS OU TSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, FOR VARIOUS REASONS MAY BE TAKEN UP IN PARTNER S INDIVIDUAL HANDS. WHAT EVER MAY BE THE SITUATION, IT CANNOT BE STATED THAT PARTNERS CANNOT INDULGE IN BUSINESS APART FROM THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE FIRMS. AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY LD.CIT(A) DEPLOYMENT OF CASH GENERATED CAN NOT BE A P RIMARY DETERMINANT OF THE NATURE OF A RECEIPT AND ITS TAXABILITY. A SSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS AS HIS OWN IN AY. 2012 - 13 AND FILED REVISED RETURN ADMITTING INCOME OF RS. 5 LAKHS . WE NOTICE THAT TRANSACTIONS ARE OF SIMILAR NATURE . AO IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, PROPOSED ANOTHER 5 LAKHS OF ADDITION WHICH SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN I.T.A. NO. 11 8 3 / HYD / 201 5 SRI HARISH CHAND SURANA : - 8 - : ACCEPTED BY ASSESSEE IN AY. 2012 - 13. THEREFORE, IT CAN BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS DO PERTAIN TO ASSESSEE. 7.1. ADMITTEDLY, IT IS SEEN THAT AO HAS ONLY CONSI DERED THE CASH TRANSACTIONS IN BANK ACCOUNT IGNORING THE CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. AS SEEN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT, THE TOTAL TRANSACTIONS OF CREDITS INTO THE ACCOUNT ARE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1.11 CRORES, WHEREAS AO HAS CONSIDERED ONLY CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 91.95 L AKHS. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ALL THE CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAY PERTAIN TO TRANSACTIONS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE BUSINESS. WE HAVE ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE IS PERIODICALLY WITHDRAWING THE FUNDS SO THAT THE PEAK OF THE TRANSACTIONS I N THE BANK NEVER EXCEEDED A PARTICULAR LIMIT. THEREFORE, THE PEAK CREDIT CONCEPT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED ON THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE AS RIGHTLY DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE HAVE ALSO FURTHER NOTICE D THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL RS. 1.11 CRORES OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT (OTHER THAN REJECTED CHEQUES), AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,02,82,200/ - WAS WITHDRAWN BY SELF WITHDRAWALS. AN AMOUNT OF RS. 7,29,522/ - WAS UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF TICKETS, PAYMENT OF CREDIT CARDS AND OTHER TRANSACTIONS MOSTLY BY WAY OF TRANSFERS. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS IN MIND, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT INSTEAD OF MAKING THE ADDITION OF ENTIRE AMOUNT, WHICH CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF ASSESSEE BEING SALE PROCEEDS, WE ARE OF T HE OPINION THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 15 LAKHS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS IN COME OF ASSESSEE FROM THESE TRANSACTIONS. THIS AMOUNT WAS DETERMINED AS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 7,29,522/ - OUT OF THE ABOVE CREDITS WERE UTILIZED BY ASSESSEE TOWARDS HIS PERSONAL EXPENDITURE AND THERE WOULD BE MONIES OUT SIDE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO DO THE SAID TRANSACTIONS . CONSIDERING THAT ASSESSEE ALSO SIMILARLY ACCEPTED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LAKHS AS ADDITION IN AY. 2012 - 13 IN A LATER YEAR , WE DETERMINE THE INCOME I.T.A. NO. 11 8 3 / HYD / 201 5 SRI HARISH CHAND SURANA : - 9 - : FROM THESE TRANSACTIO NS AT RS. 15 LAKHS IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, CONSIDER ING THE ALTERNATE PLEA IN GROUND NO. 11, INSTEAD OF BRIN G ING INTO THE TAX THE TOTAL OF THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE AS INCOME, WE DETERMINE THE INCOME ON THE SAID TRANSACTIONS AT RS. 15 LAKHS. THE GROUNDS ARE CONSIDERED PARTLY ALLOWED. AO IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT ADDITION TO AN AMOUNT OF RS. 15 LAKHS AS DECIDED ABOVE . 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 TH DECEMBER, 2015 SD/ - SD/ - (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 09 TH DEC EMBER, 2015 TNMM COPY TO : 1. SRI HARISH CHAND SURANA, A/66, PHASE - IV, STREET NO. 7, JEEDIMETLA, HYDERABAD. 2 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2) , 5 TH FLOOR, POSNETT BHAVAN, TILAK ROAD, HYDERABAD. 3 . CIT (APPEALS) - 11 , HYDERABAD. 4. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) , HYDERABAD. 5 . D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6 . GUARD FILE.