DCIT, Patiala V. M/s Jagdish Jewellers, Patiala

ITA 1286/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60838 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K P BAJAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Rejection of books of accounts; Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Retrospective amendment; Difference of opinion; Valuation report; Documents seized; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 68; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, V.P AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, AM ITA NO. 1221 /CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 M/S JAGDISH JEWELLERS V. A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE ADALAT BAZAR PATIALA PATIALA PAN: AAGFJ 9760 H ITA NO. 1284 /CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE V. M/S JAGDISH JEWELLERS PATIALA PATIALA ITA NO. 1222 /CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 M/S JAGDISH JEWELLERS V. A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE PATIALA PATIALA ITA NO. 1285 /CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE V. M/S JAGDISH JEWELLERS PATIALA PATIALA ITA NO. 1286 /CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE V. M/S JAGDISH JEWELLERS PATIALA PATIALA ITA NO. 1287 /CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCE V. M/S JAGDISH JEWELLERS PATIALA PVT LTD. PATIALA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI K.P. BAJAJ RESPONDENT BY: SHRI N.K. SAINI DATE OF HEARING: 01.05.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10/05/2012 ORDER PER T.R. SOOD, A.M ITA NOS. 1211 AND 1284 ARE CROSS APPEALS ARISING OU T OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), -I, LUDHIANA DATED 27.8.2010 RAISING COMMON ISSUE, THEREFORE, THE SAME WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF F BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2 ITA NO. 1221/CHD/2010, A.Y 2004-05 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING G ROUNDS. 1 THAT THE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 8,062/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED PURCHASES. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDI NG THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN BRINGING TO CHARGE THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,00,000/- ON THE BASIS OF ROUGH JOTTING ON SEIZED PAPER NO. 37 O F ANNEXURE A-8. ITA NO. 1284/CHD/2010, A.Y 2004-05 IN THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWIN G GROUND: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REDUCING AN ADDITION O F RS. 8,23,846/- TO RS. 58,062/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT O F UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF (I) STOCK AND (I I) PROFIT EARNED FROM UNACCOUNTED SALES. 2. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT A SE ARCH OPERATION U/S 132 WAS CONDUCTED ON 30.8.2006. SOME INCRIMINATING DOC UMENTS AND LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND. THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN PAGES 37 TO 42 OF ANNEXURE A-8. IT WAS MAINLY SUBMITTED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS PERTAIN ONLY TO ROUGH ESTIMATES. IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE VARIOUS CUSTOMERS COMING TO PURCHASE GOODS GET ROUG H ESTIMATES AND RECORDS ARE KEPT FOR FEW CUSTOMERS COME LATER TO PURCHASE G OODS, PURCHASED SO THE QUOTATIONS MAY NOT DIFFER. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESS EE WAS NOT ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ENTRIES ON PAGE 37 ARE CONTAINING ENTRIES REGARDING PURCHASE OF GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 1178. 82 GMS OUT OF BOOKS FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT HAD BE MADE ON 18.3.2004 AS PER S EIZED DOCUMENTS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TRANSACTION RELA TE TO GOLD JEWELLERY BECAUSE IN HINDI WORD PENDANT WAS MENTIONED. THESE WERE HELD TO BE UNDISCLOSED PURCHASE AND ADDITION WAS MADE @ 556 PER 10 GM PLUS MAKING CHARGES. FURTHER THE PROFIT @ 14.2% WAS ALSO ESTIMATED. THU S TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 8,23,846/- WAS MADE. 3 3. FURTHER IT WAS NOTICED THAT AT PAGE 37 SOME TRA NSACTIONS OF GOLD JEWELLERY SOLD AND PROFIT EARNED AT RS. 4.00 LAKH ON ACCOUNT OF PARTNERSHIP ACCOUNT WAS MENTIONED. HERE AGAIN THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE SE WERE ROUGH ESTIMATES WHICH WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN D IT WAS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED A PROFIT OF RS. 4.00 LAKHS ON A CCOUNT OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF JEWELLERY AND A SEPARATE ADDITION OF UNDISC LOSED PROFIT OF RS. 4.00 LAKHS WAS MADE. 4. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE REITERATED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS DOCUMENT NOWHERE SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED GOLD J EWELLERY WEIGHING 1178.82 GMS. IN FACT 1178.82 DOES NOT REPRESENT WE IGHT OF ANY METAL BUT THE AMOUNT IN TERMS OF RUPEES AND PAISA. IT WAS APPARE NT FROM THE FACT THAT THE OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 2319/- THE AMOUNT OF RS. 117 8.82 WAS ADDED MAKING TOTAL OF RS. 3497.82 OUT OF WHICH PAYMENT OF RS. 20 0/- WAS MADE ON 18.3.2004 AND THE REMAINING BALANCE OF RS. 3297.82. AT BEST IT REFERS TO SOME TRANSACTION WITH ARTISAN FOR LABOUR AND THE TRANSACTION IS WORT H RS. 3500/-. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS HOLDING THAT LOOS E PAPERS CANNOT BE TERMED AS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE FIRST ISSUE PARTIALLY IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS T HAT LOOSE PAPERS ARE NOT SHOWING ENTRIES REGARDING SALE PURCHASE. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME, HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE INFERENCE MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FROM DOCUMENT 37 WERE NOT CORRECT. IN HIS OPINION THE F IGURES OF 1178.82 WAS NOT IN TERMS OF WEIGHT BUT IN TERMS OF RUPEES AND WEIGHT F IGURES WERE WRITTEN ON THE RIGHT SIDE WHICH HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 84-370 GOLD 8-400 NAFA 2-150 1-850 TAR 96-770 @ 600/- 4 ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE, HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE GOLD TRANSACTION WHEREIN 97-770 GMS WHI CH HAS BEEN SOLD AND ACCORDINGLY SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 58,062/- @ 600 AND DELETED THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS. 7,20,965/-. THE OTHER ADDI TION OF RS. 4.00 LAKHS WAS UPHELD BY OBSERVING THAT THIS TRANSACTION WAS CLEAR LY NOTED AND EMERGED AS RECORDED AT PAGE 37. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MAIN LY REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND T HE LD. CIT(A). HE REFERRED TO LOOSE PAPERS WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 1 TO 4 AND SUBMITTED THAT THESE ARE ONLY ROUGH ESTIMATES AND D UMB DOCUMENTS AND THEREFORE, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL. HE STRONGLY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF S.P. GOYAL V. DCIT , 26 9 ITR 59 (A.T) AND AMARJIT SINGH BAKSHI (HUF) V. ACIT, 86 ITD 13 (DELHI)(TM) 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE ST RONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. HE CONTENDED THAT THE READING OF THE DOCUMENT VERY CLEARLY SHOW THAT THESE RELATE TO UNDISCLOSED SALE AND PROFIT ON PARTNERSHIP, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS JUSTIFIED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY. FIRST OF ALL LET US DEAL WITH THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF S.P. GOYAL (SUPRA) WHERE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS CONSISTING OF 10 LOOSE SHEETS WERE FOUND. THE HAND WRITING WAS ON THE LOOSE DIARY SHE ET OF NOVEMBER,1992 AND A SUM OF RS. 60.00 LAKHS HAD BEEN ENTERED AS CASH AGA INST SEPTEMBER 26, 1992. SOME EXPENSES WERE ALSO NOTED AND SOME REFERENCE TO SILVER UTENSILS AND GOLD ORNAMENTS WERE ALSO MADE. ON QUERY MADE IT WAS EXP LAINED THAT THE ENTRIES WERE IN THE NATURE OF PLANNING AND GOLD ORNAMENTS A ND SILVER UTENSILS ON THE MARRIAGE OF ASSESSEES DAUGHTER. THE AMOUNT WAS ST ATED TO BE IN ANTICIPATION OF PURCHASES TO BE MADE BY HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION AND TREATED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 60 .00 LAKHS AS UNDISCLOSED 5 INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE L D. CIT(A). THERE WAS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN LD. J.M AND LD. A.M. THE THIRD MEMBER OF THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE ADDITION BY MAKING FOLLOWING O BSERVATIONS: THE BASIS OF ADDITION IS A SEIZED PAPER ON WHICH C ASH OF RS. 60 LAKHS AND OTHER JEWELLERY ITEMS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. THER E APPEARS TO BE SOME SUBSTANCE IN THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A SSESSEE WAS PLANNING TO ARRANGE THE FUNDS FOR THE MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER. HE WANTED TO WITHDRAW RS. 60 LAKHS FROM FIRMS/COMPANIES FOR HIS PERSONAL USE AND HE WAS PLANNING AS TO HOW TO MAKE USE OF THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 60 LAKHS FOR THE MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED JEWELLERY / SI LVER UTENSILS, ETC. AGAINST PAYMENT OF CONSIGNMENT SALES IN THE ACCOUNT OF MS. CANON STEELS PVT LTD. THE ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REGAR DING THE CONSIGNMENT SALES ARE ALSO QUITE CONVINCING. HE EXPLAINED THAT THE BA LANCE SHEET WAS NOT FINALISED AS PROPER ENTRIES OF CONSIGNMENT SALES WERE NOT REC ORDED AND THERE WAS DIFFERENCES IN PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF STOCK DUE T O DISTURBANCES/ DISPUTES OF PARTNERS, PROPER INFORMATION ON ACCOUNT OF CONSIGNM ENT SALES WAS NOT PASSED ON TO THE CONCERNED ACCOUNTANT THOUGH THE SAID INFO RMATION FROM MUMBAI WAS ALREADY WITH THE COMPANY AT LUDHIANA. HE EXPLAINED THAT IN THE MUMBAI ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, ALL ENTRIES WERE DULY INCORPORATED AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE GOODS WERE ACTUALLY SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY M/S CANON STEELS PVT. LTD., AND WERE KEPT AND DEALT THROUGH M/S SHIVGANGA WAREHOUSI NG CORPORATION AND THE SAID FILE PERTAINING TO SUCH GOODS WAS A PART OF SE IZED RECORDS. SALE BILLS/MEMOS AND NAMES OF THE BUYERS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER. THUS, IT WAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE CONSIGNMENT SALES WERE ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WERE ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WERE ALSO SOLD AS PER THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ACCEPTED IN EH REASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95, THE KING OFFICER ACCEP TED THE CONSIGNMENT SALES AS CORRECT ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORDS OF M/S SHIVG ANGA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION. THUS, THE ADDITION OF RS. 78,82,775 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS PERTAINING TO CONSIGNMENT SALES MADE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS NOT MADE IN THE REASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF T HE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF RECORDS OF M/S. SHIVGANGA WAREHOUSING CORPORAT ION. THUS, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EXPECTING CASH OF RS. 60 LAKHS SOM ETIMES IN THE MONTHS OF SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER, 1992, LATER ON INSTEAD OF CASH, THE ASSESSEE WAS SENT GOODS FOR SALES MOSTLY IMPORTED BY M/S. CANON STEEL S PVT LTD. THE DEPARTMENT ALSO COULD NOT FIND ANY JEWELLERY DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAD BEEN MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED PAPER. THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS FULLY EXPLAIN ED AND THE SAME ALSO TALLIED WITH THE RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, NOTI NGS ON THE SEIZED PAPER DO NOT INDICATE THE ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS. THE PAPER IN QUESTION DOES NOT INDICATE THAT ANY TRANSACTION HAD EVER TAKEN PLACE OR THE CASH WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY I NFORMATION AS TO WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT BRING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO CORROBORATE TO THE ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO ANY TRANSACTION OR THE ASSESSEE WAS AC TUALLY IN POSSESSION OF RS. 60 LAKHS. THE DEPARTMENT ALSO COULD NOT LAY ITS HAND ON ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 60 LAKHS IN ANY ASSETS OR IN SALES OF ANY PRO- PERTY OR GOODS FOR RS. 60 LAKHS OUT OF THE BOOKS. THE DEPARTMENT ALSO DID NOT BRING ON RECORD ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS POSSESSING RS. 60 LAKHS CASH ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1992. THE DEPARTMENT COULD NEITHER FIND THIS CASH DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS NOR ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ACT UALLY IN POSSESSION OF THE CASH. THEREFORE, UNLESS THERE IS A CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE CASH WAS ACTUALLY AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1992, NO AMOUNT CAN BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEE. THE DEPARTMENT HAD ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT THE DIARY HAD BEEN WRITTEN 6 ON NOVEMBER 15, 1992, BUT THE ENTRIES PERTAIN TO TH E EARLIER PERIOD TO THE DATE OF WRITING. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT , IT CANNOT BE CALLED AS A PLANNING. ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT, THE PLANNI NG IS NEVER MADE WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT BUT THE SAME IS MADE ONLY FOR THE FUTURE. THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT HAS NO BASIS WHATSOEVER. T HE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE WRITTEN THIS DIARY EVEN ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1992, AND ALSO DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD SEPTEMBER 26, 1992, TO OCTOBER 25, 1992, BUT THE DEPARTMENT HAD N OT GIVEN ANY REFERENCE TO SUCH DATES AND EVEN THE ASSE SSEE HAD NOT BEEN QUESTIONED REGARDING HIS WRITING THE DIARY DURING T HE COURSE OF EARLIER PERIOD. HE MIGHT BE PLANNING FOR THE MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHT ER WITH EFFECT FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 1992, AND THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF RS . 60 LAKHS AND OTHER ITEMS PERTAINING TO JEWELLERY MIGHT HAVE BEEN CARRI ED FORWARD FROM THE EARLIER DATES. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PLANNING WAS REST RICTED ONLY TO ONE DATE WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 1992. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT FIND OUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVI DENCE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO SUPPORT THEIR CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS HAVING CASH OF RS. 60 LAKHS ON SEPTEMBER 26,1992. THE SEARCH PARTY EVEN D ID NOT RECORD ANY STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH REGARDING THE WRITINGS ON THE PAPER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN DID NOT EXAMINE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S. SHIVGANGA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT TO FIND WHETHER THE CONSIGNMENT GOODS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ROUTED THROUGH THEM. IT WAS ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FO R THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORDS OF M/S. SHIVGANGA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION T HAT THE CONSIGNMENT SALES WERE CORRECTLY MADE AND THEREFORE, HE DELETE D THE ADDITION OF RS. 78,82,77 REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MADE IN THE ORIGI NAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94. THE ADDITION IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN MADE MAINLY ON T HE BASIS OF SUSPICION WHICH CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF PROOF. THERE WAS NO MATERI AL ON RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED COMMISS ION OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CAN COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ENTRI ES PAPER WAS NOT A PLANNING FOR THE MARRIAGE OF THE DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PUSHKAR NARAIN SARRAF [1990) 183 ITR 388 RELIED UPON BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS LAID DOWN THAT SECTION 132( 4A) DOES NOT OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68. THE PRESUMPTION ARISING U NDER SUB-SECTION (4A) OF SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 APPLIES ONLY IN REL ATION TO THE PROVISIONAL ADJUDICATION WHICH IS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SUB-SECTIO N (5) OF SECTION 132. SECTION 132(5) PROVIDES FOR ESTIMATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCO ME OR THE CALCULATION OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX ON THE INCOME SO ESTIMATED AND THE DE TERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAYABLE OR THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY IMPOSA BLE IN A SUMMARY MANNER. FOR THIS LIMITED PURPOSE, THE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVI DED UNDER SECTION 132(4A) THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLES SEIZED FROM THE POSSESSION OF TH E ASSESSEE SHALL BE PRESUMED TO BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE IF THEY ARE FOUN D IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARC H. A SIMILAR PRESUMPTION MAY ALSO BE MADE AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CONTENTS OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SO SEIZED. SO ALSO THE SIGNATURE AND EVERY OTHER PART OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAY BE ASSUMED TO BE IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE PERSON BY W HOM IT IS PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN. THIS PRESUMPTION CANNOT, HOWEVER, HAVE THE EFFECT OF EXCLUDING SECTION 68 WHEN REGULAR ASSESSMENT IS MADE IN REGA RD TO THE INCOME OF THE PERSON FROM WHOSE POSSESSION THOSE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE SEIZED UNDER SECTION 132. IT DOES NOT OBVIATE THE NECESSITY TO E STABLISH BY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE THE GENUINENESS OF CASH CREDIT. IN THE CASE OF 5. K. GUPTA [1999] 63 TTJ 532, THE DELHI BENCH OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL HELD THAT PRESUMPTIONS ARISING UNDER SECTION 132(AA) I S AVAILABLE TO REVENUE ONLY FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND CANNO T OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF V. C. SHUKLA [1998] 3 SCC 410 RELIED UPON BY LEARNED COUNSEL; HELD THAT 'ENTR IES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SHALL NOT ALONE BE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CHARGE A NY PERSON WITH LIABILITY. ENTRIES EVEN IF RELEVANT ARE ONLY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. I NDEPENDENT EVIDENCE AS TO THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THOSE ENTRIES ARE NECESSARY TO FASTEN THE LIABILITY'. RELYING ON THE AFORESAID CASE OF SUPREME COURT, TH E AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PRARTHANA CONSTRUCTION (P.) LTD. {2001] 70 TTJ 122, HELD 7 THAT (HEADNOTE): 'IT IS A SETTLED PROPOSITION, AS HELD BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES, THAT RIGOURS OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE EVIDENCE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THE PRINCIPLES CONTAINED IN THE EVIDENCE ACT, INCORPORATED FROM RU LES OF NATURAL JUSTICE FORMING PART OF THE COMMON LAW WOULD NATURALLY BE APPLICABLE TO INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS. IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE LOOSE PAPER S AND DOCUMENTS CANNOT POSSIBLY BE CONSTRUED AS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REGULARL Y KEPT IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. SUCH EVIDENCE WOULD, THEREFORE, BE OUTSID E THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 34 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 1872. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE WOUL D NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN RESTING ITS CASE ON THE LOOSE PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM T HE RESIDENCE OF THIRD PARTY EVEN IF SUCH DOCUMENTS CONTAINED NARRATIONS OF TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY.' THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT BRING O N RECORD ANY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING CASH OF RS. 60 LAKHS AVAILABLE ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1992. ENTRIES ON T HE SEIZED PAPER WERE RELEVANT ONLY FOR CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. THE DEPA RTMENT SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT ON RECORD SOME INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE AS TO THE TRUST WORTHINESS OF THE ENTRIES NECESSARY TO FASTEN LIABILITIES ON THE ASSESSEE. K EEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND THE VARIOUS CASES ME NTIONED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITION MADE OF RS . 60 LAKHS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIE D. THE ADDITION MADE IS, THEREFORE, DELETED AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS REVERSED. THUS IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT EXPLANATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEREAS IN CASE BEFORE US, THE EXPLANATION IS THAT IT IS ROUGH JOTTINGS WHICH IS N OT TRUE WHEN WE READ ENTRIES WHICH WE SHALL DEAL LITTLE LATER. 9. IN CASE OF AMARJIT SINGH BAKSHI (HUF) (SUPRA), T HERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF ONE N WHEREIN CERTAIN DOCUMENTS INCLU DING AN AGREEMENT WRITTEN IN PENCIL AND PARTLY IN PEN WHICH REVEALED THAT TH E AGREEMENT PERTAINED TO THE SALE OF CERTAIN FARM LAND AND INDICATED THE RATE AS WELL AS THE TOTAL SALE TO M FOR MUCH HIGHER CONSIDERATION. DOCUMENT WERE FURNI SHED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 158 BD OF THE ACT. IT WAS HELD THAT IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THESE DOCUMENTS WERE WRITTEN , THE DOCUMENTS COULD NEITHER BE ACCORDED THE STATUS OF AGREEMENT NOR B E CALLED DUMB. THE FINAL ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF SEARCH DOCUMENT WAS DELETED. 10. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT ADDITION OF EXTRA CONSIDE RATION WAS DELETED KEEPING THE PRINCIPLE OF K.P. VARGHESE V. ITO, 131 ITR 597 (SC), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT THAT IN CASE IT IS ALL EGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED MORE CONSIDERATION THAN THE DISCLOSED, THE RE MUST BE SOME EVIDENCE FOR THE SAME. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN VARIOUS DECISION S OF VARIOUS COURTS THAT IN CASE OF ON MONEY THERE HAS TO BE SOME CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN ADDITION TO 8 AGREEMENT, IF ANY, SHOWING LOWER CONSIDERATION. IN THE ABOVE CASE, IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE THIRD MEMBER THAT THE CASE WAS FIT TO BE SET ASIDE FOR FURTHER ENQUIRY AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PURCHASE RS WERE TO BE RECORDED BUT SINCE THE THIRD MEMBER HAS NO SUCH POWER AND THEREF ORE, HE UPHELD THE DECISION OF JUDICIAL MEMBER DELETING THE ADDITION. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT IT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A RATIO THAT OTHER DOCUMENT FOUND DURIN G SEARCH IS NOT RELIABLE IN THE SEARCH ASSESSMENTS. THE ADDITION CAN BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS FOUND DURING SEARCH AND THOSE MATERIALS R EQUIRED TO BE ANALYZED IN A PARTICULAR SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES. 11. PERUSAL OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THEY CAN NOT BE CALLED MERELY DUMB DOCUMENT. PAGE 37 ITSELF SHOWS THAT EN TRY OF 2319 HAS BEEN TITLED AS PENDING DUE OLD ACT THIS MEANS SOME PENDING A CCOUNT WAS THERE AND WHICH HAS BEEN ADMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THERE FORE, THESE ENTRIES CANNOT BE SIMPLY ROUGH JOTTING. IN FACT, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS CLEARLY STAT ED THAT REFERENCE TO THE PAYMENT MADE OF RS. 200 /-. IN CA SE OF ROUGH NOTINGS THERE CAN NOT BE ANY PAYMENT. THEREFORE, THESE ARE ACTUA L TRANSACTIONS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS DUTY BOUND TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. THE L D. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE VIDE PARA 4.2 WHICH IS AS UNDER: 4.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR. IT IS NOTICED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THREE PAPERS IN THE SEIZED RECORD; PAGE 37, 41 AND 42 OF ANNEXURE A-8. IN CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS HE FINALLY RELIED UPON DOCUMENT NO. 37. A COPY OF THE SAME FORMS PAR T OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A.R. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING S THE A.R RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT V. ATAM VALVES (P) LTD., REPORTED IN (2009) 184 TAXMAN 6 TO PLEAD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE SALES ON THE BA SIS OF LOOSE SLIPS WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY MADE THE SALES TO THE EXTENT OF ESTIMATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE FURTH ER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SHRI CHAMAN LAL DHINGRA REPORTED IN (1994) 121 TAXATION 272 TO PLEAD THAT S EIZED DOCUMENTS CANNOT TAKE PLACE OF PROOF RATHER THEY MERELY CREATE SUSPI CION. COPIES OF BOTH THE DECISIONS HAVE BEEN FILED. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH DO NOT CONSTITUTE ANY MATERIA L HAS NO FORCE. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DOCUMENT FOUND IN HIS POSSE SSION IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL BE LEFT WITH NO AL TERNATIVE BUT TO DRAW HIS OWN INFERENCES. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE INFEREN CE DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM DOCUMENT NUMBER 37 IS NOT CORRECT. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT CONTAINS PURCHASE OF 1178.82 GMS OF GOLD ORNAMENTS. THE INFERENCE IS PATENTLY INCORRECT IN AS MUCH AS THE FIGURE APPEARS IN TERMS OF RUPEES. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE O F PAGE 37 SEPARATE DETAILS OF GOLD, PROFIT ETC. ARE WRITTEN AS: 9 84-370 GOLD 8-400 NAFA 2-150 1-850 TAR 96-770 @ 600/- FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS A TRANSACT ION OF GOLD 96-770 GMS AND THEREFORE, TRANSACTION ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE IN MY OPINION AS ALREADY STATED ARE IN TERMS OF RUPEES. CONSEQUENTLY ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION TREATING THE LEFT HAND SIDE TRANSACTION AS WEIGHT OF GOLD. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE GOLD TRANSACTION OF 96-770 GMS VALUE OF WHICH @ RS. 600/- PER GM AS NOTED IN THE LOOSE PAPE R ITSELF COMES TO RS. 58,062/- WHICH REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. ACCORDINGLY AS SESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO RS. 58,062/- AS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS. 7,20,965/- AS INVESTMENT IN THE JEWELLERY AND RS. 1,02,881/- AS P ROFIT EARNED ON THE SALE OF JEWELLERY. IT IS CLARIFIED THAT NO SEPARATE ADDITI ON ON SALE OF ABOVE JEWELLERY IS BEING CONFIRMED AS AFORESAID TRANSACTION NOTED ON R IGHT HAND SIDE OF PAGE 37 INCLUDES THE PROFIT OF 8,400 GMS WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN IN THE TOTAL WEIGHT OF 96-770 GMS. 12. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ABOVE DECISION BUT THE INFERENCES DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT(A) SEEMS TO BE REAS ONABLE BECAUSE OF THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE DOCUMENT. SOME ENTRIES HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE LEFT SIDE. THE ENTRY MADE RELATE TO SOME MONEY TRANSACTIONS THEREF ORE, QUANTITY HAS TO BE INFERRED FROM THE FIGURES RECORDED IN THE RIGHT SID E ONLY. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ADJUDIC ATED THE ISSUE. 13. AS FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS. 4.00 LAKHS IS CON CERNED IN THE LOOSE DOCUMENT NO. 37, IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED AS 4 LAKH S PARTNERSHIP ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE TRANS ACTION BY STATING THAT THE EXPRESSION IS PARTNERSHIP ACT. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTA ND WHY A JEWELER WOULD WRITE A SUM OF RS. 4.00 LAKHS AND THEN MENTION PARTNERSHI P ACT. THE WORD ACT HAS TO BE READ AS ACCOUNT ONLY. THE LD. CIT(A) DECID ED THE ISSUE VIDE PAR A5.2 WHICH IS AS UNDER: 5.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A.R. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 4 LAKHS BEING THE PROFIT EA RNED ON ACCOUNT OF PARTNERSHIP ACCOUNT AS PER PAGE NO. 37 OF ANNEXURE A-8. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAM E ARE ROUGH JOTTINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER, WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH T HE ABOVE REPLY AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED PROFIT OF RS. 4 LAKHS ON AC COUNT OF TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALES OF JEWELLERY AND ACCORDINGLY HE MADE ADDITION OF RS. 4 LAKHS BEING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT O F PROFIT EARNED ON PARTNERSHIP ACCOUNT. SINCE THE AFORESAID TRANSACTI ON IS CLEARLY NOTED AND EMERGING OUT OF TRANSACTIONS RECORDED ON PAGE 37 OF ANNEXURE A-8 WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE WHILE DECIDING OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2, ADDITION OF RS. 4 LAKHS IS UPHELD. 14. EVEN IF THE ABOVE AMOUNT CANNOT BE CALLED AS PR OFIT FROM THE PARTNERSHIP ACCOUNT THEN IT CAN BE INFERRED TO BE UNDISCLOSED I NVESTMENT IN SOME 10 PARTNERSHIP ACCOUNT. SINCE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO GIVE ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION THE ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED AND ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS UPHELD. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 1222/CHD/2010 AND 1285/CHD/2010, A.Y 2005- 06 16. THESE ARE ALSO CROSS-APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE AND THE REVENUE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA DATED 27.8.2010 RAISING COMMON ISSUES, THEREFORE, THE SAME WERE HEARD TOGE THER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 17. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT FO R THIS YEAR ALSO THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE CONTENTS OF PAGES 38 & 39 AND 40 AT ANNEXURE A-8. AGAIN SIMILAR REPLIES WERE GIVEN THAT THESE ARE THE JOTTINGS ETC. THESE CONTENTIONS WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN RESPECT OF PAGE 38, ASSESSING OFFICER REPRODUCED THE CONTENTS AS UNDER: RECEIVED JUKAD TWO SODS SILVER 77000/- CP THREE PCS CHARDI 100000/- SP ONE SWORD GOLD 105000/- CP BIDRI WORK 135000/- SP KATAR 28000/- CP 40000/- SP 1. ONE SOFA SET 3 PCS 75000/- 2. RECEIVED 75624 /- 3 PENDING CHADDI, STICKS, SRODS, DHAL, MUTH ECT. 4. LALDI MANIK 635-50 2588-15 E405 1-50 501 PCS 16.5.2004 FROM THE ABOVE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THIS SHOWS A SUM OF RS. 5,20,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES AND FURTHER A PROFIT OF RS. 18.46% ON THE SAME AND ACCORDINGLY MADE AN ADDITION FOR A SUM OF RS. 5,20,000/- AND RS. 95,992/- IN RESPECT OF DOCUMENT NO. 39. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED AS UNDER: 11 RETURN CHAIN + HALLA AND AT THE END OF THE DOCUME NT MENTIONED PAID CASH RS. 4,20,000/-, THEREFORE, THE TRANSACTIONS A RE RELATING TO PURCHASE AND SALES OF GOLD JEWELERY. BY THIS DOCUMENT THE A SSESSEE PURCHASED JEWELLERY 2670.00 GM WORTH RS. 24,20,000/- AND SOLD OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 24,20 ,000/- IS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE EARNED PROFIT @ 18.46% (GP R ATE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE) WHICH WORK OUT TO RS. 4,46,732/- THEREFOR E, ADDITION OF RS. 24,20,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND UNDISCLOSED PROFIT RS. 4,46,732/- ARE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT ADDED RS. 6,55, 423/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IS ALLOWED TO BE TELESCOPED IN THE ADDITION OF RS. 24,20,000/-, THEREFORE, ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTM ENT IN PURCHASE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES RS. 1764577/- (2420000 655423 /-) IS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. TOTAL ADDITION RS. 1764577 /- + 446732. IN RESPECT OF PAGE NO. 40 IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AS UNDER: THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND IS REJECTED AS IT IS CLEAR FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURC HASED ONE BRACELET OF DIAMOND INCLUDING OTHER ITEMS AND PAID CASH PART LY RS. 2 LAKHS ON 22.6.2004. IT IS MENTIONED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENT PAID CASH AT BOMBAY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE MADE PURCHASE OF RS. 4,89,100/- FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE EARNED PROF IT @ 18.46% (GP RATE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE) WHICH WORK OUT TO RS. 9 0,287/- WHICH IS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDITION OF RS. 4,89,100/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IS TE LESCOPED IN THE ADDITION OF RS. 24,20,000/- AS MENTIONED. 18. BEFORE US, BOTH THE PARTIES MADE SIMILAR SUBMIS SIONS AS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THESE TWO ADDITIONS VIDE PARA 4.2 AND 4.3 WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 4.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR. IT IS NOTICED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ADDITION COMPRISES TWO IT EMS RS. 6,15,9927- COVERED BY PAGE 38 OF ANNEXURE A-8 AND RS. 22,11,3097- COVE RED BY DOCUMENT NO. 39 OF THE SAME ANNEXURE. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS, THE AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH' COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ATAM VALVES PVT. LTD., REPORTED IN (2009) 18 4 TAXMAN 6 TO PLEAD THAT THE A.O WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE SALE ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE SLIPS WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUAL MADE THE SALES TO THE EXTENT OF ESTIMATION MADE BY THE A.O. HE FURTHER RE LIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SHRI CHAMAN LAI DHINGRA, REPORTED IN (1994) 121 TAXATION 272 TO (