ITO 32(1)(4), MUMBAI V. DUNGARAM M. CHOUDHARY, MUMBAI

ITA 13/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0358 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM TIWARI LD DR
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA LD
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 68; 6

Judgement Text

ITA NO.13/MUM/2017 DUNGARAM M.CHOUDHARY ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM I.T.A. NO.13/MUM/2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) INCOME TAX OFFICER - 32(1)(4) ROOM NO.202, C-11, 2 ND FLOOR, PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA(E),MUMBAI-400 051 VS. DUNGARAM M. CHOUDHARY CHAUDHARY TRADING CO. DEVIPADA RAMA CHAWL MAIN ROAD BORIVALI (E),MUMBAI-400 066 ! ' PAN/GIR NO. AAFPC-5421-J ( !# APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# RESPONDENT ) A SSESSEE BY : PRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA, LD. AR RE VENUE BY : RAM TIWARI, LD. DR & DATE OF HEARING : 19/07/2018 '() / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/09/2018 O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. AFORESAID APPEAL BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2012-13 CONTEST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS)-44 [CIT(A)], MUMBAI, APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-44/ITO 32(1)(4)/ITA.106/15-16 DATED 27/10/2016 BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.75,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED ITA NO.13/MUM/2017 DUNGARAM M.CHOUDHARY ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 2 CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 191, WITHOUT AP PRECIATING THE FACT THE ALLEGED LOANS OF RS.75,00,000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM M/S. PANNALAL MANILAL & COMPANY AND M/S. VIJAYA TEA TRADING COMPANY ARE NOTHING BUT THE ASSESSEES OWN MONEY INTRODUCED IN THE GUISE OF LOANS, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT THESE PARTIES HAVE DENI ED HAVING GIVEN ANY LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.16,29,500/- ON ACC OUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 04.03.2015 HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE TOTAL PURCH ASES AT RS.41,50,000/- AND HAS ADMITTED THAT THE PURCHASES FROM M/S CHAUDH ARY ENTERPRISES WAS INCORRECTLY TAKEN AT RS.25,20,500/-. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A ) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER AN Y GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND. THE ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED AY WAS FRAMED BY LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER-32(1)(4), MUMBAI [AO] U/S. 143(3) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT,1961 ON 12/03/2015 WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN ASSESSED AT RS.107.88 LACS AFTER CERTAIN ADDITIONS AS AGAINST R ETURNED INCOME OF RS.8.62 LACS E-FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28/08/2012. AS EVIDENT FROM GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ADDITION OF RS.75 LACS U/S 6 8 AND ANOTHER ADDITION OF RS. 16.29 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTE D PURCHASES AS MADE BY LD. AO ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS APPEA L. 2.1 THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN TRADING OF TEA UNDER PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN NAMELY CHAUDHARY TRADING COMPANY REFLECTED TURNOVER OF RS.402.43 LACS. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR IMPUGNED AY REFLECTED CERTAIN UNSECURE D LOANS AS PER THE FOLLOWING DETAILS:- NO. NAME OF THE LENDER AMOUNT (R S.) 1. PANNALAL DAGA RS. 40 LACS 2. ANIRUDH DAGA RS. 35 LACS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY LOAN CONFIRMATIONS AND IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 133(6), THE AFORESAID PARTIES DENIED HAV ING MADE ANY LOAN TO ITA NO.13/MUM/2017 DUNGARAM M.CHOUDHARY ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 3 THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 21/01/2015 WHICH HAS BEEN EXTRACTED AT PARA 5.1 OF THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS PER THE SUBMISSIONS, T HE LOANS WERE CREATED, BY WAY OF JOURNAL ENTRIES, BY TRANSFER FRO M THE ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS IN THE WAKE OF CERTAIN TRADE DISPUTE OF THE ASSESSE E WITH THE AFORESAID TWO PARTIES. HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCED, LD. AO ADDED THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.75 LACS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.2 THE SECOND ADDITION OF RS.16.29 LACS PERTAIN TO DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASE FIGURES. THE ASSESSEE, IN THE PURCHASE DET AILS SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. AO, REFLECTED PURCHASES OF RS.25.20 LACS STATED TO BE MADE FROM AN ENTITY NAMELY CHAUDHARY ENTERPRISES. HOWEVER, THE SAID PARTY, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 133(6), REFLECTED SALE OF RS.41.50 LACS TO THE ASSESSEE, GIVING RISE TO THE DIFFERENCE OF IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF RS.16.29 LACS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO DIFF ERENCE IN THE GROSS AMOUNT SINCE THE BALANCE PURCHASE WAS REFLECTED UND ER THE LIST OTHER PURCHASES BELOW RS.1,00,000/-. HOWEVER, DISREGARDING THE SAME, LD. AO ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME WITH SUCCESS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27/10/2016 WHE REIN LD. CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION, CONCU RRED WITH THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONCLUDED THE MATTER IN ASSESSEES FAVOR BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 3.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT OR DER AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE DETAILS FILED AL ONG WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT APPEARS THAT THE ONLY REASON WHY ADDITION WAS MADE U/S 68 WAS BECAUSE OF REPLIES SUBMITTED BY SHRI PAN NALAL DAGA AND SHRI ANIRUDDA DAGA IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 133(6). HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE ITA NO.13/MUM/2017 DUNGARAM M.CHOUDHARY ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 4 THAT WHAT SHRI ANIRUDDHA DAGA OF VIJAYA TEA TRADIN G CO. PVT. LTD. IS DENYING IS THE FACT THAT HE HAS NOT ADVANCED ANY FUND TO THE APPEL LANT. YET THE PARTY IS NOT DENYING THAT IT HAS NO TRANSACTION WITH THE APPELLANT. IN F ACT, SHRI ANIRUDDHA DAGA HAS CONFIRMED IN WRITING THAT THEY HAVE SOLD TEA TO THE APPELLANT. SIMILAR IS THE CASE WITH THE TRANSACTION WITH M/S PANNALAL MANIKLAL TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. WITH REFERENCE TO THIS PARTY ALSO SIMILAR INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FR OM THE PARTY. IT IS ALSO SEEN FROM RECORD THAT SHRI DUNGARAM CHOUDHARY I.E.. THE APPEL LANT WAS ENGAGED IN LITIGATION WITH BOTH M/S PANNALAL MANIKLAL TRADING CO. PVT. LT D. AND M/S GRP TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. IT IS TH E CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE THEIR CASE STRONG THE APPELLANT RE STRUCTURED THE OUTSTANDING CREDITORS BALANCE PAYABLE TO M/S VIJAYA TRADING CO . PVT. LTD. IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: A) OUTSTANDING BALANCE PAYABLE TO M/S VIJAYA TEA TRADI NG CO. PVT LTD AS ON 31/03/2012 RS.57,00,197/- LESS: TRANSFERRED TO ANIRUDH DAGA LOAN A/C RS.35,00,000/- -------------------- BALANCE DISCLOSED UNDER CREDITORS VIZ. M/S VIJAYA TEA TRADING CO. PVT LTD AS ON 31/03/2012 RS. 22,00,197/- ------------------- B) OUTSTANDING BALANCE PAYABLE TO M/S PANALAL MANIKLAL TRADING CO. PVT LTD AS ON 31/03/2012 RS.1,17,76,100/- LESS: TRANSFERRED TO PANALAL DAGA LOAN A/C RS.40,00,000/- BALANCE DISCLOSED UNDER CREDITORS VIZ. M/S PANALA MANIKLAL TRADING COMPANY PVT LTD AS ON 31/03/2012 RS.77,76,100/- -------------------- THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE PARTIES IN THE BOOKS OF T HE APPELLANT AND THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE BOOKS OF THE PARTIE S WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM A PERUSAL OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS T HAT THERE WAS AN OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF THE APPELLANT WITH M/S VIJAYA TEA TRADIN G CO. PVT. LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS.57,00,197/-. BOTH PARTIES OF THE TRANSACTION ARE CONFIRMING THESE FACTS. SIMILARLY, IT CAN BE SEEN FROM A PERUSAL OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT S THAT THERE WAS AN OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF THE APPELLANT WITH M/S PANNALAL MANIKALA L TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS.1,17,76,100/-. BOTH PARTIES OF THE TRANSACTION ARE ALSO CONFIRMING THESE FACTS. THE COPY OF PLAINT FILED BY M/S VIJAYA TEA TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. & PANNALAL MANIKLAL TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. AGAINST THE APPELLANT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO. COPY OF BANK BOOK HAS ALSO BEEN FILE D BEFORE THE AO FROM WHICH IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION WITH THE PA RTIES HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT SUBSEQUENT T O FILING OF PLAINT BY THE PARTIES THE APPELLANT HAD REPAID THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE TO M/S VIJAYA TEA TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. AND TO M/S PANNALAL MANIKLAL TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, I FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPE LLANT THAT THE AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED LOAN BY THE AO ARE NOTH ING BUT TRADING LIABILITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING LOAN BECAUSE OF A JO URNAL ENTRY PASSED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS BOOKS. IT SEEMS THAT THE AO HAS NO T CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING DONE BY THE APPELLANT. IF THE AO HAD APPRAISED THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS, BANK BOOKS AND DETAILS OF COURT CASES CON TESTED BY THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE DETAILS OF SUBSEQUENT PAYMENT MADE BY THE AP PELLANT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ITA NO.13/MUM/2017 DUNGARAM M.CHOUDHARY ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 5 CLEAR TO HIM THAT NO FRESH LOAN HAS BEEN ACCEPTED B Y THE APPELLANT FROM THE ABOVE MENTIONED PARTIES. SINCE THE TRADING LIABILITY, HAS BEEN RESTRUCTURED TO SHOW A PART OF THE LIABILITY AS LOAN IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CREDIT IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN T HIS SITUATION, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR U/S 68. THE ADDITION OF RS.75 LACS IS ACCORDING LY DELETED. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 & 2 ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. . . 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS ABOV E. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAS ASKED THE APPELL ANT TO FURNISH PARTY WISE LIST OF PURCHASES. UPON RECEIVING SUCH LIST, THE AO CONDUCT ED ENQUIRY BY ISSUING NOTICES U/S 133(6). IN RESPONSE TO SUCH NOTICES ONE PARTY N AMELY M/S CHOUDHARY ENTERPRISES CONFIRMED IN WRITING THAT IT HAS SOLD G OODS WORTH RS.41,50,000/- TO THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, AS PER THE LIST SUBMITTED BY TH E APPELLANT IT HAD SHOWN THE VALUE OF TRANSACTION WITH M/S CHOUDHARY ENTERPRISES AT RS .25,20,500/- ONLY. ON BEING ASKED ABOUT THIS DISCREPANCY THE APPELLANT SUBMITTE D THAT THERE IS NO DISCREPANCY AS IT HAS PURCHASED GOODS WORTH RS.41,50,000/- ONLY FR OM M/S CHOUDHARY ENTERPRISES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FIRST LIST SUB MITTED BEFORE THE AO THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.16,29,500/- WAS SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD O THER PURCHASES BELOW RS. 1 LAC. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED REVISED LIST OF PARTY WISE PURCHASE WHEREIN THE PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S CHOUDHARY ENTERPRISES IS SH OWN AT RS.41,50,000/- ONLY. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE A O HAS SIMPLY RELIED ON THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE PARTY IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 133(6). THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE PARTY IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE BOOKS OF THE PARTY WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE AO AN D AN ANALYSIS OF LEDGER ACCOUNT WOULD HAVE SHOWN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS INDEED MADE PAYMENTS OF RS.41,50,000/- TO M/S CHOUDHARY TRADING CO. FOR PURCHASE OF GOODS. ALL PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASE ARE THROUGH CHEQUES. IT IS ALSO WORTHWHILE TO CONSIDER AS TO WHAT WOULD THE ASSESSEE GAIN BY SHOWING LESS AMOUNT OF PURCHASE. IF THE PAR TY HAD CONFIRMED A BALANCE WHICH IS LESS THAN WHAT IS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT , THEN IT WOULD HAVE BROUGHT SOME ADVERSE CONCLUSION FOR THE APPELLANT. AFTER CONSIDE RING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, I HAVE COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE AO HAS NOT CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE EVIDENCE AND DETAILS PLACED BEFORE HIM. ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE IS MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THERE IS NO DISCREPANCY IN PURCHASES RATHER IT IS JUST AN INADVERTENT GROUPING ERROR. EVEN SUCH ERROR WAS RECTIFIED DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT ITSELF. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, I DONT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR ADDITION OF RS.16,29,500/- AND THE SAME IS DELETED. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.3 & 3.1 ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE [DR], SHRI RAM TIWARI, CONTESTED THE STAND OF LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y AND SUBMITTED THAT UNSECURED LOANS WERE REFLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE BALANCE SHEET, ITA NO.13/MUM/2017 DUNGARAM M.CHOUDHARY ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 6 THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH COULD NOT BE PROVED BY THE A SSESSEE. SIMILARLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASE FIGUR ES WAS NOTHING BUT UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND TH EREFORE, THE SAME WERE RIGHTLY ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE SAME HAS BEEN CONTROVERTED BY LD. AUHTORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR A SSESSEE [AR], SHRI PRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA, WHO ON THE STRENGTH OF DOCUMENTS PLACED IN THE PAPER-BOOK, SUPPORTED THE STAND TAKEN BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIO NS AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE I SSUE OF ADDITION U/S 68. UPON PERUSAL OF LEDGER EXTRACT OF M/S VIJAYA TEA TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. AS PER ASSESSEES BOOK FOR IMPUGNED AY, WE FIND TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE REGULAR PURCHASES AGGREGATING TO RS.57,00, 197/- FROM THE SAID PARTY DURING THE YEAR AND TRANSFERRED AN AMOUNT OF RS.35 LACS FROM THE SAID ACCOUNT TO UNSECURED LOAN ACCOUNT ON 31/03/201 2 BY WAY OF JOURNAL ENTRY, LEAVING AN OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF RS.22,00,1 97/-. THE AMOUNT OF RS.22,00,197/- WAS SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD SUNDRY CREDITORS WHEREAS THE AMOUNT OF RS.35 LACS WAS SHOWN AS UNSECURED LOANS I N THE BALANCE SHEET. THE SAID PARTY, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 13 3(6) HAS CONFIRMED AN OUTSTANDING OF RS.57,00,197/- AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, WHICH TALLIES WITH THE AGGREGATE PURCHASES REFLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AFORESAID FACT REVEAL THAT THERE WAS NO UNSECURED LOAN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID PARTY DURING THE IMPUGNED AY BUT THE SAME WAS CREATED BY WAY OF JOURNAL ENTRY IN THE ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND WERE PART OF TRADING LIABILITY ONLY FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE AFORES AID TRANSFER, AS PER THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, WAS APPARENTLY MADE IN THE WAKE OF CERTAIN ONGOING TRADE DISPUTE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE AFOR ESAID PARTY. THE SAID ITA NO.13/MUM/2017 DUNGARAM M.CHOUDHARY ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 7 CONTENTION IS FORTIFIED BY THE COPY OF CONSENT TERM AGREED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE AFORESAID PARTY AS FILED BEFORE HO NBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. FURTHER, IN TERMS OF THE CONSENT TERMS, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE FULL PAYME NT OF RS.57,00,197/- TO THE AFORESAID PARTY THROUGH BANKI NG CHANNELS DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2015-16. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION OF THE OTHER ENTITY I.E. PANALAL MANICKLAL TRADING CO. PRIVATE LIMITED WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE, IN SIMILAR MANNER HAS TRANSFERRED AN AMOUNT OF RS.40 L ACS, BY WAY OF JOURNAL ENTRY, TO THE UNSECURED LOAN ACCOUNT. THE A SSESSEE, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, HAS CLEARED THE GROSS OUTSTA NDING AGAINST THE SAID PARTY WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE NO DUES CERTIFICATE DATED 19/11/2015 ISSUED BY THE AFORESAID PARTY, AS PLACED ON RECORD. THE ABOVE FACTUAL MATRIX LEADS US TO CONCUR WITH THE STAND OF LD. FIR ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME. TH E GROUNDS RAISED, IN THIS REGARD, STANDS DISMISSED. 6. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENTIA L PURCHASE IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE SAME HAS ARISEN ONLY DU E TO GROUPING ERROR ONLY, AS RIGHTLY NOTED BY LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAD BIFURCATED THE PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S CHAUDHARY ENTERPRISES IN TWO SEPARATE PURCHASE LISTS. HOWEVER, THERE WERE NO UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AS WRONGLY INFERRED BY LD. AO. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR INADVERTENT ERROR. THE STAND OF LD. CIT(A), IN THIS REGARD, STAND CONFIRMED. THE GROUNDS RAISED, IN THIS REGARD, STAN D DISMISSED. 7. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. ITA NO.13/MUM/2017 DUNGARAM M.CHOUDHARY ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13 8 SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *& MUMBAI; DATED : 12.09.2018 SR.PS:-THIRUMALESH ! COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. + ,$ - -) *& / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. , ./0 & GUARD FILE ' / BY ORDER, # '$% (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) *& / ITAT, MUMBAI