The ITO, Ward-6(4), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Jay Enterprises, Ahmedabad

ITA 1344/AHD/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8960 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-09-2009
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2005
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOVIND SINGHAL
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Set aside
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : A BENCH : AHMEDABAD (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA, J.M. & HONBLE SH RI D.C. AGRAWAL, A.M.) I.T.A. NO. 1344/AHD./2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-2002 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), AHMEDABAD VS.- M/S . JAY ENTERPRISES, AHMEDABAD. (P.A. NO. AABFJ 6569 L) (APPELLANT) (R ESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI GOVIND SINGHAL, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJAY R. SHAH O R D E R PER SHRI T.K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2001-02 AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DATED 02.02 .2005 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- (1) THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XII, AH MEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING ADDITION OF R S.2,01,168/-. (2) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XII , AHMEDABAD HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THREE WAS NO SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145(3) AND REJECTIN G THE ENTIRE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE A.O. HAD RECORDED SEVERAL DEFECTS IN THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE A SSESSEE. (3) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XII , AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.21,02,084/- , DESPITE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.21,02,084/- REPRESENTED SALE PROCEEDS OF BUILDIN G, PLANT AND MACHINERY WHICH MEANT THAT THE CREDITS OF RS.21,02, 084/- WAS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. (4) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XII, AHMEDABAD OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE AB OVE EXTENT. (5) IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE ABOVE E XTENT AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN GR OUNDS NO. 1 & 2 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF CH EMICALS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, IT HAS SHOWN GROSS PROFIT (AS PER PROFIT & LOSS A/C.) OF RS.1,60,087/- ON THE TOTAL SALES OF RS.41,71,539/- AT GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 3.84% AGAINS T THE GROSS PROFIT OF RS.15,86,389/- ON THE GROSS SALES OF RS.58,75,645/- AT GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 27% IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE A.O. NOTED THAT AS AGAINST RATIO OF RAW MATERIALS TO PRICE OF 58% IN THE YEAR 1999-2000, IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE RATIO CAME TO 75%. THE A.O. FURTHER NOTED THAT NET INCREASE OF SUCH EX PENSES WAS OF 17%. APART FROM THIS, THE A.O. NOTED THAT THE UTILITY EXPENSES WENT UP FROM 3% IN THE PRECEDING YEAR TO 4.34% IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR GIVING INCREASE OF 1.34%. THE NET I NCREASE OF EXPENSES UNDER THESE TWO HEADS CAME TO 18.34% WHICH RESULTED REDUCTION IN THE GROS S PROFIT. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE SHOWN THE GROSS PROFIT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AT 8.66% (27% MINUS 18.34%), AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 3.84% ONLY. HE ACCORDINGLY ADDED THE DIFFERENCE OF GROSS PROFIT I. E. 4.82%. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW-CAUSE WHY THE DIFFERENCE OF GROSS PROFIT I.E. 4.82% SHOULD NOT BE ADDED ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSE E. IN REPLY BEFORE THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE PRICE OF FINISHED GOODS I.E . DICHLONE HAD COME DOWN TO RS.200 PER KG. AS AGAINST THAT OF RS.240 PER KG. IN THE PRECEDING YEA R. THIS WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. ON THE GROUND THAT THE PRICE WAS REDUCED ONLY FOR THREE MO NTHS, I.E. FROM JANUARY, 2001 TO MARCH, 2001 DURING WHICH THE SALE WAS 2740 KGS. AS AGAINST TOTA L SALE MADE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AT 11365 KGS. THE A.O. ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE AUDI TORS IN THEIR REPORT IN FORM NO. 3CB HAVE POINTED OUT CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES/ OBSERVATIONS NAM ELY PURCHASE BILLS OF RS.2,59,840/- DATED 08.04.2000, EXCISE CHALLAN OF RS.5,000/-, RECEIPT O F PAYMENT TO GICC OF RS.5,80,000/-, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR CLAIM OF SALE OF FACTORY B UILDING AND PLANT AND MACHINERY WERE NOT PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION, THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.18, 222/- IN THE BALANCE-SHEET WAS NOT EXPLAINED AND THAT ITEM-WISE W.D.V. IN SUPPORT OF ITEMS/ PLAN T NOT SHOWN. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE A.O. HELD THAT BOOK RESULTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT AC CEPTABLE AND HE ACCORDINGLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE A.O. WORKED OUT THE GROSS PROFIT APPLYING RATE OF 8.66%. THE GROSS PROFIT SO WORKED OUT TO RS.3,61,255/- AS AGAINST GROSS PROFIT OF 3 RS.1,60,087/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. AC CORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE OF THE TWO I.E. RS.2,01,168/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE. 3. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 145(3). THE RATIO OF COST OF SALE AS PERCENTAGE OF SALE DURING THE YEAR WAS 59.03% AS AGAINST THAT OF 37.03% IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THE UTILITY EXPENSES AS PERCENTAGE OF SALE WAS 7.22 % IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION A AGAINST SIMILAR RATIO OF 4.41% IN THE PRECEDING Y EAR. BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COM PLETE DETAILS ACCORDING TO WHICH INCREASE IN BOTH THESE HEADS COMES TO 24.81% AS COMPARED TO THE EARLIER YEAR WHEREAS THE A.O. HAS WORKED OUT SUCH INCREASE AT 18.34%. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT IF THE INCREASE OF 24.81% IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS AGAINST THAT OF 18.34%, THE GROSS PROFIT WOULD COME TO 2.19% AS AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE GROSS PROFIT OF 3.84%. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. SHOULD BE DELETED. BEFORE THE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING COM PLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ALL QUANTITY RECORD WERE MAINTAINED AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE TA X AUDIT REPORT. WITH REGARD TO REMARKS OBTAINED IN THE AUDITORS REPORT, IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT THESE HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO WORKING OF THE GROSS PROFIT. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADD ITION FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH IS AS UNDER :- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED RELEVANT RECORDS. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS WORKED THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 8 .66% CONSIDERING THE RATIO OF RAW MATERIAL ITEMS/ PRICE IN THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. HO WEVER, AS EXPLAINED BY THE LD. COUNSEL AND AS WORKED OUT IN DETAILS REP RODUCED ABOVE, THE RATIO OF COST OF SALE AS PERCENTAGE OF SALE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION COMES TO 59.03% AS AGAINST THAT OF 37 .03% IN THE PRECEDING YEARS. IN VIEW OF THE DETAILS GIVEN BY THE LD. COUN SEL AS ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT WORKED OUT THE RATIO OF UTILITY EXPENSES TO THE SALES CORRECTLY. IF THESE RATIOS AS WORKED OUT BY THE APPELLANT IN THE ABOVE DETAILS, ARE CONSIDERED, I AGREE THAT FOLLOWI NG THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WORKING OUT THE DIFFER ENCE IN THE GROSS PROFIT 4 RATE, THERE IS NO INCREASE IN THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AND THAT RATHER THE GROSS PROFIT RATE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WOULD BE 2.19% AS AGAINST WHICH THE A PPELLANT HAS SHOWN THE GROSS PROFIT OF 3.84%. THE CONTENTION OF THE AP PELLANT THAT THEY HAD MAINTAINED COMPLETE STOCK RECORD OF RAW MATERIAL AN D FINISHED GOODS AND FURNISHED MONTHWISE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS ALSO CANNO T BE IGNORED FOR EXAMINING AS TO WHETHER THE ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLA NT COULD BE REJECTED U/S. 145(3) OF THE I.T. ACT OR NOT. I ALSO AGREE WI TH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT THAT AS FAR AS THE ABOVEMENTIONED SO CALL ED DISCREPANCIES IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE CONCERNED MAJORITY OF THEM HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AND THAT NO ADDITION WHAT SO EVER HAVE BEEN MADE/ SUSTAINED. AS FAR AS THE DISCREPANCY FOR NON-PRODUCTION OF PUR CHASE BILL OF FERRO SULPHATE OF RS.16,996/- IS CONCERNED SEPARATE ADDIT ION HAS BEEN MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. I FULLY AGREE WITH THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THIS COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR INVOKI NG THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) AND REJECTING THE ENTIRE BOOKS OF AC COUNT OF THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE GROSS PROFIT A DDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.2,01,168/- CANNOT BE SUSTAI NED AND SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE SHRI GOVIND SINGHAL APPEARED AND RELIED ON THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE A.O. BY STATING THAT THE A.O. WAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,01,168/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING T HE SAME. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI SANJAY R. SHAH, LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE R IVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE DULY AUDITED. AS PER WORKING FURNISHED BEFORE LEARN ED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), THE BOOKS RESULTS ARE BETTER THAN LAST YEAR. THE FI NDING OF FACT RECORDED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS NOT CONTROVE RTED BY THE LD. D.R. EVEN IF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE REJECTED, THE A.O. HAS NO OPTION BUT T O ESTIMATE THE INCOME. SINCE THE GROSS PROFIT 5 EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS BETTER THAN LAST YEAR, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IN THE RESULT, GROUNDS NO. 1 & 2 OF REVENUES APPEAL ARE REJECTED. 9. THE FACTS RELATING TO CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN GR OUND NO. 3 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN DEDUCTION OF RS.10,14,961/- IN THE BLOCK OF F ACTORY BUILDING. THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE RELEVANT DETAILS, VIZ. SALE AGREEMEN T AND SPECIFICATION OF THE BUILDING SOLD. BEFORE THE A.O., THESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WERE NOT FURN ISHED. THE A.O. FURTHER NOTED THAT AS PER COMMENTS OF AUDITORS IN PARA 3(A)(III) OF FORM NO. 3CB, THE AUDITORS HAVE NOTED THAT SALE OF PART OF FACTORY BUILDING HAVING SALE VALUE OF RS.10,14,9 61/- COULD NOT BE VERIFIED IN THE ABSENCE OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSEE CLAIM ED TO HAVE SOLD THE FACTORY BUILDING AND MACHINERY TO M/S. JAY INDUSTRIES. M/S. JAY INDUSTRI ES WROTE A LETTER TO A.O. STATING THAT THE LAND WAS ALREADY IN THE NAME OF M/S. JAY INDUSTRIES AND SAME WAS ALLOTTED TO THEM ONLY IN GIDC, VATVA, AHMEDABAD. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED BY M/S. JAY INDUSTRIES THAT THE FACTORY BUILDING THEREON WAS CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ON BEHALF O F M/S. JAY INDUSTRIES AND THAT CONSIDERATION PAYABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS COST OF THE FACTORY BUILDING WAS RS.10,25,585/- AS ON 30.04.2002. THE A.O. NOTED THAT IN THE LETTER M/S. JAY INDUSTRI ES HAD NOT GIVEN THE DETAILS LIKE AREA OF BUILDING PURCHASED AND WHEN M/S. JAY INDUSTRIES CON STRUCTED THE BUILDING. THE A.O. ALSO NOTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAD SOLD THEIR CONSTR UCTED BUILDING ON PLOT NO. 3420, PHASE-IV, GIDC, VATVA, AHMEDABAD TO JAY INDUSTRIES FOR THE CO NSIDERATION OF RS.10,14,961/- ON 30.04.2000 BUT FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID TRANSACTION. AS PER A.O. NO SEPARATE DETAILS OF WDV OF THE BUILDING SOLD TO M/S. JAY INDUSTRIES HAS BEEN FILED. 10. WITH REGARD TO MACHINERY, THE A.O. NOTED THAT D URING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SALE OF MACHINERY TO THE TUNE OF RS.10,87 ,123/- ON 30.04.2000 TO M/S. JAY INDUSTRIES. THE SALE BILL WAS NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE A.O. THE DETAILS OF ITEMWISE W.D.V. OF THE RESPECTIVE PLANT AND MACHINERY SOLD WERE ALSO NOT FURNISHED. E VEN THESE DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE AUDITORS FOR RECORD UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT. THE A.O. VERIFIED FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME OF M/S. JAY INDUSTRIES FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND FOUND THAT AS PER THIS RETURN, M/S. JAY INDUSTRIES WAS SHOWING THIS M ACHINERY AS OPENING BALANCE, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMING TO HAVE SOLD THE BUILDING AND MACHINERY ON 30.04.2000. ON THE BASIS OF 6 THESE PECULIAR FACTS, THE A.O. HELD THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AS NO ADDITION IN THE ASSETS HAD BEEN SHOWN BY THE PURCHASER, I.E. M/S. JAY INDUSTRIES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-01, THOUGH THE ASSES SEE HAS SHOWN SALE OF BUILDING AND MACHINERY ON 30.04.2004. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY TREATED THE ENT IRE SUM OF RS.21,02,084/- (RS.10,14,961/- + RS.10,87,123/-) AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY SHOWN IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ADDED THE SAME UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 11. BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A PPEALS), THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS OF MACHINERIES SOLD WERE WELL INDICATED IN THE BILL NO. 03/2000 DATED 30.04.2000 VIDE WHICH FIVE ITEMS OF P LANT AND MACHINERY WERE SHOWN TO BE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. JAY INDUSTRIES AND M/S. JAY INDUSTRIES HAD ALSO CONFIRMED THIS POSITION AS PER THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS. 12. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. BY OBSERVING THAT THE SOU RCES OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE CLEARLY EXPLAINED BEING THE AMOUNT RECEIPT FRO M M/S. JAY INDUSTRIES. THE SAME WAS DULY VERIFIABLE FROM THE COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT FROM THE BOOKS OF M/S. JAY INDUSTRIES WHICH WAS FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO. IT IS A FACT THAT M/S. JAY INDUSTRIES DID NOT FURNISH DETAILS LIKE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DETAILS OF BANK A CCOUNT, ETC. CALLED FOR BY THE A.O. FROM THEM. IF THE POSITION COULD NOT BE VERIFIED BECAUSE OF M/ S. JAY INDUSTRIES HAVING NOT FURNISHED NECESSARY INFORMATION, THE ADVERSE INFERENCE IN ASS ESSEES CASE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE JUSTIFIED. BOTH PARTIES ADMITTED THE TRANSACTION THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD RECEIVED THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE DULY CREDITED IN THEIR BANK AC COUNT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE EVIDENCE BEING THE CERTIFICATE OF TRANSFER OF BUILDING, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE EVIDENCE WIT H REGARD TO THE SALE OF BUILDING AND PLANT AND MACHIN ERY. ONCE IT IS PROVED AS ABOVE, THREE WOULD NOT BE ANY VALID GROUND FOR MAKING ADDITION OF THIS AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFORE, HE DELETED THE ADDITION. 13. BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF A.O., WHEREAS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). 7 14. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. FROM THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED T O DELETE THE ADDITION AS THE SOURCES OF AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FULLY EXPLAINE D AND ALSO RECEIVED THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. HENCE, THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR MAKING ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. BY CONSIDERING THE TOTAL ITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH T HE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AND REJECT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 15. GROUNDS NO. 4 & 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THE REFORE, DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18 .0 9.2009 SD/- SD/- (D.C. AGRAWAL) (T.K. SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 18 / 09 / 2009 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) M/S. JAY INDUSTRIES, PLOT NO. 3421, PHASE-IV, GIDC ESTATEM VATVA, AHMEDABAD. (2) ITO, WARD-6(4), C.U. SHAH BUILDING, ASHRAM ROA D, AHMEDABAD, 3) CIT(A)- ,AHMEDABAD, (4) CIT- ,AHMEDABAD. (5) D.R., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. // RUE COPY// BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD LAHA/SR.P.S.