ACIT, CHENNAI V. Shri M.Arun, CHENNAI

ITA 143/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0958 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-01-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N BETGERI; DR S MOHARANACIT
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH CHENN AI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NOS.138 & 139/MDS./2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2008-09 & 2009-10 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE II(4), 46 M.G.ROAD, CHENNAI-34. VS. M/S.KALEESUWARI REFINERY PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.53,RAJASEKARAN STREET, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 600 004. PAN AAACK 6087 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.143 & 144/MDS./2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2008-09 & 2009-10 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE II(4), 46 M.G.ROAD, CHENNAI-34. VS. SHRI M.ARUN NO.64,TELUGU CHETTY STREET, OLD WASHERMANPET, CHENNAI 600 021. PAN AAGPA 8202 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : DR.S.MOHARANA,CIT D.R. AND MR.T.N.BETGERI JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.BASKAR, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 10.01.13 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 .01.13 ITA. 138, 139, 143,144 /MDS/12 M.ARUN & M/S.KALEESUWARI REFINERY 2 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE R ESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, DIRECTED AGAINST ORDERS DATED 24. 10.11 & 27.10.11 OF CIT(A)-II, CHENNAI. SINCE FACTS GIVING ARISE TO THE DISPUTES FOR BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE SIMILAR, THESE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF THROUGH A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. APPEALS IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE, M/S.KALEE SUWARI REFINERY PRIVATE LTD., ARE TAKEN UP FIRST FOR DISPO SAL. 3. SHORT FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE ENGAGED I N MANUFACTURE AND TRADING OF EDIBLE OILS, WAS SUBJEC T TO A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN S HORT THE ACT ) ON 16.07.2008. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEED INGS, A LAPTOP WAS RETRIEVED FROM ONE SHRI KUMARASAMY, AN O FFICIAL OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT CER TAIN DIFFERENCES IN CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31.03.08 WERE RE CORDED IN THE LAPTOP. SUCH DIFFERENCES, AS PER THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, WERE AS UNDER:- ITA. 138, 139, 143,144 /MDS/12 M.ARUN & M/S.KALEESUWARI REFINERY 3 NAME OF THE PRODUCT DIFFERENCE IN QUANTITY IN TONNES RATE PER TONNE VALUE IN RS. SUNFLOWER OIL 115.314 33690 3884928 RBD PALMOLIEN 27.705 47000 1302135 PALM OIL -391.408 46770 -18306152 VANASPATI 52.768 51810 2733910 COTTON SEED O8IL & OTHERS -36.553 58260 -2129578 GROUND NUT OIL 20.468 68110 1394075 SOYABEAN OIL 42.032 37310 1568213 TOTAL DEFICIT STOCK -20435730 TOTAL SURPLUS STOCK 10883263 4. PHYSICAL STOCK WAS ALSO TAKEN ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND AS PER THE A.O., SUCH THE PHYSICAL STOCK WHEN COMPA RED WITH BOOK STOCK ON 16.07.08, BROUGHT OUT THE FOLLOWING DISCREPANCIES:- LOOSE OIL STOCK : PRODUCT/LOOSE OIL VALUE PER KG DIFFERENCE OF WT IN KGS./KRPL VALUE OF DIFFERENCE ` CRUDE SUNFLOWER OIL 67.55 394389 26,640,977 REFINED SUNFLOWER OIL 58.83 108517 6,384,055 CRUDE SOYABEAN OIL 61.8 -310628 19,196,810 REFINED SOYABEAN OIL 65.82 11165 734,880 CRUDE GROUNDNUT OIL 70.1 -65715 4,606,622 REFINED GROUNDNUT OIL 73.17 -10170 -744,139 CRUDE PALM OIL 55.76 250638 13,975,575 REFINED PALM OIL 47.29 -539997 -25,536,458 OTHER OILS 40 -485 -19,400 REFINED RICEBRAN OIL 65.82 -96673 -6,363,017 CRUDE GINGELLY OIL 69.66 -26085 -1,817,081 PRODE OIL 64.22 -16006 -1,027,905 ACID OIL 1 -7546 -7,546 REFINED PALM KERNEL OIL 46 -447,994 REFINED COTTON SEED OIL 38 -2,356 DEFICIT STOCK -59,769,328 EXCESS STOCK 47,735,487 ITA. 138, 139, 143,144 /MDS/12 M.ARUN & M/S.KALEESUWARI REFINERY 4 FINISHED GOODS DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT UOM RATE PER BOX DIFFERE NCE IN PHYSICA L STOCK DIFFERENCE VALUE IN ` RSF OIL-GW-1 LTR PUCH BOX BOX 561.84 -728 (409,020) RSF OIL- GW-1/2 LTR PUCH BOX BOX 568.75 6 3,413 RSF OIL- GW-5 LTR PUCH BOX BOX 905.3 -3 (2,716) RSF OIL- GW-200 ML PUCH BOX BOX 580.35 1 580 RSF OIL- GW-2 LTR PET BOTTLE BOX BOX 764.94 -746 (5 70,645) RSF OIL- GW-1 LTR PET BOTTLE BOX BOX 617.06 -213 (1 31,434) RSF OIL- GW-100 ML PUCH BOX BOX 590.62 -1 (591) RSF OIL- GW-15 KG TIN BOX 937.56 26 24,377 RGN OIL- 1LTR POUCH BOX BOX 710.63 46 32,689 RGN OIL-5 LTR CAN BOX BOX 1122.71 5 5614 RSB OIL-GC-1 LTR POUCH BOX BOX 625.13 -56 (35,007) RSB OIL -GC-1/2 LTR POUCH BOX BOX 356.83 -40 (14,27 3) RSB OIL-GC-15 KG TINS BOX 1042.79 85 88,637 ORID DHALL -2 KG PACK BOX(6 NOS.) BOX 560.32 1 560 ORID DHALL -1 KG PACK BOX(10 NOS.) BOX 397.92 -26 ( 10346) ORID DHALL -1/2 KG PACK BOX(20 NOS.) BOX 400.74 -65 (26,048) ORID DHALL -200 GM PACK BOX(50 NOS.) BOX 403.62 -24 (9687) TUR- DHALL -1 KG PACK BOX(10 NOS.) BOX 412.72 -89 ( 36,732.08) TUR- DHALL -1/S KG PACK BOX(20 NOS.) BOX 415.46 154 63,980.84 TUR- DHALL 200 GM PACK BOX(50 NOS.) BOX 419.62 -31 (13,008.22) MOONG- DHALL -1 KG PACK BOX(10 NOS.) BOX 402.5 -19 (7648) MOONG- DHALL -1/2 KG PACK BOX(20 NOS.) BOX 405.09 -25 (10,127) EXTRA VIRGIN OLIVE OIL 5 LTR TIN BOX 4008.96 1 4009 EXTRA VIRGIN OLIVE OIL 1 LTR BOTTLE BOX 3288.82 2.4 7,893 EXTRA VIRGIN OLIVE OIL LTR BOTTLE BOX 1764.23 2.8 4,940 EXTRA VIRGIN OLIVE OIL 1 LTR BOTTLE BOX 2572.7 -7.1 (18,266) EXTRA VIRGIN OLIVE OIL 1/2 LTR PET BOTTLE BOX 1370.02 -7.3 (10,001) VANASPATI-GW 200 ML POUCH BOX BOX 629.21 -16 (10,06 7) DEFICIT STOCK -1,316,532 EXCESS STOCK 236,692 ITA. 138, 139, 143,144 /MDS/12 M.ARUN & M/S.KALEESUWARI REFINERY 5 5. ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANC IES. ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT ITS STOCK WAS MIX ED UP WITH THE STOCK OF ONE M/S.ARUN OIL TRADE AND ONE M/S.GMS TRADERS. MR.ARUN, WHO WAS THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S.ARUN OIL TRA DE AND M/S.GMS TRADERS, WAS HOLDING 80% OF SHARES IN ASSES SEE COMPANY AND WAS A DIRECTOR IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, SUCH PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS WERE ALS O ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE AND TRADING OF EDIBLE OIL. THEREFORE, PHYSICAL STOCK, WHICH WAS FOUND IN THE PREMISES, AS ALSO THE STOCK RECORDED IN THE LAPTOP, WERE FOR ALL THE CONCERNS AND COULD ONL Y BE COMPARED TAKING THE TOTALITY AND NOT INDEPENDENTLY. HOWEVER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT IMPRESSED. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSE SSEE ITSELF HAD MAINTAINED SEPARATE BOOKS FOR M/S.ARUN OIL TRAD E AND M/S.GMS TRADERS. ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED CLEARLY D EMARCATED STORAGE TANKS FOR EACH OF THE CONCERN. ACCOUNTING S YSTEM OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTRIES, WHICH FOUND MOVEMENT OF STOCK FROM ONE TANK TO ANOTHER AND INTO THE MAIN PLANT. THEREFORE , HE REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT STOCK OF THE THREE CONCERNS WERE TO BE RECKONED TOGETHER IN AN AGGREGATE MANNER , WHILE WORKING OUT ANY DISCREPANCY. HE CONSIDERED THE EXCE SS STOCK AS RECORDED IN THE LAPTOP AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.2008-09. 10% OF THE DEFICIT STOCK WAS ITA. 138, 139, 143,144 /MDS/12 M.ARUN & M/S.KALEESUWARI REFINERY 6 CONSIDERED AS INCOME GENERATED OUT OF UNACCOUNTED S ALE. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, HE CONSIDERED THE EXCESS S TOCK RESULTING OUT OF THE COMPARISON BETWEEN PHYSICAL ST OCK AND ACTUAL BOOK STOCK AS ON 17.07.2008 AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT. 10% OF THE DEFICIT STOCK WAS CONSIDERED AS INCOME F ROM UNACCOUNTED SALES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ALSO. 6. IN ITS APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A), ARGUMENT OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS THAT STOCK AVAILABLE IN THE PREMISES WAS NOT THAT OF ASSESSEE ALONE. ACCORDING TO IT, STOCK INCLUDED TH AT OF M/S.ARUN OIL TRADE AND M/S.GMS TRADERS, THOUGH DIFFERENT TAN KS WERE EARMARKED FOR THESE PARTIES. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, FOR PRACTICAL REASONS IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN A SEPARATE IDENTITY OF STORAGE ALWAYS. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, MANUFACTURING PROCESS FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF EDIBLE OILS WERE SUCH THAT RAW MAT ERIAL AND FINISHED GOODS COULD NEVER BE KEPT IN THE SEPARATEL Y EARMARKED TANK OF EACH OF THE CONCERNS AS PER THE RESPECTIVE MARKINGS. MANUFACTURING FACILITY WAS BEING UTILIZED BY ALL TH E THREE CONCERNS. CIT(A) WAS APPRECIATIVE OF THESE CONTENTIONS. AC CORDING TO HIM, THERE WAS NO DISPUTE THAT STOCK OF ALL THE CONCERNS WERE PRESENT IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE OPINION OF LD.CIT(A), EVEN IF THE STORAGE TANKS WERE EARMARKED, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ITA. 138, 139, 143,144 /MDS/12 M.ARUN & M/S.KALEESUWARI REFINERY 7 POSSIBLE TO KEEP THE STOCK EXACTLY ACCORDING TO SU CH EARMARKING ALL THE TIME. HE, THEREFORE, WAS OF THE OPINION TH AT AN AGGREGATE POSITION ALONE WAS TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE MAKING A STOCK COMPARISON. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSING O FFICER HAVING ESTIMATED 10% OF DEFICIT AS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE, EXCESS STOCK TO THAT EXTENT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED. EFF ECTIVELY, HE SCALED DOWN THE ADDITION TO THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND AND WAS OF THE OPINION THAT NO ADDITION WAS S EPARATELY REQUIRED TO BE MADE FOR THE PROFIT ON ACCOUNT OF DE FICIT STOCK. FOR A.Y 2009-10, LD. CIT(A) FURTHER DIRECTED THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO GIVE CREDIT FOR THE OPENING EXCESS STOCK ALSO WHILE COMPUTING THE ADDITION. 7. NOW BEFORE US, LD. D.R ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF T HE CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED SEPARATE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS FOR VARIOUS CONCERNS AND HAD CLEARLY DEMAR CATED STORAGE TANKS ALSO. ACCORDING TO HIM, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN STATING THAT EXACT STOCK COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED FOR EACH OF THE CONCERNS. ASSESSEE WAS HAVING AN ERP ACCOUNTING SY STEM, WHICH SHOWED THE MOVEMENT OF RAW MATERIAL FROM MANU FACTURING FACILITY TO THE STORAGE TANKS AND INTER SE . FURTHER ACCORDING TO HIM, CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TELESCOPING OF THE UNACCOU NTED INCOME ITA. 138, 139, 143,144 /MDS/12 M.ARUN & M/S.KALEESUWARI REFINERY 8 ESTIMATED OUT OF DEFICIT STOCK AGAINST THE VALUE OF EXCESS STOCK. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT SET OFF OF OPENING SURPLUS STOCK FOUND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8-09 WITH THAT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH ANY NEXUS BETWEEN SURPLUS AND DEFICIT STOCK, CIT(A) HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR TELESCOPING. 8. PER CONTRA, LD. A.R STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE OR DERS OF THE CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT MAJOR ITEM OF MANUFACTURE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS EDIBLE SUNFLOWER OIL. ACCORDING TO HIM, CRUD E SUN FLOWER OIL WAS IMPORTED FOR THIS PURPOSE. IMPORTED CRUDE SUN F LOWER OIL CAME THROUGH BIG TANKERS AND PRACTICALLY, IT WAS DI FFICULT TO EARMARK VARIOUS TANKS SEPARATELY FOR EACH CONCERN. ACCORDING TO HIM, SHRI ARUN, WHO WAS THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S.ARU N OIL TRADE AND M/S.GMS TRADERS, WAS HOLDING 80% OF THE SHARES IN A SSESSEE- COMPANY AND WAS ALSO ITS DIRECTOR. BOTH THESE CONC ERNS WERE ALSO ENGAGED IN TRADING OF EDIBLE OILS. M/S.ARUN OI L TRADE WAS ALSO GETTING OIL MANUFACTURED THROUGH ASSESSEES RE FINERY BY WAY OF JOB WORK. IT WAS NOT PRACTICAL TO KEEP THE RAW O IL AS WELL AS FINISHED OIL SEPARATELY IN DIFFERENT TANKS DUE TO T HE NATURE OF THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE OF EDIBLE OILS. WHEN PARTIC ULAR PRODUCT ITA. 138, 139, 143,144 /MDS/12 M.ARUN & M/S.KALEESUWARI REFINERY 9 OUTPUT WAS COMING FOR STORAGE, IT WAS NOT ALWAYS PO SSIBLE TO CLEAR THE DEMARCATED TANK AND LOAD IT SEPARATELY, B ECAUSE THAT WOULD ENTAIL SUBSTANTIAL EXPENSES. IN THE NATURE O F BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE, WHEN ALL THE THREE CONCERNS WERE DOING TH E SAME WORK, IT WAS NOT PRACTICAL TO KEEP STOCK INDIVIDUAL LY EARMARKED. JUST BECAUSE THE ACCOUNTS OF THE THREE CONCERNS WER E KEPT SEPARATELY, IT WILL NOT BE SAFE TO PRESUME THAT S TOCK IN ITS PHYSICAL FORM WAS ALSO KEPT IN A DEMARCATED MANNER. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM LD. CIT(A) HAD TAKEN A PRACTICAL VIEW CONSIDERING ALL THE THREE CONCERNS TOGETHER FOR WO RKING OUT THE DEFICIT AND SURPLUS STOCK. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE, M/S.ARUN OIL AND M/S.GMS TRADERS WERE FUNCTIONING I N THE SAME PREMISES. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES FROM WHICH ALL THE THREE CONCERNS WERE WORKING. THEREFORE, PHYSICAL STOCK AS FOUND AT THE POINT OF SEARCH, NAMELY ON 16.07.08 COULD HAVE BEEN THAT OF ALL THE THREE C ONCERNS ONLY. IT MIGHT BE TRUE THAT ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED SEPAR ATE ACCOUNT BOOKS FOR EACH CONCERN AND HAD DEMARCATED PHYSICAL STORAGE TANKS. HOWEVER, THERE IS MUCH FORCE IN THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ITA. 138, 139, 143,144 /MDS/12 M.ARUN & M/S.KALEESUWARI REFINERY 10 ASSESSEE THAT PRACTICALLY IT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN PO SSIBLE TO KEEP THE STOCK OF RAW MATERIAL AND STOCK OF FINISHED GOO DS SEPARATELY EARMARKED. WHEN IMPORTED RAW OIL WAS RECEIVED, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY TO LOAD IT IN TANKS ACCORDING TO THE AVAILABLE CAPACITIES OF THE TANKS, IGNORING THE SPECIFIC NAME S GIVEN ON THE TANK. NO PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WOULD IN SUCH SITUATIO N, CLEAR A TANK OR RETURN THE IMPORTED OIL FOR WANT OF SPACE I N AN EARMARKED TANK. PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY IS THAT STOCK COULD HAVE BEEN MIXED UP. THIS IS THE SAME, WHETHER IT WAS FOR WORK ING OUT THE STOCK DISCREPANCIES AS ON 31.03.08 AND AS ON 16.07. 08. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONSIDERED EACH CONCERN SEPAR ATELY FOR WORKING OUT THE DEFICIT/SURPLUS STOCK IGNORING GROU ND REALITIES OF A BUSINESS. INSOFAR AS PROFIT OF 10% TAKEN ON DEFIC IT STOCK IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO PARTIES. THUS, IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN TAKING A G LOBAL VIEW FOR MAKING THE ANALYSIS OF DEFICIT/SURPLUS, I.E., CONS IDERING THE STOCK OF ALL THE THREE CONCERNS TOGETHER. NO DOUBT, THE D EFICIT AND SURPLUS WERE CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION IN THE HANDS O F ASSESSEE ONLY, THOUGH THERE WERE THREE CONCERNS WORKING FROM SAME PREMISES. BUT IN PRACTICAL SITUATION, THIS MIGHT H AVE BEEN THE ONLY POSSIBLE METHOD FOR RESOLVING THE ISSUE. PRACTICAL LIMITATIONS OF BUSINESS FUNCTIONING HAS TO BE GIVEN ITS OWN IMPORT ANCE, AND THIS ITA. 138, 139, 143,144 /MDS/12 M.ARUN & M/S.KALEESUWARI REFINERY 11 MIGHT NOT BE ALWAYS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS USED. ONCE 10% OF THE DEFICIT STOCK IS TAKEN AS PR OFIT, NO DOUBT SUCH AMOUNT WILL BE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE EXCESS STOCK, AT LEAST TO THAT EXTENT. IN OUR OPIN ION, LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE TELESCOPING OF THE PR OFIT ON DEFICIT STOCK WITH THE EXCESS STOCK. SIMILARLY ONCE EXCESS STOCK WAS DETERMINED AND ADDED FOR A.Y.2008-09, SUCH EXCESS S TOCK WOULD BE AVAILABLE IN THE OPENING FOR THE NEXT YEAR. THE REFORE, EXCESS STOCK WORKED FOR A.Y.2009-10 HAS NECESSARILY TO E XCLUDE THE EXCESS STOCK ADDITION MADE FOR A.Y.2008-09. WE CANN OT FAULT THIS VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) EITHER. WE ARE OF THE OPI NION THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CANNOT BE DISTURBED. APPEALS FOR BOTH THE YEARS ARE DISMISSED. 10. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEALS OF M.ARUN, DIRECTO R, FOR RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. AS MENTIONED ABOVE, A SSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED EACH OF THE CONCERN SEPARATELY. MR. ARUN WAS PROPRIETOR OF M/S.ARUN OIL TRADE AND M/S.GMS TRADE RS. SURPLUS/DEFICIT IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO CONCERNS WE RE CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION SEPARATELY IN RESPECTIVE YEARS. IN TH E CASE OF M/S.KALEESURWARI REFINERY PVT LTD., WE HAVE HELD SU RPLUS/DEFICIT WAS RIGHTLY CONSIDERED BY CIT(A) TAKING THE AGGREGA TE OF ALL THE ITA. 138, 139, 143,144 /MDS/12 M.ARUN & M/S.KALEESUWARI REFINERY 12 CONCERNS TOGETHER. WE HAVE ALSO HELD THAT IN SUCH PRACTICAL SITUATION IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE CIT(A) TO CONS IDER THE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF M/S.KALEESURWARI REFINER Y PVT LTD.. SINCE THE ADDITIONS TO THE EXTENT SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE I.E. M/S.K ALEESURWARI REFINERY PVT LTD. IN FULL, THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR AN Y FURTHER ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF SHRI M.ARUN SEPARATELY. LD. CIT(A) HAD TAKEN A CORRECT VIEW ON THIS MATTE R AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE HANDS OF SHRI M.ARUN. W E DO NOT FIND ANY REASONS TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A ). THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE, IN THE CASE OF SHRI M.ARUN, ARE ALS O DISMISSED. 11. TO SUMMARISE, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 24 TH JANUARY,2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (V.DURGA RAO) (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED 24 TH JANUARY, 2013. K S SUNDARAM COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE ITA. 138, 139, 143,144 /MDS/12 M.ARUN & M/S.KALEESUWARI REFINERY 13 ITA. 138, 139, 143,144 /MDS/12 M.ARUN & M/S.KALEESUWARI REFINERY 14