ACIT, Bangalore V. Shri B.S.hivaram, Bangalore

ITA 15/BANG/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0670 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2009
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JASON P BOAZ
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 153A; 131; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.15/BANG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), BANGALORE. : APPELLANT VS. SHRI B.S. SHIVARAM, NO.285/6, 11 TH MAIN, MANDYA HOUSE, PADMANABHANAGAR, BANGALORE. : RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI JASON P. BOAZ RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SACHIN KUMAR O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-VI, BANGALORE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 05-06 . 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SIX GROUNDS, OUT OF WHICH , GROUND NOS:1 AND 6 ARE BEING GENERAL AND NO SPECIFIC ISSUES INVO LVED, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THEY ARE NON-CONSEQUENTIAL AND , ACCORDINGLY, ITA NO.15/BANG/ 2009 PAGE 2 OF 9 DISMISSED AS SUCH. IN THE REMAINING GROUNDS, THE S UBSTANCE AND ESSENCE OF THE ISSUE IS LARGELY CONFINED TO THE CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE EXCESS OF ASSETS OVER LIABILITIES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ROI, AM OUNTING TO RS.64.22 LAKHS EXPLAINS THE CASH PAYMENT OF RS.1.16 CRORES. 3. THE HISTORY OF THE ISSUE, IN BRIEF, IS THAT THE ASSESSEES PREMISES WERE SUBJECTED TO ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON 13.4 .2005 AND IN COMPLIANCE TO A NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DT: 7.6.06 REQUESTED THE AO THAT THE ROI FILED ON 24.3.06 BE T REATED AS THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSEES ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO WENT AHEAD BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1.16 CRORES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH PAYMENT. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE ISSUE BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR REDRESSAL. AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTION PUT-FO RTH BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS IN THE NATURE OF AN EXPLANATORY NOTE, THE LD. C IT(A) WAS OF THE FIRM VIEW THAT 8. I FIND STRENGTH IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENT OF THE A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. EARLIER I HAVE POINTED OUT THAT ST ATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE I.T.ACT HAS THE BENEFIT OF STATUT ORY PRESUMPTION OF TRUTHFULNESS UNLESS REFUTED TO BE UNTRUE. DEPARTME NT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE BOOKS REM AINED TO BE UP- DATED AND COMPLETE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH BECAUSE OF UNTIMELY LEAVING OF SERVICE BY THE CONCERNED ACCOUNT (SIC) A CCOUNTANT, AS UNTRUE AND, THEREFORE, FURTHER CONSEQUENTIAL INFERE NCE BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT SUCH ACTION OF THE APPELLANT WAS IN TENTIONAL CANNOT BE GIVEN EFFECT. BESIDES, THE ACTION OF THE APPELL ANT TO DISCLOSE RS.6422649/- ON OWN VOLITION AFTER UP-DATING OF ITS ACCOUNTS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS, I FIND, ENOUGH TO TAK E CARE OF THE SUPPOSED ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED SOURCE OF CASH PAYMENT OF RS.1.16 CRORES. HENCE, THE ADDITION IS DELETED ITA NO.15/BANG/ 2009 PAGE 3 OF 9 5. DISILLUSIONED WITH THE REASONING OF THE CIT (A), THE REVENUE HAS COME UP WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE FORCEFUL ARGU MENT OF THE REVENUE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, IS SUMMARIZED AS UNDER : (I) THE LD. CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD TAKEN A PLEA AT THE TIME OF STATEMENT U/S 132(4) IT SELF THAT THE ACCOUNTANT HAD LEFT THEM. THE ASSESSEE, IN FACT, H AD ONLY EXPLAINED THE DEFICIT CASH TOWARDS WITHDRAWALS BY P ARTNERS FOR ACQUISITION OF PERSONAL ASSETS IN THE STATEMENT GIV EN U/S 132(4); (II) THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT TH E ASSESSEE ONLY LATER ON DURING POST SEARCH INVESTIGATION HAD TAKEN A STAND THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT UP-DATED AS ON THE D ATE OF SEARCH SINCE THE ACCOUNTANT HAD LEFT THEM. THUS, THE ONUS OF PROOF REGARDING THE ACCOUNTANTS ABSENCE LIES WITH THE AS SESSEE WHICH HE COULD NOT PROVE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S; (III) THE CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE EXCESS OF ASSETS OVER LIABILITIES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ROI AMO UNTING TO RS.64.22 LAKHS EXPLAINS THE CASH PAYMENT OF RS.1.16 CRORES. HE SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD NOT EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF INCOME OF RS.64.22 LAKHS THOUGH A SPECIFIC QUESTION WAS PUT T O HIM. THERE WAS NO CORRELATION TO THE EXCESS OF ASSETS OVER LIA BILITIES DECLARED AND THE CASH PAYMENT MADE ON DIFFERENT DATES FOR TH E LAND OF PREFAB INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD; AND (IV) THE CIT(A) HAD FURTHER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THESE CASH PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ACQUIRING SHARE IN THE LAN D FROM PREFAB INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD CAN BE TREATED AS INCLUDED IN T HE ASSETS WHILE DETERMINING THE EXCESS OF ASSETS OVER LIABILITIES, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SAID DETAILS BEF ORE THE AO. 5.1. TO BUTTRESS HIS ARGUMENT, THE LD. D.R. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, HAD, IN FACT, FURNISHED A PAPER BOOK (COMBINED IN THE CASES OF THE ASSESSEE AND GOPAL REDDY) CONTAINING 1 42 PAGES W HICH CONSIST OF, INTER ALIA, COPIES OF (I) APPRAISAL REPORT, (II) & (III) ASSESSEES REPLIES, (IV) STATEMENT U/S 131 OF THE ACT ETC., ITA NO.15/BANG/ 2009 PAGE 4 OF 9 6. ON HIS PART, THE LD. A.R CAME UP WITH HIS SPIRIT ED ARGUMENT WHICH IS SUMMARIZED AS BELOW: (I) DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, THERE WAS DIFFERENCE IN CASH BALANCE AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND PHYSICAL C ASH BALANCE AS PER BOOKS THE CASH BALANCE WAS RS.36203164/- WHEREA S THE PHYSICAL CASH WAS RS.32125/-. IT WAS EXPLAINED IN SWORN STA TEMENT ON OATH THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO VARIOUS PARTIES IN A SSESSEES INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS ADVANCES TOWARDS PURCHASE OF HOUSE CONSTRUCTION, MATERIAL ADVANCE, LAND LEVELING ETC., AMOUNTING TO RS.2.66 CRORES; (II) DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS MADE CLE AR THAT THE CASH DEFICIT EXPLAINED DURING THE RECORDING OF SWORN STA TEMENT WAS OUT OF VAGUE MEMORY, STRESS AND CONFUSION. A STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS EXPLAINING THE ASSETS AND SOURCES THEREOF WAS FURNI SHED BEFORE THE AO; (III) ON CERTAIN QUERIES RAISED BY THE AO DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS EXPLAINED VIDE LETTER DT: 4.7.0 5 THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.53224400/- WAS PAID TOWARDS ACQUIRING LAND FROM M/S. PREFAB INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES (P) LTD. AND TO REDDY AND KHA N WHO WERE THE AGREEMENT HOLDERS OF PURCHASE OF LAND. THE SOURCES FOR PAYMENTS WERE ALSO DULY EXPLAINED IN THE SAID LETTER WHICH I S FINDING A PLACE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE AO ON PAGES 9 AND 10; (IV) WITH REGARD TO A QUERY WHETHER SUCH PAYMENTS WERE R ECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT SUCH ENTRIE S COULD NOT BE MADE IN THE BOOKS AS THE REGULAR STAFF WORKING HAD LEFT THE ORGANIZATION AND THE NEWLY RECRUITED STAFF TOOK LON G TIME TO GET FAMILIARIZED WITH THE ACCOUNTS AND AS SUCH INTER-UN IT ACCOUNTS WERE NOT RECONCILED, BANK ACCOUNTS COULD NOT BE RECONCIL ED AND THE PARTNERS DRAWINGS WERE ALSO COULD NOT BE ACCOUNTED FOR, AS A RESULT OF WHICH, THERE WAS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CASH ACCOUNTED FOR IN TALLY AND THE ACTUAL CASH BALANCE; (V) THE ASSESSEE GROUP FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF INVEST MENT MADE TO M/S. PREFAB INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES PVT. LTD. OF RS.5.32 C RORES FOR PURCHASE OF LAND IN BASAPURA VILLAGE DURING THE FY 04-05, OU T OF WHICH RS.1.16 CRORES WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE; (VI) HOWEVER, THE AO TOOK A VIEW THAT THE CASH PAYMENTS OF RS.1.16 CRORES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON DIFFERENT DATES WER E NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISBELIEVI NG THE REASONS ADDUCED FOR NOT HAVING UP-DATED THE ACCOUNTS, HE C ONCLUDED THAT THE ITA NO.15/BANG/ 2009 PAGE 5 OF 9 ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO SATISFACTORILY EX PLAIN THE CASH PAYMENTS AND THAT THE INVESTMENT OF RS.1.16 CRORES WAS CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME; (VII) THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES HAVE INCREASED MANY-FOLD DU RING THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER DISPUTE AND THEIR CONCERNS ENGAGED IN DI FFERENT PROJECTS OF FORMATION AND SALE OF RESIDENTIAL SITES IN LAYOU TS UNDER VARIOUS MONTHLY SCHEMES OF FIVE YEARS PERIOD AND WERE ACTI VELY ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION LINE OF BUSINESS FOR THE LAST TWO YEAR S; (VIII) SINCE THE PARTNERS WERE CONCENTRATING ON THE VARIOU S PROJECTS UNDER TAKEN BY THEIR CONCERNS, THE MAINTENANCE OF THEIR A CCOUNTS AND ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS WERE LEFT WITH THE MERCY OF THEI R ACCOUNTING STAFF; (IX) THE ACCOUNTING STAFF WHO WERE WITH THE ASSESSEES C ONCERN FOR A LONG TIME HAVE DESERTED THE ORGANIZATION EN-MASSE ABRUP TLY WHICH LEFT THE ORGANIZATION TO COPE UP WITH THE NEW RECRUITS W HO WERE NOT FULLY EQUIPPED TO HANDLE THE ENORMOUS TRANSACTIONS BEING PURSUED WHICH CONTRIBUTED NOT UP-DATING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DIFFERENCES IN CASH BALANCE DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION; - THE VERY FACT WAS EXPLAINED WHILE RECORDING THE STA TEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE ON OATH AS WELL AS DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; - DUE TO THE INEXPERIENCED ACCOUNTING STAFF WERE HAND LING THE ACCOUNTS, EVEN THE BANK TRANSACTIONS ALSO COULD NOT BE RECONCILED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH; - ANOTHER FACTOR WHICH HAD ADDED CONFUSION THAT THE RE WAS A COMMON CASH SECTION WHICH HANDLED THE RECEIPT AND P AYMENT TRANSACTIONS OF ALL THEIR CONCERNS. AS THERE WAS N O SEPARATE CASH TILL FOR EACH UNIT, THE ENTIRE CASH OF ALL THEIR UN ITS WERE MAINTAINED BY THE CASHIER WITH ONE CASH TILL; - IT WAS THE PRACTICE TO DRAW AD-HOC AMOUNTS OUT OF T HE CENTRALIZED CASH WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENTRY IN ANY OF THEIR UNITS AS IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO ACCOUNT THE SAME AS THE SAID CASH WAS BEING SPENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MORE THAN ONE UNIT. IT WOULD BE RA THER DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY THE PARTICULAR AD-HOC AMOUNT DRAWN WITH A PARTICULAR UNIT BOOK OF ACCOUNTS. WHEN THE PAYMENT VOUCHER WA S SUBMITTED BY THE CONCERNED STAFF, THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE WAS BOOKED IN THE RESPECTIVE UNITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BASED ON THE VOU CHERS; (X) THE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE PARTNERS BOTH FOR THEIR JOINT AS WELL AS INDIVIDUAL INVESTMENTS WERE NOT ENTERED IN THE BOOKS IMMEDIATELY. THE PARTNERS DRAWINGS WERE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE ITA NO.15/BANG/ 2009 PAGE 6 OF 9 BOOKS ONLY WHEN SUCH DRAWINGS WERE APPROVED BY ALL THE PARTNERS CLASSIFYING HOW MUCH AMOUNT SHOULD BE DEBITED TO WH ICH PARTNER ETC., AFTER WHICH, THE DRAWINGS OF THE PARTNERS WE RE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT; - AS THE PARTNERS WERE FULLY INVOLVED THEMSELVES WITH THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS, MANY OF SUCH CASH WITHDRAWALS BY THE PA RTNERS COULD NOT BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ACCOUNTING STAFF WHICH CONTRIBUTED A HYPOTHETICAL DIFFERENCE IN CASH BALANCE AS ON THE D ATE OF SEARCH; - DUE TO NON-RECONCILIATION OF INTER-UNITS ACCOUNTS, BANK BALANCES, NON-ACCOUNTING OF PARTNERS DRAWINGS WHICH CONTRIBUT ED VAST CASH BALANCES IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BUT, AS A MATTE R OF FACT THE ACTUAL CASH BALANCE WAS MUCH LESS WHEN THE SEARCH O PERATION TOOK PLACE; (XI) WHEN THE STATEMENTS OF THE PARTNERS WERE BEING RECO RDED ON OATH, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN POSTED WITH THE FACTS AND AMOUN TS INVESTED IN VARIOUS PROJECTS, THAT THE PARTNERS WERE RATHER FOR CED TO REVEAL WHATEVER CAME TO THEIR MINDS WHICH CANNOT BE CONSTR UED AS THE ACTUAL FACTS; (XII) DUE TO STRESS AND THE CONFUSION PREVAILED DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, HAVING BEEN UNDER TREMENDOUS PRESSURE, T HEY HAVE GIVEN CERTAIN DETAILS OUT OF VAGUE MEMORY WITH REGARD TO THEIR INVESTMENTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE CASH BALANCE DIFFERENCE; & (XIII) THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE SINCE BEEN UP-DATED WITH REFERENCE TO THE VARIOUS INVESTMENTS, THERE WAS NO HUGE CASH BALANCE AS ATTRIBUTED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION. 6.1. TO DRIVE HOME HIS POINT, THE LD. A.R CAME UP W ITH A VOLUMINOUS PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 1- 150 PAGES WHICH CONSIST OF INTER-ALIA, COPIES OF (I) ABSTRACT OF ASSETS SHOWN IN THE B/S, (II) FINANCI AL STATEMENTS OF ASSESSEE, (III) LEDGER COPIES OF THE ASSESSEE, (IV) STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME, BALANCE SHEET, P & L ACCOUNT, CASH FLOW STATEMENT ETC., 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS. ALSO GONE THROUGH TH E EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE EITHER PARTY IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOKS ETC. , ITA NO.15/BANG/ 2009 PAGE 7 OF 9 7.1. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT, DURING THE COURS E OF ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT BY THE REVENUE, THERE WAS A HUGE DIFFERE NCE OF CASH BALANCE WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, ATTRIBUTED TO NON -UPDATING OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE VERY FACT HAS NOT BEEN DENIED BY TH E REVENUE. HOWEVER, THE AO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED B Y THE ASSESSEE, HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN UP-DATING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND INCLUSION OF CASH PAYMENTS IS CLEARLY AN AFTER THOUGHT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE PHYSICAL CASH SHORTAGE OF THE GROU P CONCERNS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH COUPLED WITH THE CASH PAYMENTS MADE INVE STING IN LAND OF PREFAB INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES PVT. LTD. THEREFORE, IT IS TO BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN POSSESSION OF CASH AMOUNTS OF RS.21 LAKHS ON 5.8.04, RS.50 LAKHS ON 14.8.04; RS.26 LAKHS ON 14.9.04 AND RS.19 LAKHS ON 14.11.04 PUT TOGETHER RS.1,16,00,000/- AS PER ITS RECORDED/K NOWN TRANSACTIONS AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. HE HAS PAID THESE AMOUNTS FROM THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME. HENCE, THE INVESTMENT OF RS.1,16,00,000/- ON THE AB OVE SAID DATES FOR THE LAND IN M/S. PREFAB INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES PVT. LTD IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED TO THE INCOME RETURNED. 7.2. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE REASONING OF THE LD.CIT (A) WAS THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE CLAIM OF THE APP ELLANT THAT THE BOOKS REMAINED TO BE UP-DATED AND COMPLETE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH BECAUSE OF UNTIMELY LEAVING OF SERVICE BY THE CONCERNED ACCOUN TANT, AS UNTRUE AND, THEREFORE, FURTHER CONSEQUENTIAL INFERENCE BY THE D EPARTMENT THAT SUCH ACTION OF THE APPELLANT WAS INTENTIONAL CANNOT BE G IVEN EFFECT TO. ITA NO.15/BANG/ 2009 PAGE 8 OF 9 7.3. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAD NOT REFUTED WITH ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT UP-DATED WHICH HAD RESULTED IN A H YPOTHETICAL SITUATION OF A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN CASH BALANCE BETWEEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND PHYSICAL CASH BALANCE ON HAND ON THE DATE OF SEARCH . WE HAD HAD A GLANCE OF THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME WHICH ACCOM PANIED THE ROI FURNISHED FOR THE AY UNDER DISPUTE, [ON PAGES 19 22 OF PB AR] UNDER THE CAPTION 4.1. EXCESS OF ASSETS OVER LIABILITIES RS.6422849 , WHICH CLEARLY EXPLAINED THE CASH PAYMENT OF RS.1.16 CRORE S. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE [ON PAGE 23 OF PB AR], THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED A PROFIT OF RS.18034668/- AND T HE INVESTMENT OF RS.1.16 CRORES [CONCORDE HITECH CITY PVT. LTD. LA ND PAYMENT] ON THE ASSETS SIDE. SINCE, THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FROM T HE KNOWN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE WAS IN POSSESSIO N OF CASH ON THE DATES OF SUCH PAYMENTS AGGREGATING TO RS.1,16,00,00 0/-, IT CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED THAT THESE AMOUNTS HAD ORIGINATED FROM T HE UNEXPLAINED SOURCE/INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS MADE OUT BY THE RE VENUE. IN ESSENCE, WHEN THE SURVEY HAD TAKEN PLACE, THE ASSESSEE WAS P LACED IN A PRECARIOUS SITUATION AS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT UP-DATED DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE ACCOUNTING STAFFS HAVE LEFT HIS ORGANIZATION ABRUPT LY. THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CONTRADICTED BY THE REVENUE W ITH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 7.4. IN AN OVERALL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ISSUE, WE ARE OF THE UNANIMOUS VIEW THAT THE LD.CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HIS ITA NO.15/BANG/ 2009 PAGE 9 OF 9 FINDING WHICH REQUIRES NO INTERFERENCE AT THIS STAG E. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K. ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R BANGALORE, DATED, THE 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. DS/- COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE (1+1) BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.