ITO, Satara V. Shri Shaikh Kutubuddin Rehmqn, Satara

ITA 1568/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6723 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1568/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) ITO, WARD-2, SATARA .. APPELLANT VS. SHRI SHAIKH KUTUBUDDIN REHAMAN, 12, MUNICIPAL SHOPPING CENTRE, GURUWAR PETH, PARAJ, SATARA PAN NO.AEPPS6539H .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE REVENUE BY : SHRI S.P. WALIMBE DATE OF HEARING : 01-05-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-05-2014 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 03-01-2012 OF THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE RELATING TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF WHOLESALE AND RETAIL DIS TRIBUTOR OF STAR GUTKHA, TOBACCO, OIL, MOSQUITO COILS, VANASPATI ETC. HE FI LED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29-09-2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,44,960/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERV ED THAT AS A CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH ACTION IN THE CASE OF SANJAY GHODAWAT GROUP, A SURVEY ACTION U/S.133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 04-02-2009. ON THE BASIS OF PAPERS /DOCUMENTS ETC. IMPOUNDED DURING THE SURVEY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE IT WAS FOUND THAT THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY M/S. SHA IK TRADERS HAS MADE CASH 2 PURCHASES OF GUTKHA FROM GHODAWAT INDUSTRIES PVT. L TD. TO THE TUNE OF RS.50 LAKHS. 2.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT A LEDGER EX TRACT PERTAINING TO A PERSON, NAMELY, MR. DATTA, WHO WAS A CASHIER WORKIN G WITH THE GHODAWAT INDUSTRIES, FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY INDICATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH PURCHASES OF GUTKHA VALUING RS.24,82,196/- FROM GODAWAT INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. L TD. IN THE COURSE OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.131, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITT ED TO HAVE MADE CASH PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.50 LAKHS FROM GHODAWAT INDUSTRIES THROUGH SHRI DATTA, DURING THE PERIOD DECEMBER 2008 TO FEBRUARY 2009. NOTING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EFFECTED PURCHASES OF RS.50 LAKHS FOR THREE MONTHS DURING THE F.Y. 2008-09 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2009-10, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO EXTRAPOLATE THE SALES FOR THE CURRENT YEAR ON TH E BASIS OF SUCH UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES FOUND AND EVENTUALLY ESTIMATED THE SALES FOR THE WHOLE YEAR AT RS.2,00,00,000/-. FOR EXTRAPOLATING THE SALES FOR T HE ENTIRE YEAR, RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF H.M. ESUFALI H.M. ABDULALI REPORTED IN 90 ITR 271. HAVING ESTIMATED THE SALES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFT ER, PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE THE G.P. ON THE SAME. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE PERCENTAGE OF G.P. OVER THE PRODUCTS LIKE GUTKHA AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESS EE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS AROUND 4%. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE NORMALLY CHARGES VAT AT 12.5% ON THE AMOUNT OF SALES. HOWEV ER, NOTING THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST NOT HAVE PAID VAT ON THE UNACCOUNTED SALES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE OVERALL G.P. ON THE UNACCOUNT ED SALE OF GUTKHA AT 16.5% (4% + 12.5%). ACCORDINGLY, THE G.P. ON THE ES TIMATED UNACCOUNTED SALES OF RS.2,00,00,000/- WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.33,0 0,000/-. THE ASSESSING 3 OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO E XPLAIN THE SOURCES OF THE INVESTMENT ADMITTED TO HAVE APPLIED IN PURCHASE OF GUTKHA WORTH RS.50 LAKHS. HE, THEREFORE, ADDED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM UNACCO UNTED SOURCES, TREATING IT AS INITIAL INVESTMENT. THUS, COLLECTIVELY, ADDITIO N OF RS.83,00,000/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. BEFORE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ALLEGED SALES REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITIO NS WERE MADE BY HIM PERTAIN TO THE PERIOD 01-04-2008 TO 01-12-2008 RELA TING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND DOES NOT RELATE TO THE IMPUGNED A SSESSMENT YEAR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT REFERRED TO BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS RECORDED ON 04-02-2009 AND RELIED UPON BY HIM FOR M AKING THE ABOVE ADDITION, HAS INFACT BEEN RETRACTED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE AFFIDAVIT AND STATEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PER TAINING TO THE F.Y. 2008- 09, I.E. A.Y. 2009-10 AND THERE IS NOT EVEN A SINGL E IOTA OF EVIDENCE EXCEPT FOR THE PRESUMPTION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SIMILAR TYPES OF SUPPRESSED SALES WOULD BE THERE FOR THE EARLIER YEA RS. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX VS. H.M. ESUFALI H.M.ABDULALI IS MISPLACE D AND MISLEADING AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CORRECTLY APPRECIATIN G THE FACTS OF THAT CASE HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED SALES AND ESTIMATED GROSS PROFIT. IT WAS ARGUED THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL FOUND DU RING THE COURSE OF SURVEY RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ADDITION C ANNOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SOME PAPERS FOUND DURING THE SUBSEQUENT YE AR AND WHICH HAS BEEN RETRACTED. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE TO QUESTION N O.19 WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD.CIT(A) ACCORDING TO WHICH AT NO PO INT OF TIME THE ASSESSEE IN 4 HIS STATEMENT HAD SAID THAT HE HAS INVESTED THIS AM OUNT FROM UNACCOUNTED INCOME. 4. BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 2.3 THE ARGUMENTS CANVASSED BY THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE APPELLANT ARE CAREFULLY EXAMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE FACTUAL MA TRIX OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE CONTENTION OF THE AP PELLANT IS THAT THE ESTIMATION OF TURNOVER AND PROFITS THEREON, INVESTMENT FOR UNACCOUNTED TRADING MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THIS YEAR ON THE BASIS OF ADMISSION OF CASH PURCHASES RELATING TO THE F.Y. 2008-09 IN THE STAT EMENT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY IS ARBITRARY AND BASED ON PRESUMPTIONS AN D CONJECTURES. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE APPELLANT WAS FOUND INDULGING IN UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AND SALES IN GUTKA AND PAN MASALA DURING THE F.Y. 2008-09, AS ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AT TH E TIME OF SURVEY AND THE APPELLANT MUST HAVE CARRIED OUT SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO. BASED ON SUCH PRESUMPTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER AT RS. 2,00,00,000/- FOR THE PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS OF THIS YEAR AND PROFITS THEREON AT 16.5% OF TH E TURNOVER. BESIDES, INVESTMENT IN UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS WAS ALSO EST IMATED AT RS. 50,00,000/- AND BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. IN SUPPORT OF THIS ESTIMATION BY WAY OF EXTRAPOLATION, RELIANCE WAS PLAC ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF H.M. ESUFALI ABDULLALI REPORTED IN 90 ITR 271. THEREFORE, THE CRUCIAL POINT FOR DETERMINATION IN THE INSTANT CASE IS WHETHER IN AN ASSESSM ENT AFTER THE SURVEY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL T O ESTIMATE THE SUPPRESSION OF SALES FOR EARLIER YEARS ON THE BASIS OF THE LEDGER A/C, DIARY OR LOOSE SLIPS FOUND SHOWING UNACCOUNTED CASH PURCHASES AND SUPPRESSION OF SALES FOR A PARTICULAR PERIOD IN THE YEAR OF SURVEY. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER WAS FOUND DURING THE SURVEY OR DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO INDICATE T HAT THE APPELLANT HAD INDULGED IN SIMILAR PURCHASES AND SALES IN THIS YEA R ALSO. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FOUND DURING THE SURVEY PERTAINING TO THIS YE AR, IT IS ONLY THE PRESUMPTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE APPELLANT CARRIED OUT SIMILAR PURCHASE AND SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS EVEN IN THE EARLIER YEARS PRECEDING THE YEAR OF SURVEY. IT IS ALSO THE PRESUMPTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS ALSO, THE UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS OF THE SAME MAGNITUDE WERE CARRIED OUT AND SAME LEVEL OF PROFIT .WAS EARNED FROM SUCH TRANSACTIONS. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE BASIS AND APPROACH OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN ESTIMATING THE UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER AND PROFIT, UNACCO UNTED INVESTMENT FOR THIS YEAR ONLY ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AND ADMISSION PE RTAINING TO THE NEXT YEAR IS NOT ON A SOUND AND RATIONAL BASIS. ONE SHOULD NO T BE OBLIVIOUS TO THE FACT THAT THE PRESENT CASE IS A SURVEY CASE AND AN ASSESSMEN T, AFTER THE SURVEY STANDS ON A FOOTING DIFFERENT THAN A NORMAL ASSESSMENT. D URING THE SURVEY, FIRSTLY, NO OTHER DIARY OR LEDGER A/C OR OTHER RECOR D COMPARABLE TO THE LEDGER ACCOUNT FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 WAS FOUND BY THE SURVEY PARTY FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. SECONDLY, ON PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF THE AP PELLANT DATED 04.02.2009 RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, IT IS NOTICED THAT TH ERE IS NO GENERAL ADMISSION IN THE SWORN STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE DAY- TO-DAY SUPPRESSIONS WERE CARRIED ON EVEN IN THE EARLIER YEARS INCLUDING THE Y EAR UNDER APPEAL. THIRDLY, IF THE APPELLANT HAD ACTUALLY MADE A FORTUNE OF SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS, IF ANY, IN THE EARLIER YEARS, THE SAME MUST BE REFLECTED BY CERTAIN UNDISCLOSED ASSETS, MOVABLE OR IMMOVABLE OR EXPENDITURE AND THE SAME OUG HT TO HAVE BEEN FOUND DURING THE SURVEY. BUT, AS PER THE MATERIAL PLACED O N RECORD, NO SUCH 5 UNDISCLOSED ASSETS OR EXPENDITURE WERE FOUND DURING THE SURVEY OR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO ANY SUCH TRANSACTIONS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. 2.3.1 WHILE ESTIMATING THE TURNOVER AND PROFITS FOR T HIS YEAR, THE A.O. REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF H.M. ESUF ALI H. M. ABDULALI (90 ITR 271). IT WAS A CASE IN WHICH UNRECORDED SALES WERE DETE CTED FOR A PERIOD OF 19 DAYS IN A YEAR. IN THAT CASE, THE AO ESTIMATED THE SALE S FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR ON THE BASIS OF UNRECORDED SALES FOR THE PERIOD OF 19 DAYS. IN THAT CONTEXT, THE APEX COURT HELD THAT IN SUCH SITUATION I T WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE OFFICER TO FIND OUT PRECISELY THE TURNOVER SUPPRESSED F OR THE WHOLE YEAR AND HE COULD ONLY EMBARK ON ESTIMATING THE SUPPRESSED TURNO VER ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL BEFORE HIM, IN WHICH SOME AMOUNT OF GUE SSWORK WAS INEVITABLE. THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE ORDER ESTIMATING THE TU RNOVER. IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO THESE FACTS, IN THE PRESENT CASE, T HE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT WAS SURVEYED AND THE CONFESSION MADE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS IN RESPECT OF UNACC OUNTED CASH PURCHASES MADE IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR, WHICH WAS ALSO RETRACTED LATER. THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD OR THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT INDICA TE THAT ANY EVIDENCES SHOWING THE SUPPRESSION OF TURNOVER WERE FOUND DURING T HE SURVEY EVEN FOR A FEW DAYS OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION, THE SAID DECISION WAS RENDERED IN A DIFFERENT FACTUAL CONTEXT AND CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. POSSIBLY IN CASE OF REAL E STATE PROJECTS, ONE CAN SAY THAT IF EVIDENCE IS FOUND SHOWING ON-MONEY TRANSACT ION IN RESPECT OF ONE UNIT OF A PROJECT, THE PRESUMPTION ARISES THAT THE ASSESSE E RECEIVED ON-MONEY IN RESPECT OF OTHER UNITS OF THE SAME PROJECT SOLD IN OTHER YEARS AND THE ONUS IN SUCH CASES IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT HE HAS NOT RE CEIVED ON-MONEY IN RESPECT OF OTHER UNITS OF THE PROJECT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLANT WAS APPARENTLY NOT A REALTOR OR DEVELOPER OF REAL ESTATE PROJECTS AND HE WAS ONLY A TRADER AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME AND IN SUCH CIR CUMSTANCES THE PRESUMPTION DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THIS YEAR SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCES RELATING TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR IS NOT ON SOU ND BASIS. FOR ANY ESTIMATION OF UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER AND PROFITS TO BE MA DE FOR YEARS OTHER THAN THE YEAR OF SURVEY, THERE MUST BE SOME EVIDENCE O R MATERIAL TO INDICATE SUPPRESSION OF TURNOVER AND IT CANNOT BE DONE ON MERE SUSPICION. BUT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED WITH THE ESTIMATION CITING P REPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES THAT THE APPELLANT MUST HAVE INDULGED I N SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS ALSO. THE ESTIMATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WERE NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL BUT MERELY BASED ON HYPOTHESES. I T IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WHILE MAKING THE ESTIMATE OF PROFITS, THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF A/C OF THE YEAR UNDER SEC. 145(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. THUS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE WHATSOEVE R FOUND DURING THE SURVEY INDICATING UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES OR SUPPRESSION OF TURNOVER OR UNDISCLOSED ASSETS/EXPENDITURE FOR THIS YEAR ALSO, THE BAS IS OR THE MULTIPLICATION FORMULA ADOPTED BY THE A.O. FOR ESTIM ATING THE TURNOVER AND THE PROFITS THEREON AND THE INVESTMENT IN UNACCOUNTED TRADING ACTIVITY FOR THIS YEAR CANNOT BE APPROVED. 2.32. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, I AM OF THE CONSIDERE D VIEW THAT THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESORTING TO SUCH HYPOTHETICAL ESTIMAT ION OF TURNOVER AND PROFITS FOR THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MAD E BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.50,00,000/- IN ALLEGED U NACCOUNTED BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND THE ALLEGED PROFITS OF RS.33,00,000/- FROM ESTIMATED TURNOVER ARE HEREBY DELETED. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 SUCCEED . 6 5. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1) THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND TO THE FACTS ANDE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2) THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.33,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED NET PROFIT ON ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED TRADING IN GUTKHA. 3) THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.50,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED NET PROFIT ON ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER AND UNACCOUN TED INVESTMENT IN UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER. 4) FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER REASONS AS MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE ASSESSING O FFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.33 LAKHS BEING PROFIT ESTIMATED FROM UNACCOUNTED TRADING AND RS.50 LAKHS BEING UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE UNACCOU NTED TRADING ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SUR VEY ON 04-02-2009. ADMITTEDLY, THE SURVEY TOOK PLACE DURING F.Y. 2008- 09 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2009- 10 AND THE DOCUMENT WHICH WAS FOUND DURING THE COUR SE OF SUCH SURVEY ALSO RELATES TO A.Y. 2009-10. UNDER THIS BACKGROUND THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE M UST HAVE INDULGED IN SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS. THE ESTIMATION OF SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE INTRODUCTION OF CAPIT AL FOR SUCH SUPPRESSED TURNOVER WAS BASED ON MERE PRESUMPTIONS AND SURMISE S. NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENT/PAPER/ENTRY WAS FOUND DURING THE SURVEY TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS INDULGING IN SUCH UNACCOUNTED SALES DURING A.Y. 200 8-09. 7 6.1 IT HAS BEEN HELD IN VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS THAT PRESUMPTIONS AND SURMISES, HOWEVER STRONG MAY BE, CANNOT BE THE BASI S FOR ADDITION WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT I S AN ADMITTED FACT THAT NO DOCUMENT RELATING TO SUPPRESSED SALES OR UNACCOUNTE D PAYMENT RELATING TO A.Y. 2008-09 WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE AUDITED WERE NEITHER REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR ANY M ISTAKE WAS FOUND. THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE HANDS OF THE DEPARTMENT TO THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INDULGED IN UNACCOUNTED SALES DURING T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN VIEW OF THE DE TAILED REASONING GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A), WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER DE LETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INV ESTMENT AND UNACCOUNTED PROFIT FROM SUPPRESSED SALES. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOL D THE SAME AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06-05-2014. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (R.K. PAND A) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 06 TH MAY, 2014 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE 4. THE CIT-III, PUNE 5. THE D.R, B PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE 8