M/s. Tirupati Sponge & Steel, Raniganj V. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Asansol, Kolkata

ITA 1620/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6420 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANKAR HALDER JCITSRDR
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 68

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1554 & 1620 / KOL / 20 14 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(1), PARMAR BUILDIGN, 54, G.T. ROAD, APCAR GARDEN (WEST), ASANSOL- 713304 M/S TIRUPATI SPONGE & STEEL, 164, DR. B. BANERJEE ROAD, SCHOOL PARA, P.O. RANIGANJ, DIST. BURDWAN PIN-713304 [ PAN NO.AADFT 51000 B ] V/S . M/S TIRUPAT SPONGE & STEEL, 164, DR. B. BANERJEE ROAD, SCHOOL PARA, P.O. RANIGANJ, DIST. BURDWAN PIN- 713304 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), 54, G.T. ROAD, APCAR GARDEN (WEST), ASANSOL /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE NONE /BY REVENUE SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 13-03-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08-05-2019 / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE HAVE FILED THEIR INSTANT C ROSS-APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ARISE AGAINST THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ASANSOLS COMMON ORDER ALL DATED 03.06.2 014 PASSED IN CASE NO. 153/C.I.T(A)/ASL/WD-3(1)/ASL/2009-10, INVOLVING PRO CEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. CASE(S) CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARS AT THE ASSESSEE S BEHEST. IT IS ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDED EX PARTE. ITA NO. 1554 & 1620/KOL/2014 A.Y.2007-08 ITO WD-3(1), ASL VS. M/S TIRUPAT SPONGE & STEE L PAGE 2 2. WE COME TO REVENUES APPEAL FIRST RAISING SOLE S UBSTANTIVE GROUND SEEKING TO CHALLENGE CORRECTNESS OF THE CIT(A)S OR DER DELETING UNDISCLOSED LIABILITY ADDITION OF 83,59,885/-. THE ASSESSMENT FINDINGS MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION READ AS UNDER:- 1. ON COMPARISON OF PRODUCTION VIS--VIS ELECTRICIT Y CONSUMPTION, IT IS FOUND THAT PRODUCTION IS NOT DECLARED TO THE EXTENT OF MA XIMUM PRODUCTIVITY LEVEL WHILE ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION SHOWING A STEADY RATE. A N ANALYSIS OF PER CONSUMPTION WITH PRODUCTIVITY SUGGESTS THAT WITH TH E USE OF THAT POWER THE PRODUCTIVITY WOULD BE MUCH HIGHER. AS POWER ACTUALL Y CONSUMED THEREFORE NO QUESTION OF CESSATION OF PRODUCTION ARISE. THE RATI O OF PRODUCTION SHOULD BE REFLECTED REASONABLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION. CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE OF MINIMUM GUARANTEE OF BILL AMOUNT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS BILLS WERE RAISED BY DVC ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL CONSUMPTI ON OF POWER AS REFLECTED IN THE MONTHLY BILL. FOR EXAMPLE, ELECTRIC BILL RAI SED FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST, 2006 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.31,66,369. THE DETAILS OF ELECTRIC BILLS ARE GIVEN BELOW- BILL FOR THE MONTH SUPPLY HOURS TOTAL KVAH GROSS BILL AMOUNT (IN RS) PRODUCTION OF NON ALLOY STEEL INGOT AS PER ASSESSEES BOOK (IN TON) MARCH, 2006 724.42 5,59,800 20,27,795 NIL APRIL 720 9,18,300 28,87,322 306.00 MAY 744 8,64,600 27,12,110 341.350 JUNE 707.92 8,06,300 25,70,646 284.330 JULY 730.62 9,29,000 28,45,270 302.410 AUGUST 728.05 10,87,600 31,66,369 274.940 SEPTEMBER 703.809, 80,300 29,64,452 246.070 OCTOBER 737.10 727.900 24,14,772 246.670 NOVEMBER 21,77,721 126.550 DECEMBER 6,43,365 NIL JANUARY, 2007 19,87,011 NIL UPTO 12 TH FEBRUARY, 2008 2,78,100 NIL TOTAL BILLS AMOUNT EXCLUDING BILL OF MARCH, 06 & OTHER CHARGES/MINIMUM GUARANTEE AGREEMENT CHARGE 2,46,47,138 2128.32 TONS FROM THE ABOVE TABLE, FOLLOWING DISCREPANCIES ARE F OUND- ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE DISCREPANCIES, ASSESSEE WAS A SKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY NOT THE PRODUCTION AND SALE WOULD NOT BE DET ERMINED BY ESTIMATING ITA NO. 1554 & 1620/KOL/2014 A.Y.2007-08 ITO WD-3(1), ASL VS. M/S TIRUPAT SPONGE & STEE L PAGE 3 LOGICALLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE SIMILAR CASES. IN R ESPONSE, SHRI MAJOJ SARAF (PARTNER) STATED IN HIS COMPLIANCE IN THIS WAY WE DENY THE ADDITIONAL LIABILITY AS SHOWN BY DVC, ELECTRICITY WHICH WE HAVE CONSUMED HAS BEEN PAID IN FULL. DVC HAS RAISED BILLS EVEN OF THOSE PERIOD DURING WH ICH OUR FACTORY WAS CLOSED. HOWEVER, GROSS BILL RAISED BY DVC AS PER T HE CONTRACT WITH THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE DIFFERENCE OF BILLS RAISED AND BILLS PAID IS TREATED A LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, RS.83,59,885 IS TREATED A UNDISCLOSED LI ABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, RS.83,59,885 IS INCLUDED IN THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. 3. MR. CHOUDHURY VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS DURING THE COU RSE OF HEARING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY MADE THE IMPUGNED UNDISCLOSED LIABILITY ADDITION DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. HIS CASE IS THAT M/S DEMADOR VALLY CORPORATION HAD RAISED THE IMPUGNED ACTUAL POWER CO NSUMPTION BILL NOT DISCLOSED AT THE ASSESSEES BEHEST IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WE FIND NO MERIT IN REVENUES INSTANT ARGUMENT AS IT HAS COME ON RECORD AS PER CIT(A)S FINDINGS UNDER CHALLENGE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOWHERE CLAIM ED THE IMPUGNED LIABILITY AS AN EXPENDITURE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME COMPONENT BUT A CASE HEREIN THE REVENUES EMPHASIZE IS ON AN ALLEGED LIABILITY HEAD WHICH HAS NOT BEEN RECOGNIZED AS SUCH AT THE TAXPAYERS BEHEST AS BUSINESS EXPENDITU RE. WE THEREFORE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE CIT(A)S CONCLUSION DE LETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON THIS COUNT. COUPLED WITH THIS, WE FURTHER NOTICE THAT ASSESSEE HAD SENT ITS NECESSARY INTIMATION TO M/S DVC REGARDING THE IMP UGNED LIABILITY AS NOT PAYABLE. ALL THESE CLINGING FACTS HAVE GONE UNREBUT TED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. WE THEREFORE DECLINE REVENUES INSTANT SOL E SUBSTANTIVE GROUND AS WELL AS MAIN APPEAL ITA 1544/KOL/2014. 4. NEXT COMES THE ASSESSEES CROSS-APPEAL ITA 1620/ KOL/2015 SEEKING TO DELETE TO REVERSE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION ADDING ADVANCE FROM THE CUSTOMERS AS WELL AS SUNDRY CREDITORS AMOUNT OF 3,303,632.96 AND 39,53,307; RESPECTIVELY. THE CIT(A)S DETAILED DISC USSION QUA THIS TWO ISSUES CONFIRMING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION READS AS UNDER:- 8. GROUND 3 IS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS. 3,303,632.9 6 TREATED AS INCOME UNDER SECTION 68 WHICH IS RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ASSESS EE AS 'ADVANCE FROM CUSTOMERS'. ITA NO. 1554 & 1620/KOL/2014 A.Y.2007-08 ITO WD-3(1), ASL VS. M/S TIRUPAT SPONGE & STEE L PAGE 4 IT WAS IN THE BASIS OF OUTCOME OF ENQUIRY MADE BY A SSESSING OFFICER. THE FINDINGS ARE RECORDED IN TABULAR FORM BELOW: PURPORTED AMOUNT(RS) FINDING IS ASSESSMENT ORD ER CREDITOR M/S LALANJEE 21,00,000 INITIAL NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 133(6) RETURNED BY POSTAL AUTHORITIES. SECOND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) ON BASIS OF ADDRESS GIVEN BY ASSESSEE ALSO R ETURNED BY POSTAL AUTHORITIES MORTEX INDIA 3,07,757.96 RETURNED BY POSTAL AUTHOR ITIES NARAIN & CO. 6,29,729 CONFIRMED CLOSING BALANCE OF RS.33,854 ONLY VEENITA ROLLING MILL 3,00,000 NO RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) 9. IN THE COURSE OF ENQUIRY UNDER SECTION 250(4), T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE MANNER OF RECEIPT OF FUNDS. ALL WERE FOUND TO BE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND WAS CREDITED TO ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE IN SYNDICATE BANK, RANIGANJ. THE BANK INSTRUMENT BY WHICH THE SUMS WERE RECEIVED WAS ALSO TRACED BUT FURTHER ENQUIRY MET A BLOCK AS BANKS WERE NOT ABLE TO FURNISH FURTHER INFORMATION. SIMULTANEOUSLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONDUCTED ENQUIRY ON THE PROOF ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED VIZ PROOF OF REPAYMENT TO ESTABLISH AUTHENTICITY OF THE CREDITS PRODUCED BY ASSESSEE IN FORM OF COPY OF PAY-IN-SLIPS ISSUED BY BANKS. 10. THE OUTCOME OF THE ENQUIRY MADE BY ASSESSING OF FICER IS STARTLING. THE CLAIM BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE BY ASSESSEE IS A. REPAYMENT TO M/S LALANJEE WAS MADE ON 22.09.0-9 BY DEMAND DRAFT ~. B. ACCOUNT WITH M/S MORTEX INDIA WAS SETTLED BY WAY OF SALE FOR RS. 2,039,535 AND BY WAY OF PAYMENT OF RS. 3,07,758 BY WAY OF DEM AND DRAFT C. ACCOUNT WITH M/S NARAIN & CO WAS SETTLED BY WAY OF SALE FOR RS. 1,180,271 AND BY WAY OF PAYMENT OF RS. 6,2939 BY WAY OF DEMAN D DRAFT D. ACCOUNT OF M/S VEENITA ROLLING MILL SETTLED BY W AY OF SALE MADE TO M/S TIJYA STEEL, SISTER CONCERN OF PURPORTED CREDITOR. THE ENQUIRY MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER REVEALED THAT ALL DEMAND DRAFTS WERE MADE NOT IN NAME OF THE PURPORTED CREDITOR , BUT IN NAME OF PARAMESWARI DEVI SARAF OR RAMESWARI DEVI SARAF, IMMEDIATE RELATIVES OF PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE CREDITORS CAN BE COMPARTMENTALISED IN THREE WAYS. M/S LALANJEE AND M/S MORTEX INDIA ARE ONES WHICH NEVER RESPONDED TO LETT ER ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE PROOF OF REPAYMENT SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT W AS FOUND TO BE UNAUTHENTIC AND FABRICATED. M/S NARAIN & CO IS ONE THAT HAS RESPOND ED BUT THERE IS A MISMATCH OF FIGURES. M/S VEENITA ROLLING MILL IS ONE WHERE CRED ITOR IS CLAIMED TO BE SETTLED THROUGH BOOK ADJUSTMENT. 12. THE FINDINGS IN PARAGRAPH 11 CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THE CREDIT BALANCE IN RESPECT AGAINST M/S LALANJEE AND M/S MORTEX INDIA IS NOT CO RRECT. THEREFORE THE TWO ADDITIONS STANDS SUSTAINED. 13. IN RESPECT OF M/S NARAIN & CO, FROM WHOM REPLY WAS RECEIVED, DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, EXPLANATION HAS BEEN OFFERED BEFORE AS SESSING OFFICER. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONFIRMED BALANCE AND BALANCE AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF APPELLANT BOILED DOWN TO WHETHER THE PURCHASE AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS OF M/S NARAIN & CO, WHERE A SUM OF RS. 5,95,875 IS DEBITED ON 19.10.2006 VIDE B ILL NO 62 IS TRUE OR NOT. THE APPELLANT DENIES THE SALE AND STATES THAT THE BALAN CE IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS VIZ RS. 6,29,729 WAS REPAID BY DEMAND DRAFT DATED 27.01 .2009 ISSUED THROUGH INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, RANIGANJ. HOWEVER, THE FINDING OF AS SESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAID DEMAND DRAFT .VAS NOT PURCHASED IN NAME OF M/S NARA IN & CO BUT IN NAME OF ITA NO. 1554 & 1620/KOL/2014 A.Y.2007-08 ITO WD-3(1), ASL VS. M/S TIRUPAT SPONGE & STEE L PAGE 5 PARAMESWARI DEVI SARAF RELATIVE OF ASSESSEE. THE FA CT INDUBITABLY ESTABLISHES ABSOLUTE LACK OF AUTHENTICITY WITH REGARD TO THE EX PLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT REGARDING THE CLOSING BALANCE. IN VIEW OF THIS I UP HOLD THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT MADE IN ASSESSMENT ORDER FIGURING AGAINST M/S NARAIN & CO. 14. IN RESPECT OF M/S VEENITA ROILING MILL THE INIT IAL LETTER ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 133(6) WAS NOT RESPONDED. THE EXPLANA TION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IS THAT SALE WAS MADE TO M/S TIJYA STEEL AND BY BOOK A DJUSTMENT THE BALANCE WAS CLEARED. NO DIRECT EVIDENCE ON TURNOVER WITH M/S T IJYA STEEL OR ANY CONFIRMATION FROM M/S VEENITA ROLLING MILL WAS PRODUCED. EVEN IN BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS OF APPELLANT FOR FY 2008-09, THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SALE IS CLAIMED IT I S SEEN THAT MLS TIJYA STEEL HAS OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 6,22,647 AND CLOSED BY MULTI PLE CASH RECEIPTS OF RS. 20,000 AND BELOW AND CREDIT ENTRY AGAINST M/S VEENITA ROIL ING MILL OF RS. 3,00,000. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE C LAIMED TRANSACTIONS AND THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT ANSWERED TO, I UPHOLD THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSIN G OFFICER. 15. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT FOR PU RCHASING DEMAND DRAFT IN NAMES OF RELATIVES IS THAT PARAMESWARI DEVI SARAF AND RAMESH WARI DEVI SARAF IN TURN ENCASHED THE DEMAND DRAFT AND PAID THE AMOUNT IN CASH TO THE PURPORTED CREDITORS. THIS EXPLANATION MERELY REMAINS AS AN EX PLANATION WITH NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND STANDS UNSUBSTANTIATED. THE FACT THAT DEMAND DRAFT WAS PURCHASED BY FABRICATING RECORDS I.E BY HAVING A DIFFERENT NAME IN PAY-IN-SLIP AND PRODUCING THE SAME BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(APPEALS) AIME D AT DIVERTING ATTENTION TO HARD FACTS GOES AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE NEW EXPL ANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT ACCEPTED. THE DECISION IN PARAGRAPHS 12,13 A ND 14 DISPOSES OF GROUND 3. IT IS DISMISSED . 16. GROUND 4 IS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS. 3,953,307 B EING SUMS TREATED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AS BOGUS SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE ASSESSING OF FICER MADE A FINDING THAT PERSONS 1 TO 6 HAS NOT RESPONDED TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 13 3(6) ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND - HAS CONFIRMED THAT THERE IS NO OUTSTANDING BA LANCE IN THEIR BOOKS AS ON 31.3.2007. -------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- SL.NO. PURPORTED CREDITOR SUM(RS) -------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- 1. ARVIND INDUSTREIS 1,37,000 2. CONCAST BENGAL STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD 6,34,416 3. B.P. SPRING & ENGG. CO. PVT. LTD. 1,15,166 4. KALIKA STEEL TRADERS 1,52,152 5. PACHERIA CASTING GAS 4,09,846.53 6. SCRAP INDIA 17,87,479 7. SOBHA ISPAT CO 7,17,228 ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ 17. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IS THA T THE ENTIRE SUM IS REPAID BY CASH DRAFTS BETWEEN 21.11.2006 AND 31.03.2009. IN SUPPOR T EVIDENCE IN FORM OF PAY IN SLIP COPY REGARDING PURCHASE OF DEMAND DRAFT WAS PRODUCE D. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ASKED TO ENQUIRE INTO THE MATTER AND REPORT. IN HIS REPLY, MADE AFTER DUE ENQUIRY WITH CONCERNED BANK, IT WAS STATED THAT ALL DEMAND DRAFT S WERE PURCHASED NOT IN NAME OF THE PURPORTED CREDITOR BUT IN THE NAME OF PARAMESWA RI DEVI SARAF RELATIVE OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF PERSONS IN SERIAL NUMBERS 1 TO 6 OF TABLE IN PARAGRAPH 16. FURTHER AS AGAINST CLAIM OF PAYMENT BY CASH DRAFT B ELOW RS. 50,000 DEMAND DRAFTS WERE ACTUALLY RAISED IN SUMS ABOVE RS. 50,000. IN V IEW OF THE FACT THAT NOTICE UNDER ITA NO. 1554 & 1620/KOL/2014 A.Y.2007-08 ITO WD-3(1), ASL VS. M/S TIRUPAT SPONGE & STEE L PAGE 6 SECTION 133(6) WAS NEVER RESPONDED BY THE PURPORTED CREDITORS AND THE FACT THAT WHATEVER EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT ASSES SING OFFICER WAS FOUND THE UNTRUE AND FABRICATED, I UPHOLD THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 18. IN RESPECT OF MISMATCH IN CLOSING BALANCE OF M/ S SOBHA ISPAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE ME IS THAT M/S SOBH A ISPAT LTD. WRONGLY REPRESENTED ITS CASE. NO DRAFT BELOW RS. 50,000 WAS EVER ISSUED IT IT. PAYMENT WAS MADE BY BANK DRAFT OF RS. 7,17,228 AT A TIME. BANK DRAFT SLIP AN D ITS LEDGER COPY ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH .... HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ENQ UIRY FOUND THAT THE DEMAND DRAFT PURCHASED FROM INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK ON 19.11.2008 F OR RS.7,17,228 IS NOT IN NAME OF THE PURPORTED CREDITED BUT IN NAME OF PARAMESWAR I DEVI SARAF RELATIVE OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WHATEVER EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. HENCE I UPHOLD T HE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. 19. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT FOR PU RCHASING DEMAND DRAFT IN NAMES OF RELATIVES IS THAT PARAMESWARI DEVI SARAF IN TURN EN CASHED THE DEMAND DRAFT AND PAID THE AMOUNT IN CASH TO THE PURPORTED CREDIT ORS. THIS EXPLANATION MERELY REMAINS AS AN EXPLANATION WITH NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCE AND STANDS UNSUBSTANTIATED. THE FACT THAT DEMAND DRAFT WAS PUR CHASED BY FABRICATING RECORDS I.E BY HAVING A DIFFERENT NAME IN PAY-IN-SLIP AND PRODU CING THE SAME BEFORE .ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(APPEALS) AIMED AT DIVERTING ATTENTI ON TO HARD FACTS GOES AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE NEW EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT ACCEPTED. THE DECISION IN PARAGRAPHS 17 AND 18 DISPOSES OF GROUND 4 OF APPEAL. IT IS DISMISSED. 21. BY PRODUCING FABRICATED EVIDENCES BEING FORGED COPY OF BANK COUNTERFOIL CONCERNING PURCHASE OF DEMAND DRAFT, AIMED AT EVADI NG TAX, THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED GRAVE OFFENCES WARRANTING NECESSARY ACTIO N ON PART OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INCOM E TAX ACT 1961 AND OTHER PREVAILING LAWS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE AND INITIATE APPROPRIATE ACTION. 5. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO AS SESSEES PLEADINGS AND REVENUES ARGUMENTS AGAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF I MPUGNED TWIN ADDITION(S). WE FIND NO MERIT IN ASSESSEES INSTANT TWO SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS. IT HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE CLINCHING FACT TO HAVE MADE THE REPAYMENTS IN ISSUE THROUGH SMT. PARAMESWARI DEVI SARAF (SUPRA) IN RESP ECT OF THE CORRESPONDING ADVANCES CUSTOMERS AND SUNDRY CREDITORS ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT NEXUS BEFORE THE PARTIES IN ISSUE. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT THE ASSESSEES CASE THAT EITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE CIT(A ) HAD NOT AFFORDED IT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO PRODUCE ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND IN LOWER APPELLATE PROCEED INGS. WE CONCLUDE IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S HAVE RIGHTLY DECLINED ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IN PREPARING THE RELEVANT DE MAND DRAFT IN THE NAME OF ITA NO. 1554 & 1620/KOL/2014 A.Y.2007-08 ITO WD-3(1), ASL VS. M/S TIRUPAT SPONGE & STEE L PAGE 7 SMT. PARAMESWARI DEVI SARAF (SUPRA). WE ACCORDINGLY EXPRESS OUR AGREEMENT WITH BOTH THE IMPUGNED ADDITION(S) IN ENTIRETY. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO.1620/KOL/2014 ALSO FAILS. 6. THIS REVENUES APPEAL AND ASSESSEES CROSS-APPEA L ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 08/ 05/2019 SD/- SD/- ( ) (( ) (DR.A.L. SAINI) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S )- 08 / 05 /201 9 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1 . /ASSESSEE-M/S TIRUPTAT SPONGE & STEEL 164, DR. B. B ANERJEE ROAD, SCHOOL PARA P.O. RANIGANJ, D IST. BURDWAN PIN-713304 2. /REVENUE-ITO WARD-3(1), PARMAR BUILDING, 54 G.T. ROAD, APCAR GARDEN (WEST) ASANSOL-713304 3. 4 5 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 5- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 8 ((4, 4, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. = / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ 4,