DCIT, Pondicherry V. Sri V.Jayaprakash, Pondicherry

ITA 179/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1161 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-01-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O. K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ------- ITA NO.179/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, PUDUCHERRY. V. SHRI V. JAYAPRAKASH, P/O M/S. SRI JAYAPRAKASH ROADWAYS & SRI JAYAKUMAR CATERORS, PUDUCHERRY-605 001. (PAN : AAFPJ3866Q) A N D ITA NO. 231/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SHRI V. JAYAPRAKASH, V. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER P/O M/S. SRI JAYAPRAKASH OF IN COME TAX, ROADWAYS & SRI JAYAKUMAR WARD-I(1) , CATERORS, 9, RANGAPILLAI ST., POND ICHERRY. PONDICHERRY-605 001. (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI GURU BASHYAMN, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 22.01.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.03. 2013 ITA NOS. 179 & 231/MDS/2010 : 2 : O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESS EE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)- XII, CHENNAI DATED 23-11-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN IND IVIDUAL, IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORT IN THE NAME AN D STYLE OF M/S. JAYAPRAKASH ROADWAYS INHERITED FROM HIS PARENT S AND ALSO DOING CATERING BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. JAYAKUMAR CATERERS UNDER THE BRAND HOTEL APPACHI. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 2,30,400/- AND ALSO ADMITTING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 75,000/-. 3. SUBSEQUENTLY, A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED U/S 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT' FOR SHORT). THEREA FTER BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLE TED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BY ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME AT ` 25,76,800/- AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF ` 2,30,400/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN THE NET COLLECTION BETWEEN THE AMOUNT ADMITTED IN THE INCOM E TAX RETURN AND THE COMPUTER STATEMENT ACCOUNT MAINTAINE D BY THE ITA NOS. 179 & 231/MDS/2010 : 3 : ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 8,14,285/-. WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE, IT WAS EXPLAI NED AFTER VERIFICATION OF HIS RECORDS THAT THE INCOME ADMITTE D SEPARATELY AT ` 2,98,092/- IN RESPECT OF ROUTE PONDY TO KARAYAMPUT HUR WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE DEPARTMENT WHILE ARRIVING AT THE ABOVE DIFFERENCE. IT WAS FURTHE R POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE THAT IN RESPECT OF DI ESEL EXPENSES THE AMOUNT ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS PE R COMPUTER STATEMENT SHOULD BE MORE AS DIESEL EXPENSE S FOR INSPECTION SQUAD OF VEHICLES WERE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, WHICH WOULD BE AROUND ` 45,000/-. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEES REPRE SENTATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT STILL THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF ` 4,70,000/- IN THE NET COLLECTION BETWEEN THE AMOUN T ADMITTED IN INCOME-TAX RETURN AND THE COMPUTER STAT EMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE AGRE ED FOR THIS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN NET COLL ECTION OF ` 4,70,000/- AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME WAS ADDED TO TH E TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(APPE ALS) THAT WHATEVER INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED FROM THE BUSINESS ITA NOS. 179 & 231/MDS/2010 : 4 : WAS ADMITTED IN THE RETURN. THE CIT(APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE A MOUNT OF ` 4,70,000/- ON THE DIFFERENCE IN THE NET COLLECTION ADMITTED IN THE INCOME-TAX RETURN AND THE COMPUTER ACCOUNT STAT EMENT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, HAS NOT BEEN SATISFACTO RILY PROVED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTESTE D THE SAME AND ACCORDINGLY THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. BEFORE US THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RE-ITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS WHICH HE HAD M ADE BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). HIS MAIN SUBMISSION WAS T HAT THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY VALID REASON. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE RECORD S AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF ` 4.7 LAKHS IN THE NET COLLECTION BETWEEN THE AMOUNT ADMITTED IN THE RETURN AND THE C OMPUTER ITA NOS. 179 & 231/MDS/2010 : 5 : STATEMENT OF THE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTED HAD AGREED FOR THIS ADDITION . ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION WAS MADE. THE ASSESSEE HA S RAISED OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED IN H IS ORDER THAT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY ARGUME NT IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. HOWEVER, BEFORE US THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE WITHOUT ANY RE ASON. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THERE IS A SPECIFIC FINDING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENC E BETWEEN THE INCOME RETURNED AND THE COMPUTER STATEMENT. WHE N IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTAT IVE HE ADMITTED THAT HE HAD AGREED FOR THE ADDITION. ON T HE BASIS OF THE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDIT ION AND THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(AP PEALS) WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM HIS ORDER AND DISMISS THE GROUN D OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS. 179 & 231/MDS/2010 : 6 : 8. INSOFAR AS THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ` 2,94,594/- IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IT WAS NOTICED FROM THE SWORN STATEMENT VIDE QUESTION NO.9 AT PAGE S 7 AND 8 THAT DURING THE PERIOD 01-11-2004 TO 31-03-2005 AS PER THE MANUAL ACCOUNT BOOK, SALES WAS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 32,66,908/- IN HOTEL APPACHI BUT AS PER THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOU NT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT IT IS RECORDED AS ` 29,72,314/-, THE DIFFERENCE BEING ` 2,94,594/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE AND SINCE NO EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 2,94,594/- AS SUPPRESSION OF SALES. 9. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE T HE CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF ` 2,294,594/- REPRESENTED THE QUANTUM OF FOOD SERVED TO EMPLOYEES, FRIENDS AN D OFFICIALS AND PART OF THE AMOUNT REPRESENTED CREDIT SALES. T HE CIT(APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN A NY CLARIFICATION OR EXPLANATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE DIFFERENCE AND THE SAME WAS ADDED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AS SUPPRESSION OF SALES. THE CIT (APPEALS) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY ITA NOS. 179 & 231/MDS/2010 : 7 : EVIDENCE AND FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT HE HAS NOT SU PPRESSED THE SALES AND THEREFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MA TTER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE RE- ITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(APPEAL S). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IS ON ACCOUNT OF FOOD SERVED TO THE EMPLOYEES, FRIENDS AND OFFICIALS AND THAT NO EVIDENCE CAN BE GIVEN. 11. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE RECOR DS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE FIND THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF ` 2,94,594/- AND NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER OR BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) OR EVEN BEFORE US TO BEL IEVE THAT THE DIFFERENCE IS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES. AS NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO SUBSTANT IATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WE CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 179 & 231/MDS/2010 : 8 : 13. INSOFAR AS THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE UNEXP LAINED CASH CREDIT IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IT IS FURTHER SEEN FROM THE SWORN STATEMENT THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD OBTAINED LOAN OF ` 8 LAKHS FROM ONE MR. KUMAR AND WHEN ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS FOR THIS, THE ASSESSEE STA TED THAT DUE TO BUSINESS EXIGENCY HE DID NOT WANT TO REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON BUT WAS WILLING TO OFFER ` 8 LAKHS FOR ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE HAD FILED CONFIRMATIO N LETTER FROM ONE MR. P. KMARAKRISHNAN CONFIRMING THE LOAN A MOUNT OF ` 4 LAKHS ADVANCED TO SHRI V. JAYAPRAKAH. THE ASSES SING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT SINCE IN THE SWORN STATEMENT THE AMOUNT OF ` 8 LAKHS HAD NOT BEEN BROUGHT INTO THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT, THE CONFIRMATION LETTER NOW PRODUCED COULD NOT BE T AKEN COGNIZANCE OF FOR THE REASON THAT IN THE SWORN STAT EMENT THE LOAN ADVANCE OF ` 8 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 20040-05 WHEREAS IN THE CONFIRMATION LETTER PR ODUCED SHOWED THE LOAN ADVANCED ON 25-06-2003. IN THE CON FIRMATION LETTER THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO HAD ADVANCED THE MONEY IS SHOWN AS MR. P. KUMARAKRISHNAN OF PONDICHERRY WHERE AS IN THE SWORN STATEMENT THE NAME AND ADDRESS IS SHOWN A S MR. KUMAR, CUDDALORE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE SUM OF ` 8 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE A CT. ITA NOS. 179 & 231/MDS/2010 : 9 : ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF ` 8 LAKHS WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE CIT(APPEALS). IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(APPE ALS) THAT PURELY BASED ON THE SWORN STATEMENT THE ADDITION WA S MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND EVIDENCE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T SO FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF ` 4 LAKHS IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY FILED CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM ONE MR. P. KUMARAKISHNAN OF PONDICHERRY AND THE ENTIRE ADDITIO N HAS TO BE DELETED. THE CIT(APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS EXPLAINED TO THE TUNE OF ` 4 LAKHS AS LOAN RECEIVED FROM ONE MR. P. KUMARAKRISHNAN ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED CONFIRMATION AND HE HAS DISCHARGED THE BURDEN AND THE BENEFIT MUST BE GIVEN TO THE EXTENT OF ` 4 LAKHS THOUGH THE SAME SUFFERED FROM MINOR INFIRMITIES. ACCORDINGLY HE DELETED THE ADDITION OF ` 4 LAKHS AND CONFIRMED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ` 4 LAKHS AND THUS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. ON BEING AGGRIEVED BOTH THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED A LOAN OF ` 8 LAKHS ITA NOS. 179 & 231/MDS/2010 : 10 : FROM MR. KUMAR. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED T HE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED U9 THAT DUE TO BUSINESS EXIGENCY HE DID NOT WANT TO REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON AND THAT HE WAS WILLING TO OFFER ` 8 LAKHS FOR ASSESSMENT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM ONE MR. P . KUMARAKRISHNAN CONFIRMING THE LOAN OF ` 4 LAKHS ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDER ING ALL THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ` 8 LAKHS LOAN OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AT ALL AND HE DISBELIEVED T HE CONFIRMATION LETTER. ACCORDING TO THE SWORN STATEM ENT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ADVANCE OF LOAN OF ` 8 LAKHS WAS MADE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 AND THE CONFIRMATION PRO DUCED SHOWED THE SAME AS HAVING BEEN ADVANCED AS ON 25-06 -2003. FURTHER, THE CONFIRMATION LETTER SHOWED THE NAME AS MR. P. KUMARAKRISHNAN OF PONDICHERRY WHEREAS IN THE SWORN STATEMENT THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSON IS SHO WN AS KUMAR OF CUDDALORE. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE FACT S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 68 OF THE ACT ADDITION WAS MADE. ON APPEAL THE CIT(APPEA LS) BY CONSIDERING THE CONFIRMATION LETTER OF MR. P. KUMAR AKRISHNAN OF ITA NOS. 179 & 231/MDS/2010 : 11 : PONDICHERRY DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 4 LAKHS AND CONFIRMED THE REMAINING ` 4 LAKHS. 16. WE FIND FROM THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED THE ISSUE. HE SIMPLY BELIEVED THE CONFIRMATION LETTER PRODUCED BY THE AS SESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 4 LAKHS. IN OUR OPINION, THIS ISSUE HAS TO BE RE-EXAMINED AFRESH. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE HAS BORROWED MONEY FROM MR. KUM AR TO THE EXTENT OF ` 8 LAKHS. SUBSEQUENTLY, HE FILED CONFIRMATION LETTER STATING THAT HE HAS BORROWED ` 4 LAKHS FROM MR. P. KUMARAKRISHNAN OF PONDICHERRY. THEREFORE, THIS I SSUE WAS NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE SET ASIDE T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) AND REMIT THE MATTER BAC K TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE DE NOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. INSOFAR AS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF ` 2,05,000/- IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBS ERVED THAT IT IS SEEN FROM THE SWORN STATEMENT VIDE QUEST ION NO.10 AT PAGE 8 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED TO ASSESS ` 2,05,000/- ITA NOS. 179 & 231/MDS/2010 : 12 : BEING SALES IN HOTEL APPACHI NOT ADMITTED AND NOT R EFLECTED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTME NT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THIS AMOUNT BUT NO RE SPONSE. HENCE IT WAS ASSESSED AS SUPPRESSION SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ASSESSED AS SUCH. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 2,05,000/- DOES NOT REQUIRE TO BE ADDED AGAIN BECAUSE ON A SIMILAR ISSUE A HIGHER AMOUNT OF ` 2,94,594/- HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDED UNDER THE SAME HEAD I.E. UNACCOUNTED SALE FIGURE OF HOTEL APPACHI. THUS THIS AMOUNT CAN VERY WELL BE TELESCOPED OUT OF THE ADDITION MADE OF ` 2,94,594/- AND THE BENEFIT COULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(APPEALS) DIRECT ED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THIS ADDITION. 18. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE FIND THAT THE CIT(APPE ALS) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE ADDITION IN RE SPECT OF ` 2,05,000/- HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDED UNDER THE HEAD UNACCOUNTED SALES OF HOTEL APPACHI AND THE CIT(APPE ALS) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TELESCOPE OUT OF THE ADDITION MADE OF ` 2,94,594/-. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APP EAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 179 & 231/MDS/2010 : 13 : 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AND THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 7 TH OF MARCH, 2013, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD /- (DR. O. K. NARAYANAN) (V.DURGA RAO) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 07 TH MARCH, 2013. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT(A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE