The ITO,Vapi Ward-1, Vapi V. Shri Chintan H.Sampat, Daman

ITA 1970/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2388 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R I PATEL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Loose papers; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH (BEFORE SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. NO: 1970 & 1821/AHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, VAPI V/S SHRI CHINTAN H. SAMPAT PROP.TWINA POLYMERS UNIT # G-7, CHIRAG INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, GOLDEN INDUSTRIAL ESTATE. DABHEL, DAMAN- 396210 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) SHRI CHINTAN H. SAMPAT PROP.TWINA POLYMERS UNIT # G-7, CHIRAG INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, GOLDEN INDUSTRIAL ESTATE. DABHEL, DAMAN-396210 V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, VAPI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AKWPS 8029 H APPELLANT BY : MS. URVASHI SHODHAN, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.I. PATEL, CIT/ D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 20 -01-201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 -02-2016 ITA NOS 1970 & 1821/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 2 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. ITA NOS. 1970 & 1821/AHD/2012 ARE CROSS APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE VERY SAME ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), VALSAD DATED 20.06.2012 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2009-2010. 2. AS BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND THEY ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. WE FIRST TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1970/A HD/2012. VIDE APPLICATION DATED 14.09.2015, THE REVENUE RAISED AD DITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE/SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AND GRANTING RELIEF BASED ON THE SAME W ITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AO. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE/SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AND GRANTING RELIEF BASED ON THE SAME, IN VIOLATION TO RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. 4. GROUNDS TAKEN IN FORM NO. 36 READ AS UNDER;- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF IMPOUND ING MATERIAL BF-8 AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,35,74,547/-. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF IMPOUN DING MATERIAL BF-12 & 13 AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,73,75,632/-. ITA NOS 1970 & 1821/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 3 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF IMPOUND ING MATERIAL BF-17 AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,05,52,455/- 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE ID CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE DISCLOSURE O F RS.26,50,000/- AS ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS ON ACCOUNT OF THE IMPOUNDING MATERIAL AND AFTER PASSING OF CONSIDERABLE TIME OF THE 5 MONTHS HE HAS RETRACTED THE SAME IS NOTHING BUT A AFTERTHOUGHT. 5. THE LD. D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT( A) GROSSLY ERRED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. D.R. THAT BY AD MITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES NOT ONLY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS VIOLATED THE RELEVANT RULES BUT ALSO VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. TH E D.R. CONTINUED TO SAY THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BECAUSE THE A.O HAD GIVEN REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS ITSELF AND THE ASSESSEE BY NOT FILING THE REQUIRED DETAILS HAD NO CAUSE FOR FURNISHING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY. 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. COUNSEL STRONGLY STATED THAT DU RING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE OFFICER WANTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS CONTAINING MORE THAN 200 PAGES WITH IN THE SPAN OF 5 DAYS. THE COUNSEL TOOK US TO THE RELEVANT SUBMISSIO NS MADE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY POINTING OUT THAT IT WAS MADE VERY CLEAR TO THE LD. CIT(A) APPEALS THAT THE TIME GIVEN BY TH E A.O WAS SO SHORT THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE TO FURNISH VOLUMINOUS DETAILS WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AND THEREFORE NECESSARY DETAILS/EVIDENCES/D OCUMENTS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IT IS THE SAY OF THE COUNSEL THAT EVEN IF NO FORMAL APPLICATION WAS MADE FOR THE ADMISSION ITA NOS 1970 & 1821/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 4 OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES YET IT WAS EXPLAINED TO THE LD. CIT(A), THE REASONS FOR NOT FILING THE RELEVANT DETAILS BEFORE THE A.O. 7. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIV AL SUBMISSIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT NO FORMAL APPLICATION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE CANNOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE A.O DID NOT GIVE REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR FURN ISHING THE NECESSARY DETAILS/DOCUMENTS. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF A.P. A ND TELANGANA IN THE CASE OF UNIQUE PLASTICS PVT. LTD. 60 TAXMAN.COM 481 HAS HELD WHETHER SINCE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS P REROGATIVE OF COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND REVENUE WAS NOT ABLE TO POINT OUT AS TO WHICH OF CONDITIONS HAD BEEN VIOLATED IN PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION BY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ORDER OF COMMISSIONER (APPE ALS) WAS TO BE HELD AS VALID. 8. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL E VIDENCES AND CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE TWO DIFFE RENT THINGS. ONCE THE EVIDENCES ARE ADMITTED THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE CONSI DERED WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE OTHER SIDE. IN THIS CASE, WE FIND THAT AFTER ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, THE LD. C IT(A) TRANSMITTED THE SAME TO THE A.O CALLING FOR A REMAND REPORT. THE RE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY GRIEVANCE BECAUSE BEFORE CONSIDERING THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCES, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS GIVEN AN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE OFFICER. 9. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE ADDITIONA L GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NOS 1970 & 1821/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 5 10. NOW WE WILL CONSIDER THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVE NUE IN ITS APPEAL. 11. GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF RS. 2,35,74 ,547/-. THESE ADDITIONS ARE BASED ON IMPOUNDED MATERIAL MARKED AS B-8. THE COPIES OF THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL MARKED AS B-8 ARE PLACED AT PAGES 299 TO 302 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH ARE PART OF THE REMAND REPORT OF THE A.O DATED 18.05.2012 AND PLACED AT PAGE 291 TO 298 OF T HE PAPER BOOK. THE D.R. STRONGLY STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DE LETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS WITHOUT GIVING ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASONS. I T IS THE SAY OF THE LD. D.R. THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER ANY EXPLANATIO N DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR DURING THE COURSE OF THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE D.R. CONTINUED TO STATE THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAD NO OTHER OPTIONS BUT TO MAKE THE ADDITIONS OF A LL THE ENTRIES FOUND IN THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL AND FOR WHICH NO SATISFAC TORY EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. PER CONTRA, THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THA T THE ENTRIES IN THE IMPOUNDED MATERIALS WERE MERELY ROUGH JOTTIN GS AND HAVE NO RELEVANCE NOR ANY LOGIC, MOST OF THE ENTRIES WERE M ERELY ESTIMATE AND THE A.O HAS MADE THE ADDITIONS BY ADDING ALL THE FI GURES FOUND IN THE ROUGH SHEETS. IT IS THE SAY OF THE COUNSEL THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 13. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIV AL SUBMISSIONS. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD BE FORE US. AT THE VERY OUTSET, WE HAVE TO STATE THAT THE A.O HAS MADE THE ADDITIONS ONLY ITA NOS 1970 & 1821/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 6 ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN ENTRIES FOUND IN THE LOOSE SHEETS MARKED AS B- 8. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT EXHIBITS OF B- 8. WE FIND THAT NONE OF THE EXHIBITS CONTAINED ANY DATE NOR IT IS C LEAR WHETHER THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED THEREIN ARE CREDIT ENTRIES INCOM E OR DEBIT ENTRIES EXPENDITURE. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS TREATED THESE ENTRIES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AN D MADE ADDITION U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. SECONDLY, AND MORE SURPRISINGL Y HOW THE A.O COULD JUSTIFY THE ADDITIONS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION WHEN THERE ARE NO DATES MENTIONED IN THE IMPOUNDED LOOSE SHEET S. THE ENTRIES MAY PERTAIN TO ONE YEAR OR MANY YEARS. A CLOSE PERU SAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE A.O AT PARA 9.4 OF HIS ORDER ON PAGE 20 HAS CONSIDERED 5 ENTRIES OF PAGE NOS. 52,54,59,6 0 & 59 AND ON THE BASIS OF THESE 5 ENTRIES, THE A.O HAS MADE AN ADDIT ION OF RS. 2,41,19,547/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 14. OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT GIVEN IN THE CASE OF PANNALAL BINJRAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA (1957) 31 ITR 5 65 IS WORTH MENTIONING HERE A HUMAN AND CONSIDERATE ADMINIST RATION OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WOULD GO A LONG WAY IN ALLAYING THE APPREHENSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IF T HAT IS DONE IN ALL THE TRUE SPIRIT , NO ASSESSEE WILL BE IN A POSITION TO CHARGE THE REVENUE WITH ADMINISTERING THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WITH AN EVIL EYE AND AN UNEQUAL HAND. 15. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF K. JAYARAMAN 168 ITR 757 HAS OBSERVED IF A DOUBT ARISES AS TO T HE VALIDITY OR THE GENUINENESS OF A DOCUMENT FILED, FOR THE LIMITED PU RPOSE OF A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT, SUCH AUTHORITIES ARE BOUND TO GO INTO THE QUESTION OF GENUINENESS AND VA LIDITY. ITA NOS 1970 & 1821/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 7 16. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND AS MENTION ED ELSEWHERE NO LOGICAL CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE IMPOUND ED LOOSE SHEETS. NEITHER THE DATES ARE MENTIONED NOR IT IS CLEAR WHE THER THESE ARE PAYMENTS OR RECEIPTS. 17. OUR VIEW IS ALSO FORTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE ENTRIES CONSIDERED BY THE A.O IS APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCO UNT DATED 24.10.2008 WHEREAS THE MATERIAL WERE IMPOUNDED ON 1 6.09.2008. IF THE MATERIALS WERE IMPOUNDED ON 16.09.2008 AND WERE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE DEPARTMENT THEN WHO MADE THE ENTR Y DATED 24.10.2008 FOUND IN THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL. THIS S HOWS THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE A.O WITHOU T ANY APPLICATION OF MIND. 18. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION S OBSERVED- (I) THE TRANSACTIONS PERTAINED TO WHICH PERIOD (II) WHAT ARE THOSE ENTRIES AND (III) WHETHER ALL ENTRIES IN THOSE DOCU MENTS REPRESENT UNDISCLOSED INCOME ATTRACTING PROVISIONS U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTL Y PUT THESE QUESTIONS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. THEREFORE NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. GROUND NO. 1 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 19. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF IMPOUNDED MATERIAL BF-12 & 13 AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 ,73,75,632/-. THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL MARKED AS BF-12 AND BF-13 IS A BUNCH OF LOOSE PAPERS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY OPERATIONS . THIS BUNCH OF LOOSE PAPERS WAS ANALYZED AND EXAMINED BY THE A.O D URING THE COURSE ITA NOS 1970 & 1821/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED T O EXPLAIN THE ENTRIES AND GENERATION OF SOURCE. ASSESSEE TRIED TO EXPLAIN AND CO- RELATE THE ENTRIES IN THE LOOSE SHEET OF PAPERS WIT H THE BANK STATEMENTS. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ENTRIES ARE ROUGH WORKINGS AND PERTAIN TO SEVERAL YEARS. THE EXPLANATION OF THE AS SESSEE DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE A.O. WHO PROCEEDED BY MAKING THE AD DITION OF RS. 2,47,98,312/-. 20. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) AND ONCE AGAIN TRIED TO RECONCILE AND CO-RELATE THE ENTRIES WITH THE WITHDRAWALS. IT WAS STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT THE A.O HAS TREATED THE BANK WITHDRAWALS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 21. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THE LD. CIT(A) AT P AGE 76 OF HIS ORDER OBSERVED THE BANK WITHDRAWALS FROM 5 BANK A CCOUNTS REPRESENTS RS. 51,80,500/- FOR BF-12 AND RS. 52,03, 799/- FOR BF-13 TOTALING TO RS. 1,03,84,299/-. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS C ONVINCED THAT THIS WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE TERMED AS U NDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSE RVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD CO-RELATE THE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT WIT H THE PARTIES, BOTH CREDITOR AND DEBTOR, WITH THEIR LEDGER ACCOUNTS. TH E LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT UNEXPLAINE D ENTRIES AMOUNT TO RS. 8,31,630/-. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FOUND THAT T HERE ARE SOME PETTY ENTRIES WHICH REMAINED UN-RECONCILED AND THE SOURCE OF SUCH SMALL ENTRIES REMAINED UNEXPLAINABLE AND ESTIMATED THE SA ME AT RS. 5 LACS AND ACCORDINGLY RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCO UNT OF BF-12 & 13 TO RS. 13,31,630/-. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE REVENUE I S BEFORE US. THE D.R. ONCE AGAIN STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PR OPERLY EXPLAINED ITA NOS 1970 & 1821/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 9 THE NATURE OF ENTRIES NEITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. IT IS SAY OF THE D.R . THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT MAKING ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY. PER CONTRA, THE COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 22. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORD ERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US. ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE TO STATE THAT ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL MARKED AS BF-12 & 13, THE RE IS NO MENTION OF DATES WITH YEARS. THEREFORE IT IS NOT KNOWN AS T O WHICH YEAR THE ENTRIES PERTAIN TO. IT APPEARS THAT THE ENTRIES PER TAIN TO SEVERAL YEARS. THEREFORE THE A.O HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING THE A DDITIONS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SECONDLY, WE FIND THAT TH E OFFICER HAS SIMPLY ADDED THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE LOOSE SHEETS AND TREATED THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FURTHER F IND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK A CCOUNTS AND HAS GIVEN A WELL REASONED AND RESEARCHED ORDER. THEREFO RE NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. THE UNRECONCILED ENTRIES HAVE NOT BE EN ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE LD . CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. GRO UND NO. 2 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 23. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF THE ADDITIO N MADE ON ACCOUNT OF IMPOUNDED MATERIAL MARKED AS BF-17 AMOUN TING TO RS. 1,05,52,455/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF ENTRIES ON THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL MARKED AS BF-17. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ENTRIES PERTAIN TO DEBTORS AND CREDITORS AND ALSO WITH THE BANK LOANS. IT WAS FURTHER ITA NOS 1970 & 1821/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 10 EXPLAINED THAT THESE WERE ROUGH WORK OR ESTIMATES. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND ANY FAVOUR WITH THE A.O. THE A.O MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,40,56,288/- ON THE BASIS OF THE E NTRIES FOUND ON THE LOOSE PAPERS IMPOUNDED AND MARKED AS BF-17. DETAILS OF SUCH LOOSE PAPERS ARE MADE PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ANN EXURE C. 24. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A). BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF EN TRIES WITH THE DEBTORS AND CREDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO WITH THE BANK LOAN TRANSACTION. IT WAS ONCE AGAIN BROUGHT TO THE NOTIC E TO THE LD. CIT(A) THAT SINCE NO DATES ARE MENTIONED IN THE ROUGH PAPE R, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTIONS. THE LD. CIT( A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE OFFICER OBSERVED AT PARA 6.10 ON PAGE 81. THE A.O AFTER C ONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE GAVE RELIEF OF RS. 55,96,109/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY RS. 14056288/-. THE LD. C IT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 14063962/- AMOUNT OF RS. 51,07,617/- WAS SUNDRY DEBTORS AND THEREFORE THE SA ME CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTH ER OBSERVED THAT OUT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS. 24,88,051/-. THE ASS ESSEE FAILED TO LINK THE ENTRIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,90,864/- AND FURTHER OUT OF BANK FUNDS OF RS. 35,13,294/-. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE MATCHED WITH RS. 2883294 ONLY. THUS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE ENTRIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 14,20,864/-. THE LD CIT(A) DIRECTE D THE A.O TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.14,20,864/-. 25. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. THE D. R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ITA NOS 1970 & 1821/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 11 26. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE HA VE ALSO CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BROUG HT ON RECORD BEFORE US. THERE IS NO DISPUTE AND DENIAL THAT THE A.O HAS SIMPLY ADDED ALL THE ENTRIES FOUND ON THE IMPOUNDED MATERI AL MARKED AS BF- 17. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED RECONCILIATION WITH THE DEB TORS AND CREDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT ENTR IES FROM BANK ACCOUNTS WERE ALSO MATCHED WITH THE ENTRIES IN THE LOOSE SHEETS OF PAPER. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A WELL REASONED AND RESEARCHED ORDER WHILE ACCEPTING THE RECONCILIATIO N OF ENTRIES AND THE SOURCES OF FUNDS THEREON. WHENEVER, THE ENTRIES WE RE NOT TALLIED OR FOUND UNRECONCILED, THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRM ED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY R EASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). GROUND NO. 3 I S ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 27. WITH GROUND NO. 4, THE REVENUE HAS QUESTIONED THE J UDGMENT OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN IGNORING THE DISCLOSURE OF RS. 26 .50 LACS AS ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THIS GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HOLD ANY WATER BECAUSE ON PAGE 83 OF HIS ORDER AT PARA V, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE A.O TO CONSIDER THE UNEXPLA INED AMOUNT OF RS. 27,51,496/- AS UNEXPLAINED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS ADDITION SHOULD MEET THE E NDS OF JUSTICE. 28. IT WOULD NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO REFER HERE THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER DATED 09.12.2009 MADE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER GAINS IMPORTANC E BECAUSE IT WAS MADE AFTER THE SURVEY OPERATIONS AT THE BUSINESS PR EMISES OF THE ITA NOS 1970 & 1821/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 12 ASSESSEE WHEREIN VOLUMINOUS LOOSE SHEETS WERE IMPOU NDED. HOWEVER, IN THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS . 1,62,120/- WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 1,73,862/- AFTER MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES NOT RELATED TO BUSINESS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 1,742/-. 29. SINCE THIS ASSESSMENT WAS ALSO MADE AFTER THE DATE OF SURVEY. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHAT PROMPTED THE A.O TO MAKE HUGE ADDITIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010. WHEN, AS MENTIONE D ELSEWHERE THERE ARE NO COMPLETE DATES FOUND IN THE ENTRIES IN THE LOOSE SHEETS WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THE ADDITIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010. 30. IT WOULD ALSO BE NOT OUT OF PLACE TO REFER TO THE A SSESSMENT ORDER DATED 09.12.2013. AGAIN MADE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2011-2012 WHEREIN RETURNED INCOME WAS ACCEPTED AS SUCH. 31. THUS, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT TWO ASSESSMENT ORDERS PAS SED AFTER THE DATE OF SURVEY WERE MADE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AFTER THOROUGH SCRUTINY AND WITHOUT ANY ADDITION. 32. OUR REFERENCE TO THE AFOREMENTIONED, TWO ASSESSMENT ORDERS IS JUST TO EMPHASIZE DRACONIAN APPROACH OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 33. TO SOME UP, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. 34. ITA NO. 1821/AHD/2012 ASSESSEES APPEAL. THE ASSESS EE HAS RAISED THREE SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE GRI EVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE L D. CIT(A). WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE FOR ARE DETAILED DISCUSSIONS AND ITA NOS 1970 & 1821/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2009-1 0 13 OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENU E QUA GROUND NO. 4 OF THAT APPEAL, WHERE WE HAVE REFERRED TO THE DIS CLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATIONS VIS--VIS THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN OUR CONSI DERED OPINION, THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) VIS--VIS THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY SHOULD MEE T THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO DECIDE THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE QUA THE DISCLOSURE MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATIONS. 35. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. 36. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE AND RE VENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 09 - 02 - 201 6. SD/- SD/- (S. K. YADAV) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHM EDABAD