Ganesh Prasad Saraf (Sahoo), Cuttack V. ITO, Puri

ITA 215/CTK/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4351 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T SMT PARAMITA TRIPATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: J B SAHOO

Judgement Text

IN THE INCME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE : HONBLE SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND HONBLE SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA NO.215/CTK/2010 AND STAY PETITION. NO.17/CTK/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08) GAN ESH PRASAD SARAF (SAHOO) PROP. GANESH JEWELLERY, BANIAPATTI, LION GATE, PURI 752 001 PAN : ADGPS 0829 Q VERSUS INCOME - TAX OFFICER, PURI WARD, PURI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.236/CTK/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08) INCOME - TAX OFFICER, PURI WARD, P URI. VERSUS GANESH PRASAD SARAF (SAHOO) PROP. GANESH JEWELLERY, BANIAPATTI, LION GATE, PURI 752 001 PAN : ADGPS 0829 Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE ASSESSEE: SHRI J.B.SAHOO, AR FOR THE DEPARTMENT:T SMT. PARAMITA TRIPATHY, DR ORDER SHRI K.K.GUPTA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE BEFORE US ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEN THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PURPORTED NON - DISCLOSURE OF JEWELLERY IT EM SOUGHT TO BE BOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S.133A ON 16.3.2007. ADDITION HA D BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION OF STOCK PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN HELD BY THE ASSESSEE ON AS 31 ST MARCH O N THE BASIS OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALES AN D PURCHASES THE ASSESSEE BEING A GOLD JEWEL L ER. A SUM OF 10 LAKHS DEPOSITED IN CASH ON THE BASIS OF PARTNERS INVOLVED IN INDEPENDENT JEWELLERY PURCHASE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HE NOTED WAS AVAILABLE ON THE BASIS OF CASH FLOW WITH THE PARTNERS ON THE BASIS OF EARLIER YEARS RECORDS. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) PICKED UP THE ISSUE SOU MOTO AND SOUGHT TO HOLD THAT A SUM OF 4 LAKHS ITA NO.215/CTK/2010 AND ITA NO.236/CTK/2010 (CROSS APPEALS) 2 OUT OF THE SAME COULD REASONABLY BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AS UNEXPLAINED . 2. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPEAL RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL : 1. THAT THE ORDER DT.23.2.210 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) II, BHUBANESWAR IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND NOT TENABLE IN LAW. 2. THAT THE ADDITION OF 9,11,730 ON ACCOUNT OF STOCK DISCREPANCY AS HELD BY THE LEARNED A.O. AND SUSTAI NED BY THE CIT(A) II BHUBANESWAR IS SUSTAINABLE IN LAW WITHOUT APPRECIATING PROPER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE MORE PARTICULARLY WITHOUT ANY CONFRONTATION WITH M/S.,SUBASH JEWELLERY. 3. THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE VALUATION MAD E BY THE LD. A.O. BY MAKING ADDITION OF 8,46,142 AND FURTHER SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO 78,733 IS SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 4. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ADDITION OF 4,00,000 BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO UNEXPLAINED OF TWO DEP OSITS OF 5,00,000 EACH IS SUSTAINABLE IN LAW WHEN THE LD. ASSESSING AUTHORITY ACCEPTED THE SAME IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGITATING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON OTHE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. THE LEARNED CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, BBSR IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING RELIEF OF 7,67,4089 TOWARDS VALUE OF GOLD JEWELLERY ON CLOSING STOCK. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TO TH E EXTENT OF 6,00,000 OUT OF UNEXPLAINED TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS OF 10,00,000 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS HAVE BEEN NOTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE RUNS THE BUSINESS DEALING INTERALIA IN T RADING AND ITA NO.215/CTK/2010 AND ITA NO.236/CTK/2010 (CROSS APPEALS) 3 REPAIRING OF GOLD AND SILVER O RNAMENTS DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF 4,32,210.00 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008. A SURVE Y WAS CONDUCTED ON THE BUSINESS P REMISES OF THE APPELLANT ON 16.03 .2007 PURSUANT TO WHICH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WAS INITIATED U/S.143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WHILE PASSING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DETERMINED TOTA L INCOME OF 21,97,550 BY MAKING ADDITION OF 17,57,932. THE ADDITION MADE WAS MAINLY ON TWO GROUNDS I.E. , DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR CHARGES (VALUATION) AND ON ACCOUNT OF DISC REPAN CY OF STOCK. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , THE ASS E SSEE PREFER RED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A ) AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL WITH REGARD TO VALUATION OF STOCK AND CONFIRMED THE DISCREPANC Y IN S TOCK BUT MADE AN ADDITION ON A NEW GROUND WHICH WAS NOT THE ISSUE BEFORE HIM IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT I.E., ADDITION OF 4,00,000 BASING ON THE TWO DEPOSIT OF 5,00,000 EACH MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN THE BANK. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INITIATING HIS ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE ASS ESSEES CASE CONTINUED TO HOLD A VIEW THAT UNEXPLAINED ITEM OF JEWELLERY AS SOUGHT TO BE INVENTORISED ON THE DATE OF SURVEY WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ON 31 ST MARCH INSOF AR AS HE ACCEPTED THE COMPUTATION OF THE VALUATION BY DELETING THE MAJOR PORTIO N OF THE HIGH PITCHED VALUATION OF THE VERY JEWELLERY HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31 ST MARCH FROM 8,46,142 TO 78,773. THIS VALUATION THEREFORE INCLUDE D THE ITEM OF JEWELLERY WHICH HE HELD WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ON 16 TH MARCH,2007 BUT AVAILABLE ON THE LAST DAY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR VALUING 9,11,730. THE FINDING BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WITH R ESPECT TO THE ITEM PAID FOR BY THE ASSESSEE TO ONE SHRI SUBHASH JEWELLERY WAS SUPPORTED BY AN INVOICE WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD PROCURED AND ITA NO.215/CTK/2010 AND ITA NO.236/CTK/2010 (CROSS APPEALS) 4 IT OWED TO M/S.SUBASH JEWLLERIES, RAM MANDIR SQUARE, BHUBANESWAR 8,61,790 WHEN A SUM OF 50,000 HAD BEEN PAID IN ADVA NCE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SURVEY. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD INVENTORISED THE JEWELLERY WHICH WAS PART AND PARCEL OF THE SURVEY REPORT THEREFORE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN HE TRIED TO DETERMINE THAT THE SAID JEWE LLERY BEING GOLD ORNAMENTS PURCHASED WORTH 9,11,730 WERE TO BE EXPLAINED WHEN HE HIMSELF COMPUTED THE PURCHASE, SALES TO LEAD TO THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK, CASH IN HAND, AND BANK BALANCE O N PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS CLOSING DATE. WHEN ON THE TWO DATES OF OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK THAT HAD BEEN ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ADDITION IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY NEGATING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ITS EMPLOYEES THEREFORE CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX ON MERE ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION. THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREAFTER INDICATED FAULTY VALUATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , WAS DELIBERATED UPON TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS VALUATION WAS NOT CONFINED TO FINDING OF MISSING STOCK ON THE DATE OF SURVEY BUT WAS TINKERING WITH THE CONSISTENCE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING OF C LOSING STOCK AT LOWER OF COST OR MARKET VALUE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PERUSED PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE MARKET VALUE OF GOLD JEWELLERY EXISTING ON THE DATE TO BE COMPARED WITH THE ACTUAL VALUATION WHICH INCLUDED LOT OF COMBINATIONS WITH REGARD TO IMPURITY, CARAT , ALLOY AND APPORTION OF PROFIT WITH KARIGARS THE ASSESSEE BEING A TRADER ONLY. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT IT COULD EITHER BE TAXATION OF THE MISSING JEWELLERY WHICH HA D BEEN ADOPTED TO THE PROPORTION IN CLOSING STOCK BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING A DOUBLE ADDITION INCLUDING THE MISSING STOCK AT HIGH VALUE WHICH THE LEARNED CIT(A) HIMSELF AGREED WAS NOT TENABLE IN LAW ON ITA NO.215/CTK/2010 AND ITA NO.236/CTK/2010 (CROSS APPEALS) 5 THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE BY GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO 7,67,409. THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE PART RELIEF GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR. 6. WITH RESPECT TO THE REMAINING ISSUE OF ADDITION OF 4 LAKHS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUE D THAT THE BASIS FOR THIS ADDITION HAS NO LEGS TO STAND ON. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SATISFIED HIMSELF ON THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS A SAVINGS ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNERS WHO HAVE BEEN TR USTED FOR PROCURING GOLD ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM AND THEREFORE SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE IS AVAILABLE TO HIM FOR ISSUING CHEQUES THERE FROM WHEN THE POSITION OF CASH BALANCE WAS DETERMINED AS AVAILABLE TO THE FIRM. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAK E ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INSUFFICIENT DRAWINGS IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS WHICH THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON HIS OWN WITHOUT ISSUING ENHANCEMENT NOTICE U/S.251 OBSERVED THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SOURCE OF TWO CASH DEPOSITS OF 5 LAKHS EACH IN THE BANK WE RE TO BE EXAMINED. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) PROCEEDED FURTHER TO DERIVE THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH BALANCE IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS SINCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989 - 90 BRUSHING ASIDE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT ACCUMU LATED CASH OVER THE PERIOD WHAT HE THOUGHT TO BE REASONABLE THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE REASONABLE DRAWINGS BUT TO DEDUCE THAT ONLY 6 LAKHS COULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE FAMILY FOR DEPOSIT IN THE BANK AND THE RESIDUAL AMOUNT OF 4 LAKHS WAS REMAINING UNEXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS A MERE ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION FOR THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO BRING ON RECORD A REASONABLE AMOUNT TO BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE SPREAD OVER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 10 YEARS CANNOT BE THRUST UPO N THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD CLEARLY INDICATED IN HIS ORDER THAT SUFFICIENT CASH ITA NO.215/CTK/2010 AND ITA NO.236/CTK/2010 (CROSS APPEALS) 6 BALANCE WAS AVAILABLE ON THE BASIS OF STOCK AND BANK BALA NCE CLINCHES THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO DISALLOW ANCE COULD BE MADE AS UNREASONABLE DRAWINGS FOR HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL ON THE ISSUE OF SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF 4 LAKHS INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION AMOUNTING TO 10 LAKHS IN HIS ORDER. HE FULLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE AND PRAYED FOR DELETION THEREOF . 7. THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR HER PART SUBMISSIONS ON THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. SHE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE MISSING JEWELLERY ON THE DATE OF SURVEY WHETHER HAD BEEN INVENTORISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK AS DECLARED IN THE INCOME - TAX RETURN. ON THE REVENUES APPEAL SHE POINTED OUT THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE VALUATION OF THE CLOSING S TOCK WAS ON THE BASIS OF COST OR MARKET VALUE WHICHEVER IS LESS AND THE VALUE AS ON THE DATE OF CLOSING WAS 935 PER GRAM WHICH HA S BEEN REDUCED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO 868 PER GRAM WITHOUT ANY BASIS. SHE POINTED OUT THAT THE DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN DELETED AMOUNTING TO 7,67,409 THEREFORE MAY KINDLY BE RESTORED. SHE POINTED OUT THAT THE ADDITION OF 9,11,730 HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE WHICH HAS NOW BEEN ARGUED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE O THERWISE. SHE SU BMITTED THAT THE JEWELLERY ITEM WAS NOT FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS RIGHTLY BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). SHE POINTED OUT THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS WITHIN HIS RIGHT TO AGITATE THE DELETION OF 6 LAKHS IN THE SUM OF 10 LAKHS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS OTHERWISE JUSTIFIED FOR DEPOSIT IN THE BANK. ITA NO.215/CTK/2010 AND ITA NO.236/CTK/2010 (CROSS APPEALS) 7 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON O UR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS DID NOT INDICATE ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. SURVEY TE A M HAD INVENTORISED THE ITEMS OF JEWELLERY AVAILABLE IN THE SHOP INSOFAR AS THE PURCHA SE FROM SUBHASH JEWLLERS WAS AGAINST ADVANCE GIVEN TO IT WHEN THEY RAISED THE INVOICES DURING THE INTERVENING PERIOD. IT BECOMES IMMATERIAL TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE ITEM OF JEWELLERY WAS EITHER WITH THE EMPLOYEES OR IN THE WINDOW OF THE SHOP OR WAS NOT AT A LL AVAILABLE. THE TIMING OF THE OPENING OF THE SHOP AND THE STATEMENTS TAKEN FROM THE EMPLOYEES BORE NO RESULT INSOFAR AS THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INVENTORISED THE JEWELLERY AVAILABLE ON THE LAST DAY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR WHEN THE ITEM OF JEWELLER Y AS HELD WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY MISSING IS A DOUBT THAT HAD BEEN RAISED IN THE CLOSING STOCK ON 31.3.2007. THE VALUATION THEREFORE INDICATED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS THERE FOR ADDITION PROVIDED THE VALUATION WAS TO BE ADOPTED AT THE CONSIST ANT SYSTEM OF V ALUING IT AT LOWER OR COST OF MARKET VALUE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WENT A STEP FURTHER TO VALUE IT AT COST FULLY AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE PORTION OF THE PROFIT MARGIN COULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO TAX IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. HE ADOPTED THE VALUE AT 868 PER GRAM TO INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN VALUI NG ITS STOCK AT LOWER OF COST OR MARKET VALUE. THIS RESULTED IN DELETION OF 7,67,409 ON THE PORTION OF THE VALUATION THEREFORE JUSTIFIES THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MISSING JEWELLERY THAT AMOUNTED TO 9,11,730 COULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. C LOSING STOCK IS THE INTEGRAL PART OF THE TRADER OF GOLD JEWELLERY FOR GENERATING INCOME INSOFAR AS THE PRICE OF GOLD IS EVER INCREASING AND A JEWELER C ANNOT MAKE PROFIT ON THE BASIS OF THE PRICE INCREASE FROM 1 ST DAY OF THE FINANCIAL Y EAR TO ITA NO.215/CTK/2010 AND ITA NO.236/CTK/2010 (CROSS APPEALS) 8 LAST DAY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. THE SURVEY CONDUCTED ON 16.3.2007 THEREFORE INDICATED THAT THE ITEM OF JEWELLER Y MISSING BUT INVENTORISED WAS PART AND PARCEL OF THE CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31 ST MARCH COULD NOT BE VALUED MORE THAN THE COST TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE SELLER. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE INCLINED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF 9,11,730 IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE SAME CANNOT BE TAXED AS MISSING ON THE CLOSING DATE WHICH HAS BEEN RENDERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE ON IT BEING PHYSICALLY AVAILABLE TO IT ON 31 ST MARCH. HOWEVER, THE ADOPTION OF A PARTICULAR VALUE HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED OR EXPLAINED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE INSOFAR AS THELEARNED CIT(A) H AS SUSTAINED 78,733 WHICH ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER AND DELIBERATED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO BE CONFIRMED. 9. ON THE LAS T ISSUE BEING THE ADDIT ION OF 4 LAKHS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS TRIED TO IMPOSE HIS COMPUTATION OF HOLDING THE CASH SPREAD OVER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 10 YEARS I S UNSUSTAINABLE OR ACCEPTABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. A BUSINESSMAN CONTINUES TO CONVERT STOCK INTO CASH, CASH INTO BANK AND BANK INTO STOCK CANNOT BE HELD TO BE WITHDRAWING FOR HIS PERSONAL USE ONLY CERTAIN AMOUNTS ON A PARTICULAR DATE FOR HOLDING CASH BROUGHT FORWARD TO BE SPREAD OVER MORE THAN 10 YEARS. WITHOUT INITIATING ENHANCEMENT PROCEE DINGS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ASSUMED JURISDICTION U/S.251 WHICH IN OUR VIEW WAS UNJUSTIFIED AND UNTENABLE. T HIS ADDITION IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. THE REVENUES APPEAL ONLY AGITATES THE PART RELIEF GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION WHICH HAS BEEN EXPLAINED ABOVE, THE BASIS THELEARNED CIT(A) , WHICH WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD. A PART SUSTENANCE HAS ITA NO.215/CTK/2010 AND ITA NO.236/CTK/2010 (CROSS APPEALS) 9 BEEN UPHELD BY US ON SAME FACTS, THEREFORE THE GROUND AGITATED BY THE REVEN UE IS DISMISSED. THE SECOND GROUND OF THE REVENUE REGARDING RELIEFOFRS.6 LAKHS HAS NO LEGS TO STAND ON AS OBSERVED ABOVE AND IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 13. THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONSEQUENT IALLY DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS . PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON DT. 30 TH JUNE, 2011 S D/ - S D/ - (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER (K.K.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 30 TH JUNE, 2011 H.K.PADHEE, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY. COPY OF THE ORDE R FORWARDED TO : 1. THE A SSESSEE : GANESH PRASAD SARAF(SAHOO) PROP. GANESH JEWELLERY, BANIAPATTI, LION GATE, PURI 752 001 2. THE DEPARTMENT : INCOME - TAX OFFICER, PURI WARD, PURI. 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A), 5. THE DR, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLICA TE) TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY.