DCIT, Ludhiana V. M/s Cross Country Apparels, Ludhiana

ITA 230/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6960 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D K GOYAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Document seized; Tangible material; Documents seized
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.230/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 THE DCIT, VS. M/S CROSS COUNTRY APPARELS CENTRAL CIRCLE-II B-36, PHASE-V, FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA LUDHIANA. PAN NO. AACFC7500R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. D.K. GOYAL REVENUE BY : SH. S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 22/06/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/08/2017 ORDER PER B.R.R. KUMAR A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)- II LUDHIANA DT. 21/12/2012. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO RS.60,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXTRA G .P. EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS DISCRE PANCIES FOUND DURING THE SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, KEEPIN G IN VIEW THE SPECIFIC FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE REM AND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AO. 2. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE REMAND REPORT, AS UNDER: (I) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO MATCH THE LIST OF WORKERS/EMPLOYEES PREPARED DURING THE SURVEY. (II) THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE COMFORTABLY FURNISHED THE COPY OF TRIAL BALANCE FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY, BUT EVEN THIS EXERCISE HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. (III) NO COPY OF TRADING ACCOUNT AS ON THE DATE OF THE SU RVEY HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO RECONCILE THE STOCKS WITH THE INVEN TORY OF STOCKS PREPARED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY INSPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUN ITIES PROVIDED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EVALUATE THE CLOSING STOCKS BY PRODUC ING THE PURCHASE BILLS KNOWING IT WELL THAT THIS EXERCISE WILL NOT HELP. (IV) THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO RECONCILE THE INVENTORY OF MACHINERY INSTALLED AS PREPARED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WITH REFERENCE TO THE P URCHASE BILLS AND YEAR OF ACQUISITION. (V) THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED COPIES OF SEIZED DOCUMEN TS AND WAS AFFORDED REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE SAME BUT THE ASSESSEE HA S FAILED TO RECONCILE THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. (VI) THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING DOCUM ENTS/ EVIDENCE HOLDS NO AUTHENTICITY AS PER LAW AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE S AME, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS ESTABLISHED. (VII) THE AO WAS FAIR ENOUGH TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS. 6 0,00,000/-AFTER TAKING CLUE FROM THE ASSESSEE ITSELF WHEN HE ESTIMATED THE UNDISCLOSED I NCOME, ADMITTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS WHILE GIVING STATEMENT IN THE COURSE OF SU RVEY U/S 133 A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. (VIII) THE AO COULD HAVE ESTIMATED ANY OTHER AMOUNT WHICH COULD ALSO BE IN EXCESS OF RS. 60 LAKHS EVEN, BUT HE HAD GIVEN DUE WEIGHTAGE TO THE N ATURAL JUSTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO AND THE ADDITION WAS RESTRICTED TO WHAT WAS ADMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SE IZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON 20/07/2007 AT KAMAL PARKASH GOYAL GROU P OF CASE. AT THE TIME SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION, SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133 A CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE APPELLAN T SURRENDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 60.00 LACS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. DURING SURVEY ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED AN AMOUNT OF R S. 60 LACS TOWARDS DEDUCTION THE LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER : TODAY THE INCOME TAX TEAM CONDUCTED SURVEY U/S 13 3A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 20/07/2007 AT OUR BUSINESS PREMISES M/S CR OSS COUNTRY APPARELS, B-36, FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA AND CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES WER E FOUND IN DOCUMENTS. TO AVOID LITIGATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND TO BUY PEA CE OF MIND WE HEREBY SURRENDER A SUM OF RS. 60.00 LACS (RS. SIXTY LACS) VOLUNTARILY SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY. THIS SURRENDER IS MADE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR 2007-08 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THIS SURRENDER IS MADE WITHOUT ANY PRESSUR E FROM THE DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER WHILE FILING THE RETURN THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T OFFERED THE SAID REFERRED AMOUNT RETURN OF INCOME. THE MATTER WAS EXAMINED DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. 4. DURING SURVEY PROCEEDING THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO RECONCILE THE MATERIAL NAMELY THE LOOSE DOCUMENT CONTAINING THE N UMBER OF ENTRIES WITH REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE EXP LAINED THAT THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED IN THE COMPUTER WH ICH HAVE BEEN IMPOUNDED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON 20/07/2007. ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THESE ENTRIES CANNOT BE RECONCILE HOWEVER SOME OF THEM MI GHT NOT BE FINDING PLACE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 5. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IN ORDER TO VE RIFY THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE VIZ-A- VIZ THE FACTS GATHERED DURING SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, INTER ALIA, TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF ENTRIES IN THE DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED AS PER ANNEXURE A-1 TO A-13 AND ALSO TO RECONCILE THE STOC K AND MACHINERY FOUND DURING THE SURVEY. BESIDES, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO RECONCILE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND PAYMENTS MADE TO THEM WITH REFERENCE TO REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 6. REGARDING THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS RELATING TO AY 2 008-09 IMPOUNDED DURING SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 16.12.2010 F URNISHED AN EXPLANATORY SPREADSHEETS SO AS TO EXPLAIN THE ENTRIES RECORDED IN THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS PARTICULARLY ANNEXURES A- 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1 0 AND 11 WITH REFERENCE TO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE DATA SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MERE LY MENTIONED THAT TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF A PARTICULAR ANNEXURE AS A WH OLE RATHER THAN GIVING PAGEWISE NARRATION FOR THE SAME AND SIM PLY BY MENTIONING THAT THE SAID DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF A/C. HOWEVER NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR THE, SAME HAS BEEN GIVEN B Y THE ASSESSEE IN-ORDER IO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAME. AS SUCH THE VERS ION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT VERIFIABLE AND HENCE NOT ACCEPTABLE. 6.1 REGARDING THE RECONCILIATION OF THE STOCK FOUND DURING SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN THE VALUATION OF THE STOCK INVENTORIS ED DURING SURVEY. RATHER VIDE LETTER DATED 3.12.10 THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT TH E STOCKS OF ITS ASSOCIATE CONCERN M/S GOYAL KNITWEARS PVT. LTD WERE ALSO LYIN G IN THE GODOWN OF THEIR FIRM AND FURTHER THAT THE RELEVANT LIST WAS ALSO SUPPLIE D. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE STOCK INVENTORY PREPARED BY THE DEPTT. IS HIGHLY IMPERFECT AS MUCH AS IT JUST GIVES ITS QUANTITY WITHOUT MENTI ONING WHETHER IT IS IN NUMBERS OR IN WEIGHTS OR BUNDLES AND FURTHER IT GIVES NO RATE AND IS WITHOUT GIVING ANY VALUATION IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER. THE AO OPINED T HAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS IT IS THE ASSESSEE OR HIS EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE GOT PREPARED THE INVENTORY OF STOCKS AND THEREFORE IT I S FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EVALUATE THE DETAILS OF STOCK GIVEN IN THE SAID LIST W.R.T T HE PURCHASE/SALE BILLS. THUS IT IS OBSERVED THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE VA LUATION OF THE STOCK INVENTORISED DURING SURVEY NOR GAVE ANY PLAUSIBLE E XPLANATION FOR NOT SUPPLYING THE SAME WHICH ITSELF PROVES THE UNWILLINGNESS OF T HE ASSESSEE TO RECONCILE THE SAME WITH THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 7. THE AO FURTHER BASED ON THE ADDITION ON THE FOLL OWING REASONS: A) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO MATCH THE LIST OF WORKERS/EMPLOYEES PREPARED DURING THE SURVEY. IN THE SAID LIST THE NAME OF EMPLOYEES, DATE OF JOINING AND RATES OR WORK DONE HAVE BEEN MENTIONED WHICH COULD ONLY BE VERIFIED FR OM THE WAGES REGISTER. IN ORDER TO PROVE THE AUTHENTICITY OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REGARDIN G THE SAID WORKERS, THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE PRODUCED THE DETAILS OF EMPLOYEES AS PER RECORDS. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SAME ON THE PLEA THAT THE SAM E COULD NOT BE FOUND KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF WAGES/SALARY REGISTER, THE NAMES OF WORKERS AND THEIR DATE OF JOINING WILL NOT BE RECONCILED. B) THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE COMFORTABLY FURNISHED THE C OPY OF TRIAL BALANCE FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY BUT EVEN TH IS EXERCISE HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE KNOWING IT FULLY WELL THAT THE FIGURES OF TRIAL BALANCE SHALL NOT MATCH WITH THE TRIAL BALANCE OBTAINED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SUR VEY. C) FURTHER NO COPY OF TRADING ACCOUNT AS ON THE DATE O F THE SURVEY HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORDS BY THE ASSESSEE TO RECONCILE THE STOCKS WIT H THE INVENTORY OF STOCKS PREPARED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY INSPITE OF SUFFICIENT O PPORTUNITIES ALLOWED TO IT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EVALUATE THE CLOSING STOCKS AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY BY PRODUCING THE PURCHASE BILLS KNOWING IT WELL THAT THIS EXERCISE W ILL NOT AGAIN HELP HIM. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS TO RECONCILE THE S TOCKS FOUND DURING SURVEY WITH HIS AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. D) THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO RECONCILE THE INVENTORY OF MACHINERY INSTALLED AS PREPARED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WITH REFERENCE TO THE P URCHASE BILLS AND YEAR OF ACQUISITION. THOUGH VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 03/12/2010, THE ASSESS E HAS FILED A LIST MENTIONING THEREIN DATEWISE ADDITION OF MACHINERY AS ON 31/03/2002 TO 31/03/2008. HOWEVER HE HAS NOT RECONCILED THE SAME WITH THE INVENTORY OF MACHINERY PREPARED DURING SURVEY. THUS THE ARGUMENTS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE OF NO HELP AS T HE MACHINERY INVENTORISED DURING SURVEY STILL REMAINS TO BE RECONCILED WITH THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT. E) FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY CERTAIN DOCUME NTS WERE IMPOUNDED WHICH WERE DULY CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER SUPPLYING THE COPIES OF THE SAID DOCUMENTS OF THE A SSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO RECONCILE THE SAME WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT IN SPITE OF REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES ALLOWED TO IT. THUS HAVING REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SEC TION 145(3) THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 60 LACS BEING THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT DECLARED DURING THE SURVEY TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 8. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE TOOK PLEA THAT THE ADDITION WAS NOT WARRANTED AS THERE WAS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL BEFORE THE AO TO MAKE THE ADDITION THAT ADDITION WAS MERELY ON THE BASIS OF T HE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SURVEY. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO RELIED ON CBDT INSTRUCTION WHEREIN SURRENDER MOST MATERIAL EVIDENCE COLLECTED DURING THE SURVEY SO AS TO BE INCONFORMITY. DURING THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A) THE MATTER WAS LOOKED AFRESH BY THE CIT(A) BY CARRYING A REMAND RE PORT ON VARIOUS ASPECT OF THE SURVEY PROCEEDING, DECLARATION AND THE VALUE OF STOCK. THE VARIOUS QUESTION RAISED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE AO ARE AS UNDER: (I) WHETHER THE STATEMENT DURING SURVEY IN THIS CASE WA S RECORDED U/S 133A OR ANY OTHER SECTION ? (II) WHETHER ANY DISCREPANCY WITH REGARD TO STOCK WAS WO RKED OUT DURING SURVEY? IF SO, THE DETAILS THEREOF. (III) WHAT WAS THE VALUE OF STOCK AS PER THE PHYSICAL INV ENTORY DRAWN DURING SURVEY. (IV) WHAT WAS THE VALUATION OF STOCK AS PER BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY. (V) WAS ANY DISCREPANCY WITH REGARD TO MACHINERY WORKED OUT DURING SURVEY IF SO THE DETAILS THEREOF. (VI) WAS ANY DISCREPANCY WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF WAGES NOTICED / DETECTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ? IF SO THE DE TAILS THEREOF. (VII) WAS ANY OTHER DISCREPANCY WITH REGARD TO ANY OTHER ISSUE INCLUDING LOOSE DOCUMENTS DETECTED IN THE CASE DURING OR AFTER THE SURVEY? IF SO THE DETAILS THEREOF. 9. THE REPLY OF AO HELD AS UNDER: 'AS DESIRED, THE REQUISITE INFORMATION IS FURNISHED HEREINBELOW : (I) STATEMENT OF SH. KAMAL GOYAL, PARTNER OF M/S. CROSS COUNTRY APPARELS, WAS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S 133(A) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON 21.07.2007. COPY OF THIS STATEMENT IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH AS 'ANNEXURE-A ' FOR KIND PERUSAL AT YOUR END. (II) AFTER INVENTORYING THE STOCKS, SH. KAMAL GOYA L, PARTNER OF M/S/ CROSS COUNTRY APPARELS, WAS OFFERED TO RECONCILE THIS STOCK WITH THIS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN EXPRESSING INABILITY TO DO SO, HE OFFERED TO SUR RENDER AN AMOUNT OF RS. 60.00 LAKHS AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON THIS ACCOUNT. THIS GETS C ORROBORATED THROUGH THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY HIM AND ENCLOSED HEREWITH AS 'ANNEXURE-A'. (III) STOCKS WERE INVENTORISED QUANTITY WISE BUT WERE NOT VALUED. COPY OF THE INVENTORY OF STOCKS (BOTH FINISHED GOODS AND RAW MA TERIAL) IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH AS 'ANNEXURE-B' FOR KIND PERUSAL AT YOUR END. (IV) AS MENTIONED AT PARA (II) ABOVE, NO BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY NOR WAS IT MADE AVAILABLE ON BEHALF OF AS SESSEE FOR RECONCILIATION OF STOCK WHICH RESULTED IN DISCLOSER OF RS. 60.00 LAKHS BY THE ASSESSEE, NO COMMENT CAN BE OFFERED ON THIS POINT. (V) AN INVENTORY OF MACHINERY ITEMS, INSTALLED IN T HE BUSINESS PREMISES, SURVEYED, WAS PREPARED DURING THE COURSE OF THE IMPUGNED SURVEY. COPY OF THE INVENTORY OF MACHINERY ITEMS IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH AS 'ANNEXURE-C FOR KIND PERUSAL AT YOUR END. AS MENTIONED AT PARA (II) ABOVE, NO BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS WERE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY NOR WERE IT MADE AVAILABLE ON BE HALF OF ASSESSEE. HENCE, NO COMMENT CAN BE OFFERED ON THIS POINT. (VI) LISTS OF EMPLOYEES, WORKING AT THE SURVEYED P REMISES WERE PREPARED IN COURSE OF THE IMPUGNED SURVEY. THE LISTS CONTAIN THE DETAILS OF WAGES/SALARIES PAID TO THEM. COPY OF THESE LISTS IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH AS 'ANNEXURE-D' FOR KIND PERUSAL AT YOUR END. AS MENTIONED AT PARA (II) ABOVE, NO BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS WERE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY NOR WERE IT MADE AVAILABLE ON BE HALF OF ASSESSEE. HENCE, NO COMMENT CAN BE OFFERED ON THIS POINT. (VII) FROM THE RECORDS, AVAILABLE AT THIS END AND THOSE PRODUCED ON \ BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE ASSESSEE NOT ONLY \ FAILED TO RECONCILE THE DISCREPANCIES IN STOCKS OF VARIOUS ITEMS \ BY PRODU CING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DURING THE COURSE OF \ SURVEY BUT ITS FAILURE CONTI NUED EVEN AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEN THE THEN ASSESSING OFFI CER (A.O.) OFFERED SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO SO RECONCILE THE DISCREPANCIES, NO TED AT THE TIME OF THE IMPUGNED SURVEY. THIS HAD LEFT NO ALTERNATIVE FOR T HE THEN A.O. OTHER THAN TO INVOKE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). THE THEN A.O. HAD DISCUSSED THE MATTER, IN DETAILS, ON THE B ODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF AT PARA NO. 11 TO 16. COPY OF THE IMPUGNED A SSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2010 IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH AS 'ANNEXURE-E' FOR KIND PERUSAL AT YOUR END. THUS, REJECTION OF BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 145(3) OF TH E ACT WAQS GOT ESTABLISHED. 10. HAVING CONSIDERED THE REPLY OF THE AO THE LD. C IT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. 11. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE FILED APPEAL BEFORE US. 12. BEFORE US LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS M ADE THE SURRENDER BASED ON THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT FOUND ON THE DAY OF S URVEY AND ALSO KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECONSIDE R THE FIGURE MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT WITH THAT OF THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF VARIOUS OPPORTUNITY HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE DOCUMENTS PAPERWISE AND EXPLANATION GIVEN IN THE FORM OF EXCEL SHEET AS A W HOLE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS RECONCILIATION OF THE DISCREPANCY. 13. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUT HORITIES AND ALSO THE REPLY OF THE AO IN THE REMAND PROCEEDING WHEREIN TH E AO HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO RECONSIDER THE INVE NTORY OF THE STOCK AND THE DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED. HE HAS REFERRED THE VARIOUS DO CUMENTS IMPOUNDED DURING THE SURVEY. NO DETAILS OF IMPOUNDED DOCUMENT S HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED. THE AO POINTED OUT THAT APPELLANT HAS TRIED TO EXPL AIN THE NATURE OF ENTRIES IN ITS DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO WITHOU T POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT RECONSIDERA TION OF STOCK AND THE INVENTORY. 14. REGARDING RECONCILIATION OF STOCK AO HAS MENTIO NED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT GIVEN VALUATION OF STOCK INVENTORISED DURIN G SURVEY. THE AO HAS REJECTED THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT THE STOCK INVENTORY IS IMPERFECT AS IT JUST GIVES THE QUANTITY WITHOUT MENTIONING WHETHER IT IS NUMBE R OR WEIGHTS OR BUNDLES ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS APPELLANT'S EMPLOYEES WHO HAV E GOT THE INVENTORY PREPARED. THE AO HAS NOT MENTIONED ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE STOCK INVENTORY VIS- A-VIS THE STOCK AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE A O HAS NOT EVEN BOTHERED TO POINT OUT THAT WHAT WAS THE STOCK IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT AND WHAT WAS THE STOCK AS PER THE PHYSICAL INVENTORY AN D WHETHER THERE WAS ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. 15. THERE WAS NO MENTION AT THE TRIAL BALANCE TAKEN OUT IN THE DAY OUT SURVEY OR THE EXCESS STOCK QUANTIFIED DURING THE SURVEY PR OCEEDING. THE AO HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE MACHINERY HAS NO T BEEN RECONSIDER IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHILE THE DETAILS OF MACHINERY ARE AVAILABLE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BEFO RE THE AO. AO HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO RECONSIDER THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL IN T HE HANDS IN ORDER TO POINT OUT ANY DISCREPANCY. THE REASONS FOR REJECTION OF THE B OOKS ARE NOT TO CONCRETE AND NO SPECIFIC DEFECTS HAVE BEEN POINT OUT OR MENT IONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ADDITION WAS SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT T HE APPELLANT HAD ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 60.00 LACS DURING THE COU RSE OF SURVEY. THE APPELLANT HAD RETRACTED THE DISCLOSURE MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY BY WRITING LETTER TO THE OFFICER OF THE INVESTIGATION WING. THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ONLY REFERS TO THE APPELLANTS ADMISSION MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IN SUPPORT OF THE ADDITION MADE. THE DISCLOSURE OF RS. 60.00 L ACS MADE BY THE APPELLANT, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE HAS NOT B EEN INDEPENDENTLY ESTABLISHED AS ASSESSABLE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS OR DISCREPANCY IN STOCK OR MACHINERY. THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S.KHADER KHAN SON REPORTED IN (2012) 25 TAX MANN.COM 413 (SC) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE HEAD NOTE OF THIS D ECISION DATED 20 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012, READ AS UNDER: SECTION 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961- SURVEY- WHETHER SECTION 133A DOES NOT EMPOWER ANY ITO TO EXAMINE ANY PERSON ON OATH; SO STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 133A HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND ANY ADMISSION MADE DURING SUCH STATEMENT CANNOT BE MADE BASIS OF ADDITION H ELD, YES 16. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND FACTS ON RECORD NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A). 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (B.R.R.KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 03/08/2017 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR