M/s Palani Jewellery, Kollam V. Income Tax Officer, Kollam

ITA 263/COCH/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7462 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2009
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: N S RAJAGOPAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 68; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JM AND SANJAY AROR A, AM I.T.A NO. 263/COCH/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 PALANI JEWELLERY, MAIN ROAD, PARIPALLY, KOLLAM. [PAN: AAHFP 7063M] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KOLLAM. (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE- RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI N.S.RAJAGOPAL, CA REVENUE BY MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, JR.DR DATE OF HEARING 22/11/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25/01/2012 O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING OUT OF THE ORD ER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, KOCHI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 26-02-2009, AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) UNDER REFERENCE IS 2005-06. 2. THE APPEAL RAISES SEVERAL GROUNDS, BEFORE ADVERT ING TO WHICH, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO RECOUNT THE BACKGROUND FACTS OF THE CASE. THE A SSESSMENT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE STOOD FRAMED ON 31-12-2007 VIDE ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT', HEREINAFTER), ASSESSING THE ASSESSEES, A PARTNERSH IP FIRM ENGAGED IN JEWELLERY BUSINESS, AT ` 23,96,163/-, AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF ` 59,340/- VIDE RETURN DATED 17-11-2006. THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME IN APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A) BY INSTITUTING AN APPEAL ON 24-07-2008. IN THE MEANWHILE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRIVANDRUM (CIT FOR SHORT) IN EXERCISE OF HIS POWERS U/S. 263 OF TH E ACT HELD THE ASSESSMENT AS ERRONEOUS I.T.A. NO. 263/COCH/2009 PALANI JEWELLERY VS. ITO, KOLLAM 2 AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE TO T HE EXTENT THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT STOOD WRONGLY MADE AT ` 6,65,962/-, AS AGAINST THE CORRECT FIGURE OF ` 15,20,712/-, AND SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT TO THAT E XTENT, DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) TO REDO THE SAME BY BRINGING THE UNEXPLAINED C ASH CREDIT TO TAX AT THE CORRECT AMOUNT AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE (VIDE ORDER DATED 19-02-2009). THE ASSESSEE HAD AGITATED THE A DDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT, EFFECTED AT ` 6,65,962/-, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) (VIDE ITS GROUND NOS. 9, 11, 13 & 14), AND WHICH WERE UNDISPOSED AS ON 19/2/2009. TH E LD. CIT(A), IN VIEW OF THE SAID ISSUE BEING A SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISION U/S. 263, REFRAINED FROM ADJUDICATING THEREON. THE ASSESSEES FIRST CHALLENGE (VIDE ITS GROUND NO. 3), WITH GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE WARRANTING NO ADJUDICATION IS IN RESPECT OF THE NON MAINTAINABILITY OF THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE LD. CIT(A) U/S. 263, SO THAT THE ASSESSMENT APPEALED AG AINST DID NOT SURVIVE FOR CONSIDERATION ON MERITS THE OTHER GROUNDS, I.E., NOS. 4 TO 7, WH ICH THOUGH WERE NOT PRESSED DURING HEARING, RELATE TO THE DIFFERENT ADDITIONS/DISALLOW ANCES EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, SINCE SUSTAINED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, A ND WHICH THOUGH WERE NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISION U/S. 263. 3. WE SHALL FIRST ADDRESS THE ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL OBJECTION, I.E., NON MAINTAINABILITY OF THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER, TOWARD WHICH, IT H AS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LTD. 170 ITR 449 (ALL.) AND CIT VS. TAIYO GYOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHA , 244 ITR 177 (KER.). THE REVENUE, ON THE OTHER HA ND, HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TECHNICO ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. , 206 ITR 36 (CAL.). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THE ASSESSEES CASE AS WHOLLY UNMAINTAINABLE. THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT WHILE THE ASSESSEE CONTESTS THE ADDITION OF ` 6,65,962/-, BEING THE AMOUNT OF CREDITS INTRODUCED DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER THE HEAD SUNDRY CREDI TS, THE REVISIONARY ORDER, PASSED ON THE EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD, IS ON THE PREMISE TH AT THE AMOUNT OF SUCH CREDITS IS AT I.T.A. NO. 263/COCH/2009 PALANI JEWELLERY VS. ITO, KOLLAM 3 ` 15,20,712/-, SO THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD HAVE IN FA CT BEEN MADE AT THAT AMOUNT, I.E., IS SHORT BY ` 8,54,750/- ( ` 15,20,712/- ` 6,65,962/-). THE ASSESSEE, QUA ITS ASSESSMENT, IS AGGRIEVED BY AND, ACCORDINGLY, CONTESTS THE ADDITIO N TO THE EXTENT MADE, I.E., ` 6,65,962/-, AND NOT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT DO ES NOT AT ALL COMMENT ON THE MERITS OF THE SAID ADDITION ( QUA WHICH ONLY IT IS CONTESTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A)), BUT ONLY OBSERVES AND BRINGS ON RECORD THE ERROR IN ITS COMPUTATION; THE ADDITION HAVING BEEN ADMITTEDLY MADE BY THE AO ONLY QUA THE FRESH CREDITS AS INTRODUCED DURING THE YEAR. AS SUCH, FIRSTLY, THE ASSESSMENT IS SET ASIDE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE SAID ADDITION AND, FURTHER, ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE AS TO ITS QUANTUM, WHICH IS NO T A SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL; THE ASSESSEE CONTESTING IT ON ITS MERITS. THE PURVIEW OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS ONLY QUA THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION FOR ` 6,65,962/-. NO DOUBT, HE ENJOYS CO-TERMINUS POWERS, AND COULD, ASSUMING A DISCOVERY AS TO IT NOT REPRESENTI NG THE CORRECT AMOUNT DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM, DIRECT ITS ENHANCEMENT T HERETO. AND, IN WHICH CASE HE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO ADJUDICATE ON THE MERITS OF THE AMOUNT ADDITIONALLY BROUGHT TO TAX, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE ORIGIN AL AMOUNT. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL SUM BEING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISION , HE IS PRECLUDED FROM EFFECTING ANY ENHANCEMENT IN THE INSTANT CASE. IN FACT THE LD. CI T(A), TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME, HAS DECLINED ANY ADJUDICATION IN THE MATTER, I.E., QUA THE IMPUGNED CREDITS - TO WHATEVER EXTENT. IN OTHER WORDS, SHE ABSTAINS FROM DECIDING THE MATTER, CONSIDERING THE ASSESSMENT AS SET ASIDE QUA THE SAME, I.E., THE SAID ADDITION IN ITS ENTIRETY. WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE AS TO HOW THE SAME IS NOT CORRECT OR PREJUDICES THE ASSES SEE IN ANY MANNER; THE LD. CIT(A) THEREBY ONLY, AND NOT INCORRECTLY, TAKING A HOLISTI C VIEW OF THE MATTER. THIS IS AS IN A GIVEN CASE THERE COULD BE AN INTERFACE BETWEEN THE MERITS AND THE QUANTUM OF THE ADDITION. SECONDLY, THE APPELLATE COURSE REMAINS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, AND FOR THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF ADDITION, AT WHICH IT WOULD BE MADE IN TH E SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, I.E., ASSUMING THAT THE ENHANCED AMOUNT IS HELD TO BE INDEED THE C ORRECT AMOUNT. THE CHARGE OF THE APPELLATE ORDER BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE, IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSMENT NO LONGER HOLDING IN LAW, DOES NOT HOLD AT ALL. THE ASSESSMENT IS SET A SIDE ONLY QUA A PARTICULAR ASPECT OF AN ADDITION MADE AND, IN ANY CASE OF THE MATTER, THE S AID ADDITION IN ITS ENTIRETY. AS SUCH, THE QUESTION OF IT BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE ON THE OTHER GROUNDS BEING AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE I.T.A. NO. 263/COCH/2009 PALANI JEWELLERY VS. ITO, KOLLAM 4 PER ITS APPEAL DOES NOT ARISE. THE ASSESSES GROUND NO. 3 IS THUS DISMISSED AS WITHOUT MERIT. RELIANCE ON THE CASE LAW IS WHOLLY INA PPROPRIATE. IN THE CASE OF DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LTD . (SUPRA), ALL THAT THE HONBLE COURT HELD WAS THAT THE REVISIONARY ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 HAVING BEEN QUASHED, THE RESULTING ASSE SSMENT ORDER BY THE ITO GIVING EFFECT TO THE REVISIONARY ORDER STOOD RIGHTLY QUASHED BY T HE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE AS TO HOW THE SAME IS APPLICABLE IN T HE INSTANT CASE; THERE BEING NO CHALLENGE TO THE REVISION UNDER SECTION 263. THE D ECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TAIYO GYOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHA (SUPRA) IS AGAIN ON AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FOOTING; THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTIO N 172(2) WAS IN THE NATURE OF THE ADHOC ASSESSMENT, SO THAT IT DID NOT PRECLUDE THE A O FOR FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 44B OF THE ACT. WE ARE AGAIN UNABLE TO FIN D ANY REFERENCE TO THE SAID PROVISIONS OF LAW (I.E., AS REFERRED TO IN THE SAID DECISION), OR ANY SCOPE FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF ITS RATIO, IN THE INSTANT CASE. THE REVENUE HAS RIGHTLY REFERRED TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TECHNICO ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), CLARIFYING THAT THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO MATTERS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT MA TTER OF THE DECISION BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE SAME IS PART OF THE SETTL ED LAW AND TOWARD WHICH WE MAY CITE DECISIONS, AS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI ARBUDA MILLS (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC); CIT VS. R.S. BANWARILAL (1983) 146 ITR 3 (M.P.) (FB), RENDERED AFTER AN EX TENSIVE REVIEW OF THE CASE LAW ON THE SUBJECT, INCLUDING BY THE APEX COUR T; CIT VS. MAQBOOL ALAM & CO ., 231 ITR 77 (PATNA). 5. WE SHALL NOW TAKE UP THE OTHER GROUNDS, THOUGH N O SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS WERE RAISE FOR AN ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE HEARING . 6. GROUND NO. 4 IS IN RELATION TO THE PURCHASE OF G OLD IN THE SUM OF ` 16,89,593/- FROM ITS THREE LADY PARTNERS. THE SAME, TOTALLING T O 3083.2 GMS., COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED WITH ANY EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEES CAS E WAS THAT THE LADY PARTNERS BELONGED TO A FAMILY, WHICH, AS PER CUSTOM, GAVE THEIR INHER ITANCE TO THE LADIES MAINLY IN GOLD. THE AO FOUND THAT 3114 GMS. OF JEWELLERY HAD BEEN INTRO DUCED IN THE NAME OF THE SAME THREE I.T.A. NO. 263/COCH/2009 PALANI JEWELLERY VS. ITO, KOLLAM 5 LADY PARTNERS IN A PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF THE SAME GRO UP (PALANI FASHION JEWELLERY) DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. TAKING THE ENTIRE CIRCUMSTANCES INTO ACCOUNT, HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF 1000 GMS. FOR EACH LADY PARTNER COULD BE CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED, 50% OF WHICH WOULD INURE TO EACH OF THE TWO FIRMS. ACCORDINGLY, HE ALLOWED CREDIT IN RESPECT OF THE GOLD PURCHASED TO THE EXTENT OF 1000 GMS., BRINGING THE BALANCE 1583.2 GMS., VALUED PROPORTIONATELY AT ` 8,54,043/-, TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT. THE FACT S BEING NOT IN DISPUTE, THE SAME STOOD CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE SAME REASONS. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD, AND FIND NO INFIRMITY WHATSOEVER IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR US TO INTERFERE THEREWITH. THE CREDIT/S TO EACH OF THE THREE LADY P ARTNERS DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR IS TO THE TUNE OF 1000 GMS. IN EACH OF THE TWO FIRMS. GIVEN THE SAME FAMILY BACKGROUND, THE AO IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT EVIDENCE, HAS BEEN CONSIDERATE IN ALLOWING THE CREDIT OF 1000 GMS. FOR EACH LADY PARTNER, DISTRIBU TING THE SAME EQUALLY OVER THE TWO FIRMS, WHEREIN THE CREDIT, AS AFORENOTED, HAD BEEN ALLOWED IN AN ALMOST EQUAL MEASURE. WE ACCORDINGLY ENDORSE THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 8. GROUND NO. 5 IS IN RESPECT OF THE CREDIT IN THE NAME OF FOUR PERSONS AT ` 1 LAKH, WHICH WAS EQUALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED BEFORE BOTH THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS ALSO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE SAME SITUATION CONT INUES TO OBTAIN EVEN BEFORE US, SO THAT THE CONSEQUENT ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 IS SUSTAIN ABLE; THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT BROUGHT ANY INFIRMITY THEREIN TO OUR NOTICE. WE DECIDE ACC ORDINGLY. 9. THE SIXTH GROUND IS IN RELATION TO THE ADDITION IN THE SUM OF ` 5,16,818/-. THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS PREMISES WAS SUBJECT TO SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT ON 20- 11-2006. CHEQUES/BANK DRAFTS DRAWN ON DIFFERENT BAN KS FOR DIFFERENT AMOUNTS, AGGREGATING TO THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF ` 5,16,818/-, WERE FOUND THEREAT. THE SAME WERE IMPOUNDED, AND THE ASSESSEE ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SA ME, AS THE SAME HAD NEITHER BEEN BANKED NOR ACCOUNTED FOR IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE FAILING TO FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION TOWARD THE SAME ON BEING SHOW CAUSED, T HE SAME WERE ADDED TO ITS INCOME I.T.A. NO. 263/COCH/2009 PALANI JEWELLERY VS. ITO, KOLLAM 6 ON THE BASIS THAT THE SAME WERE OBTAINED BY WAY OF SECURITY AGAINST ADVANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME STOOD CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT( A); THE ASSESSEE FAILING TO FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEES CASE, AS MADE OUT PER ITS SAID GROUND, IS THAT THE SAID CHEQUES/DRAFTS WERE ACCEPTED AS SECURITY/GUARANTEE FOR SALE OF GOLD, AND THAT IS WH Y THEY REMAINED UNENCASHED. DISPOSING ITS GROUND NO. 12 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, I T IS STATED B HER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN NO PARTICULAR REASON AS TO WHY THE CHEQUES RE MAINED UNPRESENTED AND, THUS, UNENCASHED. EXAMINING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION, SHE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SALE OF GOLD/GOLD JEWELLERY WOULD EITHER BE IN CASH OR BY W AY OF CREDIT SALE. AS SUCH, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ACCEPTING THE CHEQUES/BANK DRAFTS AS GU ARANTEE TOWARDS SALE CONSIDERATION, TO SUPPORT WHICH NO FURTHER CONVINCING EXPLANATION OR EVIDENCE HAD BEEN BROUGHT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE. SHE CONCURRED WITH THE AO THAT THE C HEQUES/BANK DRAFTS IMPOUNDED FROM THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS PREMISES DID NOT REPRESENT ANY RECEIPT OR ANY GUARANTEE IN ITS RESPECT AND, THEREFORE, COULD ONLY BE REASONABLY PR ESUMED AS BEING AMOUNTS DUE TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH REMAINED TO BE ENCASHED. WE ARE IN A GREEMENT WITH THE REVENUE IN-SO-FAR AS THE INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABL E TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH ANY MATERIAL THAT THE SAID CHEQUES/DRAFTS REPRESENTED ANY GUARANTEE A GAINST SALE CONSIDERATION. IF SO, THE SAME WOULD ONLY BE FOR THE INTERIM PERIOD, I.E., WH ILE THE CORRESPONDING GOODS REMAINED WITH THE CUSTOMER FOR APPROVAL, SO THAT THERE WOULD BE CORRESPONDING ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT EXHIBITING SO. THE GOODS, IF RETURNED B ACK, WOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE SIMULTANEOUS RETURN OF THE CHEQUES WHILE, IF NOT, T HE CHEQUES WOULD STAND TO BE ENCASHED WITH THE GOODS BEING CONSIDERED AS SOLD, WITH THE A SSESSEE RATHER BEING OBLIGED TO RAISE AN INVOICE. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IS THUS DE HORS ANY FACTS OR MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD. AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, WE FIND NO EVID ENCE TO SUPPORT THE INFERENCE BY THE REVENUE THAT THE SAME REPRESENTS AMOUNTS DUE TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT ALL THESE INSTRUMENTS STOOD EXPIRED FOR VALID PRESE NTATION FOR PAYMENT AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY, I.E., 20-11-2006; THE VALIDITY OF THE CHEQU E OR BANK DRAFT DRAWN BEING AT 6 MONTHS AND 3 MONTHS RESPECTIVELY, WHILE THE LATEST INSTRUM ENT IS A CHEQUE DATED 05-05-2005. I.T.A. NO. 263/COCH/2009 PALANI JEWELLERY VS. ITO, KOLLAM 7 11. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREFORE, WE ONLY CON SIDER IT FIT AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE AO TO AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN ITS CASE WITH REFERENCE TO SOME MATERIAL; IT NOT DENYING THE RECEIPT OF THE SAID CHEQUES/BANK DRAFTS, WHICH, THEREFORE, OUG HT TO BE WITH SOME PURPOSE, AND MAY NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT DISCOVERY OF AN UNACCOUNT ED INVESTMENT/S AND, THUS, INCOME TO THAT EXTENT. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 12. THE ASSESSEES SEVENTH AND LAST GROUND IS IN RE SPECT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT FOR ` 6,65,962/-, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE L D. CIT(A) IN VIEW OF THE SAME BEING SUBJECT TO REVISION. AS AFORE-NOTED, THE AO HAS SIN CE, I.E., VIDE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 263 DATED 30-7-2009, REVISED THE SAID ADDITI ON TO ` 15,20,712/-, I.E., THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF CREDITS UNDER THE HEAD SUNDRY CREDITS I NTRODUCED DURING THE YEAR. THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS THUS BEEN MERGED WITH THE SAI D ADDITION. WE FIND THE ASSESSEES CHALLENGE OF THE SAME ON MERITS AS NOT MAINTAINABLE , AS THERE HAS BEEN NO ADJUDICATION THEREON BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND, CONSEQUENTLY, NO MER GER OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN HIS ORDER AS REGARDS THIS ISSUE. THE REASONS FOR THE SA ID NON-ADJUDICATION BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY STAND ALREADY DISCUSSED AT PARA 4 OF THIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO CONTEST THE SAID ADDITION, WHICH STANDS NOW ENHA NCED TO ` 15,20,712/-, BY FOLLOWING THE NORMAL APPELLATE PROCEDURE. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSES APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (N.S.GANESAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: ERNAKULAM DATED: 25TH JANUARY, 2012 GJ COPY TO: 1. M/S. PALANI JEWELLERY, MAIN ROAD, PARIPALLY, KOL LAM. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KOLLAM. I.T.A. NO. 263/COCH/2009 PALANI JEWELLERY VS. ITO, KOLLAM 8 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, KOC HI 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRIVANDRUM. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE . BY ORDER (ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR) I TAT, COCHIN BENCH