The Income-tax Officer, Phagwara V. M/s. Dilbagh Fashion, Phagwara

ITA 286/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 28620914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K CHOPRA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.286(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 PAN :AAGFD0618M INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S. DILBAGH FASHION, WARD-1, PHAGWARA. 132-C, MODEL TOWN, PHAGWARA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, DR RESPONDENT BY:SH. S.K.CHOPRA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING: 27/02/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:18/03/2014 ORDER PER BENCH ; THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-II, JALANDHAR DATED 28.02.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08.THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN:- 1. ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHEN SUFFICIENT OPPOR TUNITY WAS GRANTED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. NOT PASSING AN ORDER IN WRITING AND THEREFORE, NOT COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB RULE (2) OF RULE 46A WHI LE ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IGNORING THE DECI SION OF THE ITA NO.286(ASR)/2013 2 HONBLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH IN THE C ASE OF SMT. SURINDER KAUR DATED 29.07.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.596(CHD/2011. 3. DELETING TRADING ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.2,75,636/ - ESPECIALLY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE TRADING RESU LTS WERE NOT VERIFIABLE AS INVENTORY OF CLOSING STOCK WAS NOT FI LE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4. GRANTING RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION TO FIXED ASS ETS AMOUNTING TO RS.40,85,287/- WHEN NO EVIDENCE FOR THE SAME WAS FURNISHED DESPITE THE FACT THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITIES WERE AFF ORDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS.2,04,264/- ON FIXED ASSETS WHEN NO EVIDENCE OF FIXED ASSETS WAS FURNISH ED DESPITE OF PROPER OPPORTUNITIES WERE AFFORDED TO THE ASSESS EE. 6. DELETING ADDITION OF RS.9,59,738/- MADE U/S 41(1) O F THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT PAYABLE TO M/S. DILBAGH SILK STOR E AS PER LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AS ON 31.03.2007 WITHOUT APPREC IATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ITSELF STATED THAT M/S. DILBAGH SILK STORE HAD CEASED TO EXIST ON 01.11.2006. 7. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SE T ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED. 8. THE APPELLANT REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND OR ALTER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DI SPOSED OF. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM TH E ORDER OF THE AO ARE REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE IS DERIVED INCOME FROM TRADING IN CLO TH, ETC. THE CASE WAS EXAMINED IN DETAILED. THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE OPERATION OF THE FIRM AS M/S. DILBAGH FASHION CAME INTO EXISTENCE AS PER PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 01.11.2006 BY MERGING TOGETHER OF TWO CO NCERNS I.E. (A) SH. JAGJIT SINGH, PROP. DILBAGH FASHION, PHAGWARA A ND (B) SH. JASVIR SINGH, PROP. DILBAGH SILK STORE, PHAGWARA. AS PER T HE PARTNERSHIP DEED ALL THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE PREVIOUS CONCERNS ITA NO.286(ASR)/2013 3 ITA NO.286(ASR)/2013 4 ITA NO.286(ASR)/2013 5 ITA NO.286(ASR)/2013 6 ITA NO.286(ASR)/2013 7 ITA NO.286(ASR)/2013 8 ITA NO.286(ASR)/2013 9 AMOUNT OF RS.9,59,738/- IS HEREBY ADDED BACK ON ACC OUNT OF CESSATION OF TRADING LIABILITY AS PER THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 3. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH WERE FORWARDED TO THE A.O. AND REPORT TAKEN. AGAIN FOR TAKING REJOINDER FROM THE ASSESSEE, ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WA S GIVEN TO THE AO, WHO SENT THE REPORT AND THE REJOINDER WERE TAKEN FROM T HE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, SUBMISSIONS O F THE ASSESSEE, THE REPORTS OF THE AO AND THE REJOINDER OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD . CIT(A) VIDE PARA 14 TO 16 OF HIS ORDER HELD AS UNDER: 14. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, COMMENTS OF AO, REJOINDER OF THE A SSESSEE AND MATERIAL ON RECORDS. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE A SSESSMENT RECORDS. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO NATURAL JUSTICE AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SOUGHT TO BE ADMITTED HAVE DUL Y BEEN ADMITTED AND HAVE BEEN EXAMINED IN DETAILS BY THE AO, THESE GROUNDS REMAIN ACADEMIC AS ON NOW AND ARE DISMISSED AS DUE OPPORTU NITY STANDS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO REJECTION OF BOOKS U/S 145(3 ) OF THE ACT AND ESTIMATION OF GP @ 16% THEREBY MAKING AN ADDITION O F RS.2,75,636/-. THE MAIN GROUND FOR REJECTION OF BOOK RESULTS IS TH AT THE INVENTORY OF CLOSING STOCK WAS NOT FILED. FURTHER, IN THE OPINIO N OF AO THE GP SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LOWER THAN SOME OF THE TR ADERS IN SIMILAR LINE OF BUSINESS. IT IS SEEN FROM CASE RECORDS TAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONFRONTED WITH THE COMPARABLE CASE OF M/S. MAHALAX MI CLOTH HOUSE BUT AS PER ORDER SHEET NOTE DATED 24.12.2009, SR.NO .5 IT IS MENTIONED AS TO WHY GP RATE OF SIMILAR CONCERN WITH SIMILAR T RADE BE NOT APPLIED @ 16% (OVERWRITTEN AS 16%). IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT TH E REPLY OF ASSESSEE DATED 31.12.2009 IS DULY PLACED ON RECORDS WITH STA MP OF ITA NO.286(ASR)/2013 10 ACKNOWLEDGMENT BEARING NO.001510 OF THE OFFICE OF A DDL. CIT, PHAGWARA AND THE RELEVANT REPLY OF ASSESSEE IS AS U NDER: THAT AS FAR AS THE GP RATE TO BE APPLIED @ 15% AS IN THE CASE OF SIMILAR TRADERS DOES NOT SPECIFY THE INSTANCES A ND HOW IT IS APPLICABLE WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS A WHOLE SELLER OF T HE CLOTH. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. MO REOVER, ALL THE REQUIRED INFORMATION HAVE BEEN PROPERLY FILED W ITH YOU AS AND WHEN CALLED. 15. IT LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONFRO NTED AS TO THE RESULTS OF ANY SPECIFIC TRADER OPERATING IN THE SAM E FIELD AND THE PROPOSED RATE TO BE APPLIED WAS 15%.. DURING THE AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT IS ARGUED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THOU GH IT WAS NOT CONFRONTED WITH THE RESULTS OF M/S. MAHALAXMI CLOTH HOUSE YET THE RESULT WERE NOT COMPARABLE AS THE ASSESSEE IS A WHO LESALER WHEREAS THE CONCERN M/S. MAHALAXMI CLOTH HOUSE WAS A RETAIL ER. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE WAS OPERATING FROM JALANDHAR AND THE F IRM COMPARED WAS OPERATING AT PHAGWARA. IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THA T THE ASSESSEE FIRM STARTED ONLY ON 01.11.2006 AND WAS RUNNING ITS BUS INESS ON BORROWED FUNDS. I FIND THAT ON GROUNDS OF NOT CONFRONTING TH E ASSESSEE AS WELL AS ON FACTUAL DIFFERENCES IN BOTH THE CONCERNS THE ACT ION OF AO CANNOT BE UPHELD AS APPLES AND ORANGES CANT BE COMPARED. NEE DLESS TO SAY THAT NON-MAINTENANCE OF STOCK DETAILS ALONE CANT BE THE REASON FOR OR SPECIFIC DEFECT IS POINTED OUT. IT IS NO CASE OF AO THAT ON COMPARISON OF OWN RESULTS OF ASSESSEE THE GP WAS LOWER AS IT WAS THE FIRST YEAR AND GP RATE IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS IS ALSO PROGRESSIVE AS UNDER: AY G.P.RATE 2009-10 13.02% 2008-09 12.93% 2007-08 11.44% 16. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ADOPTING A HIGHER GP. THE ADDI TION OF RS.2,75,636/- IS HEREBY DELETED. GROUND NO.5 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.40,85,28 7/- ON ACCOUNT OF FIXED ASSETS INTRODUCED AT THE START OF THE BUSINESS. ITA NO.286(ASR)/2013 11 GROUND NO.6 ALSO IS INTER CONNECTED AS IT RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON THESE ASSETS. AFTER THE ACCEPTANCE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THE EXAMINATION OF IT BY T HE AO THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS TO THE ADDITION OF ASSETS. THE AO HOWEVE R HAS RAISED A DOUBT IN HIS REPORT DATED 01.02.2013 THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,15,169/- IS CONCERNED, THIS ADDITION IS MADE IN NOVEMBER, 20 06 WHEREAS THE NEW FIRM WAS FORMED ON 01.11.2006. THIS AMOUNT IS R EFLECTED IN THE BUILDING ACCOUNT OF M/S. DILBAGH SILK STORE EXAMINE D BY THE AO A FACTUALLY FOUND CORRECT. THESE EXPENSES ARE MADE BY SH. JASBIR SINGH PROP. DILBAGH SILK STORE AND WERE PASSED ON 01.12.2 006 AND ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. IN VIEW OF THIS THE ENTIRE ADDITION IS DELETED. GROUND NO.6 ALSO STANDS ALLOWED BEING CONS EQUENTIAL TO IT. GROUND NO.7 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.9,59,738/- U NDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT. THIS LIABILITY TOWARDS M/S. DILBA GH SILK STORE IS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF ASSESSEE. AS PER AO S INCE THE CONCERN M/S. DILBAGH SILK STORE CEASED TO EXIST ON 30.10.06 HENCE THE LIABILITY TO PAY ALSO CEASED ON 31.03.2007. IT IS SEEN THAT I N THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S. DILBAGH SILK STORE ALSO THE ASSESSEE IS SHO WN AS A CREDITOR AT THE SAME AMOUNT. M/S. DILBAGH SILK STORE WAS A PROP RIETORSHIP CONCERN OF SH.JASBIR SINGH, WHO IS NOW A PARTNER IN ASSESSEE FIRM. INSTEAD OF CREDITING IT IN HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT THE AMOUNT IS SEPARATELY SHOWN AS A LIABILITY AND EVEN IF THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAS CEASED TO EXIST, THE LIABILITY TOWARDS SH. JASBIR SINGH HA S NOT CEASED. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ADDITION MADE U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT IS DELETED. 4. THE LD. JCIT(DR), MR. MAHAVIR SINGH, ARGUED AT T HE OUTSET THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED QUANTITATIVE DETAILS AND HAS NOT CO-OPERATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INSPITE OF VARIOUS OPPOR TUNITIES GIVEN AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICES ISSUED, THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES INSPITE OF NUMBER OF OPPORTUN ITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. EVEN IF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES HAVE BEE N ADMITTED, NOTHING HAS BEEN PRODUCED WITH REGARD TO THE DIFFERENCE IN THE FIXED ASSETS AMOUNTING TO ITA NO.286(ASR)/2013 12 RS.40,85,287/-. NOTHING HAS BEEN RECONCILED BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NO T JUSTIFIED IN REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AS REGARDS TO THE APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND AS REGARDS TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION. THE LD. DR ACCORDINGLY PRAYED TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH. S. K.CHOPRA, ADVOCATE, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO AND REPORT OF THE A.O. DURING AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE IS DERIVING INCOME FROM TRADING IN CLO TH. THE ASSESSEE BEING A PARTNERSHIP FIRM WHICH CAME INTO EXISTENCE W.E.F. 01.11.2006 BY MERGING TWO PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS I.E. M/S. DILBAGH FASHI ON AND M/S. DILBAGH SILK STORE PROPRIETOR MR. JAGTAR SINGH AND MR. JASVIR SI NGH AND ALL ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS WERE TAK EN OVER BY THE ASSESSEE CONCERN. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY QUANTITATIVE DETAILS, STOCK REGISTER ETC. IN T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE AO TO DEDUCE ACCURATE INCO ME, ESPECIALLY THE CLOSING STOCK DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE NON MAINTENANCE OF STOCK REGIST ER IS NOT A DEFECT IN ITA NO.286(ASR)/2013 13 REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF QUANTITATIVE DETAILS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO CANNOT DEDUCE ACCURATE INCOME AND THEREFORE, THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REVERSED ON THE ISSUE AND THAT OF THE A.O. IS REST ORED AS FAR AS THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT IS CONCERN ED. 6.1. AS REGARDS THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME, ONCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE REJECTED, THE AO HAS ESTIMATED NET PROFIT RATE OF 1 6%. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COMPARABLE CASE BY THE LD. CIT(A) OR BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE AO, WHO HAS RIGHTLY APPLIED GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 16% AND HAS RIGHTLY MA DE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,75,636/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(A) IS REVERSED AND THAT OF THE A.O. IS RESTORED. 6.2. AS REGARDS THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS ADMITTED TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THUS, GROUNDS NO. 1 & 2 OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. AS HELD HEREINABOVE, GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 7. AS REGARDS GROUNDS NO. 4 & 5, THE BRIEF FACTS AS STATED BY THE AO HAS BEEN REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIV EN VERY VAGUE FINDING WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.5 WHICH RELATES TO ADDITIO N OF RS.40,85,287/-. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS G IVEN FINDING THAT THE ITA NO.286(ASR)/2013 14 VALUE OF ASSETS AT RS.40,85,287/- IS NOT SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION AND THE RELEVANT PART AT PAGE 14 IN PARA 4 OF THE REPORT OF THE AO RECEIVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE LETTER DATED 06.11.2012 IS REPRODUCED F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AS UNDER: IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE IN HIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF BUILDING AND ASSET TRANSFERRED BY M/S. DILBAGH SILK STORE AT RS.40,85,287/- AND HAS C ONTENDED THAT THE SAME REPRESENTED THE ADDITION TO FIXED ASSETS OF M/ S. DILBAGH FAHION. HOWEVER, A PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S. DIL BAGH SILK STORE, FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND WHICH FORMS PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ANNEXURE C, SHOWS THAT TOTAL FIXED ASSETS OF THE CONCERN WERE AT RS.32,99,129/- ONLY. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, REGARDING TRANSFER OF ASSETS TO THE TUNE OF RS.40,85,287/-, SUMMONS WERE ISSUED TO SH. JASBIR SINGH ERSTWHILE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. DILBAGH SILK STORE TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07. HOWEVER, IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ATTEND THIS OFF ICE. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE VALUATION OF A SSETS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.40,85,287/- IS NOT SUBJECT TO VERIFI CATION. 8. THE OTHER DIRECTION GIVEN TO THE A.O. BY THE LD . CIT(A) IS TO GIVE ONE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE A.O. AFTER GIVI NG OPPORTUNITY SUBMITTED FURTHER REPORT VIDE LETTER DATED 01.02.201, WHICH F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER YO UR DIRECTIONS, SH. JASBIR SINGH (ERSTWHILE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. DILBAGH SILK STORE) WAS ASKED TO FURNISH EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF ADDITION/TR ANSFER OF ASSETS FROM M/S. DILBAGH SILK STORE TO M/S. DILBAGH FASHIONS. H E ATTENDED THE OFFICE AND FILED REPLY ALONG WITH COPY OF BUILDING ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD 01.11.2006 TO 01.12.2006 ( COPY ENCLOSED). A PERUSAL OF THE SAID ACCOUNT SHOWS THAT APART FROM ASSETS SHOWN IN BALANCE SHEET FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THERE WERE FURTHER ITA NO.286(ASR)/2013 15 ASSETS, AMOUNTING TO RS.4,70,189/- BEING AMOUNT DEB ITED AS INTEREST RECEIVABLE AND RS.3,15,169/- AS AMOUNT OF ADDITION DURING NOVEMBER, 2006.AS REGARDS INTEREST DEBITED, HE WAS ASKED TO F URNISH EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE SAME PERTAINED TO THE SAID BUILDING. IN THIS REPLY, HE STATED THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENTED THE INTEREST ON LOAN RAISED FROM CITI FINANCIAL CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA LIMITED WHICH IN TURN WAS LOAN TAKEN OVER BY THE SAID FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FROM UCO BANK. THE SAME BEING LINKED TO THE CAPITAL ASSET WAS TAKEN AS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FORMING PART OF THE FIXED ASSETS. A COP Y OF THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. FURTHER, AS REGARDS ADDITION OF RS.3,15,169/- IS CONCERNED, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT T HE SAID ADDITION HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO BE MADE DURING THE MONTH OF NOVEMBE R, 2006 WHEREAS NEW FIRM I.E. M/S. DILBAGH FASHION WAS FORM ED ON 01.11.2006. 9. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID REPORT OF THE AO, W E DO NOT FIND ANYWHERE THAT THE SAID DIFFERENCE AS REFERRED TO BY THE A.O. HAD BEEN RECONCILED AND NO EXPLANATION OF WHATSOEVER KIND H AS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTI FIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF GROUNDS NO. 5 & 6 BEFORE HIM WHICH GROUNDS ARE 4 & 5 BEFORE US. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPL ANATION EVEN IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.40,85,287/- AND RS.2,04,264/-. THUS, GROUNDS NO. 4 & 5 OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED. 10. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.6, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(A) APPEARS TO BE REASONED ONE AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAME A ND THE SAME IS UPHELD. THUS, GROUND NO.6 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.286(ASR)/2013 16 11. GROUNDS NO. 7 & 8 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THE REFORE, DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.286(ASR)/2013 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18TH MARCH, 2014. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 18TH MARCH, 2014 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: 2. THE 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR