M/s Muktar Minarals Pvt. Ltd., Goa V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji., Panaji

ITA 290/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1357 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K M MAHESH
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRINIVAS NAYAK
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 290 & 291 /PNJ/201 5 (ASST. YEAR S : 200 6 - 0 7 & 2007 - 08 ) M/S. MUKTAR MINERALS PVT. LTD., PLOT B - 2, B - 3, PHASE - 1A, VERNA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, VERNA, GOA. VS. A CIT, CENTRAL CIR CLE, PANAJI. PAN NO. AAECM 0510 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHRINIVAS NAYAK C A. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI K.M. MAHESH - D R DATE OF HEARING : 14 / 0 9 /2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 / 0 9 /201 5 . O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TH E S E ARE THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2 , PANAJI , DATED 1 0 /0 6 /201 5 PASSED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 . 2. THE COMMON GROUND OF APPEAL IN BOTH THE APPEALS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF 45 LAC IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND 10 LAC IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH . 3 . FACTS OF THE CASE , IN BRIEF , ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE C O URSE OF SEARCH ON 16/06/2011, IT WAS OBSERVED FROM 2 ITA NO S . 290 & 291 /PNJ/201 5 PAGE N O . 134 OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL - ANNEXURE A/MMPL/10 WHICH IS A COPY OF LIST OF AMOUNTS PAID TO M/S. NADEEM MINERALS UNDER THE HEAD CASH & CHEQUE NO. AND DATE WHEREIN CHEQUE NUMBERS WITH DATES ARE MENTIONED AGAINST THE AMOUNTS PAID. IT HAS ALSO NOTICED THAT CASH PAYMENT TOTALLING TO 45 LAC BETWEEN 06/10/2005 AND 17/01/2006 I.E. IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005 - 06 AND 10 LAC ON 02/08/2006 I.E. FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO M/S.NADEEM MINERALS . AS PER THE SAID LIST OF PAYMENTS, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MADE TOT AL PAYMENTS ( INCLUDING THE AFORESAID CASH PAYMENTS ) OF 12 CRORES FROM 17/12/2003 TO 11/10/2006 TO M/S.NADEEM MINERALS. TH E AMOUNT OF 12 CRORES IS AN ADVANCE PAID TO M/S. NADEEM MINERALS AS PER CLAUSE 5 OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 14/10/2006 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND M/S.NADEEM MINERALS COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE NOS. 5 TO 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK . ACCORDING TO THIS AGREEMENT, AFTER EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS FROM 04/10/2006, THIS ADVANCE OF 12 CRORES SHALL BE ADJUSTED AGAINST PRICE OF ORE PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE IN EQUAL INSTALMENTS FOR THE REMAINING 08 YEARS. 4 . WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE SAME, SHRI SHAIKH MUKTAR , DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN HIS STATEMENT , DATED 08/07/2011 , DENIED HAVING MADE ANY CASH PAYMENTS AND STATED THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. NADEEM MINERALS WERE BY CHEQUES ONLY . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS WOULD BE PROVIDED. THE QUESTION PUT TO THE SAID DIRECTOR AND ANSWER TO THE SAME READS AS UNDER: - Q.12. I AM SHOWING YOU THE PAGE NO. 13 4 OF THE SEIZED, MATERIAL MMPL/ 10 DATED 16.06.2011. AS PER THIS YOU HAVE MADE PAYMENT OF RS. 55 LAC IN CASH TO M/S. NADEEM MINERALS. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SAME AND EXPLAIN WHETHER IT IS ACCOUNTED OR NOT. ANS: THE ABOVE PAYMENTS ARE MADE BY CHEQUE ONLY. INADVERTENTLY, IT HAS BEEN ENTERED AS CASH. THE DETAILS WILL BE PROVIDED. 3 ITA NO S . 290 & 291 /PNJ/201 5 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF PA YMENTS OF 55 LAC, IN CASH, MADE TO M/S. NADEEM MINERALS . T HE ASSESSEE CORROBORATED THE CHEQUE PAYMENTS , LISTED AT PAGE NO. 134 OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL ANNEXURE A/MMPL/10 DATED 16/06/2011 WITH THE BANK ACCOUNTS . THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT NO PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH . ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS THE ONUS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE OTHERWISE THAT NO CASH PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE AS THE REFERRED SEIZED MATERIAL WAS FOUND FROM THE OFFICE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY . THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE ITS ONUS THAT NO CASH PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO M/S. NADEEM MINERALS . ON THE CONTRARY, ON VERIFICATION OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF M/S. NADEEM MINERALS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S. MUKTAR MINERALS PVT. LTD. FOR FINANCIAL YEAR S 2005 - 06 & 2006 - 07, THE CASH PAYMENT MADE TO M/S. NADEEM MINERALS IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS . THEREFORE, THE CASH PAYMENT S OF 4 5 LAC DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005 - 06 AND 10 LAC IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 ARE UNACC O UNTED AND REMAIN UNEXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY . THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT SINCE PART OF THE CONTENTS OF THE ABOVE SEIZED PAGE ARE ESTABLISHED TO BE TRUE AND OTHER PART OF THE CONTENTS REGARDING CASH PAYMENTS TOTALLING TO 55 LAC SHOWN AT PAGE 134 OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL ANNEXURE A/MMPL/10 DATED 16/06/2011, ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS , ARE ALSO TRUE. THEREFORE, HE MADE THE ADDITION OF 45 LAC IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND 10 LAC IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6 . ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERV ING THAT IN THE CASE OF SEARCH, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT WHATEVER IS FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE AND ITS CONTENTS ARE TR UE UNLESS PROVED OTHERWISE BY THE ASSESSEE . T HE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE CONTENTS OF ANY PAPER, WHICH HAS BEEN FOUND FROM HIS PREMISES, IS NOT TRUE. APART FROM DENYING THAT THEY HAVE NOT MADE ANY 4 ITA NO S . 290 & 291 /PNJ/201 5 CASH PAYMENTS, THEY COULD NOT GIVE ANY EV IDENCE TO CORROBORATE THE SAME. 7 . BEFORE US THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 04/10/2006 IS PLACED AT PAGE NOS. 5 TO 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK . IT WILL BE NOTICED FROM THE SAID AGREEMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TO PAY 12 CRORES TO M/S. NADEEM MINERALS FOR PURCHASE OF IRON ORE, WHICH SHALL BE MAINTAINED AS ADVANCE WITH M/S. NADEEM MINERALS TILL THE EXPIRY OR EARLIER TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT . A FTER EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS FROM TH E AGREEMENT, TH E ADVANCE AMOUNT SHALL BE ADJUSTED AGAINST PRICE OF ORE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID AMOUNT SHALL BE ADJUSTED IN EQUAL INSTALMENTS FOR REMAINING 08 YEARS . HE , THEN , REFERRED TO PAGE NO. 23 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT M/S. NADEEM MINERALS HAS GIVEN CONFIRMATION ALONG WITH PAN NUMBER THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED 12 CRORES AS ADVANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE BY CHEQUES . HE , THEN , REFERRED TO PAGE NO. 2 4 AND POINTED OUT THAT IT CONTAINS ANNEXURE - 1 DETAILS OF ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE , WHEREIN D E TAILS OF CHEQUE NUMBERS WITH DATE AND AMOUNT HAVE BEEN GIVEN WHICH SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT IN 24 INSTALMENTS FROM 17/12/2003 TO 14/10/2006 , TOTALLING TO 12 CRORES TO M/S. NADEEM MINERALS . HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE STATEMENT , SHRI SHAIKH MUKTAR , DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DATED 08/07/2011 STATED THAT NO PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO M/S. NADEEM MINERALS IN CASH . THUS , AT THE EARLIE ST POINT OF TIME, AFTER SEARCH , IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED, THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY DENIED HAVING MADE ANY CASH PAYMENTS TO M/S. NADEEM MINERALS . HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO RECORDED THAT ON VE RIFICATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM , HE HAD NOT FOUND ANY CASH PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SAID PARTY. HE THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE EVIDENCE CORROBORATES WITH THE PAYMENTS OF 12 CRORES WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY CHEQUE AND NO AMOUNT WAS PAID IN CASH. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS IN 5 ITA NO S . 290 & 291 /PNJ/201 5 QUESTION RELATE TO THE PERIOD FROM 17/12/2003 TO 14/03/2006 AND THE SALE AGREEMENT IS DATED 04/10/2006 . HE SUBMITTED THAT SEARCH TOOK PLACE ON 16/06/2011 WHICH IS MUCH AFTER THE DATE OF AGREEMENT AND THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT AFTER SEARCH, ASSESSEE MANIPULATED THE ACCOUNTS AND HAD SHOWN PAYMENTS BY CHEQUE INSTEAD OF CASH AS REFLECTED IN THE COMPUTER TYPED SHEET . HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID COMPUTER TYPED SHEET DOES NOT CONTAIN THE SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE AND NEITHER IT IS IN THE HANDWRITING OF ANY PERSON OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HENCE, HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION MADE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 8 . HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. VRINDA P. KITTUR IN I.T.A.NO. 18 9 /PNJ/2015 ORDER DATED 17/08/2015 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : - 48 . AFTER GOING THROUGH THE LOOSE SHEET, WE FIND THAT MERELY FROM THE SAID SHEET IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT IT RECORDS ACTUAL FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. HAZRAT CONSTRUCTIONS OR ANY OTHER PERSON. FROM THE SAID LOOSE SHEET, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY PAID THE AMOUNT STATED ON THE DATES MENTIONED THEREIN OR EVEN M/S. HAZRAT CONSTRUCTIONS ACTUALLY RECEIVED THOSE AMOUNTS FROM ANY PERSON. THUS, THE SAID DOCUMENT WHICH WAS NOT A PART OF REGULARLY MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE TREATED AS EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IN ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE BEING BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE ADDITION MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE SHEET WHICH DOES NOT BEAR SIGNATURE OF ANY PERSON AND WHICH DOES NOT CREATE ANY LEGAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ANY OTHER PERSON CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 49. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE UNABLE TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DELETED. THUS, THESE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION ARE ALLOWED. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD BE DELETED. 6 ITA NO S . 290 & 291 /PNJ/201 5 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION TOOK PLACE AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 16/06/2011 , WHEREIN COMPUTER TYPED SHEET CONTAINING DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. NADEEM MINERALS UNDER THE HEAD CASH & CHEQUE NO. AND DATE WAS FOUND . THIS SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF 12 CRORES FOR THE PERIOD FROM 17/12/2003 TO 14/10/2006 . FROM THE SAID DETAILS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH PAYMENTS OF 45 LAC IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005 - 06 AND 10 LAC IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 . THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER MADE THE ADDITION OF THE SAME AS UNACCOUNTED CASH PAYMENTS IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 RESPECTIVELY WITHOUT ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY CASH PAYMENTS TO THE SAID PARTY M/S. NADEEM MINERALS IN TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 . 11 . ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT WHEN A DOCUMENT OR PAPER IS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS A PRESUMPTION THAT WHATEVER IS CONTAINED IN THE SAME IS TRUE AND CORRECT UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH CORROBORAT IVE EVIDENCE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THAT IT DID NOT MAKE ANY CASH PAYMENTS TO M/S. NADEEM MINERALS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED. 12 . WE FIND THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD DENIED HAVING MADE IN CASH PAYMENTS OF 45 LAC IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND 10 LAC IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 TO M/S. NADEEM MINERALS. THE DENIAL WAS MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN HIS SUBMISSION S DATED 13 /0 2 /201 4 WHICH READS AS UNDER: - 7 ITA NO S . 290 & 291 /PNJ/201 5 PAYMENTS TO M/S. NADEEM MINERALS: THE TOTAL PAYMENT MADE TO M/S. NADEEM MINERALS WAS RS.12.00 CRORES, THE PAYMENT WAS SPREAD ACROSS FOUR YEARS IN DIFFERENT INSTALMENTS. ENCLOSED FIND LIST OF PAYMENT MADE TO NADEEM MINERALS. ANNEXURE - III . ALL PAYMENTS TO NADEEM MINERALS WERE MADE THROUGH CHEQUES. THE DETAILS ARE AS PER LIST. T HE REFERRED PAYMENT OF RS. 45.00 LACS AND RS. 10.00 LACS WAS MADE TO NADEEM MINERALS AS BELOW: CHEQUE NO. DATE OF PAYMENT AMOUNT 0117281 17/02/2007 45,00,000 0117282 17/02/2007 10,00,000 ENCLOSED FIND THE BANK STATEMENTS CONFI RM ING THE SAME. ANNEXURE - IV FURTHER, WE ARE ALSO ENCLOSING THE CONFIRMATION OF THE PARTY M/S.NADEEM MINERALS GIVING THE DETAILS OF AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THEM. ANNEXURE - V. AS IT CAN BE NOTICED THAT THE AMOUNT PAID AND RECEIVED BY THE PARTY IS ONLY RS. 12.00 CRORES AND THERE IS NO. CASH PAYMENTS BESIDES THE ABOVE. THE CASH PAYMENTS AS MENTIONED IN YOUR LETTER OF RS.45.00 LACS AND RS.1 0.00 LACS WERE NEVER PAID AND AS SUCH WERE NEVER ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY. HENCE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF UNACCOUNTED C ASH PAYMENTS OF RS. 45,00,000/ - FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 AND RS.1 0,00,000/ - FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY. 13 FURTHER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO FOUND TH A T IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF M/S.NADEEM MINERALS, NO CASH PAYMENTS TO THE SAID PARTY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT DISPUTE D THAT THE ENTIRE PAYMENT OF 12 CRORES HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, WHICH ARE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 04/10/2006 RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO SPE A KS OF PAYMENT OF 12 CROR ES AND NOT MORE . FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED BEFORE US COPY OF CONFIRMATION AT PAGE NO. 23 OF THE PAPER BOOK FROM M/S. NADEEM MINERALS WHO HAS GIVEN THEIR PAN NO. AND HAS CONFIRMED HAVING RECEIPT OF 12 CRORES FROM THE ASSESSEE BY CHEQUE S ONLY. THUS, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN OUR 8 ITA NO S . 290 & 291 /PNJ/201 5 CONSIDERED VIEW , THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT TO CORROBORATE THE COMPUTERISED LISTING OF PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. NADEEM MINERALS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THAT CASH PAYMENT OF 45 LAC IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND 10 LAC IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. NADEEM MINERALS. 14 ON THE OTHER HAND, ASSESSEE POINTED OUT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT PAYMENT OF 45 LAC WAS MADE TO M/S. NADEEM MINERALS BY CHEQUE NO. 0117281 DATED 17/02/2007 AND PAYMENT OF 10 LAC BY CHEQUE NO. 0117282 DATED 17/02/2007 . NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE SAID PAYMENTS WERE NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY CHEQUE , BUT BY CASH ONLY . IT HAS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT AS PER AGREEMENT DATED 04/10/2006 , THE ASSESSEE WAS TO MAKE TOTAL PAYMENTS OF 12 CRORES ONLY TO M/S. NADEEM MINERALS. THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT TO SHOW THAT THE PAYMENT OF 45 LAC AND 10 LAC IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH AND NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DELETE THE ADDIT ION MADE AND ALLOWED THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE YEARS. 15 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON MONDAY , THE 14 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 201 5 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (GEORGE MATHAN) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 14 TH SEPTEMBER , 201 5 . 9 ITA NO S . 290 & 291 /PNJ/201 5 VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. 2 . THE REVENUE. 3 . THE CIT 4 . THE CIT(A) 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PANAJI 10 ITA NO S . 290 & 291 /PNJ/201 5 DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 15 .0 9 .2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 15 .09 .2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 15 /0 9 /2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 15 /0 9 /2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 15 /0 9 /2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14 /0 9 /2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 5 /0 9 /2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER