Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1592 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
24-11-2015
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
DB
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
11-06-2014
Judgement Text
1 I TA NO. 3 09 /NA G/2014 IN TH E INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I .T.A. NO. 3 09 /NAG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARDHA CIRCLE, WARDH A VS SHRI HANIF SHABBIR LAMBA, P ROP. O F POPULAR TRADERS , PATEL CHOWK, WARDHA 44200. P AN: A BUPL4787C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SMT. SUMAN MALLIK, (JCIT) RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. C. THAKKAR, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING: 17 - 11 - 2015 DATE OF PR ONOUNCEMENT: 24 - 11 - 2015 O R D E R PER MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE BY THE REVENUE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) - I, NAGPUR DATED 26 - 03 - 2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVE NUE IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) - I, NAGPUR HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,85,451 / - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF I. T. ACT, 1961 AS THE INVESTMENT IS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF OTHERS. 3 . THE F ACTS IN BRIEF , AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT DATED 29 - 12 - 2011 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF WHOLESALE TRADING IN GRAIN UNDER THE NAME AND STY LE OF M/S. POPULAR TRADERS . A RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 19,69,673/ - . A 2 I TA NO. 3 09 /NA G/2014 SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE IT ACT WAS CONDUCTED. IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE GROUND, THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO WAS AS UNDER: - I . ADDITION ON UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTIES 3. 1 IT IS NOTICED FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED IN PROPERTIES IN THE NAME OF FAMILY MEMBERS AND HIM. DETAILS FROM A - 39 ARE AS FOLLOWS: SR. NO. NAME OF THE FAMILY MEMBER AMOUNT (R S.) 1 SMT. YASHMIN SHABBIR LAMBA (MOTHER) AT BHUGAON LAND(PERIOD NOT MENTIONED) 7,67,670/ - 2 LATE ANWAR KADAR LAMBA(UNCLE), WAIGAON LAND (FY 2008 - 09) 1,37,160/ - * 3 LATE ANWAR KADAR LAMBA (UNCLE), INJAPUR PLOT (13205 SQ. FT. DATED 12/12/2008) 1,53,293/ - * 4 BHUGAON PLOT (ANWAR)! (A - 39, PAGE NO.41) 1,38,928/ - * 5 WAIGAON LAND (PAGE NO.41) 1,00,000/ - 6 ANAND NAGAR LAND 21,150/ - 7 MIDC LAND, PLOT NO.38, 39 (A - 39, PAGE NO.44) REPAIRING EXPENDITURE (A - 39, PAGE NO 45) 4,63,671/ - 27,640/ - 8 MASSANDA LAND 5 1,899/ - SALES AS SEEN IN A - 39 MAKAN LAND RS.2,25,000 (ANWAR) KAMTHI ROAD LAND RS.1,95,500/ - *! BHUGAON PLOT RS.5,01,725 +/ - (ANWAR) IT IS BEING TAXED IN THE HAND OF SHRI SHAHNAVEZ ANWAR LAMBA. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED IN SUMMON U/S 131 OF THE IT A CT, 1961 DATED 22/04/2009 TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AND SOURCE OF INCOME, AND MODE AND DATE OF PAYMENT TO PURCHASE OF PLOT AT BHUGAON IN THE NAME OF SMT. YASMIN SHABBIR LAMBA OF RS.7,76,670/ - BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE DETAILS. 3 I TA NO. 3 09 /NA G/2014 IT IS NOTICED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED IN LAND MEASURING 2.75 ACRES OF AMOUNT OF RS.7,67,670/ - IN THE NAME OF HIS MOTHER SMT. YASHMIN SHABBIR LAMBA AS PER ANNEXURE A - 39, PAGE NO.32 BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AMOUNT OF RS.1,75,000/ - FROM THE BOOKS OF A/C AND REFLECTED IN BANK ACCOUNT. BUT, THE BALANCE AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN REFLECTED IN BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE OR MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THESE TRANSACTIONS VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DATED 03/11/2011 AND 24/11/2011 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE FAIL ED TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCIES. THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE OF AMOUNT OF RS.5,92,670 SHOULD BE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH PAYMENT IN THESE TRAN SACTIONS. SINCE THE MOTHER OF T HE ASSE SSEE DOES NOT FILE HER RETURN OF INCOME THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.5,992,670 IS BEING ADDED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 READ WITH EXPLANATION 1 INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALMENT. (RS.5, 92 ,670 / - ) . 3.2 IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED IN SILVER AS PER ANNEX. A - 39 OF AMOUNT RS.2,0 1,500/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED AS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT BUT HE FAIL ED TO EXPLAIN. VIDE QUERY NO.18 OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 18.03.2009, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED FOR ADDITIONAL INCOME. THEREFORE, I ADD AMOUNT OF RS.2,01,500/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. (RS.2,01,500/ - ) 3.3 AGAIN, IT IS NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,000/ - IN THE WAIGAON PLOT. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT OFFERED SATISFACTORY REPLY IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. BUT, HE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR F.Y.2008 - 09. THEREFORE, I ADD AMOUNT OF RS.1,37,160 / - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. (RS.1,00,000/ - ) 3.4 AGAIN, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED AMOUNT OF RS.4,91,281/ - IN THE WIAGAON PLOT (A - 39, PAGE NO.44 AND 45) . THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THAT AMOUNT OF RS.3,00,000 HAS ALREADY BEEN COVERED IN SHRI SHABBIR LAMBA THEREFORE, BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,91,281/ - HAS BEEN OFFERED. HENCE, HE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR F.Y. 2008 - 09 OF RS.1,91,281/ - AS ADDITIONAL INCOME. THEREFORE, I ADD AMOUNT OF RS.1,91,281/ - UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. (RS.1,91,281/ - ) 4 I TA NO. 3 09 /NA G/2014 4 . WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: - 6 . 3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR, TH E ORDER AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO. ON CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE MOTHER OF THE APPELLANT, SMT. YASHMIN SHABBIR LAMBA ON 08.03.2006 FOR RS.1,51, 000/ - . IT IS THUS SE EN THAT TH E RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS AY 2006 - 07. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IN THE AY 2009 - 10, WHICH IS QUITE ILLOGICAL. IT IS ALSO SIGNIFICANT TO NOTE THAT THE LD. AO HAS NOT ASSIGNED ANY SPECIFIC REASONS FOR TREATING THE INVESTME NT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT, WHEREAS THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, AS PER AOS OWN VERSION, AS EMANATED FROM PARA 3.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, CLEARLY REVEALS THAT THE DOCUMENT FOUND IN THE SURVEY ACTION ANNEXED AT PAGE 32 OF ANNEXURE A - 39 SHOWS SUCH INVEST MENT IN THE NAME OF SMT. YASMIN SABIR LAMBA, THE MOTHER OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS, HOWEVER, RECORDED A FINDING IN THE ORDER HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR, THEREFORE, THE INVESTMENT IN LAND IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS O F THE APPELLANT. I DECLINE TO AGREE WITH THE STAND TAKEN BY THE AO TO TREAT THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BELONGING TO THE MOTHER OF THE APPELLANT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. FURTHER THAT THE RELEVANT YEAR OF INVESTMENT IS AY 2006 - 07, AND NOT AY 2009 - 10. S INCE THE INVESTMENT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF SMT. YASMIN SHABBIR LAMBA IN THE RELEVANT AY 2006 - 07, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.5,92,670/ - IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS AT LIBERTY TO CONSIDER THE INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF SMT. YASMIN SABIR LAMBA IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR BY TAKING APPROPRIATE REMEDIAL ACTION. . 7.3 ON CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM HAS FURNISHED THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH SHOWS THE ENTRIES OF INVESTMENT IN SILVER. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE PRIMARY EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS FOR PURCHASE OF SILVER. IT IS A FACT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT ADMITTEDLY WER E NOT COMPLETED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ACTION AND THE INVESTMENT IN SILVER WAS NOT FOUND REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AT THAT TIME. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE INVESTMENT IN SILVER IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE SUBSEQUENTLY COM PLETED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS FOUND TO BE IN ORDER WITH REFERENCE TO THE BILLS FOR PURCHASE OF SILVER. THE LD. AO WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING AS REGARDS TO THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS WHICH CONSTITUTE THE PRIMARY EVIDENCE FOR PURCHASE OF SILVER, BASED ON WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH WERE NOT COMPLETED AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY. THUS, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND IN THE 5 I TA NO. 3 09 /NA G/2014 ABSENCE OF ANYTHING CONTRARY BROUGHT ON RECORD, THE ADDITION IS DIRECTED TO BE DE LETED. HENCE, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED 8.2 ON CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,37,160/ - HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDED IN THE CASE OF LATE ANWAR LAMBA, THEREFORE, FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/ - IN THE HANDS OF SMT. FEHMIDA AN WAR AMOUNTS TO TOTAL ADDITION. BESIDES, THE INVESTMENT IN QUESTION IS NOT MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THIS AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,000/ - IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. HENCE, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 8.3 AS REGARDS TO THE ADDITION OF RS.1,91,281/ - IT IS SEEN THAT THE PLOT IN QUESTION BELONGS TO SHAHNAWAZ, WHERE THE SAID SHAHNAWAZ WAS HAVING HIS FACTORY UNIT. THE INDUSTRIAL PLOT AT WAIGAON THUS DOES NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT BUT BELONGS TO SHAHNAWAZ. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF THE SAME IN THE HANDS OF THE APP ELLANT IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED . HENCE, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 5 . WE HAVE HEA RD BOTH THE SIDES. ON THIS ISSUE, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO IS VERY AMBIGUOUS WITHOUT MENTIONING THE DISCREPANCIES FOUND AT THE TIME O F SURVEY IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENTS IN QUESTION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED RELEVANT EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM BUT, THE AO HAS FAILED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE SAID EVIDENCES PROPERLY. UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO FALLACY IN THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A). THE SAME IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL READ S AS UNDER : - 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) - I, NAGPUR HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1, 0 3,9 5 9 / - ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SIZE OF FAMILY, INFLATION OF RUPEE AND STANDARD OF LIVING. 7 . IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE GROUND, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - II. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DRAWINGS 6 I TA NO. 3 09 /NA G/2014 5.0 IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED HOUSE HOLD W ITHDRAWAL AMOUNTING TO RS.1,00,041 / - . HE ALSO FILED CAPITAL ACCOUNT WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. THE COUNSEL WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES CLAIMED VIZ. STANDARD OF LIVING AND SIZE OF FAMILY. IT APPEARED THAT THE DRAWING FOR HOUSE HOLD ARE VERY LOW HENCE, IT WAS ASKED WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE ESTIMATED PROPORTIONATE TO THE LIVING STANDARD AND INFLATION IN INDIAN ECONOMY. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY, THE COUNSEL APPEARED ON 13.12.2011 AND CONFRONTED THAT HE IS READY TO GET ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AS PER FAMILY STRENGTH AND INFLA TION. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE DRAWINGS WHICH IS NOT SUFFICIENT ENOUGH AND AS SUCH HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES OF WHOLE FAMILY WERE ESTIMATED AT RS.17,000/ - WHICH COMES TO RS.2,04,000 / - . THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,03,9 5 9 / - ESTIMATED AS ADDITIONAL DRAWING IS BEING ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271 (1) (C) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 READ WITH EXPLANATION 1 INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR FURNISH ING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALMENT. 8 . WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF AS UNDER: - 10.2 ON CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE AD DITION MERELY ON ESTIMATE BASIS WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS. THE APPELLANT WAS LIVING WITH HIS FATHER SHABBIR LAMBA AND HIS BROTHER IMRAN SHABBIR LAMBA. THE AGGREGATE TOTAL WITHDRAWALS OF ALL THE 3 MEMBERS IS RS.5,04,602/ - WHICH IS QUITE A REASONABLE AMOUNT FOR A SMALL FAMILY. THE LD. AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF AD - HOC BASIS WITHOUT PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS. HENCE THIS ADDITION OF RS.1,03,959/ - IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. HENCE, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED . 9 . HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL , A LTHOUGH, A SURVEY U/S 133A OF T HE IT ACT WAS CONDUCTED, THERE WAS NO COGENT REASON TO ESTIMATE THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE OF THE FAMILY ON ESTIMA TE BASIS THAT TOO WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE WITHDRAWALS BY THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY VIZ. SHRI SHABBIR LAMBA, FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI IMRAN SHABBIR LAMBA, BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE . AS A RESULT, WE FIND NO REASON CALLING FOR INTERFERE NCE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED 7 I TA NO. 3 09 /NA G/2014 CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM HIS FINDINGS AND REJECT THE GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL . 10 . GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UNDER: - 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) - I, NAGPUR HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 , 00 ,000 / - AS INVESTMENT MADE FOR UNRECORDED PURCHASE AND SALES OF GOODS, WHICH WAS RIGHTLY AND MODERATELY ESTIMATED BY THE AO. 11 . IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE GROUND, THE AO HAS HELD THAT THERE WAS AN UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT AND MADE THE ADDITION AS UNDER: - V. ADDITION ON UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN TERMS OF PURCHASES 7 . 0 THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED AUDITED PROFIT AND LOSS A/C OF UNACCOUNTED SALE AND PURCHASE IN WHICH PURCHASES RECORDED ARE RS.1,01,70,535/ - AND SA LE OF RS.1,04,17,425/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN TERMS OF PURCHASES OF RS.5,00,000/ - FOR A. Y. 2009 - 10. BUT AS SEEN THE TRANSACTION IN HUGE AMOUNT OFFERED IS NOT SATISFACTORY. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED VIDE ORDER SHEET NOT ED 24.11.2011 AS TO WHY SHOULD NOT BE ADDED FURTHER AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000/ - AS SEEN THE PURCHASE OF ONE MONTH AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69C OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE APPEARED ON VARIOUS DATED AND EXPLAINED HIS CASE BUT HE FAILED TO SUBSTANT IATE HIS CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED FOR THE SAID ADDITION. THEREFORE, I ADD AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69C OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. (RS. 5 , 00 ,000 / - ) 12 . WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BE FORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF AS UNDER: - 12.2 ON CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS, IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF, CONSIDERING THE QUICK TURNOVER RELATING TO THE PERISHABLE GOODS HAS OFFERED ESTIMATED TURNOVER OF RS.5,00,000/ - OVER AND ABOVE THE ACTUAL TURNOVER. THE PROFIT ARISING THEREFROM HAS ALREADY BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX. HOWEVER, THE AO AGAIN ADDED RS.5,00,000/ - TO THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH 8 I TA NO. 3 09 /NA G/2014 IS UNJUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. HENCE, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 13 . HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF, DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS HAS OFFERED THE ADDITION OF ESTIMATED TURNOVER FOR A SUM OF RS.5,00,00/ - AGAINST PERISHABLE GOODS, OVER AND ABOVE THE ACTUAL TURNOVER AND THAT THE PROFIT THEREUPON HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX, FOR WHICH HE HAS ALLEGEDLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE IT ACT. AS A RESULT, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). HENCE , THE SAME ARE HEREBY CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 14 . IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015. SD/ - SD/ - (SHAMIM YAHYA) (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 24 TH NOV., 2015. LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/SR. PS COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T., CONCERNED 4. CIT ( APPEALS) - I, NAGPUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRA R, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. 9 I TA NO. 3 09 /NA G/2014 DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & D RAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 1 7 .11.2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 18 .11.2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK
Mehul