SURESH C. JAIN, NAVI MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR 25, MUMBAI

ITA 3270/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 327019914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 01-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D S SUNDER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH SANGHVI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Business income
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

ITA NO.3270 OF 2010 SURESH C. JAIN, NAVI MUMBAI PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'J' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3270/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) SHRI SURESH C. JAIN, DCIT CENTRAL RANGE PLOT NO.27, LANE F 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN SECTOR-8, VASHI DR.MK ROAD NAVI MUMBAI VS MUMBAI 400020 PAN ABTPJ 7199 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI MANISH SANGHVI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING: 01/12/11 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16/12/11 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-39, MUMBAI DATED 10/03/2010. THE ASSESSEE RAISE D THE FOLLOWING THREE GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ` 33,85,330/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNED C IT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS INCORRECT AND INVALID AND OUGH T TO HAVE DELETED THE SAME. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE AD DITION OF ` 1,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS INCORRECT AND INVALID AND OUGH T TO HAVE DELETED THE SAME. ITA NO.3270 OF 2010 SURESH C. JAIN, NAVI MUMBAI PAGE 2 OF 8 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT TELESCOPIN G THE ADDITIONS MADE IN DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE FIRM IN WH ICH THE APPELLANT IS A PARTNER AND ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDIT FOR AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN FROM THE FIRM WHILE SUSTAININ G THE ABOVE ADDITIONS. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNED C IT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE TELESCOPED THE UNEXPLAINED JEWELL ERY AND CASH IN THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE FIRM AND OUG HT TO HAVE GIVEN DUE CREDIT FOR AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN FROM THE FIRM AND OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE O N ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELL ERY AND CASH . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 REGA RDING THE ADDITION OF ` 33,85,330/- AND ` 1.00 LAKH BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION IS GROUND NO.3 ON THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE AS A PARTNER, OUT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE FIRM. THE ASSES SEE IS A PARTNER IN ABOUT 19 FIRMS AND IS DERIVING INCOME MAINLY IN THE FORM OF INTEREST AND REMUNERATION FROM THESE FIRMS. A SEARC H OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 WAS CONDUCTED ON 05.06.2007 AT TH E RESIDENTIAL/ BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE PARTNERS AND METRO GROUP O F CASES. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING A TOTAL I NCOME OF ` 8,47,186/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BROUGHT TO TAX AN AMOUNT OF ` 33,85,330/- AS UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND ALSO AN AMOUNT OF ` 1.00 LAKH FOUND FROM LOCKER NO.862 OF BOMBAY MERCANTILE BANK. EVEN THOUGH AN AMOUNT OF ` 29.50 LAKHS WAS FOUND IN THE SEARCH, AFTER CONSIDERING TH E EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ABOVE WAS ACCEPTED AS AVAILABLE I N THE CASH BOOKS. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED TO THE CIT (A), WHO A FTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMED THE ADDIT IONS. BEFORE US ALSO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CONTESTING THE ADDITIONS S O MADE. BUT THE PRAYER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING OF THE AMOUNT DISCLOSED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM, AS A VAILABLE TO THE PARTNERS FOR MAKING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. THE GR OUND RAISED ITA NO.3270 OF 2010 SURESH C. JAIN, NAVI MUMBAI PAGE 3 OF 8 BEFORE THE CIT (A) WAS REJECTED ON THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT THE UNACCOUNTED JEWELLERY WAS ACQUIRED FROM THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE FIRM. HE HAS CONSIDER ED THE ISSUE AND REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS REGARDING TELESCOPING BENE FIT. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER OF THE FIRM M/S METRO CONSTRUCTION CO. AND THE DOCUMENTS P LACED ON RECORD SUBMIT THAT FIRM HAS DISCLOSED AN AMOUNT OF ` 1.81 CRORES AND ON THAT BASIS ENTRIES HAVE BEEN PASSED IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT DATED 31.05.2007 CREDITING AN AMOUNT OF ` 60.00 LAKHS TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO S UBMITTED THAT ON THE BASIS OF THIS ENTRY, OTHER PARTNERS HAVE DEP OSITED CASH IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED IN OTHERS ASSESSMENTS. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, HO WEVER, ASSESSEE WANTED CREDIT OF ` 60.00 LAKHS BEING THE SHARE OF PARTNER OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM TO BE T ELESCOPED TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED MONEY/JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE CO URSE OF SEARCH. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO I NDICATION WHEN THE JEWELLERY WAS PURCHASED AND SINCE THE ENTIRE AM OUNT WAS BROUGHT TO TAX AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN THE YEA R OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CONSIDER UN EXPLAINED AMOUNT AVAILABLE WITH HIM FROM THE FIRM AS THE SOUR CE OF AMOUNT INVESTED. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED FOR MAKING AN Y ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO RELIED ON VA RIOUS CASE LAW, EXTRACTED BY THE CIT (A) IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING ORDERS: A) CIT VS. ISHWARDAS MUTHA, 270 ITR 597 (RAJ.) B) KISHORE MOHANLAL TELWALA VS. ACIT 64 TTJ 543(AHD.) C) ANANTARAM VEERASINGHAIAH & CO. VS. CIT 123 ITR 457 (SC) D) CIT VS. K.S.M. GURUSWAMY NADAR & SONS, 149 ITR 127 (MAD.) ITA NO.3270 OF 2010 SURESH C. JAIN, NAVI MUMBAI PAGE 4 OF 8 E) CIT POONA VS. JAWANMAL GEMAJI GANDHI, 151 ITR 353 (BOM.) F) CIT VS. VENKATESWARA TIMBER DEPOT, 222 ITR 768 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SOUGHT ANY BENE FIT OF TELESCOPING EITHER DURING THE SEARCH OR AFTERWARDS AND REFERRED TO THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) IN PARA 7 (PAGE-9) THAT T HE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4 ) RECOR DED AFTER 21 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SEARCH, EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF GOLD AND JEWELLERY FOUND BOTH AT THE PLACE OF RESIDENTIAL AN D BUSINESS PREMISES AND ALSO STATED THAT THE BALANCE OF JEWELR Y FOUND WAS ACQUIRED OUT OF HIS BUSINESS OF LIAISING WORK WHICH WAS UNDISCLOSED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE CREDIT FOR TH E AMOUNTS WHICH ARE EXPLAINED AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT STATED TO HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED OUT OF UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS OF LIAISING WORK WAS BR OUGHT TO TAX. THE SAME CANNOT BE GIVEN TELESCOPING BENEFIT AS IT WAS ONLY AN AFTER THOUGHT NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. IT WAS ALSO FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PASSE D SUBSEQUENTLY AFTER SEARCH, THE FACT OF WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CREDIT FOR THE AMOUNTS CANNOT BE GIV EN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE UNDISCLOSED AMOUNTS FOUND IN THE C OURSE OF SEARCH. HE THEREFORE, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) A ND OBJECTED TO THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND EXAMINED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER IN AS MANY A S 19 FIRMS AND HAS SHARE OF INCOME FROM THE ABOVE. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF M/S METRO CONSTRUCTION CO. THERE WAS A DISCLOSURE OF ` 1.81 CRORES BY THE FIRM TOWARDS UNACCOUNTED MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF FLATS. NEITHER DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NOR DURING THE COURSE OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) AFTER 21 DAYS OF THE SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE HAD ASKED OR INFORMED THAT THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY EARNED FROM THE SALE OF FLATS WAS THE SOURCE FOR TH E INVESTMENTS IN ITA NO.3270 OF 2010 SURESH C. JAIN, NAVI MUMBAI PAGE 5 OF 8 JEWELRY. AS POINTED OUT BY THE CIT (A) IN PARA 7 OF THE ORDER, THE CASH DISCLOSURE WERE MADE ON 31/07/2007 AFTER THE S EARCH ON 5.6.2007. THE STATEMENT FROM THE ASSESSEE WAS RECOR DED ON 26.6.2007. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INDICATED THAT T HE INCOMES EARNED BY THE FIRM WERE UTILIZED BY THE PARTNERS, I T CANNOT BE STATED THAT THE SAME MONEY IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FO R PURCHASE OF UNACCOUNTED JEWELLERY. MOREOVER IN THE STATEMENT UN DER SECTION 132(4), THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY HAD BEEN ACQUIRED OUT OF HIS BUSINESS OF LIAISONING WOR K WHICH WAS UNDISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT. EVEN WITH REFERENCE TO THE CASH AVAILABLE IN THE BANK LOCKER OUT OF WHICH ` 1.00 LAKH WAS ADDED, THE SAME EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN ACQUIRED OUT OF UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS OF LIAISONING WORK. AS THER E IS NO STATEMENT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH OR IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE SEARCH, THE PRESENT CLAIM TH AT MONEY DISCLOSED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM AS SOURCE FOR UN ACCOUNTED JEWELLERY CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE NEXUS OF AVAILABLE MONEY AND PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY. IT IS ALSO NEITHER EXPLAINED NOR PLACED ON RECORD WHEN THE JEW ELLERY WAS PURCHASED AND HOW THE MONEY WAS UTILIZED. MOREOVER, IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE OTHER PARTNERS HAVE DEPOSITED CA SH IN THE RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS AFTER THE SEARCH CONSEQUEN T TO THE ENTRIES PASSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THIS SHOWS THAT THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE FIRM, WHETHER OR NOT I DENTIFIED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, BUT CREDIT WAS TAKEN BY THE R ESPECTIVE PARTNERS BY DEPOSITING THE SAME IN THE BANK ACCOUNT S. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO ACCEPT ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY DISCLOSED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM SHOULD BE TELESCOPED TO THE INVESTMENTS IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE. 6. EVEN THOUGH THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. ISHWARDAS MUTHA, 270 ITR 597 ACCEPTED THE T HEORY OF PEAK AND THE CONCEPT OF TELESCOPING AND IN OTHER CASES, RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING WAS GIVEN THE ISSUE IN THOSE ITA NO.3270 OF 2010 SURESH C. JAIN, NAVI MUMBAI PAGE 6 OF 8 CASES WAS GIVING CREDIT FOR THE AMOUNT EARNED BY AS SESSEE EITHER IN THE SAME YEAR FROM DIFFERENT SOURCE OR FROM ANOTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM THE SAME/ANOTHER SOURCE WHICH WAS DISCLOS ED. IN THE CASE OF ANANTARAM VEERASINGHAIAH & CO. VS. CIT 123 ITR 457 (SC) THE ISSUE WAS SECRET PROFIT OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME E ARNED IN AN EARLIER YEAR AND IT WAS HELD THAT IT MAY CONSTITUTE THE FUND FROM WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY DRAW SUBSEQUENTLY FOR MEETIN G THE EXPENDITURE OR INTRODUCING THE AMOUNTS IN HIS ACCOU NT BOOKS. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K.S.M. GURUSWAMY N ADAR & SONS 149 ITR 127 (MAD) IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN TWO SEPARAT E ADDITIONS ARE MADE ONE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF PROFITS AND A NOTHER ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDIT, IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THAT THE SUPPRESSED PROFITS HAD BEEN BROUGHT IN AS CASH CRED ITS AND ONE HAS TO BE TELESCOPED TO THE OTHER RESULTING IN ONE ADDI TION. SIMILAR IS THE FACT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAWANMAL GEMAJI GANDHI, 151 ITR 353 (BOM), WHEREIN THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ALLOWE D TELESCOPING ON THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED GOLD DURIN G THE LATER HALF OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND IT COULD BE THAT THE UND ISCLOSED INCOME EARNED IN THAT YEAR CONSTITUTED A FUND FROM WHICH T HE ASSET WAS ACQUIRED. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VENKATESWARA TIMBE R DEPOT, 222 ITR 768 THE UNEXPLAINED CREDITS WERE TELESCOPED TO THE DEFICIENCY IN GROSS PROFITS ADDED TO THE BUSINESS INCOME. AS SEEN FROM THE FACTS ON THE ABOVE CASES RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WA S TELESCOPING GIVEN TO THE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE EITHER IN THE SAME YEAR OR IN LATER YEAR FROM SAME OR ANOTHER SOURCE IN THA T ASSESSEE CASE ONLY. 7. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ASKING FOR TELESCOPING OF AN AMOUNT DISCLOSED BY THE FIRM (A DIFFERENT ASSESSEE) TO THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. TELESC OPING COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IF THE SOURCE IS FROM ASSESSEE OWN INCOME FROM ANOTHER YEAR OR FROM DIFFERENT SOURCE UNDISCLO SED EARLIER. FURTHER ASSESSEE HAS NOT CORRELATED THE INVESTMENTS WITH AVAILABLE CASH AND FURTHER NO EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN IN THE CO URSE OF SEARCH. ITA NO.3270 OF 2010 SURESH C. JAIN, NAVI MUMBAI PAGE 7 OF 8 THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT UNDISCLOSED IN COME BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM IS THE SOURCE FOR EXPL AINING THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 8. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CONT ESTING THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY AND CASH IN GROUND NO.1 & 2, WE ARE ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT THE PLEA OF TE LESCOPING THAT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ONLY TO ES CAPE THE EXPLANATION FOR UNACCOUNTED JEWELLERY AND CASH AVAI LABLE. IT IS ALSO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE WITHDRAWAL MADE FROM THE FIRM ARE DULY SUPPORTED BY THE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES M ADE IN THE CASH BOOK OF THE FIRM METRO CONSTRUCTION CO. IN SUPPORT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE CASH BOOK OF THE FIRM ALONG WITH THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID BOOK IN PAGE NO .16, 17, 18 & 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS CONTENTED BEFORE THE CIT (A) ALSO THAT THIS CASH BOOK HAS BEEN ACCEPTED WHILE FRAMING THE ASSES SMENT OF THE SAID FIRM BY THE VERY SAME ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HAVING ACCEPT ED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IT WAS THE CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER CANNOT DISREGARD THE WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE FIRM. ON TH IS CONTENTION THE CIT (A) REJECTED ON THE REASON THAT ENTRIES WER E MADE SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE SEARCH DATED 31.05.2007. EVEN E NTRIES IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE ALSO INDICATE THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` .1.81 CRORES WAS CREDITED TO THE RESPECTIVE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND WAS TREATED AS WITHDRAWN FROM THE FIRM ON 31.05.2007. THE ENTRIES INDICATE THAT T MONEY WAS SHOWN AS RECEIVED ON THAT DAY AT ` .1.81 CRORES AND PAYMENT TO 5 PARTNERS ON THE SAME DAY. HOWEVER, NOT HING WAS PLACED ON RECORD TO INDICATE WHETHER THE AMOUNT WAS TAKEN TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OR GIVEN CREDIT FOR PURCHASE OF JEW ELRY IN THE BOOKS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ENTRIES WAS P ASSED SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH, RELIANCE ON THE ABOVE ENT RIES FOR GIVING THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING ALSO CANNOT BE MADE IN T HE ABSENCE OF ANY NEXUS BEING ESTABLISHED OR THE FLOW OF FUNDS FOR MA KING THE INVESTMENT IN THE UNACCOUNTED JEWELLERY AND CASH. ITA NO.3270 OF 2010 SURESH C. JAIN, NAVI MUMBAI PAGE 8 OF 8 9. THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) HAS VALIDITY IN THE IT PROCEEDINGS. AN ASSESSEE GETS IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY BY VIRTUE OF EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C). THEREFORE, THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 132(4) AFT ER 21 DAYS FROM THE SEARCH SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS VALID STATEMENT IN WHICH THE SOURCE WAS EXPLAINED AS UNEXPLAINED BUSINESS OF LIA ISONING WORK. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION NOW RAISED FOR TELESCOPING OF AMOUNT DISCLOSED BY ANOTHER ASSESSEE (FIRM) CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT ARE, THE REFORE UPHELD. 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH DECEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K.AGARWAL) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VNODAN/SPS MUMBAI, DATED 16 TH DECEMBER, 2011. COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, J BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI