Shri Dilipkumar Vasantlal Thakkar, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-5(1), Surat

ITA 334/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4397 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL K SHAH
• Keywords: Peak credit
• Section: 44AD; 143(3); 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMADABAD BEFORE SHRI D.K.TYAGI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 334/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 DILIPKUMAR VASANTLAL THAKKAR 9/887, AMBAJI ROAD, NEAR CHORYASI DAIRY, SURAT - 395003 V/S . ITO WARD 5(1), SURAT. PAN NO. A A OPT9504E (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 335/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 CHANDRIKA DILIPKUMAR THAKKAR 9/887, AMBAJI ROAD, NEAR CHORYASI DAIRY, SURAT - 395003 V/S . ITO WARD 5(1), SURAT. PAN NO. ACEPT0102A (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 336/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 BINITA KARAN THAKKAR 9/887, AMBAJI ROAD, NEAR CHORYASI DAIRY, SURAT - 395003 V/S . ITO WARD 5(1), SURAT. PAN NO. AHBPT5134E (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) BY REVENUE SHRI P. L. KUREEL, SR. D.R. /BY ASSESSEE SHRI ANIL K. SHAH, A.R. /DATE OF HEARING 22.07.2013 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06.09.2013 O R D E R PER : SHRI T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE THREE APPEALS AT THE BEHEST OF THREE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, SURAT, DATED 1 9.11.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT ITA NOS. 334, 335 & 336/AHD/2013, A.Y. 09-10 PAGE 2 YEAR 2009-10. THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AN D ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENI ENCE. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF ALL APPEALS ARE AS UNDER: GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 334/AHD/2013 (1). THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN REJECTING THE RETURNED INCOME AS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER PRESUMPTIVE BASIS U NDER SECTION-44AF OF THE I.T. ACT ON VARIOUS BASELESS AL LEGATIONS AND THEREBY PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S-144 OF THE ACT. (2). THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING ADDITIONS OF UN DISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.12,08,976/- DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF HIGHEST PEAK BALANCE ON PARTICULAR DATE OF THE TWO BANKS MA INTAINED BY THE APPELLANT. ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL THE LEARNED A.O. HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.12,08, 976/- WITHOUT REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S-145. GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 335/AHD/2013 (1). THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN REJECTING THE RETURNED INCOME AS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER PRESUMPTIVE BASIS U NDER SECTION-44AF OF THE I.T. ACT ON VARIOUS BASELESS AL LEGATIONS AND THEREBY PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S-144 OF THE ACT. (2). THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING ADDITIONS OF UN DISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.7,09,227/- DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF HIGHEST ITA NOS. 334, 335 & 336/AHD/2013, A.Y. 09-10 PAGE 3 PEAK BALANCE ON PARTICULAR DATE OF THE TWO BANKS MA INTAINED BY THE APPELLANT. ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL THE LEARNED A.O. HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.7,09,2 27/- WITHOUT REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S-145. GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 336/AHD/2013 (1). THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN REJECTING THE RETURNED INCOME AS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER PRESUMPTIVE BASIS U NDER SECTION-44AF OF THE I.T. ACT ON VARIOUS BASELESS AL LEGATIONS AND THEREBY PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S-144 OF THE ACT. (2). THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING ADDITIONS OF UN DISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.7,01,025/- DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF HIGHEST PEAK BALANCE ON PARTICULAR DATE OF THE TWO BANKS MA INTAINED BY THE APPELLANT. ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL THE LEARNED A.O. HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.7,01,0 25/- WITHOUT REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S-145. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.03.201 0 IN CASE OF DILIPKUMAR THAKKAR, ON 16.03.2010 IN CASE OF CHANDR IKA D. KUMAR THAKKAR AND ON 16.03.2010 IN CASE OF BINITA K. THAKKAR, DEC LARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,39,970/-, RS. 2,42,910/- & RS. 2,41,670/- RESPECT IVELY. THE CASES WERE SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY U/S. 143(3) ON THE BASIS OF A IR INFORMATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. MORE THAN RS. 10 LACS IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS OF BANK OF BARODA AND PURCHASED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY VALUED AT RS. ITA NOS. 334, 335 & 336/AHD/2013, A.Y. 09-10 PAGE 4 40,01,000/- ALONGWITH OTHER CO-OWNER, NAMELY, SMT. CHANDRIKA D. KUMAR THAKKAR AND SMT. BINITA K. THAKKAR. THE DETAILED Q UESTIONNAIRES WERE ISSUED IN ALL THE CASES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDING AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO ALL THE ASSESSEE. THE APP ELLANTS SUBMITTED REPLIES VIDE VARIOUS DATES. THE APPELLANTS REPLIES WERE C ONSIDERED BY THE LD. A.O. BEFORE THE A.O., THE APPELLANTS CLAIMED THAT THE CA SH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH PERTAINED TO YEAR 08-09 AND SAME WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK, WHICH WERE GENERATED FROM THE TRADE BUSINESS. THEY GAVE THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE VARIOUS PARTIES. THE LD. A.O. ISSUE D SUMMON TO ALL SIX PARTIES FROM WHOM THEY HAD CLAIMED THAT PURCHASES WERE MADE BUT ONLY ONE OUT OF SIX SUPPLIERS ATTENDED OFFICE AGAINST THE SUMMON IS SUED U/S. 131 OF THE IT ACT. THE A.O. HELD AS IN CASE OF DILIPKUMAR V. THAKKAR A S UNDER: I. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT CONFIRMATION FROM HIS HUF AND NOT PROVED CREDITWORTHINESS OF HIS HUF, WHO WAS GIV EN LOAN OF RS.5,00,000/- TO HIM ALSO GIVEN LOAN INSTALLMENT OF RS.5,04,000/-. II. THE CONTENTS REGARDING DEPOSIT MADE IN BOB OF R S.1418650/- IS FOUND CORRECT, BECAUSE AT THE TIME ISSUING LETTE R THE AMOUNT OF F.Y. 2009-10 WAS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.3298860/-. III. DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE WAS PURCHASE IMMO VABLE PROPERTY, AND MADE PAYMENT FROM BANK ACCOUNTS. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE BEFORE ISSUING THE CHEQUE TO THE LAND OWNER THE ASSESSEE AS WELL OTHER CO-OWNER OF THE LAND FIRST D EPOSITED CASH IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS AND THEN ISSUED CHEQUE TO LAND OWNER. IT IS PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ROTATING HIS UNDISCLOS ED FUND/MONEY THROUGH UNVERIFIABLE SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSLATIONS . IV. ONE THING ALSO NOTED INTERESTING IN THIS CASE, THAT ALL SELLER PARTIES RETURN OF INCOME WERE FILED BY THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS. 334, 335 & 336/AHD/2013, A.Y. 09-10 PAGE 5 THEREFORE, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE THE A.R. OF THE ASSES SEE WAS GIVE FACILITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ROTATING HIS UNDISCLOSE D FUND THROUGH ABOVE SIX PERSONS. V. THE ASSESSEE ALSO MENTIONED THAT HE RUNS HIS BUS INESS ACTIVITY FROM HIS RESIDENCE. THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN MARKET AREA, AND THE SAME COME UNDER PURE RESIDENCE ZONE, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SALE OF SAREE AND DRESS MATERIALS IS NOT RELIABLE. THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.12,08,996/- UNDER THE HEAD UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF PEAK BALANCE AND GROSS PROFIT AFTER PEAK BALANCE AT RS. 2,08,729/-. THE FINDING IN CASE OF SMT. CHANDRIKA D. KUMAR THAK KAR IS AS UNDER: I. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED LOAN OF RS.365000/- F ROM DILIPBHAI THAKKAR. BUT IT WAS FOUND, AFTER VERIFICATION OF T HE ACCOUNT DETAILS OF THE SHRI DILIPBHAI THAKKAR, THAT HE HAD DEPOSITED C ASH OF RS.365000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS BEFORE ISSUING THE CHEQUE OF RS.365000/- TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEA R THAT THE CASH DEPOSITED BY THE LONEE WAS BROUGHT FROM HIS UNDISCL OSED SOURCES. II. DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE WAS PURCHASE IMMOV ABLE PROPERTY, AND MADE PAYMENT FROM BANK ACCOUNTS. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE BEFORE ISSUING THE CHEQUE TO THE LAND OWNER THE ASSESSEE AS WELL OTHER CO-OWNER OF THE LAND FIRST D EPOSITED CASH IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS AND THEN ISSUED CHEQUE TO LAND OWNER. IT IS PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ROTATING HIS UNDISCLOS ED FUND/MONEY THROUGH UNVERIFIABLE SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSLATIONS . III. ONE THING ALSO NOTED INTERESTING IN THIS CASE , THAT ALL SELLER PARTIES RETURN OF INCOME WERE FILED BY THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE THE A.R. OF THE ASSES SEE WAS GIVE FACILITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ROTATING HIS UNDISCLOSE D FUND THROUGH ABOVE SIX PERSONS. ITA NOS. 334, 335 & 336/AHD/2013, A.Y. 09-10 PAGE 6 IV. THE ASSESSEE ALSO MENTIONED THAT HE RUNS HIS BU SINESS ACTIVITY FROM HIS RESIDENCE. THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN MARKET AREA, AND THE SAME COME UNDER PURE RESIDENCE ZONE, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SALE OF SAREE AND DRESS MATERIALS IS NOT RELIABLE. THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.7,09,227/- UNDER THE H EAD UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF PEAK BALANCE AND GROSS P ROFIT AFTER PEAK BALANCE AT RS. 15,956/-. THE FINDING IN CASE OF SMT. BINITA K. THAKKAR IS AS UNDER: I. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED LOAN FROM THREE PERSO NS MR. DILIPBHAI THAKKAR- RS.100000/-, MR. BHARAT THAKKAR- RS. 50,000/- AND MR. BHARAT VASANTLAL THAKKAR(HUF)- RS.125000/-. BUT IT WAS FOUND, AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE ACCOUNT DETAILS OF ALL THREE PERSONS (LENDER), THAT THEY HAD DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.365000 /- IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS BEFORE ISSUING THE CHEQUE TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CASH DEPOSITED BY THE SAID LENDERS W AS BROUGHT FROM THEIR UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. II. DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE WAS PURCHASE IMMOV ABLE PROPERTY, AND MADE PAYMENT FROM BANK ACCOUNTS. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE BEFORE ISSUING THE CHEQUE TO THE LAND OWNER THE ASSESSEE AS WELL OTHER CO-OWNER OF THE LAND FIRST D EPOSITED CASH IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS AND THEN ISSUED CHEQUE TO LAND OWNER. IT IS PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ROTATING HIS UNDISCLOS ED FUND/MONEY THROUGH UNVERIFIABLE SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSLATIONS . III. ONE THING ALSO NOTED INTERESTING IN THIS CASE , THAT ALL SELLER PARTIES RETURN OF INCOME WERE FILED BY THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE THE A.R. OF THE ASSES SEE WAS GIVE FACILITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ROTATING HIS UNDISCLOSE D FUND THROUGH ABOVE SIX PERSONS. ITA NOS. 334, 335 & 336/AHD/2013, A.Y. 09-10 PAGE 7 IV. THE ASSESSEE ALSO MENTIONED THAT HE RUNS HIS BU SINESS ACTIVITY FROM HIS RESIDENCE. THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN MARKET AREA, AND THE SAME COME UNDER PURE RESIDENCE ZONE, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SALE OF SAREE AND DRESS MATERIALS IS NOT RELIABLE. THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.7,01,025/- UNDER THE H EAD UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF PEAK BALANCE AND GROSS P ROFIT AFTER PEAK BALANCE AT RS. 12,550/-. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE AS SESSEES CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAD UPHELD THE A.OS. ACTION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER IN CASE OF SHRI DILIPKUMAR V. THAKKAR: A. ONLY PAYMENT OF RS.4,21,700/- ARE CLAIMED TO HA VE BEEN RECEIVED FROM DEBTORS BY WAY OF CHEQUE. ALL THE RE MAINING CHEQUE TRANSACTION/S ARE PERTAINING TO LOANS OR PERSONAL T RANSACTIONS OF THE APPELLANT. B. THE PATTERN OF CASH DEPOSITS IS VERY ERRATIC AND DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THE DEPOSITS, OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF SAREES, WHICH SHOULD HAVE REGULAR PATTERN. C. THE OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS.15,03,853/- IS UN REALISTICALLY HIGH FOR THE CLAIMED TURN OVER OF RS.32.98 LAKHS AN D RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 2.4 LAKHS. D. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME F ILED, THAT HE IS NOT MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE AR GUMENTS MADE SUBSEQUENTLY AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE AND APPELLATE STAGE THAT HE MAINTAINED THE VARIOUS REGISTER/S GOES AG AINST THE APPELLANT'S STATEMENT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SHOWN THE GROSS PROFIT AND TURNOVER IN THE RETURN AND THE RELEVANT COLUMN WHICH IS MANDATORY FOR FILING OF RE TURN U/S 44AF OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ITA NOS. 334, 335 & 336/AHD/2013, A.Y. 09-10 PAGE 8 E. IT IS NOT A CLERICAL MISTAKE OF OMISSION AS CLAI MED BY THE APPELLANT AS THERE DETAILS ARE VITAL INFORMATION NE CESSARY FOR A VALID RETURN. F. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT HE SOLD SAREES/GOODS DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. 7.7 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS HELD TH AT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENT SALE TRANSACTIONS OF HIS BUSINESS. CONSID ERING THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ACTION OF REJECTION OF APPE LLANT'S CLAIM U/S 44AF IS UPHELD . SINCE THERE IS NO WAY TO ASCERTAIN THE NATURE OF DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER 'S ACTION OF MAKING THE ADDITION OF THE PEAK OF CASH AND CHEQUE AMOUNTS TOGETHER IS ALSO UPHELD. THE SIMILAR FINDING WAS ALSO GIVEN IN CASE OF SMT. CHANDRIKA D. KUMAR THAKKAR AND SMT. BINITA K. THAKKAR. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEES ARE BEFORE US. LD. COUNSEL FO R THE APPELLANTS FILED PAPER BOOK AND CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE INDIV IDUAL AND ARE IN RETAIL TRADING BUSINESS OF SAREES AND DRESS MATERIALS SINC E MANY YEARS. SHRI DILIPKUMAR V. THAKKAR FILED RETURN @ 6.81% ON THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,39,970/- ON THE TOTAL TURN OVER OF RS. 32,98,6 60/- UNDER THE PRESUMPTIVE TAX SCHEME U/S. 44AF OF THE ACT, IN CASE OF SMT. CH ANDRIKA D. KUMAR THAKKAR, TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,42,910/- @ 10.40% ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS.23,34,660/- AND IN CASE OF SMT. BINITA K. THAKKA R, TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,41,670/- @ 12.08% ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS. 19,99,630/-. THE APPELLANTS HAD PURCHASED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ALONGWI TH OTHER CO-OWNERS. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE LD. A.O. ISSUED SUMMON U/S. 131 TO SIX PARTIES. SHRI NAGRAJ JAIN HAD CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE M. THE ASSESSEE HAD ITA NOS. 334, 335 & 336/AHD/2013, A.Y. 09-10 PAGE 9 SUBMITTED CASH BOOK, LEDGER, PURCHASE REGISTER & SA LE REGISTER TO A.O. OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS WERE ALSO IN THE SAREE RETAIL BUSINE SS. THE PEAK CREDIT THEORY NORMALLY APPLIED TO NON- GENUINE ENTRIES AND NOT TO GENUINE ONES. WHERE THERE ARE MANY CREDITS, ALL TREATED AS NON GENUINE. WITHDRAWALS FROM ONE ACCOUNT SHOULD BE TREATED AS AVAILABLE FOR CREDIT I N ANOTHER. HE FILED AFFIDAVITS IN ALL CASES AND CLAIMED THAT THEY WERE DOING BUSIN ESS FROM A.Y. 06-07, 07- 08, 08-09 TILL THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE HA S ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5 OF 2010 DATED 3RD JUNE, 2010 FOR SPECIAL PROVISION FOR COMPUTING PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS ON PRESUMPT IVE BASIS U/S. 44AD AND ALSO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT IN THE INCOME TAX ACT WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO AIR. HE FURTHER RELIED IN CASE OF BHAIYALAL SHYAM BEHARI CIT (2005) 276 ITR 38 (ALL.). THUS, HE REQUESTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION IN ALL CA SES. AT THE OUTSET, LD. SR. D.R. VEHEMENTLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) AND PRAYED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION IN ALL THE CASES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEES CLAIMED THAT THEY WERE IN RE TAIL BUSINESS OF SAREE, WAS NOT FOUND GENUINE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, AS LD. A.O. ISSUED THE SUMMONS TO ALL PARTIES, ONLY ONE PARTY RESPONDED BA CK. THE ASSESSEES WERE NOT SUBSTANTIATED THEIR CLAIMS BEFORE THE LOWER AUT HORITIES WITH REFERENCE TO CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF PEAK CASH. NO NEXUS HAD B EEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SALE TRANSACTION OF THEIR BUSINES S AND CASH DEPOSITED. THUS, SECTION 44AF CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE. THE APPELLANTS WERE NOT PRODUCED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE A.O. BUT SUBMITTED COPY OF THE ITA NOS. 334, 335 & 336/AHD/2013, A.Y. 09-10 PAGE 10 PURCHASE AND SALE REGISTER. LD. CIT(A) HAD GIVEN S PECIFIC FINDING ON ALL THE POINTS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AND APPEARS TO BE LO GICAL. THUS, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN ALL THREE CASES. 6. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, ALL THREE ASSESSEES APPEAL S ARE DISMISSED. THESE ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 06.09.2013 SD/- SD/- ( D.K.TYAGI ) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. '#$ / APPELLANT 2. &'#$ / RESPONDENT 3. )*)+ ' ', / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' ',- ' / CIT (A) 5. 01'' +, ' ''' +, 34 * / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 167 89 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , :/3' )' ' ''' +, 34 * <