M/s. Laxmi Trading Company, Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-5(2), Baroda

ITA 3491/AHD/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60352 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 04-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2004
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 69; 148; 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO.3 491 TO 3493AHD/2004 & ITA NO.3 893 TO 3895/AHD/2004 ASSESSME NT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995- 96 . 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, A HMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ANIL C HATURVEDI, A.M.) SR.NO. I.T.A. NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR. 1 3491/AHD/2004 1993-94 2 3492/AHD/2004 1994-95 3 3493/AHD/2004 1995-96 M/S. LAXMI TRADING COMPANY A-27, HATHIKHANA, MARKET YARD, BARODA. (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEAR RACE COURSE CIRCLE, BARODA. (RESPONDENT) SR.NO. I.T.A. NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR. 1 3893/AHD/2004 1993-94 2 3894/AHD/2004 1994-95 3 3895/AHD/2004 1995-96 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEAR RACE COURSE CIRCLE, BARODA. (APPELLANT) VS. M/S. LAXMI TRADING COMPANY A-27, HATHIKHANA, MARKET YARD, BARODA. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI J.P.SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.L. YADAV, SR.D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 4-5-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :18/5/2012 ITA NO.3 491 TO 3493AHD/2004 & ITA NO.3 893 TO 3895/AHD/2004 ASSESSME NT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995- 96 . 2 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. OUT OF THE ABOVE SIX APPEALS, THREE APPEALS ARE FIL LED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE R EVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-II, BARODA DATED 4-10-2004 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995-96. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED A S UNDER:- GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1993-94 ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN COMPUTING THE PEAK AT RS.3 ,09,064/- IN PLACE OF RS.1,50,000/- COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE GROSS P ROFIT ADDITION OF 3% ON THE ALLEGED TURNOVER REPRESENTED BY THE DEMAN D DRAFTS ALLEGED TO BE OF THE APPELLANT. 3. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT GRANTING THE DEDUCTIO N OF 5% GROSS PROFIT WHICH IS SEPARATELY ADDED FROM THE ABO VE ADDITION OF PEAK. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR A.Y. 1993-94 . 1. THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE EITHER TAXED RS.1,50, 000/- BEING THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF DRAFT PURCHASED IN THE YEAR 08 RS.38,414/- CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF THE FORMULA ADOPTED BY T HE A.O. IN ITA NO.3 491 TO 3493AHD/2004 & ITA NO.3 893 TO 3895/AHD/2004 ASSESSME NT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995- 96 . 3 SECTION 143(3) ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 1995-9 6 IN ESTIMATING UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN UNACCOUNTED SA LES AT PAGE 4 THEREOF UNDER THE CAPTION INVESTMENT IN UNA CCOUNTED SALES. 2. THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN THE SET OFF ON THE UNA CCOUNTED INCOME ADDED IN SECTION 143(3) ASSESSMENT. 3. THE CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ANOTHER AP PROACH TO THE MATTER IS THAT IF IN SECTION 143(3) ASSESSMENT ORDER OF A.Y. 1995-96 ON A TURNOVER OF RS.37,57,505/-, RS.1,25,25 0/- IS THE INVESTMENT ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. ON THE TOTAL DRAFT S OF RS.54,62,310/- ADDED IN 3 YEARS, SUCH ADDITION WILL BE RS.1,81,727/- ONLY. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1994-95 READS AS UNDER: 1. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THIS YEAR ADDITI ON TO THE PEAK OF THE LAST YEAR AT RS.5,34,619/- IN PLACE OF SUCH ADDITION AT RS.2,26,000/- AS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE GROSS PROFIT ADDITION OF 5% ON THE ALLEGED TURNOVER REPRESENTED BY THE DEMAN D DRAFTS ALLEGED TO BE OF THE APPELLANT. 3. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT GRANTING THE DEDUCTION OF 5% GROSS PROFIT WHICH IS SEPARATELY ADDED FROM, THE ABOVE AD DITION OF PEAK. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ITA NO.3 491 TO 3493AHD/2004 & ITA NO.3 893 TO 3895/AHD/2004 ASSESSME NT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995- 96 . 4 1. THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION OF R S.76,000/- BEING THE INCREASE IN THE PEAK THIS YEAR RS.1,50,00 0/- OF THE LAST YEAR ON ADD RS.1,72,697/- BEING THE INCREASE OF THE PEAK ON THE BASIS OF THE FORMULA ADOPTED BY THE A.O. IN 1995-96 IN ESTIMATING UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN UNACCOUNTED SALES AT PAGE -4 THEREOF UNDER THE CAPTION INVESTMENT IN UNACCOUNTED SALES. 2. THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN THE SET OFF ON THE UNA CCOUNTED INCOME ADDED IN SEC. 143(3) ASSESSMENT. 3. THE CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ANOTHER AP PROACH TO THE MATTER IS THAT IF IN SEC. 143(3) ASSESSMENT ORD ER OF A.Y. 1995- 96 ON A TURNOVER OF RS.37,57,505/-, RS.1,25,250/- I S THE INVESTMENT ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. ON THE TOTAL DRAFTS OF RS.54, 62,310/- ADDED IN 3 YEARS, SUCH ADDITION WILL BE RS.1,81,727/-ONLY . GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1995-96. 1. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE GROSS PROFIT ADDITION OF 5% ON THE ALLEGED TURNOVER REPRESENTED BY THE DEMAN D DRAFTS ALLEGED TO BE OF THE APPELLANT. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1993-94 TO 1995-96 (REV ENUES APPEAL) ARE COMMON. 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING REDUCTION OF RS.3 ,41,529/- ITA NO.3 491 TO 3493AHD/2004 & ITA NO.3 893 TO 3895/AHD/2004 ASSESSME NT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995- 96 . 5 RESTRICTING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF DEMAND DRAFT FROM, RS.6, 50,593/- TO RS.3,09,064/-. THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS N OT ACCEPTABLE ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I) THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY PRIMARY RECORDS/VOUCHERS ETC., FOR WORKING OUT OF THE PEAK AS DESIRED BY THE HON. ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO.3 800 TO 3802/AHD/2003 DATED 13-5-2004 AND HENCE, THE PEAK FORMULA CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE. II) IN THE CASE OF SHRI KIRITKUMAR M. SHAH AS RELIE D UPON BY THE LD. CIT (A), THE PEAK INVESTMENT WAS WORKED OUT CONSIDERING THE SALE REALIZATION AFTER 44 DAYS AND NOT 16 DAYS. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) IS FACTUA LLY INCORRECT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 3. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE C IT (A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED. 3. SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED ARE IDENTICA L FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER, THE SE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A SINGLE ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS A WHOLESALE DEALER IN PULSES, SP ICES, DRY FRUITS ETC. THE ASSESSEE, ORIGINALLY FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.1 0.1993 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1)(A) ACCEPTI NG THE RETURNED INCOME. ON 2- 8-1995 ADIT (INV) U/S 131(1A) RECORDED THE STATEMEN T OF SHRI H.J.SHAH, THE ITA NO.3 491 TO 3493AHD/2004 & ITA NO.3 893 TO 3895/AHD/2004 ASSESSME NT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995- 96 . 6 MANAGER OF THE BARODA TRADERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD , BARODA WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT M/S LAXMI TRADING CO WAS ONE OF THE PAR TIES WHO WERE ISSUED DEMAND DRAFTS (DDS) AGAINST CASH PAYMENT. ON THE BASIS OF THIS INFORMATION, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE REOPENED. NOTICE U/S 14 8 WAS ISSUED TO ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 18.7.2001 DECLARING NIL INCOME. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, C OPIES OF THE DDS PURCHASED FROM THE BANK, THE STATEMENT OF SHRI H.J. SHAH AND SHRI ATUL SHAH WAS FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTE D TO PRODUCE ALL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ALONGWITH THE SALE/PURCHASE BILLS, VOUCHER S ETC. HOWEVER, ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S UPTO THE YEAR 1997 WERE LOST ON 30.3.2001. IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS, THE BOOK RESULTS WERE REJECTED U/S 145(2) AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETE D U/S 144 R.W.S 147 ON 31.3.2003. 6. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO CORRELATE THE PURC HASE OF DDS TO THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE DDS ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF VARIOUS PARTIES COULD NOT BE VERIFIED FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE AO THUS HELD THAT THE DDS PURCHASED IN CASH BY THE PERSONS WHOSE NAMES APPEAR AS THE APPLICANT WERE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. AS THE SOURCES OF P AYMENTS MADE IN CASH WAS NOT EXPLAINED, THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF DDS WAS TREATED AS INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY AN AMOUNT OF RS 6,50,593 WAS CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 7 THE AO FURTHER HELD THAT THE DDS WOULD HAVE BEEN UTILISED FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS DEALT WITH BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WA S OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED 5% GROSS PROFIT ON HIS SALES . ON THE BASIS OF GP DISCLOSED THE GP RESULTING IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIO NS RELATING TO PURCHASE OF DDS ITA NO.3 491 TO 3493AHD/2004 & ITA NO.3 893 TO 3895/AHD/2004 ASSESSME NT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995- 96 . 7 MADE IN CASH WAS ARRIVED AT RS 6,84,835/- (I.E 6505 93*100/95) AND 5% OF THE RS 684835 I.E RS 34242/- WAS CONSIDERED TO BE THE GROS S PROFIT KEPT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE THE SAME WAS ADDED T O THE TOTAL INCOME. AGGRIEVED BY THESE ADDITIONS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRE D APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A). CIT (A) VIDE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 30.9.2003 DISMISS ED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 1993-94, 1994-95 AND 1995-96. AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE ITAT. ITAT VIDE OR DER IN ITA NO 3800 TO 3802 DATED 13.5.2004 RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO CIT (A) WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE A CLEAR FINDING ABOUT THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT AND PROFIT ON THE TURNOVER IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS PRESIDENT INDUSTRIES 258 ITR 654 BY APPLYING THE PEAK FORMULA. THE MATTER WI TH RESPECT TO 5% GP ADDITION WAS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF CIT (A) FOR THE PU RPOSE OF FINDING OUT THE INVESTMENT IN THOSE TRANSACTIONS. PURSUANT TO THE D IRECTIONS OF ITAT, CIT (A) PASSED FRESH ORDER DATED 4.10.2004 WHEREIN HE UPHEL D THE GP ADDITION OF 5% . FOR WORKING OUT THE PEAK HE STATED AS UNDER: 3.19. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ISSUE FROM VARIOUS ASP ECTS AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT BEING ENG AGED IN THE SIMILAR LINE OF BUSINESS AS SHRI KIRTIKUMAR M. SHAH, PROP. M/S SHAH MAGANLAL AMBAIDAS WAS ENGAGED, IT WOULD BE PROPER TO WORK OUT PEAK IN VESTMENT TAKNG 16 DAYS TIME FOR SALES REALISATION AS WORKED OUT IN TH E CASE OF SHRI KIRTIKUMAR M. SHAH, PROP. M/S SHAH MAGANLAL AMBAIDAS (SUPRA). IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION THAT THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PRODUCED VOUCHERS/PRIMARY RECORDS, BUT THE SAME IS BASED IN THE COPIES OF DEM AND DRAFTS MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENT FORMING PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 144 RWS 147. FURTHER, SUCH WORKING WAS ALSO FURNISHED BEFOR E THE AO WHO FORWARDED THE SAME VIDE LETTER DATED 22.9.2003 DURI NG THE EARLIER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THE ITAT AHMEDABAD HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT TO MAKE ADDITION ON PEAK FORMULA BASI S, THE WORKING OF PEAK ITA NO.3 491 TO 3493AHD/2004 & ITA NO.3 893 TO 3895/AHD/2004 ASSESSME NT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995- 96 . 8 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT IS ENCLOSED AS PER ANNEXUR E TO THIS APPEAL ORDER FOR AY 1993-94 TO 95-96. 3.20. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS 3,0 9,064 IN AY 1993-94 AS THE HIGHEST PEAK COMES ON 27.2.93. SIMILARLY HIGHES T PEAK FOR AY 1994-95 COMES TO RS 8,43,683 ON 25.1.94 AND REDUCING THEREF ROM PEAK OF AY 1993- 94 OF RS 3,09,064, THE ADDITION WOULD BE OF RS 5,34 ,619 (RS 8,43,683 LESS RS 3,09,064). IN THE AY 95-96, THE HIGHEST PEAK COMES TO RS 2,00,733 BUT THE ADDITION IS NOT WARRANTED AS ADDITION OF RS 5,34,61 9 HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE IN AY 1994-95. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE I S NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE EARLIE R BEFORE CIT (A). HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US HAS COME F OR THE SECOND TIME. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE AO WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/ S 143(3) FOR AY 1995-96 HAD CALCULATED THE INVESTMENT ON TOTAL UNACCOUNTED SALE S BY CONSIDERING 50% OF TRADE CYCLE OF 3 TIMES IN A MONTH FOR 5 MONTHS. HE URGED THAT THIS METHOD WAS MORE SYSTEMATIC AND SCIENTIFIC AND THEREFORE THE AO BE DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE METHOD FOLLOWED IN AY 1995-96 RATHER THAN THE METHO D WORKED OUT BY THE CIT(A). THE LD. A.R. ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ITAT ORDER NOS. 3 800, 3801 & 3802 DATED 13.5.2004 AND THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT HAS ADMITTE D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 29.8.2005. THE A.R. PLACE D ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF HIGH COURT. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. POINTED TO WORK OUT THE PEAK FORMULA NECESSARY DETAILS LIKE INITIAL INVESTMENT, TIME PER IOD OF PURCHASE AND SALE AND OTHER ASPECTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SEEN AND EXAMINED. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE PEAK FORMULA AS SUGGESTED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE WORKED OUT. THE LD. D.R. THE LD. D.R. FUR THER POINTED OUT THAT THE DIRECTION OF HONBLE ITAT WAS CONDITIONAL IN THE SE NSE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ITA NO.3 491 TO 3493AHD/2004 & ITA NO.3 893 TO 3895/AHD/2004 ASSESSME NT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995- 96 . 9 REQUIRED TO COOPERATE IN THE MATTER AND FURNISH ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS FOR WORKING OUT THE PEAK INVESTMENT. AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WAS NECESSARY TO WORK OUT THE PEAK I NVESTMENT, THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE WORKED OUT THE PEAK ON THE BASIS OF 16 DAYS CYCLE. ON THE CONTRARY HE STATED THAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI KIRITKU MAR M.SHAH WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY LD. CIT (A), THE PEAK INVESTMENT WAS WORKED CONSIDERING THE SALES REALISATION AFTER 44 DAYS AND THEREFORE THE WORKING IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF 44 DAYS AND NOT 16 DAYS CYCLE. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS A FACT THAT THE APPEAL BEFORE US AT PRESENT IS T HE SECOND ROUND. IN THE FIRST ROUND THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS GIVEN THE DIRECTION S TO CIT (A) TO WORK OUT THE PEAK KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PRESIDENT INDUSTRIES (SUPRA). PURSUANT TO THE AF ORESAID DIRECTIONS, CIT (A) HAS WORKED OUT THE PEAK INVESTMENTS. NOTHING HAS BEEN B ROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US BY THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE CIT (A) HAS WORKED OUT THE PEAK INVESTMENTS BY A METHOD OTHER THAN THAT DIRECTED BY THE CO-ORDINAT E BENCH. NO FAULT HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE METHOD ADOPTED BY CIT (A). IT IS A FAC T THAT FOR WORKING OUT THE PEAK METHOD AS SUGGESTED BY LD. A.R. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS AND VARIOUS OTHER DETAILS WOULD BE REQUIRED. SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE A SSESSEE HAS REPORTED THE LOSS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE REQU IRED DETAILS THE WORKING BY THE METHOD SUGGESTED BY LD. A.R. WOULD NOT BE POSSI BLE. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE PRESENT AND IN THE FACT S OF THE CASE AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A). WE ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THE ASSESSEES GROUND OF APPEAL . 11. WITH RESPECT TO THE GP ADDITION, THE LD. CIT (A ) UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: ITA NO.3 491 TO 3493AHD/2004 & ITA NO.3 893 TO 3895/AHD/2004 ASSESSME NT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995- 96 . 10 3.24. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS PUTFORTH AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT. THE ARGUMENTS OF ADDL CIT/AO AS WELL AS FINDING OF ITAT AHMEDABAD IS ALSO CONSIDERED. SINCE THE ITAT HAS APPROVED THE GP ADDITION IN PRINCIPLE AND THERE BEI NG NO CHANGE IN TURNOVER (DEMAND DRAFTS PURCHASED), I HOLD THAT THE GP ADDITION @ 5% IS JUSTIFIED. 12. LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND ON THE OTHER HAND LD. A.R. DID NOT SUBMIT ANY THING ELSE OTHER THAN WHAT WAS STATE D FOR WHILE ARGUING THE FIRST GROUND. IN THE RESULT, WE DO NOT FEEL NECESSARY TO DEVIATE FROM THE DIRECTIONS OF CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AN D APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18 - 5 - 2012 . SD/- SD/ - (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. S.A.PATKI. ITA NO.3 491 TO 3493AHD/2004 & ITA NO.3 893 TO 3895/AHD/2004 ASSESSME NT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995- 96 . 11 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) II, BARODA 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1.DATE OF DICTATION 7 - 5 -2012 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 15 /5 / 2012 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S 14 - 5 -2012. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 18 - 5 -2012 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 18 - 5 -2012 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 8 - 5 -2012. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..