ACIT CEN CIR 32, MUMBAI V. GENESIS MOATELS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4502/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0994 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N P SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: R C JAIN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Additional evidence
• Section: 153A; 132; 144; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH B, MU MBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4014/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2005-06) M/S GENESIS MOTELS P. LTD. S/4, 101, SUNDER NAGAR, S. V. ROAD, MALAD (WEST), MUMBAI-400064 PAN: AAACG1873E VS. A.C.I.T., CC -32, ROOM NO. 32(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.4502/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2005-06) A.C.I.T., CC -32, ROOM NO. 32(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI- 400020 VS. M/S GENESIS MOTELS P. LTD. S/4, 101, SUNDER NAGAR, S. V. ROAD, MALAD (WEST), MUMBAI-400064 PAN: AAACG1873E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R. C. JAIN (AR) REVENUE BY : SHRI N. P. SINGH (CIT-DR) DATE OF HEARING : 01.05.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.05.2017 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. THESE TWO CROSS APPEAL U/S 253 OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T (THE ACT) ARE FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-41, MUMBAI DATED 03.03.2011. SI NCE BOTH THE APPEAL ARE THE FACTS ARE COMMON THUS, BOTH THE APPEAL WERE CLUBBED , HEARD TOGETHER AND IS BEING DECIDED BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER TO AVOID THE CONFLI CTING DECISION. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN ADDING A SUM OF RS. 2,50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH LOAN AND FURTHER THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS)-41 HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. ITA NO.4014 & 4502/M/2011- M/S GENESIS MOTELS P. LTD. 2 2. THE REVENUE IN ITS CROSS APPEAL RAISED THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS OF APPEAL: I. 'WHETHER, ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED A T THE APPELLATE STAGE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN RULE 46A(3) OF INCOME TAX RULES AND CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED ORDER TO THIS EFFEC T IN WRITING.' II. 'WHETHER, ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TO RS. 13,55,299/- WHEN THERE ARE NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY PART CONSTRUCTION EX PENSES MENTIONED IN THE LOOSE PAPER IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT.' III. WHETHER, ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN REDUCING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT WORKED OUT FROM THE SEIZED PAPERS FROM RS. 27,82,522/ - TO RS. 3,74 ,064/ -, HOLDING THAT PROFIT WORKED OUT IN THE SEIZED PAPER IS PROVISIONAL FIGURE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BE ABLE TO RECONCILE THE FIGURES WITH THE PROFIT AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZU RE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED ON 26.11.2007 IN CASE OF MR. NAND KUMAR KAL E AND HIS GROUP ENTITIES AND THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THEM. DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 CERTAIN DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY WERE FOUND FROM THEIR RESIDENTIAL PREMISES. CONSEQUENT UPON NOTICE U/S 15 3A DATED 16.11.2009 WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. AS ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME TILL 08.12.20109, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ISSUED NOTI CE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT AS THE CASE WAS GETTING TIME BARRED. THE AO AGAIN ISSUED A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16.12.2009 AND PROPOSED THE ADDITION U/S 144 FOR NO N-COMPLIANCE WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153A , THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.12.2009. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSME NT U/S 144 R.W.S. 153A ON 31.12.2009. THE AO WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER BESIDES THE OTHER ADDITION MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/- ,OUT OF WHICH 2 ,50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH LOAN FROM RAJENDRA KALE AND RS. 2,50,000/- CASH LOA N FROM SMT. SARITA KALE. THE ADDITION OF RS. 27,50,418/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT AND RS. 27,82,522/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED PROFIT. ON AP PEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINE D LOAN FROM RAJENDRA KALE AND SARITA KALE WAS SUSTAINED. OUT OF RS. 27,50,418/- T HE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT RS.13,59,299/- WAS SUSTAINE D. OUT OF ADDITION OF RS. 27,82,522/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED PROFIT, THE A DDITION WAS RESTRICTED TO RS. 3,74,064/- THEREBY DELETED RS. 23,98,458/-. THUS, A GGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE FILED THEIR CROSS APPE AL. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED ITA NO.4014 & 4502/M/2011- M/S GENESIS MOTELS P. LTD. 3 THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/- ON A CCOUNT UNEXPLAINED CASH LOAN. SIMILARLY, THE REVENUE HAS FILED ITS CROSS APPEAL A GAINST THE PARTIAL RELIEF GRANTED ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND UNEXPLAINED P ROFIT. 4. FIRST WE ARE TAKING APPEAL ITA NO. 4014/MUM/2011 FI LED BY ASSESSEE. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE ARGU ED THAT THE AO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUN ITY, THE ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 144 R.W.S. 153A, THE AO ACTED IN A HASTY MANNER AS THE ASSESSEE WAS GETTING TIME BARRED. THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED NOTICE ONLY ON 16.1 2.2009 AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED ON 29.12.2009. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE AS SESSEE FILED HIS SUBMISSION AND THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES. THE LD. CIT(A) BY EXERCISI NG ITS POWER UNDER SUBSECTION(4) OF SECTION 250 REFERRED THE EVIDENCE TO THE AO. THE AO SUBMITTED ITS REMAND REPORT. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO NOT OBJ ECTED ABOUT THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCES FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSIN ESS OF HOTEL/MOTEL AT VILLAGE NAGOTHANE, DISTRICT-RAIGAD. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAI NED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT RAJENDRA KALE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY LOAN TO THE ASSESSE E TO REPRESENT THE AMOUNT OF CASH IN HAND BEING SALE PROCEED OF THE HOTEL WHICH WERE TAKEN AWAY BY RAJENDRA KALE FOR DAY TO DAY BUSINESS AND FOR SAFETY AND SEC URITY PURPOSE. THE SAID CASH WAS CARRIED BY RAJENDRA KALE AND MS SARITA KALE TO THE IR HOME AND USED TO BRING BACK ON THE NEXT DATE OR AND WHEN REQUIRED. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. D R FOR THE REVENUE ARGUED THAT IT IS THE SELF-SERVING STORY OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF THE PART IES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED UNEXPLAINED CASH LOAN OF RS. 2,50,000/- FROM RAJENDRA N. KALE AND SMT. SARITA N. KALE, AS NO DETAILED WAS FU RNISHED NOR ANY EXPLANATION GIVEN NOR ANY DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED. THE AO MADE TH E ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH LOAN OF RS. 5,00,000/- (RS. 2,50,0 00/- EACH FROM RAJENDRA N. KALE AND SARITA N. KALE). DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDIN G BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED EXPLANATION ALONG WITH HIS LETTE R DATED 28.04.2010. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT LOAN AND REPRESEN TS THE AMOUNT OF CASH IN HAND. ITA NO.4014 & 4502/M/2011- M/S GENESIS MOTELS P. LTD. 4 IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN TH E BUSINESS OF HOTEL WHICH IS SITUATED AT FAR AWAY IN AN ISOLATED LOCATION AND WH ENEVER SUBSTANTIAL CASH WAS RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMER, THE KALE FAMILY USED TO TAKE THE CASH TO THEIR HOME TO BRING BACK AS AND WHEN REQUIRED AND TO GIVE THE SAM E TO THE CASHIER. THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE WAS REFERRED TO T HE AO. THE AO SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO CONTENT ED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS NO CASH BOOK WAS PROD UCED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE AND REMAND REPORT FURNISHED BY AO, THE LD. CIT(A) NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT TH E NOTING ON THE LOOSE PAPER RELATING TO THE CASH TAKEN FROM THE HOTEL PREMISES TO THE RESIDENCE ONLY. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM IN THE SHAPE OF CASH-BOOK OR BANK-BOOK AND DISMISSED THE GROUND. 6. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTI ATED ITS CLAIM, NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE CONTENTION THAT THE ALL EGED CASH WAS TAKEN OVER BY KALE FAMILY. NO CONFIRMATION OF RAJENDRA N. KALE AND SAR ITA N. KALE IS FILED EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). EVEN BEFORE US EXCEPT MAKING THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CASH WAS CARRIED AWAY FROM THE HOTEL PREMISES FOR THE SECURITY REASONS. THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE IS NOT PLAUSIBL E ONE. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 4502/MUM/2011 8. GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A(3) OF INCOME TAX RULES. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMIT TED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY ASSES SEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46. THE L D. DR FOR THE REVENUE PRAYED THAT SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. THUS, THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SET-ASI DE AND MATTER BE REMANDED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) OR AO FOR CONSIDERING THE MAT TER AFRESH. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT NO FAIR AND SUFF ICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY AO. THE AO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN A HASTY M ANNER AS THE MATTER WAS ITA NO.4014 & 4502/M/2011- M/S GENESIS MOTELS P. LTD. 5 GETTING TIME BARRED. THE AO PASSED THE ORDER ON 29. 12.2009 U/S 144 R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT ON FURNISHING T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. CIT(A) REFERRED THE EVIDENCES T O THE AO AND ONLY AFTER REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS CONSI DERED BY LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) BY EXERCISING ITS POWER UNDER SUBSECTION(4) OF SECTION 250 REFERRED THE EVIDENCE TO THE AO. THE AO SUBMITTED ITS REMAND REP ORT. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO NOT OBJECTED ABOUT THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCES FU RNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF LD. REPR ESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HA VE SEEN THAT THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ONLY ON FURNISHI NG REMAND REPORT BY AO, ON SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. AS PER OUR CONSIDERED VI EW, THE LD. CIT(A) PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO BEFORE ADMITTING T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THUS, THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY AO/REVENUE HAS NO FORCE IN TH E EYES OF LAW AND THE SAME IS REJECTED. 10. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS. 27,50,418/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS. 13,59,299/-. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE ARGUED THAT THE AO RESTRICTED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPL AINED INVESTMENT WITHOUT EVIDENCE. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ADDITION W AS MADE ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE AND THE REMA ND REPORT RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS. 13,59,299/-. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT FROM THE SEIZED M ATERIAL IN THE SEARCH WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A2, PAGE NO. 39 TO 52, THE ASSES SEE MADE THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 27,50,418/- IN CONSTRUCTION WORK. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION NOR TO ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPO RT OF SOURCE OF INCOME. THUS, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 27,50,418/- ON ACCO UNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ACCOUNTED THE CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT ENTRIES IN THE LOSE PAPER ARE ONLY A ROUGH CALCULAT ION AND THE ASSESSEE IN AN AUDITED ITA NO.4014 & 4502/M/2011- M/S GENESIS MOTELS P. LTD. 6 REPORT HAS SHOWN THE ADDITION TO THE BUILDING ACCOU NT OF RS. 13,91,119/-. THIS SUBMISSION AND THE ACCOUNT BOOKS WERE REFERRED TO T HE AO FOR HIS REMAND REPORT. THE AO FURNISHED HIS REMAND REPORT. THE AO IN ITS R EMAND REPORT CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECONCILED THE EXPENSES IN THE SEI ZED PAPER EXCEPT TO AUDITED REPORT WHEREIN THE ADDITION TO THE BUILDING ACCOUNT AS SHO WN TO RS. 13,91,119/-. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT, ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED PAPER AND AUDITED BALANCE-SHEET CONCLUDE THAT A DIFFERENCE OF RS. 13, 59,289/- IS SEEMS TO BE UNEXPLAINED. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER CONCLUDED THAT ENTRIES SHOWN IN THE LOOSE PAPER CLEARLY SHOWS THE INVESTMENT IN BUILDING ONLY TO RS . 13,91,119/- WHICH HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE-SHEET. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCE PTED THE FIGURE OF BALANCE-SHEET AND TREATED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 13,59,299/- AS UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED TO THAT EXTENT. 12. WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE LD. CIT(A) GRANTED PARTIAL RE LIEF ONLY AFTER CONSIDERING THE SEIZED PAPER, AUDITED BALANCE-SHEET AND THE EXPLANA TION FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE. AS PER OUR VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM AND GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF. THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) I S REASONED ONE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. HENCE, GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 13. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF U NEXPLAINED PROFIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3,74,064/-. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE ARGUED THAT THE CIT(A) DELETED THE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL. THE LD. D R FOR THE REVENUE PRAYED FOR REVERSING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND TO RESTORE TH E ORDER OF AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. C IT(A) AND WOULD ARGUE THAT LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION ONLY AFTER GIVING OP PORTUNITY TO THE AO. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF THE PARI TIES AND SEEN THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT (ANNEXURE-A2). DURING THE ASSESSMENT. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW-CAUSE AS TO WHY PROFIT OF RS. 27,82,522/- BE NOT ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER FURNISHED AN Y EXPLANATION NOR FILED ANY EVIDENCE. HENCE, UNEXPLAINED PROFIT OF RS. 27,82,52 2/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEE DING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ITA NO.4014 & 4502/M/2011- M/S GENESIS MOTELS P. LTD. 7 ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF PROFIT WAS PR OVISIONAL AND AFTER THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED TO TAX THE PROFIT OF RS. 23,98,458/-. THERE WAS ONLY PROVISIONAL FIGURE WHEN IT WAS FINALIZED T HE ACCOUNTS MAY CHANCE IN THE NET PROFIT AMOUNT HAS CERTAIN EXPENSES REMAINED TO THE ACCOUNTANT BY AUDITING THESE EXPENSES ARE DEBITED IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT . THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE WAS REFERRED TO THE AO FOR HIS REMAND REPORT. THE A O IN HIS REMAND REPORT CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDEN CE AND RECONCILIATION TO ARRIVE AT SUCH FEWER AMOUNTS AND ISSUE MAY BE DECIDED ON M ERIT. 15. WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE AO HAVE NOT DISPUTED THE ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPL ANATION OF ASSESSEE AUDITED REPORT AND THE REMAND REPORT OF AO RESTRICTED THE A DDITION OF RS. 3,74,064/- AND THE BALANCE WHICH WAS ALREADY SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AT RS . 23,98,458/- WAS DELETED. WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE ORDER AFTE R CONSIDERING THE AUDITED REPORT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE PROFIT AT RS. 23,9 8,458/-.WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING THE SEIZE D MATERIAL, EXPLANATION AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF AUDITED REPORT. THE DECISION ARRIVED BY AO IS BASED ON THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE HIM AND DOES NO T REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE AT OUR END. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY REVENUE IS REJECTED. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WEL L AS REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH DAY OF MAY 2017. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 05/05/2017 S.K.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY/