Sh. Naresh Nandlal Taluja, Gwalior V. A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Gwalior

ITA 461/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 62849 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KM ANURADHA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Valuation report
• Section: 133A; 133(6); 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.16/AGR/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS. SHRI NARESH NANDLAL TALUJA, CIRCLE-1, GWALIOR. C/O. TALUJA SAREE CENTER, HEMRAJ MARKET, LASHKAR, GWALIOR. (PAN: ADRPT 1398 L) ITA NO.461/AGR/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI NARESH NANDLAL TALUJA, VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX, PROP. TALUJA SAREE CENTER, CIRCLE-1, GWALIOR. HEMRAJ MARKET, LASHKAR, GWALIOR. (PAN: ADRPT 1398 L) ITA NO.462/AGR/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SMT. MADHU TALUJA, VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX, PROP. TALUJA SAREE EMPORIUM, CIRCLE-1, GWALIOR. HEMRAJ MARKET, LASHKAR, GWALIOR. (PAN: ADRPT 1399 M) (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) REVENUE BY : KM. ANURADHA, JR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 12.09.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 21.09.2012 ITA NOS.16/AGR/2012, 461 & 462/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2008-09. 2 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE S AGAINST TWO DIFFERENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), GWALIOR DATED 10.1 0.2011 FOR A.Y. 2008-09. 2. NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AFT ER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE T HESE APPEALS ON MERIT AS UNDER:- 3. ITA NO.16/AGR/2012 AND 461/AGR/2011 ARE CROSS AP PEALS AND ITA NO.462/AGR/2011 IS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SMT . MADHU TALUJA. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN THESE APPEALS, THEREFORE, FO R THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, ALL THESE THREE APPEALS ARE DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 4. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.16/A GR/2012 ARE AS UNDER :- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE LD CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.3,75,506/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE IN THE CL OSING STOCK AND TREATING IT AS COVERED IN THE SURRENDER OF RS.20 LA KH MADE IN THE ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY. ITA NOS.16/AGR/2012, 461 & 462/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2008-09. 3 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS.3,85,978/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES AND CRE DITORS. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS.4,96,465/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.5,96,805/ - (CORRECT AMOUNT IS RS.5,93,805/-) ON ACCOUNT OF UN-RECONCILED DISCREPA NCIES IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITORS VIS--VIS THE ASSESSEES B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.461 /AGR/2011 ARE AS UNDER :- 1. THAT, IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER, CONFIRMING ADDI TION OF RS.5,97,341/- IS UNJUSTIFIED AND PASSED WITHOUT APP RECIATING FACTS OF THE CASE IN PROPER CONTEXT. 2. THAT LEARNED ASSESSING AUTHORITY AS WELL AS APPE LLATE AUTHORITY OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDIN G IS NEITHER SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY VALUATION REPORT CALLED TO ASS ESS, VALUE/COST OF BUILDING NOR BY ANY OTHER FACTS. 3. THAT, LEARNED ASSESSING AUTHORITY AS WELL AS APP ELLATE AUTHORITY OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ADDITION MADE/CONFIR MED OF RS.97,341/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF CREDITORS IS NEGLIGIBLE AND MAY BE DUE TO NUMEROUS OTHER FACT ORS LIKE VARIATION IN ACCOUNTING SYSTEM FOLLOWED BY CREDITORS AND ASSE SSEES, TRADE PRACTICES AND OTHER MATTERS. 4. NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS AFFORDE D TO THE APPLICANT. 5. OTHER GROUNDS WILL BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG. ITA NOS.16/AGR/2012, 461 & 462/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2008-09. 4 6. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.462 /AGR/2011 ARE AS UNDER :- 1. THAT, IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER, CONFIRMING ADDI TION OF RS.5,52,600/- IS UNJUSTIFIED AND PASSED WITHOUT APP RECIATING FACTS OF THE CASE IN PROPER CONTEXT. 2. THAT LEARNED ASSESSING AUTHORITY AS WELL AS APPE LLATE AUTHORITY OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDIN G IS NEITHER SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY VALUATION REPORT CALLED TO ASS ESS, VALUE/COST OF BUILDING NOR BY ANY OTHER FACTS. 3. THAT, LEARNED ASSESSING AUTHORITY AS WELL AS APP ELLATE AUTHORITY OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ADDITION MADE/CONFIR MED OF RS.52,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF CREDITORS IS NEGLIGIBLE AND MAY BE DUE TO NUMEROUS OTHER FACT ORS LIKE VARIATION IN ACCOUNTING SYSTEM FOLLOWED BY CREDITORS AND ASSE SSEES, TRADE PRACTICES AND OTHER MATTERS. 4. NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS AFFORDE D TO THE APPLICANT. 5. OTHER GROUNDS WILL BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG. 7. WE FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES I. E. ITA NOS.461/AGR/2011 & 462/AGR/2011. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IN THESE APPEALS ARE THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SALE OF SU ITS, SAREES AND DRESS MATERIAL ON WHOLESALE BASIS. IN BOTH THE CASES, SURVEY UNDER S ECTION 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT ON 06.09.2007. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, BOTH THE ASSESSEES MADE DISCLOSUR E OF RS.20,00,000/- EACH. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE BY FILING ITA NOS.16/AGR/2012, 461 & 462/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2008-09. 5 RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSED ONLY RS.15,00,000/- UNDE R THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BEING THE INCOME SURRENDERED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INC ORPORATED RS.15,00,000/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BEING INVESTMENT IN THE BUILDING BECAUSE AT THE TIME FINALIZATION OF ACCOUNTS THE ASSESSEE NOTICED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES HAVE BEEN DULY DEBITED IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ACCORDINGLY ACTUAL COST AND SURRENDER HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE BOOKS AND IN THE RE TURN. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT THE A.O. DID NOT POINT OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE DECLA RED CONSTRUCTION COST IN COMPARISON TO THE ACTUAL COST. THE A.O. DID NOT AC CEPT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- EACH IN BOTH THE CASES. 8. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITIONS THOUGH B Y SEPARATE ORDERS BUT BY COMMON OBSERVATIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME O F SURVEY CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SURRENDERING VOLUNT ARILY RS.20,00,000/- IN ADDITION TO THE INCOME EARNED AND DECLARED AND THE SAME SHAL L BE INCORPORATED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN T HE CASE OF SHRI NARESH NANDLAL TALUJA, A POST DATED CHEQUE FOR RS.6,00,000/- HAS A LSO BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER SHEET ENT RY DATED 06.09.2011 ADMITTED THE MISTAKE OF NOT SHOWING THE TOTAL AMOUNT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME DECLARED ITA NOS.16/AGR/2012, 461 & 462/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2008-09. 6 AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THE CIT(A) FURTHER NOTICED THAT NO DETAILS ALONG WITH VALUATION REPORT REGARDING BUILDING ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN FURNISHED DESPITE BEING ASKED FOR. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE THAT NO DISCREPANCY HAS BEEN NOTED IN THE BUILDING ACCOUNT WAS FOUND UNSUSTAINAB LE IN ABSENCE OF DETAILS BY THE ASSESSEE COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S HIMSELF INCORPORATED AND DECLARED THE FULL AMOUNT IN THE BUILDING ACCOUNT AS PER THE DISCLOSURE MADE. 9. WE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED BE FORE THE CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT I NCORPORATING THE DECLARED AMOUNT OF RS.20,00,000/-. EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO, THE CIT(A) NOTED THE DETAILS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH EVIDENCE IN SUPP ORT OF THE REDUCTION OF THE DISCLOSURE MADE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THE ASSESSE E HIMSELF INCORPORATED AND DECLARED THE FULL AMOUNT IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION/I NVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH CONVINCING REASONS FOR NOT DECLARING TH E AMOUNT OF RS.20,00,000/- SURRENDERED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THERE IS NO MAT ERIAL ON RECORD AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT , WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE. ORDERS OF TH E CIT(A) ARE CONFIRMED. THUS, GROUND NO.2 IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ITA NOS.16/AGR/2012, 461 & 462/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2008-09. 7 10. THE THIRD GROUND IS COMMON GROUND IN CROSS APPE ALS IN THE CASE OF SHRI NARESH NANDLAL TALUJA. THE GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSE SSEES APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.97,341/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF CREDITORS. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE ISSUE A RE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. NOTICED DISCREPANCIES IN AMOUN T SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE VIS-- VIS IN THE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER SECTION 133(6 ) OF THE ACT FROM DIFFERENT CREDITORS. THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.5,93,805/- . 11. THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTEN T OF RS.97,341/- AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION. THE CIT(A) EXAMINED THE ADDITION OF EACH PARTIES. THE CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GIVE ANY SATISFACTORY REPLY FOR DIFFERENCE OF RS.61,327/- IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE PARTIES. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE OR RECONCILI ATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENCE NOTICED BY THE A.O. BEFORE THE CIT(A) N O SUCH EVIDENCE OR RECONCILIATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT( A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.61,327/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCIES FOUND IN PU RCHASES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS CREDITORS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON A CCOUNT OF DISCOUNT AND RATE DIFFERENCES. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO EXAMINED THE ACCO UNT OF DURGA FASHION AND SAROJ TEXTILES AND OTHERS AND NOTICED THAT THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENCE OF RS.36,014/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISCOUNT AND RATE ITA NOS.16/AGR/2012, 461 & 462/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2008-09. 8 DIFFERENCES IN THE SAID ACCOUNT OF SAROJ TEXTILE. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.36,014/- + 61,327/- MADE BY THE A.O. IS JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.97,341/- WAS CONFI RMED. THE ASSESSEE RAISED GROUND NO.3 AGAINST ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A ) AND REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION VIDE GROUND NO.3. 12. WE NOTICE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED EACH AND EVERY PARTIES. THE DIFFERENCES NOTICED BY THE A.O. IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT AND CREDITORS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED IN DETAIL BY THE CIT(A). WHEREVER THE ASS ESSEE FURNISHED DETAILS OF EVIDENCES AND GOT RECONCILED WITH THE ACCOUNTS IN A SSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND CREDITORS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. HOWEVER, WHERE THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO RECONC ILE THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT IN BETWEEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE AND THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE TWO CREDITORS, TO THAT EXTENT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN CON FIRMED. SINCE IT IS A MATTER OF RECONCILIATION AND THE CIT(A) AFTER DETAILED EXAMIN ATION OF EACH AND EVERY PARTYS ACCOUNT, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED AND ACCORD INGLY BALANCE ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED. THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE BOTH HAVE FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL TO THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A), NOR ANY SUCH MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRM ITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON T HE ISSUE. ITA NOS.16/AGR/2012, 461 & 462/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2008-09. 9 13. GROUND NOS.1 & 5 RAISED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IN CASE OF SHRI NARESH NANDLAL TALUJA ARE GENERAL IN NATURE REQUIRES NO SPECIFIC F INDING. 14. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.4 OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE C ASE OF SHRI NARESH NANDLAL TALUJA, WE NOTICED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED T HE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND THERE ARE MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH SHOW THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PUT P RESENCE BEFORE US ALSO INSPITE OF OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS GIVEN. WE, THEREFORE, D O NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THIS GROUND AND THUS THE SAME IS REJECTED. 15. NOW WE TAKE UP THE REMAINING GROUNDS IN REVENUE S APPEAL. 16. THE FIRST GROUND IS IN RESPECT OF DELETION OF A DDITION OF RS.3,75,506/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE IN THE CLOSI NG STOCK. THE A.O. MADE ADDITION ON DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING SOCK. THE A.O. N OTICED THAT THE VALUATION OF STOCK AS PER SURVEY REPORT WAS RS.39,84,390/- WHEREAS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK WAS RS.30,31,886/-. THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,75,506/-. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED REASON FOR DIFFERENCE IN STOCK FIGURE BEING WRONG VALUATION OR LAPSES MADE WHILE INVENTORISING THE SAME ALONG WITH THE FACT OF TRANS FER OF GOODS FROM THE ASSESSEES ITA NOS.16/AGR/2012, 461 & 462/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2008-09. 10 OWN SHOP, DEALING ON WHOLESALE BASIS, SITUATED AT F IRST FLOOR OF THE PREMISES SURVEYED TO RETAIL SECTION OF THE BUSINESS OWNED BY HIS WIFE SMT. MADHU TALUJA. THE CIT(A) FURTHER NOTICED THAT IN THE CASE OF SMT MADHU TALUJA, THERE WAS DIFFERENCE OF EXCESS STOCK OF RS.4,43,469/-. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.6 REGARDING DIFFER ENCE IN VALUATION OF STOCK AS PER PHYSICAL INVENTORY AND AS PER HIS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT STATED THAT HE HAS SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS.20,00,000/- AND THE SAME HA S BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS.3,75,506/-. THE CIT(A) ACC ORDINGLY DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. 17. WE NOTICED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY APPRECIA TED THE FACT FIRSTLY THAT CLOSING STOCK AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS FOUND LE SS AND, THEREFORE, IN PRINCIPLE THE ADDITION OF GROSS AMOUNT IS NOT WARRANTED. EVE N OTHERWISE ALSO, DISCLOSURE OF RS.15,00,000/- HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE BALANCE RS.5,00,000/- WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE . IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO SUCH ADDITION IS WARRANTED. THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. ITA NOS.16/AGR/2012, 461 & 462/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2008-09. 11 18. THE SECOND GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS IN RES PECT OF ADDITION OF RS.3,85,978/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES AND CREDITORS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. ISSUED LETTERS/SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 133(6) TO FOUR PARTIES WHICH WERE RETURNED BACK. T HEREFORE, THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,85,978/-. 19. THE CIT(A), AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE, IN DETAI L FOUND THAT SOME OF THE BILLS/INVOICES IN RESPECT OF THESE PARTIES HAVE BEE N FOUND INVENTORISED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ITSELF GIVING AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REGULAR BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH THESE PARTIES. THEREFORE, MERELY THE SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 133(6) SENT BY THE A.O. WERE RETURNED UN-SERVED CANNOT BE TERMED AS BOGUS PURCHASE OR CREDITORS. APART FROM THIS FACT, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE DISCLOSURE OF RS.20,00,000/- AND THE SAME HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO SUCH SEPARATE ADDITION IS WARRANTED. WE, THEREFORE , FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONFI RMED ON THE ISSUE. 20. NOW WE COME TO THE REMAINING GROUNDS IN THE CAS E OF SMT. MADHU TALUJA. ITA NOS.16/AGR/2012, 461 & 462/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2008-09. 12 21. GROUND NOS.1, 4 & 5 ARE SIMILAR TO THE GROUND N OS.1, 4 & 5 IN THE CASE OF SHRI NARESH NANDLAL TALUJA WHICH HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN PARAGRAPH NOS.13 & 14 OF THIS ORDER. THESE GROUNDS ARE DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. 22. GROUND NO.2 HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED AS DISCUSS ED ABOVE IN PARAGRAPH NO.9. 23. GROUND NO.3 PERTAINS TO ADDITION OF RS.52,600/- CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF CREDIT OR. THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS.7,35,245/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY NOTICED BY HIM IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT VIS-A-VIS INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER SECTION 133(6) FROM DIFFERENT CREDITORS. THE CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING EACH AND EVERY PARTYS ACCOU NT AND AFTER CONSIDERING RECONCILIATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, FOUND THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH EVIDENCE OR ORDER OF RECONCILIATION IN THE CASE OF DHINGRA TEXTILES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.52,600/-. THE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT AND DELETED THE BALANCE ADDITION. WE NOTICE THAT THE CI T(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.52,600/- AFTER EXAMINING ACCOUNT OF EACH AND EVE RY PARTIES WHERE DIFFERENCES WERE FOUND. AS PER THE DETAILED DISCUSSION MADE IN PARAGRAPH NO.12 WHILE DECIDING IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SHRI NARESH NANDLAL TALUJA, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.52, 600/-. EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO, ITA NOS.16/AGR/2012, 461 & 462/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2008-09. 13 THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD CONTRARY TO THE FIND ING OF CIT(A). THEREFORE, ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED ON THE ISSUE. 24. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES AND APP EAL OF THE REVENUE, ALL ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY