Shri Gurubux Singh Saluja, V. The ITO,

ITA 475/IND/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2433 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-12-2009
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2006
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA KARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S S DESHPANDE
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Depreciation
• Section: 44AD; 69B; 69

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 475 & 476/IND/2006 GURUBAX SINGH SALUJA, DHAR IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH : INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PAN NO. : AHCPS5803L I.T.A.NO.475 & 476/IND/2006 A.Y. : 1998-99 & 2000-01 SHRI GURUBUX SINGH SALUJA, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CONTRACTOR, VS DHAR C/O KU. VEENA MANDLIK, ADV. 25/7, Y. N. ROAD, INDORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.S.DESHPANDE, C. A. RESPONDENT BY : SMT.APARNA KARAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 07/12/2009 O R D E R PER V.K. GUPTA, A.M. THESE APPEALS BELONG TO THE SAME ASSESSEE AND INVOL VE COMMON ISSUES, HENCE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CON VENIENCE. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE ALSO PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. FIRST, WE SHALL TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 475/IND/2006 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. PAGE 2 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 475 & 476/IND/2006 GURUBAX SINGH SALUJA, DHAR 4. IN GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF A.O. IN A PPLYING NET PROFIT RATE OF 8 % IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44A D AND MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 68,418/-. 5. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CON TRACTOR IN CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. THE ASSESSEE SHOWED A NET PROFIT RATE OF 2 % ON CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.10,48,624/- FROM P.W.D. AND NET PROF IT RATE @ 6 % ON THE RECEIPTS OF RS. 2,75,000/- FROM M/S. A.M. KANHERE & COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE, ON AN ENQUIRY FROM THE A.O., SUBMITTED TH AT P.W.D. CONTRACT WAS SUB-LET TO HIS SONS DUE TO ILL HEALTH AND WHO H AD SHOWN 6% NET PROFIT THEREON. HENCE, OVER ALL PROFIT SHOWN WAS @ 8%. AS REGARD THE OTHER CONTRACT, SIMILAR CONTENTIONS WERE MADE. THE A.O., HOWEVER, ADOPTED A NET PROFIT @ 8% ON THE TOTAL RECEIPTS AND WORKED OU T THE NET PROFIT FROM CIVIL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS AT RS. 1,05,890/- AS AG AINST NET PROFIT OF RS. 37,472/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHEREIN THE SUBMIS SIONS MADE BEFORE THE A.O. WERE CARRIED OUT. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. AND THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER :- 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLA NT BUT DO NOT FIND FORCE IN THE SAME. THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION PAGE 3 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 475 & 476/IND/2006 GURUBAX SINGH SALUJA, DHAR 44AD ARE UNAMBIGUOUS. THIS SECTION CLEARLY LAYS DOW N THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR AND DOES NOT MAINTA IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, HE HAS TO SHOW MINIMUM NET PROFIT @ 8% OF THE TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPTS. IF THE RATE IS LOWER, HE H AS TO JUSTIFY THE SAME BY MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AN D GET THE SAME AUDITED. INVERSELY, IT ALLOWS THE ASSESSEE TO DECLARE PROFIT AT 8% EVEN IF HE EARNS THE SAME AT A HIGHER RATE. THERE IS NO SCOPE OF SHARING THE MINIMUM NET PROFIT WITH THE SUB- CONTRACTORS OR ANY OTHER PERSON. IF THE ASSESSEE DI VERTS THE PROFIT TO A THIRD PARTY ON ONE PRETEXT OR THE OTHER , THAT IS CLEARLY A PLOY TO SIPHON-OFF HIS PROFITS TO AVOID T AX INCIDENCE. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I HOLD THAT THE A .O. HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE NARRATED THE F ACTS, REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND FURTHER CONTENDED THAT GENUINENESS OF SUB CONTRACT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH HIS SONS HAD NOT BEEN DOUBTED AND IF THE ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED, THEN, THE SAME WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBL E TAXATION OF THE SAME INCOME. 8. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER H AND, PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. PAGE 4 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 475 & 476/IND/2006 GURUBAX SINGH SALUJA, DHAR 10. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEES CONTRACT RECEIPTS A RE LESS THAN RS. 40 LAKHS, HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD ARE APPLICABLE. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD IN THE CASE OF ANY P ERSON ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION OR SUPPLY OF LABOUR FOR CIVIL CONSTRUCTION, THE PROFITS OF SUCH BUSINESS HAVE TO BE ESTIMATED @ 8% OF GROSS RECEIPTS. AS PER SUB SECTION (6) OF SECTION 44AD, THE ASSESSE E MAY CLAIM LOWER PROFITS AND GAINS, THAN. PROFITS AND GAINS @ 8% AS PER SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 44AD PROVIDED AS SUCH ASSESSEE KEEPS AND M AINTAINS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS SPECIFIED U/S 44AA(2) AND OBTAIN AN AUDI T REPORT ON THE LINES OF AUDIT REPORT AS PRESCRIBED U/S 44AB. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FAIRLY ADMITTE D THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THIS IS S O, THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE PROVISIONS OF LAW FOR SHOWING LOWE R PROFIT HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED, HENCE, AND BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUB- CONTRACTED THE CONTRACT, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT SHOW A LESSER PROFIT. WE ARE FU RTHER OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD, THERE IS NO CONCEPT OF AN ASSESSEE, BEING A CONTRACTOR EXECUTING CONTRACT ON ITS OWN OR AN ASSESSEE AFTER OBTAINING CONTRACT, EXECUTING IT THROUGH SUB CONTRA CTOR, SO AS TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM OF LOWER PROFITS THAN THE SPECIFIED ONE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE GENUINENESS OF SUB-CONTRACT WAS NOT DOUBTED BUT THAT THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO DEVOID OF MERI T AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PAGE 5 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 475 & 476/IND/2006 GURUBAX SINGH SALUJA, DHAR GIVEN A CLEAR CUT FINDING THAT THIS WAS AN EXERCISE TO SPREAD OVER THE PROFITS INTO THE HANDS OF DIFFERENT ASSESSABLE ENTI TIES, SO AS TO CLAIM BENEFIT OF MAXIMUM AMOUNT NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX AND DIFFERENT SLAB RATE. THUS, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THESE FACTS AND L EGAL PROVISIONS, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THESE GROUNDS O F THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 11. IN GROUNDS NO. 5 TO 7, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 75,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 69B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 19 61. 12. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASE D A MARUTI CAR FOR RS. 2.15 LAKHS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . THE A.O. REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. THE A SSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT A SUM OF RS. 1,40,000/- HAD BEEN TAKEN FROM M/S. GU JARAT LEASING AND FINANCE LIMITED AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS A PART O F PAST SAVINGS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. FOUND THAT NO DETAILS OF PAST SA VINGS WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FILING ANY BALANCE SHEET OR CAPITAL ACCOUNT WITH THE RETURNS OF INCOME IN EARLIER YEARS . HENCE, HE REJECTED THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITIO N OF RS. 75,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69B OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961. PAGE 6 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 475 & 476/IND/2006 GURUBAX SINGH SALUJA, DHAR 13. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE , BESIDES REITERAT ING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE A.O., ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD A SECOND HAND CAR, WHICH WAS SOLD FOR RS. 75,000/- IN THIS YEAR. THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. AS THIS WAS A NEW C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED THAT NO DOC UMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE FACT FOR SALE OF SUCH CAR IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD. CIT(A), ACCOR DINGLY, REJECTED THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING THIS AS AN A FTER THOUGHT. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING PAST SAVINGS FOR THE REASON THAT FOR HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS/BUSI NESS REQUIREMENTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN CASH FROM BANK AT REGULAR IN TERVALS AND WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE, IF THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVIN G THIS MUCH OF CASH WITH HIM. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APP EAL BEFORE US. 14. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE NARRATED THE F ACTS, REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND ALSO SUBMITTED THE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 1994-95, WHEREIN A PART OF DEPRECIATION OF CAR HAD BEEN DISA LLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH FACT, PROVED THE POSSESSIO N OF THE CAR BY THE ASSESSEE. PAGE 7 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 475 & 476/IND/2006 GURUBAX SINGH SALUJA, DHAR 15. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER H AND, CONTENDED THAT NO EVIDENCE TO SALE OF SUCH CAR FOR A SUM OF RS. 75,000/- HAD BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. HENCE, THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED. SHE FURTHER PLACED STRONG RELIANC E ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. 17. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING AN Y BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WE HAVE ALSO UPHELD THE ACTION OF A.O. IN APPLYING RATE OF 8 % TO WORK OUT THE NET PROFIT AND, THEREFORE, ADDITION AL FUNDS ARE ALSO AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH CAN ALSO BE TELESC OPED TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN CAR BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE W HEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO MAINTAIN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR HAS NOT FILED ANY BALANCE SHEET, IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOUL D NOT MAINTAIN ANY CASH IN HAND AND, THEREFORE, THE FACT OF REGULAR WI THDRAWALS FROM THE BANK BY IT-SELF CANNOT BE SUFFICIENT TO REJECT THE ASSES SEES CONTENTION OF CONTRIBUTING A SUM OF RS. 75,000/- FROM PAST SAVING S. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED A SALE RECEIPT OF THE CAR FOR RS. 70,000/- TO ONE SHRI KULDEEP SINGH BALWANT SINGH, TRANSPORT NAGAR, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE CIT(A). HENCE, THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE REVENUE ARE NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT AS WELL. THUS , FOR THE REASONS STATED PAGE 8 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 475 & 476/IND/2006 GURUBAX SINGH SALUJA, DHAR HEREINABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTLY SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). THUS, THESE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS PARTLY ALLOWED. 19. NOW, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN I.T. A.NO. 476/IND/2006. 20. THE ASSESSEE RAISED GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4, WHICH ARE I DENTICAL TO GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN I.T. A.NO. 475/IND/2006, HENCE, FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONS, WE DISMISS ALL T HESE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS YEAR AS WELL. 21. IN GROUND NO.5, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE D ECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,65,4 31/- OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 4,50,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER U/S 69 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 22. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE A.O. FOUND THAT T HERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH S TATE BANK OF INDORE, AND ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK, KHARGONE, AGGREGATI NG TO RS. 4,50,000/- . THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REC EIVED A SUM OF RS. 8,80,000/-, A PART OF WHICH WAS KEPT BY HIM AT HIS RESIDENCE FOR USING THE CASH FOR CONTRACT BUSINESS AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 4,50,000/- HAD BEEN DEPOSITED IN SUCH BANK ACCOUNTS. THE A.O., HOW EVER, FOUND THAT THE PAGE 9 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 475 & 476/IND/2006 GURUBAX SINGH SALUJA, DHAR ASSESSEE HAD TO PASS ALL THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED FRO M P. W. D. TO HIS SONS, HENCE, THE SAME COULD NOT BE AVAILABLE WITH HIM. TH E A.O. FURTHER HELD THAT THESE SONS WERE ALSO HAVING THEIR OWN BUSINESS , HENCE, THEY MUST HAVE REQUIRED THE AMOUNT FOR THEIR OWN BUSINESS PUR POSES. THEREAFTER, THE A.O. ALSO EXAMINED OTHER CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE IN POSSE SSION OF CASH FOR MAKING SUCH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK, OUT OF SUCH WITHDRAWALS AS CLAIMED BY HIM. ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 4,50,000/-. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER INTO APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHEREIN APART FROM REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AGRICULTURE INCOME WAS ALSO EAR NED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ADDITION TO THE CONTRACT INCOME AND COPIES OF THE B ANK STATEMENTS WERE ALSO PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM. THE LD. CIT (A) FOUND THAT THERE WERE SUBSTANTIAL WITHDRAWALS BEFORE THE DATE OF DEP OSITS AND THE GAP BETWEEN THESE TWO DATES WAS NOT SUBSTANTIAL, SO AS TO RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY FOR CASH BEING AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSES SEE, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT WAS NOT UNUSUAL IN THE LINE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE TO KEEP CASH AT HOME. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER EXAMINED THE WORK DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FOUND THAT WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 50,000/- FROM ZILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK, KHARGONE, WAS, IN FACT, RS. 5 LAKHS AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE DESERVED DUE CREDIT FOR SUCH WRONG CALCULA TION MADE BY THE PAGE 10 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 475 & 476/IND/2006 GURUBAX SINGH SALUJA, DHAR ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THA T THE FACT OF WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 8,80,000/- FROM THE BANK WAS NOT REFUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IF THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTUR E AND OTHER RECEIPTS WERE ACCEPTED AS ENOUGH TO MEET HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES , THEN ON THE DATE OF DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSEE COULD BE IN POSSESSION OF CA SH OF RS. 2,84,569/-. ACCORDINGLY, HE RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS. 1,65 ,431/- I.E. BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RS. 4.50 LAKHS (-) RS. 2,84,56 9/-. STILL AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 23. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO CONTENDED THAT IF THE RATE OF NET PROFIT WAS SO ADOPTED AT 8 %, THEN ADDITIONAL CASH AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN DUE CREDIT, WHILE DETERMIN ING THE QUANTUM OF SHORT FALL IN CASH. 24. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER H AND, PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 25. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. 26. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN CIVIL C ONSTRUCTION BUSINESS, WHEREIN CASH IN HAND IS KEPT IN SUFFICIEN T QUANTITY, SO AS TO MEET OUT THE EVENTUALITIES OF BUSINESS. HOWEVER, FOR SUC H EVENTUALITIES DO NOT OCCUR, THEN THE CASH IS DEPOSITED BACK IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THUS, PAGE 11 OF 11 -I.T.A.NO. 475 & 476/IND/2006 GURUBAX SINGH SALUJA, DHAR AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN HAND CANNOT BE RULED OUT. W E FURTHER FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE MODU S OPERANDI OF THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER FACTUAL DETAILS HAS ASCERTAINED THE QUANTUM OF CASH, WHICH COULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THESE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE REMAINED UNCONTROVERTED. WE ARE FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT ONC E RATE OF NET PROFIT HAS BEEN ASCERTAINED BY US AT 8 % THAT ALSO RESULTS INT O AVAILABILITY OF ADDITIONAL CASH WITH THE ASSESSEE AND TO THIS EXTEN T, THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO GET CREDIT THEREOF. ACCORDINGLY, WE RESTRICT THE SHORT-FALL IN CASH AT RS. 70,000/- AND RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO THIS AMOUNT. THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. 27. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 28. TO SUM UP, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE STAND P ARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH DECEMBER, 2009. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (V. K. GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED :15 TH DECEMBER, 2009. CPU* 891214