, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL; RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT. . .. . . . . . , , , , ! ! ! !. .. . . . . . ' ' ' ' , , , , # $ % # $ % # $ % # $ % BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA, JM AND SHRI D. K. S RIVASTAVA, AM. ITA NO. 48/RJT/2012. & ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JR, WARD-2(3), PORBANDAR. ( )*/ APPELLANT) VS. SMT. JAYSHREEBA V. JADEJA, PROP: KAILASH & CO. CHHAYA CHOWKI, PORBANDAR. PAN :ACPPJ1270J. +,)*/ RESPONDENT - . / REVENUE BY SHRI AVINASH KUMAR, D. R. & /'- . / ASSESSEE BY SHRI CHETAN AGARWAL, C. A. 0& 1 - '# / DATE OF HEARING 16-07-2012. 2' - '# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20 - 07-2012. / / / / ORDER . .. . . . . . , , , , / T. K. SHARMA, J. M. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29-11-2011 OF CI T (A), JAMNAGAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE CIT(A)ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTIN G THE AO TO ASSESS THE NET PROFIT EMBEDDED IN DIFFERENCE OF RECEIPTS A ND THEREBY RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS.27,885/- OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.7,89,093/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE I N GROSS PROFIT. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT IT IS THE ASSESSEE THAT HAS TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENSES RELATING TO THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS WERE IN FACT N OT DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT PRODUCED BEFORE THE REVENUE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD PROVE THE EXPENSES RELATING TO THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS WERE ALSO UNACCOUNTED. ITA NO 48/RJT/2012 2 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RELY ING UPON THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AS THE SAME ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. 3. AT THE OUTSET, SHRI CHETAN AGARWAL, C.A. APPEARE D ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY T HE REVENUE ON 03-02-2012. AS PER INSTRUCTION NO.3/2011, DATED 09-02-2011 OF CBDT , THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THE TAX EFFECT IS ONLY RS.2,28,362/ - AS UNDER:- CALCULATION OF TAX EFFECT. ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER 789093 ADDITION SUSTAINED BY CIT(A) 27885 ADDITION DELETED BY CIT(A) & DISPUTED IN PRESENT A PPEAL 761208 TAX @ 30% 228362 4. SHRI AVINASH KUMAR, D.R. APPEARED FOR THE REVE NUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL O F THE ASSESSEE. 5. ADMITTEDLY, THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE IS LESS THAN RS. 3 LAKHS. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF INSTRUCTION NO.3/2011, DATED 09-02-2011. WE THEREFORE, DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( !.. ' / D. K. SRIVASTAVA) ( .. / T. K. SHARMA) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER 3&/ ORDER DATE 20-07-2012. /RAJKOT NVA/- ITA NO 48/RJT/2012 3 - -- - +'4 +'4 +'4 +'4 54'' 54'' 54'' 54'' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. )* / APPELLANT-THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JR, WARD-2(3), PORBANDAR. 2. +,)* / RESPONDENT-SMT. JAYSHREEBA V. JADEJA, PORBANDAR. 3. 9 ' 0: / CONCERNED CIT, JAMNAGAR. 4. 0:- / CIT (A), JAMNAGAR. 5. 4 >? +'& , , / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. ?! AB / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , TRUE COPY. SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY. , INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT. ITA NO 48/RJT/2012 4 1.DATE OF DICTATION 16-07-2012. 2.DATE OF PLACING THE DRAFT. : 3.DATE OF APPROVAL OF DRAFT. : 4.DATE OF RETURN FROM JM : 5.DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 6.DATE OF SENDING TO BENCH CLERK : 7.DATE OF RECEIPT BY BENCH CLERK : 8.DATE OF PLACING IT FOR ENDORSEMENT : 9.DATE OF ENDORSEMENT : 10.DATE OF DISPATCH :