SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR BATHLA, Kota V. ADD. CIT, Kota

ITA 484/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7825 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS NEENA JEPH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 131; 68; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH: JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R. MEENA) I.T.A. NO. 484/JP/2012 ASSTT. YEAR- 2008-09 PAN NO. ABLPB 9150 G SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR BATHLA, THE ADDL. C.I.T., NEAR JAGDISH HOTEL, VRS. RANGE-2, KOTA, (RAJ.). LADPURA, KOTA (RAJ.). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO. 560/JP/2012 ASSTT. YEAR- 2008-09 PAN NO. ABLPB 9150 G THE D.C.I.T., SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR BATHLA, CIRCLE-2, KOTA. VRS. NEAR JAGDISH HOTEL, LADPURA, KOTA (RAJ.). ASSESSEE BY :- NONE (A.D. ON RECORD) DEPARTMENT BY :- MRS. NEENA JEPH. DATE OF HEARING : 15/10/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/12/2014 O R D E R PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. THE ITA NO. 484/JP/2012 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WEL L AS CROSS APPEAL NO. 560/JP/2012 BY THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED ITA 484 & 560/JP/2012 SURENDRA KUMAR BATHLA VS. ADDL.CIT 2 26/03/2012 OF THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A), KOTA FOR THE A. Y. 2008-09. THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES APPEAL AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER:- GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 484/JP/2012 1. THAT THE LEARNED A.O. AS WELL AS THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS ON LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 144 WAS THE ONE WAY WORK DONE BY THEM WHEREAS THEY HAVE IGNORED THE PROCEEDINGS ATTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT DONE U/S 144 IS ILLEGAL AND MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 2. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARN ED CIT(APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS ON LAW BY MAKING UNJUSTIFIED ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ENTRIES OF RS. 28,26,500/- TREAT ED BY A.O. 3. THAT THE LEARNED A.O. GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AND ON LAW IN MAKING THE ADDITION AND SUSTAINED BY LEARNED CIT(A) OF RS. 2,14,000/- TOWARDS LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS. 4. THAT THE APPELLATE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS. GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 560/JP/2012 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LEARNED CIT(A), KOTA HAS ERRED IN- ITA 484 & 560/JP/2012 SURENDRA KUMAR BATHLA VS. ADDL.CIT 3 I. DELETING TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 2,48,954/- SIN CE THE ASSESSEE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY PART OF THE CASH OF RS.10,88,750/- SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY REPRESENTED UNDISCLOSED TRADING PROFITS. II. DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 9 LAKHS AS THE CIT(A) H AS NOT ADJUDICATED UPON THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION & CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CASH CREDITORS. III. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LIBERTY TO RAISE ADDITION AL GROUND AND NO MODIFY/AMEND THE GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ORDER U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFT ER REFERRED AS THE ACT) PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ENT RIES OF RS. 28,26,500/- . THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN FOR A.Y. 20 08-09 ON 30/09/2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 17,78,800/- COMPRISIN G OF INCOME FROM RETAIL TRADING OF SURGICAL ITEMS. THIS CASE WAS SCRUT INIZED AND NOTICE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 20/11/2008 BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER. THEREAFTER, NUMBER OF NOTICES ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE , HE HAS NOT RESPONDED ANY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S 271(1 )(B) OF THE ACT FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE EVEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ITA 484 & 560/JP/2012 SURENDRA KUMAR BATHLA VS. ADDL.CIT 4 HIM NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. TH EREAFTER, NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 14/9/2010 AND CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARIN G ON 20/09/2010. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN ADJOURNMENT APPLIC ATION ON 20/09/2010, ACCORDINGLY CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 08/2/ 2010. AGAIN, THE ASSESSEE FILED ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION AND CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 29/10/2010, ON THIS DATE THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE OFFICE AND FILED PART REPLY AND CASE WAS ADJOURN ED TO 11/11/2010. ON THIS DATE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED PART REPL Y AND CASE WAS AGAIN ADJOURNED. A LETTER WAS ISSUED ON 26/11/2010 FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 30/11/2010 BUT AGAIN THE A.R. REQUESTED TO ADJOURN THE CASE TO 02/12/2010. ON THIS DATE, THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED PART REPLY AND CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 08/12 /2010. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FINALLY ISSUED SUMMON U/S 131 OF THE ACT ON 02/12/2010 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO APPEAR ON 0 8/12/2010. AGAIN ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WITH PHOTO COPY OF MEDICAL PRESCRIPTION. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER CONDUCTED INQUIRY AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SITTING ON HIS BUSINESS PREMISES AND WAS ENGAGED WITH BUSINESS ACTIVITIES IN NORMAL COURSE. THEREAFTER, FINALLY, NOTICE WAS GIVEN ON 08/12/2010 A ND CASE WAS FIXED FOR 13/12/2010. AGAIN HE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND REQ UESTED TO GIVE ITA 484 & 560/JP/2012 SURENDRA KUMAR BATHLA VS. ADDL.CIT 5 DATE IN MONTH OF JANUARY, 2011 ON THE GROUND THAT H E WAS NOT FEELING WELL. THE CASE WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION ON 31/12/2010, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TURNED DOWN FROM THE REQUEST OF TH E ASSESSEE TO ADJOURN THE CASE IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 2011. HE ALSO GAVE NOTICE TO THE DOCTOR TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE ILLNESS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAD ADMITTED THAT HE MADE ROUTINE CHECKUP AS HAD BE EN SUGGESTED FOR DIABETIC PATIENT. THERE WAS A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 12/10/2007 ALO NGWITH TWO SISTER CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY M/S ACE INDIA MEDIC AL SYSTEM AND SURAJ MEDICALS AT KOTA. ALL THE THREE CONCERNS WERE DEALING IN THE SAME TRADE OF SELLING OF SURGICAL ITEMS AND MEDICINES. D URING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS. 39,17,250/-, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- (A) DIFFERENCE OF CASH RS. 10,88,750/- (B) BOGUS CREDITORS RS. 28,28,500/- TOTAL RS. 39,17,250/- WHILE FILING THE INCOME TAX RETURN, THE ASSESSEE ON LY DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL INCOME UNDER HEAD MISC. RECEIPTS AT RS. 10,88,750/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO EXPLAI N THE LESSER DISCLOSURE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN, WHICH WAS R ESPONDED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS CLAIMED THAT MISC. RECEIPTS OF R S. 10,88,750/- WAS ITA 484 & 560/JP/2012 SURENDRA KUMAR BATHLA VS. ADDL.CIT 6 DISCLOSED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY BUT HAD NOT A DMITTED DISCLOSURE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS CREDITORS OF RS. 28,28,500 /-. IT WAS CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT WHATEVER DISCLOSU RE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CREDITORS, WHICH HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE REGUL AR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THERE WAS A LIST FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY BU T ON ALL THESE AMOUNTS WERE JUST APPEARING IN THE LIST OF PAPER, IT WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM. FURTHER LOOKING T O TURNOVER, STOCK AND BUSINESS, THERE WAS NO NEED TO HAVE SUCH HUGE CASH C REDITORS. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D INTENTIONALLY NOT PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE RELEVANT PERI OD. THE LIST SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY AN EXTRACT OF BOO KS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE SUBMISSION. LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS TOTALING TO RS. 28,28,500/- DETECTED DURING THE COURSE OF SU RVEY, WHICH WERE DULY SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HIMSEL F HAD AGREED THAT THESE ARE THE BOGUS CREDITORS AND AGREED TO DEPOSIT THE TAX THEREON BY MAKING SURRENDER OF THIS MUCH AMOUNT AND THE AMOUNT SO SURRENDERED WAS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS O N THE DATE OF SURVEY BY MAKING NECESSARY ENTRIES IN CASH BOOKS AN D LEDGER. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, STATEMENT OF LUCKY BATHLA, WHO IS SON OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED, WHO HAD OFFERED THIS AMOUNT FO R TAXATION. HE ITA 484 & 560/JP/2012 SURENDRA KUMAR BATHLA VS. ADDL.CIT 7 ALSO ANSWERED ALL THE DISCREPANCIES FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WITH HIS FATHER. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OF FICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.28,28,500/- IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT BY OB SERVING THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN DETAILED REASO NS WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE IN APP EAL BEFORE US. 5. NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. A T THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF T HE CASE, WE HAVE THE SAME VIEW THAT EX PARTE ORDER IS JUSTIFIED IN CASE OF NON-COOPERATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND ALSO THE CASE WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION ON 31/12/2010. ACCORDINGLY, FIRST GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 28,28,500/-, THE LEARN ED CIT(A) TAKEN THIS AMOUNT AT RS. 28,26,500/- AS PER GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SERIES OF EVENTS, STA TEMENT OF ASSESSEE, ITA 484 & 560/JP/2012 SURENDRA KUMAR BATHLA VS. ADDL.CIT 8 STATEMENT OF SON OF THE ASSESSEE AND FINALLY, THE L EARNED CIT(A) CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE A.OS FINDING AND ASSESSEE S SUBMISSION. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE CASE RECOR DS AND THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTICED:- (I) THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WERE INVENTORISED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. (II) THESE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE A.O. (III) THESE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE ME EITHER. (IV) THE ENTRY MADE AFTER THE DISCLOSURE WAS WRONG TO THE EXTENT THAT IN PLACE OF CREDIT, DEBIT WAS MENTIO NED AND IN PLACE OF DEBIT, CREDIT WAS MENTIONED. HOWEVER, THE SA ME CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN EVIDENCE TO NULLIFY THE OTHER EVID ENCE COLLECTED DURING THE SURVEY. THIS ENTRY WAS MADE DURING THE COU RSE OF SURVEY TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE SURRENDER MADE BY ASSE SSEE AND IN MY OPINION, IT HAS NO BEARING ON THE ISSUE UNDER CO NSIDERATION. (V) THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON SHRI LUCKY BHATLA CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT A SUM OF RS.28,28,500/- WAS RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS CASH CREDIT FOR WHI CH THEY HAVE ITA 484 & 560/JP/2012 SURENDRA KUMAR BATHLA VS. ADDL.CIT 9 NO EXPLANATION AND THE SAME WAS SURRENDERED ALONGWITH EXCESS CASH OF RS. 10,88,750/- FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. (VI) THE ASSESSEE OFFERED RS. 10,88,750/- OF EXCESS CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY BUT DID NOT SURRE NDER THE OTHER AMOUNT OF RS. 28,28,500/-. (VII) THE NUMBER OF CREDITORS IN THIS LIST WERE 153 AND THE AMOUNT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED WAS LESS THAN RS. 20,000/- IN EACH CASE. IT IS A COMMON PRACTICE THAT WHENEVER A PERSON TRIES TO INTRODUCE HIS UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, HE NORMALLY SHOWS CASH CREDITS OF BELOW RS. 20,000/- TO AVOID APPLICATION OF SEC. 269SS OF THE I.T. ACT. THIS FURTHER STRENGTHENS THE PRESUMPTION THAT THESE CREDITORS WERE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. (VIII) DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE A.O., THE ATTITUDE OF ASSESSEE WAS NON COOPERATIVE AND THE ORD ER WAS PASSED U/S 144. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT DURING THE C OURSE OF SURVEY CASH CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO RS. 28,28,500/- WERE FOU ND ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH WERE SURRENDERED BY T HE ASSESSEE AS HE HAD NO EXPLANATION AT THAT TIME. ITA 484 & 560/JP/2012 SURENDRA KUMAR BATHLA VS. ADDL.CIT 10 IT IS ALSO HELD THAT ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY AVOIDED PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS INVENTORISED D URING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE SAME GOES AGAINST THE ASSESSEE . IT CAN BE REASONABLY PRESUME THAT THIS WAS DONE TO CONCEAL SOM E CRUCIAL FACTS WHICH WERE GOING AGAINST ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ADDITION OF RS. 28,28,500/- IS CONFIRMED. 7. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. NO ONE H AS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT HIS CASE BEF ORE THE BENCH. BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED T HAT NO LIST OF CREDITORS WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY EXCE PT EXCESS CASH. THERE IS NO EXCESS STOCK AND THE BOOKS WERE MAINTAINE D FOR EVERY TRANSACTION. HOWEVER, A TYPED LIST WAS SHOWN TO THE A SSESSEE THAT THESE SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE THERE AS ON 12/10/2007 A ND THIS IS YOUR UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND WAS LIABLE TO TAX. THE ASSESSE E COULD NOT UNDERSTAND THIS LIST AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. HIS SON ADMITTED DISCLOSURE IN TERMS OF IF IT IS UNDISCLOSED INCOME, THEN IT C AN BE TAXED. THERE IS NO PERSON TO REPRESENT THE SAID AMOUNT WHEREAS IN TH IS CASE, THERE IS NO ENTRY IN THE BOOKS, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUEST ION OF ANY UNREPRESENTED ENTRY, AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS NOT UN DISCLOSED ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LIABILITY CANNOT BECOME INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA 484 & 560/JP/2012 SURENDRA KUMAR BATHLA VS. ADDL.CIT 11 8. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ARGUED THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT PROD UCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CLAIM THE LIABILITY OF UNR ECORDED CREDITORS. NUMBER OF CREDITORS IN THIS LIST WAS 153 AND THE AMO UNT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED WAS LESS THAN RS. 20,000/- IN EACH CAS E. THEREFORE, THIS MAY BE CONFIRMED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS ALSO PERU SED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND FOUND THAT THE LIST OF CREDITO RS, WHICH WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ASSESSEE ALSO H AS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THEREFORE, WE I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIRECTED TO RECONSIDER THIS ISSUE AS PER LA W. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE AND FURNISH ALL THE DETAILS A LONGWITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINS T CONFIRMING THE ADDITION BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) OF RS. 2,14,000/- TO WARDS LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ITA 484 & 560/JP/2012 SURENDRA KUMAR BATHLA VS. ADDL.CIT 12 THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 86,786/-. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, HE FOUND THAT THE SE WITHDRAWALS WERE MADE ONLY FOR PAYMENT OF TELEPHONE AND ELECTRICITY BILLS. NO DETAILS REGARDING HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES HAD BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE LIVING STANDARD OF THE ASSESSEE, SI ZE OF THE FAMILY, HE ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 20,000/- PER M ONTH AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2,40,000/-. 11. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY WITHDRAWAL OR OTHER EXPENSES I.E. EDUCATION, FOOD , CLOTHING ETC. THUS, HE FOUND THE ESTIMATION OF THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER IS REASONABLE. 12. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN BEFORE THE LEARNED C IT(A), HE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE LOW WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 86,786/-. THE LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUT HORITIES. THE ASSESSEE IS RESIDING IN KOTA WITH HIS FAMILY. AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE FAMILY CONSTITUTE BY SIX MEMBERS, WHICH INCLUDE S ONE CHILD. THE ITA 484 & 560/JP/2012 SURENDRA KUMAR BATHLA VS. ADDL.CIT 13 ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING WITHDR AWALS MADE BY THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS EITHER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) OR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THIS ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS DIRECTED TO GIVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE A SSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND FURNISH THE REQUIRED DETAILS. 13. THE GROUND NO. 1 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETING TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 2,48,954/- GIVING TELESCOPIC BENEFI T TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THUS PURCHASE AND SALE ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. ACCORDINGLY, HE REJECTED THE BOOK RESULT AND ENHANCED THE TURNOVER AT RS. 40 LACS AND ESTIMATED PROFIT @ 20% ON IT. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 2,48,954/- WAS ADDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER ALLO WED THE TELESCOPIC BENEFIT AGAINST THE CASH DISCLOSURE OF RS. 10,88,75 0/-. AS WE REFERRED ABOVE, NO ONE APPEAR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE US BUT WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AS EXCES S CASH IS RESULT OF TRADING. THUS, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CI T(A). ITA 484 & 560/JP/2012 SURENDRA KUMAR BATHLA VS. ADDL.CIT 14 14. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9 LACS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERV ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 9 LACS IN THE NAME O F SHRI PREM PRAKASH MISHRA. THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF ACCOUNT OF SHRI PREM PRAKASH MISHRA BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT NO CONFIRMATION WAS FILED. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY CONFIRMATION FROM SHRI PREM PRAKASH MISHRA. THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE CREDITWORTHINESS, IDENTITY AND GENUINENES S OF THE TRANSACTION, THEREFORE, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS. 9 L ACS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 15. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT( A), WHO HAD DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT DURING THE Y EAR, NO LOAN WAS TAKEN FROM SHRI PREM PRAKASH MISHRA, IT WAS OPENING BALANCE OF EARLIER YEAR. THE CASH CREDITOR DIED IN 2006 AND THERE WERE N O CORDIAL RELATION WITH THE WIFE OF CASH CREDITOR. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMI TTED COPY OF NOTICE SENT BY SMT. URMILA MISHRA WIFE OF SHRI PREM PRAKASH MISHRA FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 9 LACS. HE VERIFIED THE DETAILS FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT WAS FOUND THAT A MOUNT WAS SHOWN AS OPENING BALANCE. THEREFORE, HE DELETED THE ADDITI ON. ITA 484 & 560/JP/2012 SURENDRA KUMAR BATHLA VS. ADDL.CIT 15 16. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEAR NED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND ARGUED THAT NO EVIDENCES WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES REPLY WITHOUT CALLING THE REMAND REPORT. FROM THE SIDE OF ASSESSEE, NO ONE AP PEARED BUT FACTS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO HAS VERIFIED THIS FACT BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THIS LOAN WAS FOUND OPENING BALANCE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 9 LACS ON JUSTIFIED GROUND. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES A PPEAL IS DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/12/2014. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR, DATED : 05 TH DECEMBER, 2014 * RANJAN COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR BATHLA, KOTA. 2. THE ADDL. C.I.T., RANGE-2 & DCIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA. ITA 484 & 560/JP/2012 SURENDRA KUMAR BATHLA VS. ADDL.CIT 16 3. THE CIT (A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE D/R GUARD FILE (I.T.A. NO. 484 & 560/JP/2011) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.