Income Tax Officer, Kollam V. M/s Palani fashion Jewellery, Kollam

ITA 49/COCH/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7461 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: N S RAJAGOPAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.49/COCH/2009 CO 16/COCH/2009 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHI BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI SANJAY ARO RA (AM) I.T.A. NO.49/COCH/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) ITO, WD.2 VS M/S PALANI FASHION JEWELLERY KOLLAM PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM PAN : AABFP3318H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.16/COCH/2009 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.49/COCH/2009) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) M/S PALANI FASHION JEWELLERY VS ITO, WD.2 PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM KOLLAM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : MS VIJAYAPRABHA ASSESSEE BY : SHRI N.S. RAJAGOPAL DATE OF HEARING : 01-12-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-01-2012 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-I, TRIVANDRUM DATED 2 0-10-2008 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE CROSS OBJ ECTION IS FILED AGAINST THE SAME ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E-TAX(A). THEREFORE, WE HEARD THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECT ION TOGETHER AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ADDI TION OF RS.6 LAKHS. 3. MS. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A SURVEY OPERATION IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 20-11- 2006. ACCORDING 2 ITA NO.49/COCH/2009 CO 16/COCH/2009 TO THE LD.DR THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS CREDITED AS IF GOLD WAS INTRODUCED AS CAPITAL. REFERRING TO PARAGRAPH 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD.DR SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND CREDIT OF RS.17,06,472 IN T HE NAME OF THREE PARTNERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY PROOF FOR ACQUISITION OF THE ABOVE GOLD. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM MIGHT HAVE GOT GOLD TO THE EXTENT OF 1000 GMS FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE CAPI TAL OUT OF WHICH 50% WAS ALLOWED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND BAL ANCE OF 50% WAS ALLOWED IN THE CASE OF PALANI JEWELLERY. ACCORDING LY, THE UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNERS WORKE D OUT TO RS. 8,84,472. HOWEVER, ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) FOUND THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,51,844 R EPRESENTS THE CREDIT PURCHASE IN THE IMPOUNDED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 12,36,316 GIVING RELIEF O F RS.2 LAKHS IN THE CASE OF EACH PARTNER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X(A) ALLOWED RS.6 LAKHS. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HIMSELF HAS ESTIMATED THE AVAILABILITY OF GOLD WITH THE PARTNER S TO THE EXTENT OF 1000 GMS EACH, THEREFORE, FURTHER RELIEF OF RS.2 LA KHS GIVEN BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI N.S. RAJAGOPAL, THE LD.REP RESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO DOUBT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND CREDIT OF GOLD IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNE RS. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE PARTNERS INTRODUCED THEIR OW N GOLD WHICH WAS INHERITED AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. SINCE THE GOLD WAS RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE, IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE AS SESSEE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, IT IS COMMON FOR LADIES TO RECEIVE GOLD JEWELLERY FROM THE PARENTS A T THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. 3 ITA NO.49/COCH/2009 CO 16/COCH/2009 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SID E AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. NO DOUBT , THERE WAS A CREDIT OF RS.17,06,472. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE PARTNERS INTRODUCED THEIR OWN GOLD WHICH WAS RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIA L RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT 1000 GMS. THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME- TAX(A) FOUND THAT EACH PARTNER MIGHT HAVE GOLD JEWE LLERY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2 LAKHS EACH. THIS RS.2 LAKHS EACH WAS ESTIM ATED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) OVER AND ABOVE THE RE LIEF GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 1000 GMS OF GOLD. IT IS A COM MON PRACTICE IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTRY TO GIVE GOLD JEWELLERY TO THE L ADIES BY THEIR RESPECTIVE PARENTS AT THE TIME OF THEIR MARRIAGE. THE QUANTUM OF THE GOLD JEWELLERY WOULD DEPEND UPON THE ABILITY OF THE RESPECTIVE PARENTS TO GIVE SRIDHAN AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE. THOUGH IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE VALUE OF THE GOLD WHICH WAS SAID TO BE GIVEN AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN TOTO. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE GOLD AT 1000 GMS. THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME- TAX(A) IN EXERCISE OF HIS DISCRETION GAVE FURTHER R ELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2 LAKHS TO EACH PARTNERS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCE S, THIS TRIBUNAL DOES NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LOWER A UTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADDI TION OF RS. 14,06,100. MIS VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED T HAT ON THE BASIS OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.14,06,100 WAS FOUND FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01-04-2004 TO 20-10-2004. THE ASSE SSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE DAY BOOK LEDG ER REPRESENTS ACTUAL STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AND THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES REFERRED MIGHT BE RELATING TO SOME ESTIMATES. ACCORDING TO THE LD.RE PRESENTATIVE, THE 4 ITA NO.49/COCH/2009 CO 16/COCH/2009 IMPOUNDED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SHOWS HIGHER AMOUNT OF P URCHASE THAN THE ONE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE TOTAL UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES COMES TO RS.14,06,100 AND THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THESE PURCHASES. CONSIDERING THE POS SIBILITY OF USING SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE EARLIER PURCHASES FOR SUB SEQUENT PURCHASES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BROUGHT 25% OF THE UNEXPLAINE D PURCHASE AMOUNTING TO RS.3,51,525 FOR TAXATION. HOWEVER, ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) FOUND T HAT THE MONTH- WISE BREAK UP OF THE SURPLUS PURCHASES IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS AND THEREFORE, AN AMOUNT OF LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS IS SUF FICIENT FOR RECYCLING INSTEAD OF 25% ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, 25% ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER IS VERY REASONABLE, THEREFORE, GIVING RELIEF OF ANOTHER RS. 1,51,525 BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 7. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI N.S. RAJAGOPAL, THE LD.REP RESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX(A) REDUCED THE ADDITION TO RS.2 LAKHS BY GIVING A RELI EF OF RS.1,51,525. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE , THE AVERAGE INVESTMENT REQUIRED FOR A MONTH IS APPROXIMATELY RS .2 LAKHS. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED GOLD ORNAMENTS ON CREDIT, EVEN THIS RS.2 LAKHS IS N OT REQUIRED. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS REDUCED THE ADDITION OF RS.2 LAKH S ON PROPER CONSIDERATION OF THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE OF GOLD J EWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.14,16,100. OUT OF THIS, RS.14,06,100 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT 25% OF THE SAME MIGHT HAVE BEEN I NTRODUCED AS 5 ITA NO.49/COCH/2009 CO 16/COCH/2009 UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASES. THE ASSES SING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE REMAINING 75% WOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTED FRO M THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE EARLIER JEWELLERY. THEREFORE, THE 25% OF THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES WHICH CAME TO THE EXTENT OF R S.3,51,525 WAS ADDED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) FOUND THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE MONTH-WISE BREAK UP DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AVERAGE INVESTMENT WOULD BE LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS. THEREFOR E, INSTEAD OF ADDITION OF RS.3,51,525 AN ADDITION OF RS.2 LAKHS W OULD BE SUFFICIENT TOWARDS SUPPRESSED PURCHASE OF GOLD JEWELLERY. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT T HE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE EARLIER JEWELLERY WOULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR INV ESTMENT AND ESTIMATED THE FIGURE OF 25% WITHOUT ANY BASIS. HOWE VER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A), ON THE BASIS OF THE BREAK UP OF DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORD ESTIMATED THE SAME AT RS.2 LAKH S. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LOWER AUT HORITY. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 9. NOW COMING TO THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSE E, THE FIRST GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AT 32 .51%. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.4,57,123. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRE SENTATIVE, THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X(A) IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.REPERESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION TO T HE EXTENT OF RS.4,57,123 MAY BE TELESCOPED WITH ADDITION MADE TO WARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AS THE AMOUNT IS AVAILABLE F OR INVESTMENT. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGME NT OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX VS VENKATESWARA TIMBER DEPOT (1996) 222 ITR 768 (AP) A ND THE 6 ITA NO.49/COCH/2009 CO 16/COCH/2009 JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS K.S.M GURUSWAMY NADAR & SONS 149 ITR 127 (MAD). 10. ON THE CONTRARY, MS. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD.DR SU BMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS RIGHTLY ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AT 32.51%. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY GR OUND REGARDING THE TELESCOPING EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A). ACCORDING TO THE LD .DR, THE CLAIM OF TELESCOPING AMOUNTS TO ADMITTING THE UNACCOUNTED IN VESTMENT FOR PURCHASES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE ADMITTING THE UNACCO UNTED PURCHASES BY WAY OF CLAIMING TELESCOPING AND THE CLAIM OF TEL ESCOPING WAS NOT MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ASKING FOR TE LESCOPING THE PROFIT ESTIMATED @32.51% TOWARDS INVESTMENT MADE. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UND ER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEN THE PROFIT WAS ESTIMATED, THE P ROFIT WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT. THEREFORE, NORMAL LY, TELESCOPING WILL BE ALLOWED. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH TH E JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS K .S.M GURUSWAMY NADAR & SONS (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE, THE ITO ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.69,311. AN AD DITION OF RS.85,000 WAS ALSO MADE TOWARDS CASH CREDIT. FOR THE NEXT AS SESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED A SUM OF RS.58,127 ON ACCOU NT OF DEFICIENCY IN GROSS PROFIT AND ANOTHER SUM OF RS. 57,042 ON ACCOU NT OF CASH CREDIT. THE ASSISTANT APPELLANT COMMISSIONER SUSTAINED THE ADDITION ON BOTH COUNTS, HOWEVER, HE ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM T HAT THE GROSS PROFIT ADDITION SHOULD BE TELESCOPED WITH ADDITION MADE FOR CASH CREDIT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE MADRAS HIGH COURT FOUND THAT WHEN THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE ADDITIONS, ONE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPR ESSION OF PROFIT AND THE OTHER ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDIT, IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO 7 ITA NO.49/COCH/2009 CO 16/COCH/2009 EXPLAIN THAT THE SUPPRESSION OF PROFIT HAD BEEN BRO UGHT IN AS CASH CREDIT AND ONE HAS TO BE TELESCOPED WITH THE OTHER RESULTING ONLY IN ONE ADDITION. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF TWO ADDITIONS. ADDITIONS ARE MADE ON INVESTMENT IN UNACCOUNTED PUR CHASES AND THE PROFIT ON SUPPRESSED SALES. WITH REGARD TO THE UNA CCOUNTED INVESTMENT / PURCHASES, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(A) FOUND THAT THE MONTH-WISE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE S HOWS AN INVESTMENT LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS PER MONTH. THEREFORE, EVEN TH OUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE EARLIER SALE PRO CEEDS TO THE EXTENT OF 25% MIGHT HAVE BEEN USED IN THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT , THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN RESTR ICTING THE SAME TO RS.2 LAKHS. IN FACT, THIS ESTIMATION OF RS.2 LAKHS IS FROM THE SALE FIGURE OF THE EARLIER INVESTMENT WHICH WOULD ABUNDANTLY AM OUNT TO TELESCOPING. FURTHER TELESCOPING OF THE PROFIT OF 32.51% MAY NOT BE JUSTIFIED AT ALL. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY RE ASON FOR MAKING A FURTHER TELESCOPING TO THE EXTENT OF PROFIT ESTIMAT ED AT 32.51% . 12. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMEN T OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX VS VENKATESWARA TIMBER DEPOT (SUPRA). IN THE CASE BEF ORE THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED A TURNOVE R OF RS.25,74,087 AND GROSS PROFIT OF 13.2%. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING O FFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2,11,246 TOWARDS CLOSING STOCK NOT BROUGHT INTO THE BOOK. AN ADDITION WAS ALSO MADE TOWARDS CASH CREDI T TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,31,000. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) FOUND THAT THE CLOSING STOCK ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,11,246 WAS RIGHTLY MADE. HOWEVER, HE ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AT 20% INSTEAD OF 13.2%. THE ADDITION TOWARDS CASH CR EDIT OF RS.1,31,000 WAS REDUCED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX(A) TO RS.1,21,000 AFTER ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ONE TRANSACTION. ON FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL 8 ITA NO.49/COCH/2009 CO 16/COCH/2009 REDUCED THE GROSS PROFIT ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,50,000 BUT CONFIRMED THE CASH CREDIT OF RS.1,31,000. THE ASSE SSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE CASH CREDIT ADDITION S HOULD BE TELESCOPED WITH THE GROSS PROFIT ADDITION. THIS WAS ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT. IN THE CASE B EFORE US, THE INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2 LAKHS WAS ALREADY GIVEN DEDUCTION FROM THE GROSS PROFIT ESTIMATED. THERE WAS NO ADDI TION OF CASH CREDIT AS IN THE CASE BEFORE THE MADRAS HIGH COURT AND THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY FURTHER REDUCTION BY TELESCOPING INVESTMENT WITH THE GROSS PROFIT. THER EFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACC ORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 13. THE NEXT GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION IS WITH REGA RD TO THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) TO T HE EXTENT OF RS.2 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCH ASES. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASS ESSEE AND THE LD.DR. THIS ISSUE WAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL. FOR THE REASONS ELABORATELY STATED IN THE EARLIER P ART OF THIS ORDER, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITY. 15. THE NEXT GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION IS WITH REGA RD TO ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) TO T HE EXTENT OF RS.6,36,316 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASS ESSEE AND THE LD.DR. THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO ELABORATELY DISCUSSED I N THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER WHERE THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME- TAX(A) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6 LAKHS FROM THE TOTAL A DDITION OF 9 ITA NO.49/COCH/2009 CO 16/COCH/2009 RS.12,36,316 WAS CONSIDERED. FOR THE VERY SAME REA SONING WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. 17. THE NEXT GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION IS WITH REGA RD TO ADDITION OF RS.2,28,000 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,28,000 . OUT OF THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.12,36,316 THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.6,36,316. THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME- TAX(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROBABILITY AND FACTS OF THE CASE, GAVE RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF 50% APPROXIMATELY. THEREFO RE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) IS RIGHT IN CONFIRMIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.2,28,000. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, IN FACT, SUPPO RTS THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A). TH E ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SHOWS NO EVIDENCE TO DISTURB THE CONCLUSION MADE BY THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A). SINCE THIS GROUND IS ONLY TO SUPPOR T THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) WE DO NOT FIND ANY RE ASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY , THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 18. THE NEXT GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION IS WITH REGA RD TO ADDITION OF RS. 3 LAKHS TOWARDS CAPITAL INTRODUCTION. ACCORDIN G TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3 LAKHS. THE TOT AL CAPITAL INTRODUCED WAS RS.3 LAKHS I.E. RS.1 LAKH EACH BY THREE PARTNER S. ACCORDING TO LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE NET INTRODUCTION WAS RS. 2,2 8,000 ONLY AND THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A). THEREFORE, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE MAY NOT BE AN Y NECESSITY FOR 10 ITA NO.49/COCH/2009 CO 16/COCH/2009 MAKING ANY FURTHER ADDITION. ACCORDING TO LD.REPRE SENTATIVE, THIS MAY AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. WE HEARD THE LD.DR ALSO . 19. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT APPEARS THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S 68 AT RS.5,79,844 AND ANOTHER ADDITION OF RS.3 LAKHS. AT PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE THE DETAILS OF TH E ADDITION OF RS.5,79,844. THIS ADDITION INCLUDES RS.2,28,000 AN D RS. 3,51,844. AT PARAGRAPH 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF OUTFLOW TOWARDS L IC PREMIUM TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,76,040 THE ASSESSEE OFFERED AN AMOUN T OF RS.3 LAKHS FOR TAXATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TOWAR DS THE SOURCE OF THIS OFFER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION . THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.5,79,844 WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF TH E UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES FROM THE IMPOUNDED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND T HE ADDITION OF RS.3 LAKHS WAS TOWARDS OUTFLOW TOWARDS LIC PREMIUM AS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT MAY NOT BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT THERE WAS DOUBLE ADDITION AS CONTENDED BY THE LD.REPRESENTATI VE FOR THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMIT Y IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND TH E CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH JANUARY, 2012 SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ERNAKULAM, DT : 25 TH JANUARY, 2012 PK/ 11 ITA NO.49/COCH/2009 CO 16/COCH/2009 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. ITO, WD.2, KOLLAM 2. M/S PALANI FASHION JEWELLERY, PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-I, TRIVANDRUM 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRIVANDRUM 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN