Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kanpur V. Shri Rajiv Bansal, Kanpur

ITA 554/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 55423714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUDHINDRA JAIN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Rejection of books of accounts; Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 68; 69

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.554/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 SHRI RAJIV BANSAL, PROP M/S RAJ SONS FLAVORS, 52/33, NAYAGANJ, KANPUR 208002 PAN AAOPB 9254 F VS ACIT-I, KANPUR (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI AMIT NIGAM , DR APPELLANT BY S HRI SUDHINDRA JAIN AND SHRI SWARAN SINGH, CA RESPONDENT BY 0 5 / 10 /2015 DATE OF HEARING 11/12/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-II, KANPUR DATED 19.03.2014 FOR THE AY 2010-11. 2. THE GROUNDS NO.1 & 2 ARE INTERCONNECTED AND IT R EAD AS UNDER: 1. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO APPLY THE G.P. RATE OF 8% INST EAD OF 10% TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NUMBER OF DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE . THE LEDGERS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TALLY WITH THE DATA AVAILABLE IN IMPOUNDED CPU. 2. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REDUCING TH E G.P. RATE FROM 10% TO 8% WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE 2 FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE COMPLETE RECORD AND BILL/VOUCHERS OF PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIA L, MANUFACTURING, STOCK, SALES AND EXPENSES. 3. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT O RDER WHEREAS LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. C IT (A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIN D THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE AO IN PARA 10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE STOCK REGISTER FOR THE PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIALS ALONG WITH PURCHASE BILLS FOR VERIFICATION BEFORE THE HIM AND ALSO NOT MAINTAINED MANUFACTURING RECORDS FOR DAY TO DAY MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. TH EREAFTER HE HAS NOTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE RECORDS OF MANUFACT URING ACTIVITIES AND THEIR SUPPORTING BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND ALSO IN ABS ENCE OF SUPPORTING BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR THE EXPENSES DEBITED ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES, THE INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE CORRECT AND COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECT. THE AO INVOKED THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THER EAFTER, HE HAS NOTED IN PARA 11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS SHOWN G.P. RATE AT 7.02%. THE AO APPLIED THE GP RATE OF 10% AN D MADE ADDITION OF RS.15,91,232/-. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ACTIO N OF THE AO IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND APPLYING THE GP RATE. BUT HE HELD THAT THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED ANY COMPARABLE G.P. RATE AND APPLIED ADHOC GP RATE OF 10% WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED. BUT AF TER SAYING SO, LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED ANY COMPARABLE GP RA TE OF ANY OTHER ASSESSEE OR PAST AND FUTURE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DIRECTING THE AO TO APPLY GP RATE OF 8% INSTEAD OF 10% APPLIED BY TH E AO. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IS ALSO ADHOC AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THEREFORE, SAME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE FEEL IT PROPER THAT THIS MATTER 3 SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER EXAMINING THE PAST AND FUTURE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE PARTICU LARLY OF SUCH ORDER WHERE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143 (3) OF THE A CT IF ANY. LD. CIT(A) MAY ALSO BRING ON RECORD ANY COMPARABLE CASE AND THEREAFTER, HE SHOULD DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF ABOV E DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. ACCORDINGLY, THESE TWO GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDE R:- 3. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 14,63,136/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUN T OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY AND SILVER UTEN SILS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODU CE ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE BY WHICH IT COULD BE ESTABLI SHED THAT THE ARTICLES WERE SAME AS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEAR CH CONDUCTED ON 01.02.1995. 6. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT O RDER WHEREAS LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE C IT (A). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIN D THAT FACTS TILL THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ARE NOTED BY THE CIT(A) IN PAR A 17 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REF ERENCE:- IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION CONDUCTED ON 24. 02.2010 IN THE OFFICE PREMISES NO.52/33, NAYAGANJ, KANPUR, CERTAIN JEWELLERY AND SILVER UTENSILS WERE FOUND, WHICH WER E GOT VALUED BY A GOVERNMENT REGISTERED VALUER AT RS.14,6 3,136/-. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELL ANT VIDE HIS REPLY DATED 22.03.2013 STATED THAT THE JEWELLER Y AND SILVER UTENSILS WERE PURCHASED BY HIS FATHER. AS TH E APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE JEWELLLERY AND SILVER UTENSILS WERE PURCHA SED BY HIS FATHER, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES EXPLAN ATION 4 MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.14,63,136/- IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 8. BEING AGGRIEVED, WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON TH IS ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATIO NS IN PARA 21 OF HIS ORDER AND THIS PARA IS ALSO REPRODUCED BELOW FOR TH E SAKE OF READY REFERENCE:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AR AND ALSO THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. I FIND THAT IN VIEW OF ANNEXURE-JSB, COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE ME, SOME JEWELLERY WAS RELEASED TO THE APPELLANT AND SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE OF YOUNGER BROTHE R, THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE RESIDENTIAL CUM BUSINESS PRE MISES STANDS EXPLAINED. I, THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.14,63,136/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 9. FROM THE ABOVE PARA OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), IT IS SEEN THAT HE HAS DELETED THE ADDITION ON HIS GENERAL BASIS THAT SOME JEWELLERY OF THE ASSESSEE WERE RELEASED TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 01.02.1995 AND THERE IS SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE OF YOUN GER BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE RESIDENTIAL CUM BUSINESS PREMISES STANDS EXPLAINED. WE ALSO FIND TH AT IN PARA 18 OF HIS ORDER, LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED DOWN THE GROSS WEIGHT A ND NET WEIGHT OF JEWELLERY IN COURSE OF SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 01.02.19 95 AS PER WHICH GROSS WEIGHT OF GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND WAS 759.5 GMS. , DIAMOND JEWELLERY 3 CT., SILVER UTENSILS 8 KG., SILVER COINS 274 PCS. , GOLD GINNI 8 GM., AND SILVER COINS 55 PCS. 10. WE ALSO FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 12 OF HIS ORDER THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION CO NDUCTED ON 5 24.02.2010 FROM THE OFFICE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE , CERTAIN JEWELLERY AND SILVER UTENSILS WERE FOUND WHICH WERE GOT VALUE D BY A GOVT. REGISTERED VALUER AT RS.14,63,136/-. THE AO ASKED T HE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE JEWELLERY AND IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTE D BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO THAT THE JEWELLERY IN QUESTION ALONG WITH SILVER UTENSILS WERE PURCHASED BY HIS FATHER, BUT SINCE THE ASSESSE E COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE JEWELLE RY AND SILVER UTENSILS WERE PURCHASED BY HIS FATHER, THE AO MADE THE ADDIT ION OF ENTIRE AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY AND SILVER UTENSILS, WHICH WERE FOUND IN COURSE OF SURVEY VALUED AT RS.14,63,136/-. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), ALTOGE THER NEW PLEA WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE JEWLLERY AND SILVER UTENSILS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY IN THE OFFICE CUM RESIDENCE PREMIS ES OF THE ASSESSEE IS EXPLAINED OUT OF JEWELLERY FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARC H ON 01.02.1995, WHICH WAS UTILIZED SUBSEQUENTLY AND OUT OF JEWELLER Y OF YOUNGER BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE HE WAS MARRIED AFTER SEARCH ON 01.02.1995. BUT IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), HE HAS NOT COMPARED THE NATURE AND QUANTUM OF JEWELLERY FOUND IN COURSE OF SURVEY OF RS.14,63, 136/- WITH THE DETAILS OF JEWELLERY FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH ON 01.02.199 5. WE SEE THAT DIAMOND JEWELLERY FOUND IN OLD SEARCH WAS ONLY 3 CT . BUT IF THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING COURSE OF SURVEY ON 24.02.2010 MAINLY CONSIST OF DIAMOND JEWLLERY, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINE D OUT OF JEWELLERY FUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH ON 01.02.1995, WHICH CONSI STED MAINLY GOLD JEWELLERY OF 759.5 GMS (GROSS WEIGHT). THEREFORE, I N OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN COURSE OF SURVEY AS ON 24.02.2010 WHICH WAS GOT VALUED BY A GOVERNMENT REGISTERED VALUER AT RS.14,63,136/- SHOULD BE COMPARED WITH THE JEWELLERY FOUND IN COUR SE OF SEARCH ON 01.02.1995, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE NOTED BY THE L D. CIT(A) IN PARA 18 OF HIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO REQUIRED TO EXPL AIN THAT THE JEWELLERY OF HIS YOUNGER BROTHER WHICH WAS MARRIED AFTER THIS DA TE OF SEARCH I.E. 6 01.02.1995 WAS LYING IN OFFICE PREMISES TO ESTABLIS H THAT SUCH JEWELLERY FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTUALLY INCLUDED SOM E JEWELLERY OF THE YOUNGER BROTHER. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF L D. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING REASONABL E OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.3 OF RE VENUE IS ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. THE GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UND ER:- 4. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING .THE ADDI TION OF RS. 21,11,502/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOU NT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH OUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF CONCERNS FROM W HOM THE SAID ADVANCES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. 12. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE C IT (A). 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT THIS ADDITION OF RS.21,11,502/- WAS MADE BY THE AO ON TH IS BASIS THAT THIS AMOUNT INCLUDED RS.11,00,000/- SAID TO BE RECEIVED FROM M/S SYMPACK INVESTMENT PVT. LTD AND RAJ SONS FLAVOURS PVT. LTD. ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THEREFORE, ADDITION IS TO BE MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. FOR BALAN CE AMOUNT OF RS.8,11,502/- WHICH IS LYING CREDIT IN THE BANK ACC OUNT MAINTAINED WITH UNITED BANK OF INDIA, NAYAGANJ, KANPUR, THE AO HAD NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION. THESE A DDITIONS WERE DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSER VATIONS IN PARA 30 7 AND 31 OF HIS ORDER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE READY REFERENCE:- 30. BEFORE ME THE A.R. FOR THE APPELLANT, SUBMITTE D COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S. SYMPACK INVESTMENT PVT. LTD . AND M/S. RAJSONS FLAVOURS PVT. LTD. AND ALSO THE BANK ACCOUN T OF THE APPELLANT WITH UNITED BANK OF INDIA. FROM PERUSAL O F THESE ACCOUNTS, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN L OANS OF RS.11,00,000/- AND RS. 2,00,000/- FROM M/S. SYMPACK INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. AND M/S. RAJSONS FLAVOURS PVT. LTD. ON 06.06.2009 WHICH ARE CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHR I RAJIV BANSAL WITH UNITED BANK OF INDIA ON 06.06.2009. FUR THER, IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE A.R. THAT THE CREDITS OF RS.7 ,72,000/- REPRESENT CASH DEPOSITED AFTER WITHDRAW! OF CASH SA LE PROCEEDS OF PAN MASAIA FROM M/S. RAJ SONS FLAVOURS (PROPRIET ARY CONCERN), HAVING TURNOVER EXCEEDING RS.5 CRORE RECE IVED MAINLY IN CASH ON WHICH ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS OFFERED PROFI T EXCEEDING RS.30.0 LACS - THE ADEQUACY OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAKES THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED), RS.930/ - REPRESENTS DIVIDEND RECEIVED FROM SHARES OF DIFFERE NT COMPANIES, RS.37,250/- REPRESENT REPAYMENT FROM LIC AND RS.1,322/- REPRESENTS INTEREST RECEIVED ON THE BALA NCE IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. 31) I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE MATERI AL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OR BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND REMAND REPORTS DAT ED 14- 02-2014 AND 06-03-2014. IN BOTH THE REMAND REPORTS, THE AO HAS REITERATED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE AO IN ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.144. THE FACTS DISCLOSED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN PROVED OTHERWISE. THE ABUNDAN CE OF DETAILS AND EVIDENCES EXPLAINS THE STAND OF THE A.R . OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROVED BOGUS OR WRONG B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SPITE OF OPPORTUNITIES EXTENDE D TWICE WITH ALL THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A.R. I FIND THAT TH E CREDIT OF RS.21,11,502/- STANDS EXPLAINED WITH THE SUPPORT OF BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S. SYMPACK INVESTMENT PVT. LTD, RAJSON S FLAVOURS PVT. LTD. AND CORRESPONDING ENTRIES IN THE BANK A/C . OF THE APPELLANT WITH UNITED BANK OF INDIA, NAYAGANJ, KANP UR. I THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.21,11,502/- MA DE BY THE A.O. 8 14. FROM THESE PARAS REPRODUCED FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS NO FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT( A) THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE TWO CREDITORS M/S SYMPACK INVESTMENT PVT. LTD AND RAJ SONS FLAVOURS PVT. LTD. WAS ESTABLISHED. SI MILARLY FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.7.72 LAKH CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THAT TH IS REPRESENTS CASH DEPOSITED AFTER WITHDRAWAL OF CASH SALE PROCEEDS OF PAN MASALA FROM M/S RAJ SONS FLAVOURS (PROPRIETARY CONCERN), HAVING TUR NOVER EXCEEDING RS.5.00 CRORE RECEIVED MAINLY IN CASH. BUT THERE I S NO FINDING GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) THAT IN THE BOOKS OF M/S RAJ SONS FLAVOU RS PVT. LTD., THIS AMOUNT OF RS.7.72 LAKH HAS BEEN SHOWN AS WITHDRAWN BY THE PRESENT ASSESSEE SAID TO BE PROPRIETARY OF M/S RAJ SONS FLA VOURS. HENCE FOR ALL THESE THREE AMOUNTS OF RS.11.00 LAKH, RS.2.00 LAKH AND RS.7.72 LAKH, WE FEEL THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. C IT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION BY WAY OF SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER. HOWEVER, REG ARDING SMALL AMOUNT OF RS.930/- SAID TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE AS DIVIDEND FROM VARIOUS COMPANIES AND RS.37,250/- SAID TO BE RECEIV ED FROM LIC AND RS.1,322/- SAID TO BE INTEREST RECEIVED FROM BANK, WE FEEL THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT( A). HENCE FOR THESE THREE AMOUNTS OF RS.11.00 LAKH, RS.2.00 LAKH AND RS.7.72 LAKH, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH DECISION BY WAY OF A SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER AF TER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES . HE SHOULD GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN A BLE TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF M/S SYMPACK INVESTMENT PVT. LTD . FOR RS.11.00 LAKH AND M/S RAJ SONS FLAVOURS FOR RS.2.00 LAKH. SIMILAR LY, HE SHOULD GIVE A CLEAR FINDING TO WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF RS.7.72 LAKH CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH FROM RAJ SONS FLAVOURS PROPRIETARY CONCERN HAS BEEN DEBITED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSE E OR NOT BY THE SAID 9 CONCERN M/S RAJ SONS FLAVOURS. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GR OUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. THE GROUND NO.5 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UND ER:- 5. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAIS)-II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 1,17,49,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCO UNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PRO PERTIES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER A NY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO INVESTMENT IN PROPERTIES . 16. LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE C IT (A). 17. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THE COPY OF PURCHASE DEEDS OF PROPERTY TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION WERE PURC HASED BY THE COMPANY M/S SYMPACK INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. 18. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS PER AIR FILED BY THE SUB REGIS TRAR, ZONE-1 KANPUR, THERE IS PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS .50.00 LAKH AS ON 05.06.2009 AND SIMILARLY, AS PER AIR FILED BY SAME SUB REGISTRAR ZONE-2 KANPUR, THERE IS A PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BY THE ASSE SSEE OF RS.67.49 LAKH AS ON 02.06.2009. AS PER SALE DEEDS COPY FURNISHED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE BUYER OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS M/S SYMPACK INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI RAJIV BANSAL, I.E. THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. THE DETAILS OF DATE AND AMOUNT OF THESE S ALE DEEDS ARE ALSO TALLYING. 19. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION ARE NOT ACTUALLY PURCHASED BY THE PRESENT ASSESSEE BUT WERE PURCHASE D BY THE COMPANY 10 M/S SYMPACK INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF THIS AMOUNT IS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO.5 OF THE REVENUE IS REJE CTED. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (A.K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 11/12/2015 AKS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR