M/s. Fazal Frozen Food (P) Ltd., Meerut V. JCIT, Meerut

ITA 6009/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6952 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA NEB
• Section: 40A(3); 133(6); 251

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : B: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.6009/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 FAZAL FROZEN FOOD (P) LTD., 31, ISMAIL NAGAR, MEERUT. PAN: AAACF7364F VS JCIT, RANGE-1, MEERUT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MS ASHIMA NEB, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 28.08.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.10.2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 31 ST MARCH, 2016 OF THE CIT(A), MEERUT, RELATING TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS LAST FIXED FOR HEARING ON 29 TH MAY, 2009 AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 28 TH AUGUST, 2019. HOWEVER, WHEN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY PETITION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE WAS FI LED. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO ITA NO.6009/DEL/2016 2 DECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABL E ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: - 1. THE L'D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ,ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, MISDIRECTED SUSTENAN CE OF ADDITION OF RS.9,91,425/- U/S 40(A)(3). 2. THE L'D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN ENHANCING THE INITIAL ADDITION OF RS 16,35,549/- TO RS 1,63,55,491/-. OBSERVATIONS MADE, INFERENCES DRAWN AND FINDINGS RE CORDED FOR SO DOING ARE AGAINST THE FACTS, ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND AT ANY RA TE HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF PROCESSING AND TRADING OF BU FFALO MEAT. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.09.2011 DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BALANCE SHEET HAS SHOWN SUNDRY CRED ITORS AT RS.2,18,28,275/-. ON THE BASIS OF THE DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS ALONG WITH NAME, ADDRESSES AND BALANCE OUTSTANDING FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OF FICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) TO THE SUPPLIERS WHO REPLIED TO THE SAID NOTICE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREAFTER, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE CREDITORS WHERE T HE CREDIT AMOUNT IS MORE THAN RS.10 LACS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THE STA TEMENTS OF SUCH SUPPLIERS. HE OBSERVED THAT AT THE TIME OF STATEMENT, NOBODY SUBM ITTED THE ACCOUNT AND THEY HAVE NOT PRODUCED ANY TYPE OF PROOF IN THIS REGARD. THE REFORE, IN ABSENCE OF MAINTENANCE OF ANY TYPE OF ACCOUNT/RECORD AS WELL A S THE BANK ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO TH EM ARE NOT FULLY JUSTIFIED. ITA NO.6009/DEL/2016 3 SINCE NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR THE CASH CREDITORS F URNISHED SATISFACTORY PROOF OF DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED AN AMOU NT OF RS.43,65,605/- BEING 20% OF THE TOTAL CASH CREDITORS APPEARING IN THE BA LANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SHOWN TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS.2,66,64,300/-. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE P AYMENT OF PRECEDING YEAR AMOUNTING TO RS.1,15,20,466/- AND FOR THE CURRENT Y EAR OF RS.48,35,025/- AND THE TOTAL COMES TO RS.1,63,55,491/-. HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS CASE HAS SHOWN THE PAYMENTS MADE AT LESS THAN RS.20,000/-. TO VER IFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 1 33(6) TO ALL THE SUPPLIERS. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES, ONLY FOUR SUPPLIERS OF THE MEAT FURNISHED REPLY WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THEY HAVE NO PAN NOS. AND ARE NOT I NCOME-TAX ASSESSEES, THEY DEAL IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF RAW BUFFALO MEAT AND SOLD T HEM TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THEY HAVE NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF TH IS BUSINESS AND THEY ARE DOING RAW MEAT BUSINESS AT A VERY SMALL LEVEL. SOME SUPP LIERS ALSO STATED THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW THE FARM OR RELATED PERSON BEFORE OR AFTER 01.04.2009. ONE MRS. MOHD. NASIM QURESHI DENIED TO HAVE ANY BUSINESS OR OTHERW ISE WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE AMOUNT PERTAINING TO HIM WAS RS.9,91, 425/- WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN AS PAID TO HIM DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SINCE THE PERSON HAD DENIED TO HAVE ANY BUSINESS TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.9,91,425/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. IN CASE OF THE REMAINING SUPPLIERS, THE NOTICES WERE RETURNED BACK UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT WITH THE REPORT INCOMPLETE ADDRESSES, NOT TRACEABLE, LEFT, ETC. ITA NO.6009/DEL/2016 4 FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR THE SUPPLIERS HAVE FURNISH ED SATISFACTORY PROOF OF DOCUMENTS. HE, THEREFORE, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1 6,35,549/- BEING 10% OF THE PAYMENT OF RS.1,63,55,491/- U/S 40A(3) OF THE IT AC T. 5. IN APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.48,35,025/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE, HOWEVER, SUSTAINED THE ADDI TION OF RS.9,91,425/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SO FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 16,35,549/- IS CONCERNED, THE LD.CIT(A), INSTEAD OF DELETING THE SAME, ISSUED AN ENHANCEMENT NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND ENHANCED THE SAME TO RS.1,63,55,491/-, THEREBY MAKING AN ENHANCEMENT OF RS.1,47,19,942/-. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. AND CIT(A). WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS.9,91,425/- IS C ONCERNED. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE SUPPLIERS MOHD NASIM QURESHI WHO HAD SUPPL IED THE RAW MEAT IN THE F.Y. 2009-10 HAS SUBMITTED THAT I DO NOT NOW THE ABOVE FARM OR RELATED PERSONS OF ABOVE FARM BEFORE OR AFTER 01.04.2009. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE RAW MATERIAL FROM TH E SAID PERSON. THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.9,91,425/- WAS THE OPENING BALANCE AND THE TOTAL PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE LESS THAN RS.20,000/- IN ITA NO.6009/DEL/2016 5 A DAY. MERE STATEMENT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS DISPUTE WITH THIS PERSON CANNOT BE SUFFICIENT TO DELETE THE ADDITION. SINCE THE LD.CI T(A) WHILE SUSTAINING THE ADDITION HAS GIVE JUSTIFIABLE REASONS, THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED . 8. SO FAR AS THE ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME FROM RS.16,3 5,549/- U/S 40A(3) TO RS.1,63,55,491/- IS CONCERNED, HERE ALSO WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE FIND THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE DECIDIN G THE ISSUE HAS GONE THROUGH THE DETAILS AND HAS PASSED A VERY DETAILED AND ELAB ORATE ORDER WHICH IS BEING REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 5.3 DECISION AND REASONS IN THIS CASE, CASH PURCHASES OF RS. 1,63,55,491/- H AS BEEN MADE FROM VARIOUS SUPPLIERS OF RAW MEAT. THE AO APPLIED SEC. 40 A(3) AND DISALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF 10% THEREOF I.E. RS. 16,35,549/-. DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NOTICE U/S. 251 (2) WAS GIVEN FOR ENHANCEMENT OF RS. 1,47, 19,942/- U/S. 40 A (3) FOR MAKING ADDITION FOR THE BALANCE CASH PURCHASES OUT OF TOTAL CASH PURCHASES OF RS. 1,63,55,491/-. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS PER REC ORDS AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED IN RESPEC T OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AS WELL AS FOR NOTICE OF ENHANCEMENT ISSUED BY T HIS OFFICE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ALL THESE ARE PURCHASES IN CASH. THE A SSESSEE PRODUCED FEW SUPPLIERS WHOSE STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED. ON EXAMINING THESE STATEMENTS AS WELL AS THE SUBMIS SIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE UNDISPUTED FACTS THAT COMES OUT IS THAT THERE IS NO SALE BILL ISSUED BY THE SUPPLIERS TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE SALES, IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT ON SUPPLYING THE MATERIAL, THE ASSESSEE ISSUES A SLIP TO THE SUPPLIER FOR PAYMENT TO BE MADE AGAINST THESE SUPPLIES, THE ASSE SSEE MAKES CASH PAYMENTS TO THE SUPPLIER FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH IS NOTED ON THE SAID SLIP MAINTAINED BY THE SUPPLIER, ON RECEIPT OF FULL PAYMENT, THE SUPPL IER DESTROYS THE SLIP. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT RECORDS THE CASH PAYMEN T IN HIS BOOKS OF A/CS AS AND WHEN THESE PAYMENTS ARE MADE. HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS THAT NEITHER SO CALLED SLIPS ARE PRODUCED TO VERIFY THE QUANTUM OF PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPLIERS FROM TIME TO TIME, NOR THE AS SESSEE MAINTAINED ANY SUCH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WHICH MAY PROVE THE DATES AND THE AMOUNTS PAID ON ITA NO.6009/DEL/2016 6 THOSE DATES TO THE SUPPLIERS, THE ONLY EVIDENCE, TH E ASSESSEE COULD ADDUCE IS HIS OWN BOOKS OF A/CS WHEREIN, THE PAYMENTS ARE RE CORDED FOR SUMS NOT EXCEEDING RS. 20,000/- EACH TIME. APART FROM THIS, STATEMENT OF FEW SUPPLIERS ALSO STATES THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT EXCEEDING R S. 20,000/-. THUS, ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES IN HIS BOOKS OF A/CS AND THE STATEMENT OF FEW SUPPLIERS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT EACH PAYMENT IS NOT EXCEEDING RS, 20,000/-, HENCE, NOT HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40 A (3). THE APPELLANT I N ITS LETTER DATED 12.02.2016. HAS OFFERED TO PRODUCE THE REMAINING SU PPLIERS. HOWEVER, THIS WOULD NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASO NS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHEN I EXAMINE THE STATEMENT O F FEW SUPPLIERS, I FIND THAT FOR INSTANCE, IN THE STATEMENT OF WASIM RECORDED ON 06.03.2014, IN ANSWER TO Q. NO. 11 HE HAS STATED THAT HE RECEIVED PAYMENTS F ROM TIME TO TIME RANGING BETWEEN RS. 8,000 - RS. 20,000/-. IN STATEMENT OF M IRAJ RECORDED ON 07.03.2014, IN ANSWER TO Q. NO. 10, HE STATED THAT HE RECEIVED THE PAYMENTS RANGING BETWEEN RS. 5,250 - RS. 20,000/-. SIMILARLY , IN STATEMENT OF SH. KALIM RECORDED ON 07.03.2014, IN ANSWER TO Q. NO. 10, HE STATED THAT HE RECEIVED THE PAYMENTS RANGING BETWEEN RS.5,500 RS. 20,000/-, S O ON AND SO FORTH. THE NATURE TONE AND TENOR OF TRANSACTIONS WITH SUPPLIER S HAS A CLEAR PATTERN AS EXPLAINED BELOW. DURING ASSTT., COPY OF LEDGER A/C.S OF FEW SUPPLIE RS IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO FILED. IN THE LEDGER A/C. OF MOH D. ISLAM IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN OPENING PAYABLE TO THIS PARTY AS RS. 11,58,265/- AS ON 01.04.2010. DURING THIS YEAR, NO PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THIS PARTY. THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO THI S PARTY BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER :- 57 TIMES PAID @RS. 20,000/- EACH TIME - RS. 11,40, 000/- 1 TIME PAID RS. 18,265/- - RS. 18,265/- TOTAL - RS. 11,58,265/- NOT ONLY THIS, THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN SHOWN BEING S TARTED FROM 01.08.2010 ONWARDS AND THE LAST PAYMENT MADE ON 31.03.2011. TH E PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN SHOWN GENERALLY ON DAILY BASIS I.E. RS. 20,000/- ON 01AUGUST, THEN ON 2 ND AUGUST, THEN ON 3RD AUGUST AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. COPY OF THIS LEDGER A/C. IS ATTACHED AS ANNEXURE A TO THIS ORDER. IN THE LE DGER A/C. OF ABRAR KHAN IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE SHOWS OPENING PAYABLE AS ON 0 1.04.2010 AT RS. 7,11,880/-. NO PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE DURING THIS YEAR. THIS OUTSTANDING HAS BEEN STARTED BEING PAID W.E.F. 20.02.2011 TILL 27.03.2011 PRACTICALLY ON EACH DAY IN THE DENOMINATIONS OF RS. 20,000/- AS UN DER:- 35 TIMES PAID @RS. 20,000/- EACH TIME RS. 7,00,0 00/- 1 TIME PAID RS. 11,880/- RS. 11.880/- TOTAL RS. 7,11,880/- ITA NO.6009/DEL/2016 7 COPY OF THIS LEDGER A/C. IS ATTACHED AS ANNEXURE B TO THIS ORDER. ANOTHER SIMILAR EXAMPLE IS LEDGER A/C. OF MEHBOOB I LLAHI QUARESHI. THE OPG. PAYABLE AS ON 01.04.2010 WAS RS. 11,09,350/-, THE P AYMENTS HAS BEEN STARTED ON DAY TO DAY BASIS IN THE SAME MANNER W.E.F. 01.11 .2010 @ RS. 20,000/- EACH DAY WHICH ENDED ON 31.12.2010. THE TOTAL PAYMENTS H AS BEEN MADE AS UNDER 55 TIMES PAID @RS. 20,000/- EACH TIME RS. 11,00,0 00/- 1 TIME PAID RS. 9,350/- RS. 9,350/- TOTAL RS. 11,09.350/- COPY OF THIS LEDGER A/C. IS ATTACHED AS ANNEXURE C TO THIS ORDER. THERE ARE OTHER SIMILAR EXAMPLES ALSO WHICH ARE NOT MENTIONED IN THIS ORDER FOR NOT BURDENING MORE THIS ORDER. FROM THE ANALYSI S OF ABOVE LEDGER A/CS WHEN CONSIDERED ALONGWITH THE STATEMENTS RECORDED O F VARIOUS SUPPLIERS, WHICH ARE MORE OR LESS SIMILAR, VERY INTERESTING FE ATURE EMERGES. THE STATEMENT OF THESE SUPPLIERS MENTIONS THAT THEY ARE VERY SMAL L PERSONS, CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF MEAT AT A VERY SMALL SCALE, DO NOT MAIN TAIN ANY BOOKS OF A/CS AND ALSO DO NOT MAINTAIN ANY BANK A/C. NOW, IT IS UNIMA GINABLE, UNTHINKABLE AND NOT POSSIBLE THAT SUCH SMALL SUPPLIERS HAVING SUCH A SMALL BUSINESS WILL WORK ON SUCH A HUGE OUTSTANDING PAYMENTS AGAINST THEIR S UPPLIES. NOT ONLY THIS, AS IT COMES OUT FROM THE LEDGER A/CS, THEY WILL ACCEPT S MALL PAYMENTS FOR RS. 20,000/- EACH WHICH THEY WILL COLLECT DAILY FROM TH E ASSESSEE AND NOT ONLY THIS, THE OUTSTANDING PAYMENT WOULD HAD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THESE SUPPLIERS AFTER A LONG GAP I.E., IF QUOTED FROM ABO VE INSTANCES, IN THE CASE OF AKRAM KHAN IT HAS BEEN STARTED FROM 20.02.2011, IN THE CASE OF MOHD. ISLAM IT HAS BEEN STARTED FROM 01.08.2010 & IN THE CASE OF M EHBOOB ILLAHI QUARESHI IT HAS BEEN STARTED FROM 01.11.2010. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER DESPITE REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES TO SHOW THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE AS THEY ARE APPEAR ING IN THE BOOKS OF A/CS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE BOOKS OF A/CS MAINTAINED BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENT OF ANY SORT THAT COULD VOUCH TH E CORRECTNESS OF DATES AND THE AMOUNTS OF PAYMENT TO SUPPLIERS AS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS. GIVEN THESE STATE OF AFFAIRS THESE DETAILS AS LAID OUT IN THE BOOKS C ANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE AND CORRECT. IT IS A CASE WHERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND T HE MATERIAL CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ENTRIES OF RS.20.000/- EACH IN THE BOOKS O F A/CS HAVE BEEN MADE SIMPLICITOR TO AVOID THE IMPLICATION OF SEC. 40 A ( 3) OF THE I.T ACT. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT NO SUCH PETTY UNEDUC ATED MEAT SUPPLIER WHO GENERALLY RESIDES IN A VILLAGE, WILL WAIT FOR SO LO NG TO COLLECT THE PAYMENTS AGAINST THE SUPPLIES MADE. HE WOULD EITHER SEEK PAY MENTS INSTANTLY OR IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD FAILING WHICH HE MAY NOT BE IN A POSITION TO EARN HIS ITA NO.6009/DEL/2016 8 LIVELIHOOD. THE BOOK ENTRIES WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS IS ONLY A MAKEUP STORY TO AVOID THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40 A ( 3). THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BOOKS ARE AUDITED IS OF NO SUPPOR T FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE AUDITORS IN TAX AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3 CD, IN REP LY TO Q. NO. 17 (H) (B) HAS CLEARLY REFRAINED FROM CERTIFYING THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40 A (3)OF THE I.T ACT 1961. IN VIEW OF THESE FINDINGS, THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,3 5,549/- U/S. 40 A (3) IS ENHANCED TO RS.1,63,55,491/- THEREBY MAKING AN ENHA NCEMENT OF RS.1,47,19,942/-. IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND FAILS W ITH ENHANCEMENT AS ABOVE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271 (1) (C) IS BEING INITI ATED SEPARATELY FOR FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF ENHANCED INCOME OF RS.1,47,19,942/-. AO TO ISSUE DEMAND NOTICE AND CHA LLAN SEPARATELY WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER. 9. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SAME WE FIND THE LD.CIT( A) HAS PASSED A VERY DETAILED AND ELABORATE ORDER WHILE ENHANCING THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIA L AVAILABLE BEFORE US, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACC ORDINGLY THE SAME IS UPHELD. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 7.10.2019. SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER DATED: 17 TH OCTOBER, 2019 DK ITA NO.6009/DEL/2016 9 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI