Prabha Tetiles (P) Ltd., BHILWARA V. DCIT, BHILWARA

ITA 618/JODH/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 61823314 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: U C JAIN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence; Question of law; Retraction
• Section: 133A; 69; 2

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH , JODHPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.K.GUPTA AND SHRI N.L.KALRA) ITA NO. 618/ JU/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PAN: AADCP 9128 Q M/S. PRABHA TEXTILES (P) LTD. VS. THE DCIT 68-D, SHARTI NAGAR CIRCLE- BHILWARA BHILWARA BHILWARA (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI U.C. JAIN DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI MAHESH KUMAR DATE OF HEARING: 01-12-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13-01-2012 ORDER PER N.L. KALRA, AM:- THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A), AJMER DATED 30-10-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2.1 THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AR E AS UNDER:- (1) THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY IS CARRYING BUSINESS OF D EALING IN BINDING L\CLOTH AND SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED BY I.T. OF FICE ON 21-03- 2007 AND ASSESSEE SURRENDERED EXCESS CASH AND STOCK . (2) THAT ASSESSEE RETRACTED FROM SURRENDER OF EXCES S STOCK AND FILED EVIDENCE DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THAT THE RE WAS NO EXCESS STOCK AS ASSESSEE IS DEALING IN BINDING CLOT H AND ASSESSEE PURCHASED BINDING CLOTH AND WHOSE PER TAKA LENGTH I S 100 MTRS AGAINST WHICH SURVEY TREAM TAKEN LENGTH OF 200 MTRS PER TAKA. THEREFORE, STOCK CONSIDERED DOUBLE TIMES. (3) THAT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK WORKE D OUT BY TAKING LENGTH OF 200 MTR PER TAKA AS AGAINST PER TA KA 100 MTR SO 2 ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK OF RS. 119,9 3,108/- SHOULD BE DELETED. (4) THAT ORDER OF THE AO IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE NATURAL LAW OF JUSTICE. 2.2 THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF BIN DING CLOTH ON JOB WORK BASIS AND TRADING OF CLOTH. SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CO NDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 21-03-2007. DURING THE COURSE OF SU RVEY, CASH IN EXCESS OF RS. 5,07,210/- AND STOCK IN EXCESS OF RS. 19,93,108/- WERE FOUND. THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY SURRENDERED THE EXCESS CASH AN D EXCESS STOCK AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. HOWEVER, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE CASH SURRENDE R WAS INCLUDED BUT SURRENDER MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK WAS NOT INCLUDED. THE AO T HEREFORE, REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY EXCESS STOCK HAS NOT BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION. THE ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED SUBMISSION VIDE LETTER DATED 19-01-2009 ON 22-01-2009 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED AN EXPLANATION IN NOT OFFERING THE EXCESS STO CK. IN THIS LETTER, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT DIRECTOR HAS SIGNED THE STOCK LIST TO AVID MENTAL TORTURE AS SURVEY TEAM PREPARED THE DETAILS OF BOGUS STOCK. ALONGWITH APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED THE AFFIDAVITS OF THREE DIRECTORS. THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF THE AS SESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO . THE AO REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE A ND THE REASONS FOR REJECTION OF EXPLANATION ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER:- 1. THE ASSESSEE PAID ADVANCE TAX OF RS. 5.00 LACS O N 31-03-2007 I.E. JUST AFTER 10 DAYS OF THE SURVEY. 2. RETRACTION WAS NOT MADE AFTER THE SURVEY AND STO CK WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IF THE RETRACTIO N IS NOT WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME THEN RETRACTION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 3 3. FILING OF AFFIDAVITS AFTER 1 YEARS SINCE THE D ATE OF SURVEY DOES NOT PROVE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS GE NUINE AND CORRECT. 4 THE DIRECTORS WERE LITERATE ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATION OF MAKING SURRENDER AND THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ACCEPT ED THAT THE DIRECTORS WERE FORCEFULLY ASKED TO SURRENDER THE STOCK. 5. BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED PURCHASE BILLS FROM 01-01-2007 TO 31-03-2007. FROM THESE BILLS, THE AO NOTICED THA T ONE PERSON HAS MENTIONED THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON THE B ILLS AS BUYER IN ONE FLOW OF WRITING BY SAME PERSON. 6. FEW BILLS DATED 24-03-07, 26-03-07 AND 29-03-07 SHOWED THAT PER BALE OF COTTON CLOTH IS 428 MTR. HENCE, THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT 100 MTR IS PER BALE AND NOT 200 MTR PER BALE AS TAK EN BY THE SURVEY TEAM. 7. THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DIRE CTORS SHRI N.L. LODHA AND OTHER TWO DIRECTORS FOR EXAMINATION BECAU SE THE DIRECTORS HAVE RETRACTED THE SURRENDER OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND DURIN G THE COURSE OF SURVEY. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FAILED T O COMPLY TO THIS. ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT SURRENDE R WAS UNDER COMPULSION. 2.3 THE AO HAS REPRODUCED THE RELEVANT PORTION FORM THE STATEMENT OF SHRI N.L. LODHA, DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. AFTER REJE CTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF THE REASONS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,93,108/-. 2.4 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO THE WRITTEN SUBM ISSION OF THE ASSESSEE FILED BEFORE HIM AT PAGES 3 TO 7 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS STATED THAT THE DIRECTORS WERE NOT AWARE ABOUT THE RETRACTION TO BE MADE BEFORE THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES IMMEDIATELY AFTER SURVEY, THEREFORE, RETRACTION WAS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT BY FILING THE AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE AO. T HE SURVEY TEAM HAS TAKEN THE LENGTH 4 PER PIECE AT 200 MTR WHILE LENGTH IS 100 MTR . THE ASSESSEE FILED PHOTOSTAT COPY OF PURCHASE BILL FROM JAN. 2007 TO 31-03-2007. IN RESP ECT OF PURCHASE BILLS MENTIONED BY THE AO IN HIS ORDER, IT WAS STATED THAT THERE IS DI FFERENCE IN BALE AND PIECE. THE BALE CONSISTS MORE THAN ONE PIECE AND PIECE IS SINGLE UN IT AND THE AO HAS FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE OF BALE AND PRICE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THERE IS NO SINGLE BALE OF 428 MTR. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE TAX ON SURRENDER INCOME CAME TO RS. 8.00 LACS WHILE THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED ADVANCE TAX TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5.00 LACS AND THAT TOO ON PRESSURE OF INCOME TAX OFFICE . IT IS THEREFORE, APPARENT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEPOSITED THE COMPLETE TAX WHICH IS PAYABLE ON SURRENDER INCOME. THE AO ISSUED LETTER DATED 01-05-09 WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE ASSES SEE ON 05-05-2009 VIDE WHICH DIRECTORS WERE REQUIRED TO BE PRODUCED ON 8-05-2009 . ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE DIRECTORS WERE AT BURHAMPUR (M.P.) AN D THEREFORE, THE TIME GIVEN BY THE AO WAS INSUFFICIENT TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS. IT WA S FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DIRECTORS ARE BEING ASSESSED AT BURHANPUR AND THE AO COULD HAVE I SSUED COMMISSION FOR EXAMINATION OF THE DIRECTORS AT BURHANPUR. ACCORDING TO THE AS SESSEE COMPANY, THE ONUS WAS ON THE REVENUE TO BRING CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD I N SUPPORT OF CONTENTION THAT ONE BALE CONTAINS 200 MTR BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FILED THE AFF IDAVIT OF THE DIRECTORS. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISI ONS:- 1. CIT VS. DLF UNITED 243 ITR 855 (SC) 2. CIT VS. RADAHA KISHAN GOEL, 278 ITR 454 (ALL.) 3. GREENVIEW RESTAURANT VS. ACIT, 263 ITR 169 (GAU) 4. K.I. PAVNNY VS. ASSTT. CCE , 3 SSC 721 5. NIRMAN TEXTILE MILLS (P) LTD. , 284 ITR 325 (GUJ.) 5 6. PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF KER ALA 91 ITR 325 (SC) 7. SMT. PATI DEVI VS. ITO , 219 ITR 235 (KER. 8. KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI VS. CIT, 220 CTR 138 ( GUJ. 2.5 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED THE RELEVANT PORT ION OF THE STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTORS. THE LD. CIT(A) TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THA T THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED ADVANCE OF RS. 5.00 LACS ON 31-03-2007 I.E. JUST AFTER 10 DAYS OF THE SURVEY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY COMMUNICATION TO THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES FOR 1 YEARS. THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS COERCI ON OR MENTAL PRESSURE ON BEHALF OF THE SURVEY TEAM IN EXTRACTING THE SURRENDER. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONSULTED THE PROFESSIONAL AFTER SURVEY. THE ASSES SEE MUST HAVE BEEN AWARE ABOUT THE RETRACTION TO BE MADE AT THE EARLIEST. THE LD. CIT( A) REFERRED TO THREE PURCHASE BILLS MENTIONED BY THE AO IN HIS ORDER AND THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS COGENT PROOF IN THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. AR THAT C LOTH IN EACH TAKKA IS 100 MTR. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 19 ,93,108/-. 2.6 BEFORE US, THE LD. AR HAS FILED THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 101 PAGES AND THE ASSESSEE FILED ANOTHER PAPER BOOK WHICH CONTAINS P AGES 102 TO 178. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 10 UNDER ITAT RULE S FOR ACCEPTANCE OF FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 1. CERTIFICATE ISSUED OF CLOTH MANUFACTURING ASSOCI ATION AND TEXTILE PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION, BEHRAMPUR TO SHOW THAT AVER AGE LENGTH IN ONE TAKKA IS 100 MTR APPROXIMATELY AND IN NO CASE IT CA N BE 200 MTR. 6 THE AFFIDAVIT OF THREE DIRECTORS TO SUPPORT THE FAC T THAT LENGTH OF ONE TAKKA IS 100 MTR. IN THE PAPER BOOK, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PHOTOSTA T COPY OF THE PURCHASE VOUCHERS. THESE PURCHASE VOUCHERS SHOW THAT ONE TAKKA CONTAINS 100 MTR. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS CONTAINED IN THE PAPER BOOK ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE ONLY BASIS OF ADDITION IS THE INVENTORY OF BINDING CLOTH PREPARED BY THE INSPECTOR ON 21-03-007 AND THE STAT EMENT OF THE DIRECTOR RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THE SOLE QUESTION F OR CONSIDERATION OF YOUR HONOUS IS WHETHER A TANKA (THAN) CONTAINS 100 METER S OF LENGTH OR 200 METRS OF LENGTH AND WHETHER THE STATEMENT OF SURREN DER CAN BE SOLE BASIS FOR CONFIRMING THE ADDITION.? 2. THAT BURHAMPUR IN MADHYA PRADESH WHERE SEVERAL L OOM OWNERS MANUFACTURE THE BINDING CLOTH ON AN AVERAGE LENGTH OF THE CLOTH IS ABOUT HUNDRED METERS. 3. THAT 100 MTERS IS THE STANDARD SIZE OF ONE TANKA (THAN) AND EACH BILL OF PURCHASE OF CLOTH RIGHT FROM IST APRIL TO 3 1 ST MARCH SHOWS THE SIZE OF TANKA (THAN) AS 100 METER. 4. THAT THE SURVEY TREAM HAS NOT MEASURED A SINGLE THAN OR TANKA ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE MEASUREMENT OF TWO HUNDRED M ETERS WAS TAKEN. IN ABSENCE OF ACTUAL MEASUREMENT OF ANY TANKA (THAN) F OUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY NO RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED ON SUCH INVENTORY AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BALAJI WIRE (P) LTD. REPORTED IN 203 ITR AT PAGE 393. THUS IN ABSENCE OF ANY ACTUAL MEASUREMENT OF TANKA (THAN), IT IS WRONG TO ASSUME THE LENGTH OF ONE TA NKA (THAN) AS TWO HUNDRED METERS BY PASSING THE ACTUAL BILLS ISSUED B Y THE SELLERS. THE LD. AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) WRONGLY REJECTED THE BILLS PARTICULARLY WHEN THE BILLS ARE ISSUE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY . THE NAME OF SELLERS FOUND RECORDED IN THE PURCHASE REGISTER WHICH WAS F OUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND IS SIGNED BY THE INSPECTOR CONDUCTING TH E SURVEY. NOT ONLY IS THIS THE PAYMENT OF EACH BILL WAS MADE BY THE ASSES SEE COMPANY BY 7 ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND ENTRIES ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINES S. IN ABSENCE OF ANY VERIFICATION FROM THE SELLERS, IT IS WRONG ON THE P ART OF THE LD. AND CIT (A) TO REJECT THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THAT THE LENGTH OF B INDING CLOTH IN EACH TANKS IS 100 MTERS AND THUS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO A ND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND BASED ON WRONG FACTS. 5. THAT THE LD. AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) UNDULY EMPHAS IZED ON THE SURRENDER OBTAINED BY THE SURVEY TEAM FROM THE ASSE SSEE AS THE SURVEY TEAM IS PROHIBITED BY THE INSTRUCTION OF THE BOARD TO OBTAIN A SURRENDER AT THE TIME OF SURVEY OR SEARCH. THIS SHOWS THAT THE I NSPECTOR CONDUCTING THE SURVEY WAS ACTING CONTRARY TO THE INSTRUCTIONS OF T HE BOARD AS SUCH NO RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED ON SUCH STATEMENT. RELIACNE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. S KHADER KHAN SON REPORTED IN 300 ITR 157 (MAD.). IN THIS CASE, THEIR LORDSHIP HAS HELD AS UNDER:- INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES ADDITION ADDI TION ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SURVEY U/ S 133A, SECTION 133A DOES NOT EMPOWER IT AUTHORITY TO EXAMINE ANY P ERSON ON OATH, ANY SUCH STATEMENT HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE A ND ANY ADMISSION MADE DURING SUCH STATEMENT CANNOT, BY ITS ELF, BE MADE THE BASIS OF ADDITION. THIS VIEW IS CLEARLY SUPPORT ED BY CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 10 TH MARCH, 2003 NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. 6. THAT SURRENDER CANNOT BE SOLE BASIS FOR MAKING T HE ADDITION AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE THIRD MEMBER OF ITAT , JODHPUR BENC H IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. JAGAT EXPLOSIVE REPORTED IN 99 TTJ AT PAGE NO. 646 7. THE HON'BLE ITAT BENCH IN THE CASE OF TDI MARKE TING (P) LTD. VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 28 SOT AT PAGE 215 HAS ALSO HE LD AS UNDER (FROM HEAD NOTES) COPY OF ORDER IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH IN T HE PAPER BOOK. 8 INCOME OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES ADDITION U/S 69- ADMISSION OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT DURING SURVEY THE ASSESSEE HAVING DENIED THE FACT OF HAVING MADE ANY INVESTMENT AND THERE IS NO OTHER MATERIAL EXCEPT TH E STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE THAT ANY INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S 69 WITHOUT ACTUALLY FIN DING THAT INVESTMENTS ARE MADE SINCE THE BASIS OF ADDI TION IS STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE RATHER THAN ACTUAL INVEST MENT HAVING BEEN MADE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 IS N OT ATTRACTED IN SUCH A SITUATION THEREFORE, THE ADDI TION MADE U/S 69 IS DELETED. 8. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT CHHATTISGARH IN THE CAE O F ITO VS. VIJAY KUMAR KESAR REPORTED IN 36 DTR PAGE 13 TOOK THE SIM ILAR VIEW. THE SAME VIEW WAS ALSO TAKEN BY HON'BLE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH I N THE CASE OF JAIN TRADING COMPANY VS. ITO REPORTED IN 17 SOT AT PAGE 574. 9. THAT ADDITION U/S 69 IS ALSO UNSUSTAINABNLE IN T HE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. MEHTA GWAR GUM & COMPANY IN 219 CTR (RAJ.) PAGE 58. 2.7 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 2.8 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE PURCHASE VO UCHERS ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGES 33 TO 62 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS REALLY STRANGE THAT NONE OF THE PURCHASE VOUCHERS CONTAINS BILL NO. IN NONE OF THE PURCHASE BILLS, THE TELEPHO NE NUMBER OF THE SUPPLIER IS AVAILABLE. THE BILLOF IMMAMUDDIN NOOR MOHD. DATED 24-1-2006 AV AILABLE AT PAGE 56 SHOWED THE SALE OF 12 TAKKA AND THE LENGTH IS 2000 MTR. THUS T HE LENGTH OF CLOTH IN ONE TAKKA AS PER THIS BILL IS MORE THAN 100 MTR. IT IS TRUE THAT THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS 9 OF SURRENDER MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IS A PIECE OF INFORMATION. THUS THE LEGI SLATURE IN ITS WISDOM IN SECTION 292C HAS PROVIDED THAT THE DOCUMENTS AND BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ARE TO BE CONSIDERED TO BE BELONGING TO THE PERSONS IN WHOSE POSSESSION THESE ARE FOUND AND ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS TRUE. THERE IS NO REFERENCE OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH, THE STATEMENT IS MADE ON OATH WHILE THERE IS NO SUCH PROVISIONS U/S 133A AS HELD IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. PRATIBHA GOYAL IN ITA NO. 705/JP/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 -07 DATED 26-03-2010 OF ITAT JAIPUR BENCH . WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IF THE BI LLS AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE GENUINE THEN PIECE OF CLOTH IN ONE LENGTH IS 100 MTR. THERE MAY BE OTHER PARTIES WHICH MIGHT BE PURCHASING SUCH CLOTH FROM BAHRAMPUR AND THE AO CAN VERIFY AS TO WHETHER TAKKA CONTAINS 100 MTR OR 200 MTR. IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE BILLS CONSIDERED BY THE AO, THE WORD MENTIONED IS BALE WHILE PURCHASE VOUCHERS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO SHOW THE DESCRIPTION AS TAKKA AND THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEE IS THAT BALE MAY CONTAIN MORE THAN 100 MTR . THE AO IN HIS ORDER HAS MENTIONED THAT T HE DIRECTORS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM FOR EXAMINATION. THE AFFIDAVITS CAN BE ACCEPTED IF THE DOCUMENT IS PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION. THUS THE AFFIDAVITS WITHOUT EXAMINATIO N AND CROSS EXAMINATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. CONSIDERING THE WHOLE FACTUAL SITUATION, WE FEEL THAT ISSUE OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,93,108/- IS RESTORED BACK ON THE FILE OF THE AO. THE AO WILL VERIFY EITHER FROM THE PARTIES AT BEHRAMPUR OR FROM THE PARTIES BHILWARA T HAT ONE TAKKA CONTAINS 100 MTR OR 200 MTRS OF CLOTH. THE AO WILL BE FREE TO EXAMINE THE G ENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE VOUCHERS FILED AND MAY EXAMINE THE DIRECTORS IN CASE THE ASS ESSEE WANTS TO RELY ON THE AFFIDAVITS. 10 ` 10 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 13-01-2012 SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (N.L. KALRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED; 13 /01/2012 *MISHRA COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. M/S. PRABHA TEXTILES (P) LTD., BHILWARA 2. THE DCIT, CIRCLE- BHILWARA 3. THE LD. CIT BY ORDER 4. THE LD. CIT(A) 5. THE LD.DR 6. THE GUARD FILE (ITA NO.618/JU /09) A.R, ITAT, JAIPUR 11 12