Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, V. Shri Rajabhau Ananda Rupnar, Pune

ITA 654/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7112 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH JHA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 143(3); 148; 132

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO.654/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-8, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, DR. AMBEDKAR MARG, NEAR AKURDI RAILWAY STATION, AKURDI, PUNE 411 044. . / APPELLANT V/S S HRI RAJABHAU ANANDA RUPNAR, 49/2, PREM GEET APARTMENT, AJMERA COLONY, PIMPIRI, PUNE 411 018. PAN : AAQPR3012H. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK. REVENUE BY : SHRI MUKESH JHA, JCIT / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS EMANATING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) 12, PUNE D T. 13.02.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD ARE AS UNDER :- ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND PROPRIETOR OF R.B. INDUSTRIES AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. FABTECH PROJECTS AND ENG INEERS LIMITED. ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2005-0 6 ON 31.10.2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.10,48,222/-. NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 30.03.2012. THEREAFTER ASS ESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 148 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER / DATE OF HEARING : 27.11.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08.12.2017 2 DT.15.03.2013 AND THE TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.1,86,46,300/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO ASSESSEE C ARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DT.13.02.2015 (IN APPEAL NO.PN/CIT(A)-12/DCIT CENT CIR. 2(2)/27/2013-14) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORD ER OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISE D THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF LESS INCOME INSPITE OF HIGHER DECLARATION ON OATH U/S 13 2(4), WHICH REMAINED VALIDITY RETRACTED TILL THE FILING OF RETU RN ? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE AO BASED ON THE DECLARATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SE ARCH ACTION U/S 132 WHEN JUDICIAL RULINGS IN THE CASE OF MANMOH ANSINGH VIG VS. DCIT, CIR.1(1) 6 SOT 18 [2006] OF ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH, C, MUMBAI AND BIPINKUMAR P. KHANDHERIA, ADVOCATE VS. D CIT 354 ITR 268 OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT ARE AVAILABLE IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE SIMILAR ISS UE ? 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, WHETHER ON THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD.CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN ACCEPTING THAT THE OPENING BALANCE IN RESPECT OF A BOGUS PURCHASE IN EARLIER YEARS SHOWN IN THIS YEARS BOOKS CANNOT BE TAXED U/ S 41(1) OF THE I.T. ACT 3. ALL THE GROUNDS BEING INTER-CONNECTED ARE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. 4. A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE GROUP CASES OF M/S.FABTECH PROJECTS AND ENGINEERS LIMITE D ON 31.01.2012. AS A RESULT OF SEARCH THE GROUP ADMITTED ADD ITIONAL INCOME OF RS.39 CRORES AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO ADMITTED HIS PORTION OF DISCLOSURE AGGREGATING TO RS.4,42,35,290/- INCLU DING ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1,75,98,085/- WHICH WAS OFFERED FOR F.Y. 2004-05 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2005-06 VIDE LETTER DT.28.03.2012 . AO ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME W ITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.147 OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1.75 CRO RE (ROUNDED OFF) AND ACCORDINGLY ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. 3 AO THEREAFTER NOTICED THAT IN RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESP ONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 ON 31.12.2012 ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TOTAL INCOME OF RS.44,53,333/-. AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE SH OULD HAVE SHOWN TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,86,46,307/- COMPRISING OF RS.1,75,98,085/- BEING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED DURING SEARCH AND RS.10,48,222/- AS PER THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF IN COME THAT WAS FILED ON 30.10.2005. ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE ASKE D TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE ADDITIONAL INCOME HAS NOT BEEN OFFERED TO TAX TO WHICH ASSESSEE INTER-ALIA SUBMITTED THAT OUT O F THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.1.75 CRORE (ROUNDED OFF), THE AMOUNT OF RS.1.25 CRORES (ROUNDED OFF) PERTAINING TO EARLIER YEARS WAS ON AC COUNT OF NON-GENUINE PURCHASES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED NON-GENUINE PURCHASES IN A.Y. 2004- 05, THE INCOME OF THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS REDUCED AND TH AT NON- GENUINE PURCHASES PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2004-05 CANNOT BE T AXED IN A.Y. 2005-06. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF INFLATE D PURCHASES CAN BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH PURCH ASES WERE DEBITED IN THE BOOKS AND NOT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD OFFERED ONLY THE BALANCE AMOUNT AS INCOME. THE SUBMISSI ON OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO. AO C ONSIDERED RS.1,41,92,970/- (THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED AFTER SEARCH OF RS.1,75,98,085/- AND THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED TO TAX IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF TH E ACT OF RS.34,05,115/-) AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 4 2.1.6 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND H AVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I FIND THAT THE APPE LLANT HAS DECLARED LOWER ADDITIONAL INCOME IN THE RETURN OF I NCOME THAN WHAT WAS ADMITTED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO REASONS: 1) THE APPELLANT HAS REDUCED THE DECLARED AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME BY THE OPENING BALANCE WITH THE A BOVE TWO PARTIES BECAUSE THE OPENING BALANCE PERTAINED T O THE BOGUS PURCHASES MADE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. 2) IT HAS DECLARED REDUCED AMOUNT OF THE ADDITIONAL IN COME AFTER VERIFYING ITS OWN RECORDS. 2.1.7 TO APPRECIATE FACTS, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND AS TO HOW THE APPELLANT HAS WORKED OUT T HE FINAL AMOUNT OF RS 34,05,115 DECLARED AS ADDITIONAL INCOM E IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. AS STATED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, THE APPELLANT HAD DECLARED AMOUNT OF RS.1,75,98,085 INCLUSIVE OF OPENING BALANCE AND PURCHASES MADE DURING THE YEAR IS AS UN DER: NAME OF THE CREDITOR OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2004 PURCHASES DEBITED DURING F.Y.2004- 05 TOTAL INCOME DECLARED FOR F.Y.2004-05 ON A/C OF BOGUS PURCHASES SHREE SAI INDUSTRIES 1,25,57,695 5,10,430 1,30,68,125 SOHAM METAL PVT. LTD. 0 45,29,960 45,29,960 TOTAL 1,25,57,695 50,40,390 1,75,98,085 2.1.8 AS AGAINST THE ABOVE DECLARATION, THE APPELLA NT SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED AMOUNTS ALSO INCLUDED THE OPENING BALANCE WITH THESE PARTIES. OPENING BALANCE WERE T HE AMOUNT OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES MADE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR BUT W ERE NOT PAID FOR BY THE APPELLANT. THUS, THESE AMOUNTS WERE CLO SING BALANCES WITH THE PARTIES IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND BECAME TH E OPENING BALANCES IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT SINCE THE OPENING BALANCES REPRESENTED BOGUS PURCHA SES MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THE SAME CANNOT BE ADDED DURING THE YEAR. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS OFFERED CORRECT A MOUNT OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME BASED ON THE BOGUS PURCHASES MADE FROM THESE PARTIES DURING THE YEAR. IT MAY BE SEEN THAT THE T OTAL AMOUNT OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM THE PARTIES DURI NG THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS OF RS 1,75,98,085, AS AGAIN ST IT, THE APPELLANT HAS OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS 34,05 ,115. THIS AMOUNT IS ARRIVED AT BY THE APPELLANT AS UNDER. SR. NO PARTICULAR AMOUNT RS 1 INCOME OFFERED ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES AS PER STATEMENT U/S 132(4) 1,75,98,085 2 LESS: INFLATED PURCHASES I.E. INCOME PERTAINING TO EARLIER YEARS 1,25,57,695 3 LESS: GENUINE PURCHASES WRONGLY DECLARED AT THE TIME OF STATEMENT GIVEN U/S 132(3) 30,60,905 5 4 ADD: ADDITIONAL AMOUNT DECLARED DURING THE YEAR (THE DECLARATION BEFORE INVESTIGATING OFFICER WAS FOR THE NET AMOUNT) OF SOHAM METALS PVT. LTD. 1 4 ,25,630 5 HENCE ADDITIONAL INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 148 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 34,05,115 2.1.9 AS AGAINST THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION, I FIND THAT THE LEARNED AO HAS CONCLUDED THE ISSUE WITHOUT EXAMININ G THE SAME. THE LEARNED AO HAS STATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD OF FERED ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING THE SEARCH AFTER DUE APPLI CATION OF MIND AND AFTER CONSIDERING ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THERE FORE, THE APPELLANTS ACTION IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. 2.1.10 I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE LEARNED AO BECAUSE THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION IS BASED ON ITS BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS AND DOCUMENTS. ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND CO NTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS COULD BE PROVED INCORRECT ON VERIFICATION , IF THEY ARE INCORRECT. HOWEVER, IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO ST ATE THAT THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION IS AFTERTHOUGHT WITHOUT CARR YING OUT ANY VERIFICATION. THERE IS NO LAW THAT THE ADMISSION O NCE MADE BY THE DEPONENT CANNOT BE CHANGED LATER, IF THE DEPONENT R EALIZES THAT STATEMENT ON OATH WAS ERRONEOUSLY MADE. ACCORDINGL Y, ACTION OF THE LEARNED AO OF MAKING THE ADDITION WITHOUT CARRY ING OUT ANY INQUIRIES OR VERIFICATIONS AND PROVING THE APPELLAN TS CONTENTION INCORRECT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THEREFORE, I DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS 1,41,92,970 MADE BY THE LEARNED AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPE AL BEFORE US. 6. BEFORE US, LD.D.R. TOOK US THROUGH THE ORDER OF AO AN D SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER EVIDENCES AND AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND HAD OFFERED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR TAX. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REASON FOR NOT INCLUDING THE INCOME DECLARED DUR ING SEARCH AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCO ME WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. LD.A.R . ON THE OTHER HAND, REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AN D LD.CIT(A) AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER GROUP CONCERN AND ARISING IN THE SAME SEARCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. 6 STEEL VISION INDIA PVT. LTD., IN ITA NO.488/PUN/2015 ORDER DT.26.05.2017 THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON IDENTICAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. HE PLACED ON RECORD T HE COPY OF THE AFORESAID ORDER AND POINTED OUT TO THE RELEVANT FIN DINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WIT H RESPECT TO THE TAXABILITY OF THE INCOME OFFERED DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH PROCEEDINGS BUT NOT INCLUDED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE AND ARISING OUT OF THE SAME SEARCH IN THE CASE OF STEEL VISION INDIA PVT., LTD., (A GROUP CONCERN OF TH E ASSESSEE) BEFORE THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DT.26.05.2017 ON IDENTICAL FACTS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE AS UNDER : 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DOC UMENTS ON WHICH THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANC E. THE DEPARTMENT IN APPEAL HAS RAISED SOLITARY ISSUE OF D ELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,14,45,953/- BY COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS). IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED ADDITI ONAL INCOME OF RS.3,95,50,291/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, T HE ASSESSEE DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.2,81,04,338/-. TH E CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.3, 95,50,291/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDES OPENING BALANCES OF RS.1,45,68,748/- AS ON 01-04-2004. BOGUS PURCHASES FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 CANNOT BE ADDED IN SUBSEQUEN T FINANCIAL YEAR. 7. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DEL ETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 2.1.6 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND H AVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I FIND THAT THE APPEL LANT HAS 7 DECLARED LOWER ADDITIONAL INCOME IN THE RETURN OF I NCOME THAN WHAT WAS ADMITTED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO REASONS: 1) APPELLANT HAS REDUCED THE DECLARED AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME BY THE OPENING BALANCE WITH THE ABOVE TWO PARTIES BECAUSE THE OPENING BALANCE PERTAINED TO THE BOGUS PURCHASES MADE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. 2) IT HAS DECLARED REDUCED AMOUNT OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME AFTER VERIFYING ITS OWN RECORDS. 2.1.7 TO APPRECIATE FACTS, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND AS TO HOW THE APPELLANT HAS WORKED OUT T HE FINAL AMOUNT OF RS.2,81,04,338 DECLARED AS ADDITIONAL INC OME IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. AS STATED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, THE APPELLANT HAD DECLARED AMOUNT OF RS.3,95,50,291 INCLUSIVE OF OPENING BALANCE AND PURCHASES MADE DURING THE YEAR IS AS UN DER: NAME OF THE CREDITOR OPENING BALANCES AS ON 01.04.2004 PURCHASES DEBITED DURING F.Y. 2004-05 TOTAL INCOME DECLARED FOR F.Y. 2004-05 ON A/C OF BOGUS PURCHASES SHREE SAI INDUSTRIES 42,73,486 1,16,77,100 1,59,50,586 SOHAM METAL PVT. LTD. 1,02,95,262 1,33,04,443 2,35,99,705 TOTAL 1,45,68,748 2,49,81,543 3,95,50,291 2.1.8 AS AGAINST THE ABOVE DECLARATION, THE APPELL ANT SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED AMOUNTS ALSO INC LUDED THE OPENING BALANCE WITH THESE PARTIES. OPENING BALANCE S WERE THE AMOUNT OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES MADE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR BUT WERE NOT PAID FOR BY THE APPELLANT. THUS, THESE AMO UNTS WERE CLOSING BALANCES WITH THE PARTIES IN THE PREVIOUS Y EAR AND BECAME THE OPENING BALANCES IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE OPENING BALANCES REPRESENT ED BOGUS PURCHASES MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THE SAME C ANNOT BE ADDED DURING THE YEAR. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS OFFERED CORRECT AMOUNT OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME BASED ON THE BOGUS PURCHASES MADE FROM THESE PARTIES DURING THE YEAR. IT MAY BE SEEN THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM THE PARTIES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS OF RS.2,49, 81,843, AS AGAINST IT, THE APPELLANT HAS OFFERED ADDITIONAL IN COME OF RS.2,81,04,338. IN OTHER WORDS ALTHOUGH THE APPELLA NT'S TOTAL OPENING BALANCE WITH THE ABOVE PARTIES IS OF RS.1,4 5,68,748/- HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT SEEKS BENEFIT OF THE LOWER A MOUNT OF RS.1,14,45,952. THE BREAK-UP OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.2,81,04,339 DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT IS AS UNDE R: NAME OF THE CREDITOR PURCHASES DEBITED DURING F.Y. 2004-05 TOTAL INCOME DECLARED FOR F.Y. 2004-05 ON A/C OF BOGUS PURCHASES SHREE SAI INDUSTRIES 1,57,77,101 1,57,77,101 SOHAM METAL PVT. LTD. 1,23,27,238 1,23,27,238 TOTAL 2,81,04,339 2,81,04,339 8 2.1.9 AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION, I FIN D THAT THE LEARNED AO HAS CONCLUDED THE ISSUE WITHOUT EXAMININ G THE SAME. THE LEARNED AO HAS STATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD OF FERED ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING THE SEARCH AFTER DUE APPLI CATION OF MIND AND AFTER CONSIDERING ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREF ORE, THE APPELLANT'S ACTION IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. 2.1.10 I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE LEARNED AO BECAUSE THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION IS BASED ON ITS BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS AND DOCUMENTS. ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND CON TENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS COULD BE PROVED INCORRECT ON VERIFICATION , IF THEY ARE INCORRECT. HOWEVER, IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO STA TE THAT THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION IS AFTERTHOUGHT WITHOUT CARR YING OUT ANY VERIFICATION. THERE IS NO LAW THAT THE ADMISSION ON CE MADE BY THE DEPONENT CANNOT BE CHANGED LATER, IF THE DEPONENT R EALIZES THAT STATEMENT ON OATH WAS ERRONEOUSLY MADE. ACCORDINGLY , ACTION OF THE LEARNED AO OF MAKING THE ADDITION WITHOUT CARRY ING OUT ANY INQUIRIES OR VERIFICATIONS AND PROVING THE APPELLAN T'S CONTENTION INCORRECT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THEREFORE, I DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,14,45,953 MADE BY THE LEARNED AO. 8. THE LD. DR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE F INDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF LEDGER EXTRACTS OF SHREE SAI INDUSTRIES AND SOHAM METAL PVT. LTD. FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 INDICATING PURCHASES MADE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR STARTING FROM 01-04-2004 TO 31-03-2005. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT RAISED ANY DOUBT OVER THE LE DGER EXTRACTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LETTER DATED 28-03- 2012 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE-I WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHORTLY A FTER SEARCH. THE SAID LETTER CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE ADDITION AL INCOME DECLARED INCLUDES OPENING BALANCES FOR FINANCIAL YE AR 2004-05. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION. THU S, WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF DEPARTMENT. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. 8. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THAT OF STEEL VISION INDIA PVT. LTD., (SUPRA) ARE IDENTICAL, AS THEY ARISE O UT OF THE SAME SEARCH AND THE FINDING OF LD.CIT(A) IN CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE ARE IDENTICAL AND SIMILARLY WORDED. BEFORE US, RE VENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE IN THE FACT S OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THAT OF THE STEEL VISION INDIA PVT. LTD., (SUPRA). WE THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING AS GIVEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF STEEL VISIO N INDIA PVT., LTD., (SUPRA) AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS, FIND NO REASON TO 9 INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND THUS, THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 8 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 8 TH DECEMBER, 2017. YAMINI ' #$%& '&$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3 . 4. 5. 6. CIT(A)-12, PUNE. CIT (CENTRAL), PUNE. '#$ %%&',) &', / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; $+,-/ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // ./0%1&2 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) &', / ITAT, PUNE.