Sh. Mohd Syed Shah, Kashmir ( J&K) V. The Income-tax Officer, Kashmir ( J&K)

ITA 667/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7843 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Business income; Peak credit
• Section: 69; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO. 628/(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 PAN: INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANANTNAG, KASHMIR(J&K). VS. SH. MOHD. SYED SHAH S/O LT. SH. GHULAM MOHD. SHAH, R/O IQBALABAD, K.P. ROAD, ANANTNAG KASHMIR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A NO. 667/(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 PAN: CVDPS5721A SH. MOHD. SYED SHAH S/O LT. SH. GHULAM MOHD. SHAH, R/O IQBALABAD, K.P. ROAD, ANANTNAG KASHMIR. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANANTNAG, KASHMIR(J&K). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) [ APPELLANT BY : SH. RAHUL DHAWAN (D. R.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL DATE OF HEARING: 05.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08.09.201 7 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE AS WELL AS BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), JAMMU DATED 01.07. 2014 FOR ASST. YEAR: 2006-07. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY REVENUE ARE REPRO DUCED BELOW: ITA NOS. 628 & 667(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME IN SPIT E OF HAVING HUGE DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND FAILED TO ATTE ND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND REMAND PROCEEDINGS EVEN AFTER ALLOWING AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. CIT( A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT, 196LAS THE ASSES SEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY PRODUCING A CERTIFICATE FROM M/S SHAH SALES CONFIRMING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS. 39,90,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPLY OF GOODS. HOWEVER, NO SUCH CERTIFICATE WAS SENT FOR EXAMINATION ALONG WITH ASS ESSEES SUBMISSIONS DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS. 3. IT IS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT( A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, SALE BILLS/VOUCHERS, NATURE OF GOODS TRADED, MAGNITUDE O F THE GOODS SUPPLIED TO M/S SHAH SALES FOR HIS EXAMINATIO N. HENCE, ALLOWING RELIEF MERELY ON THE BASIS OF FILING OF CE RTIFICATE FROM M/S SHAH SALES CONFIRMING HAVING PAID THE SAID AMOU NT, THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. CIT (A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT BECAUSE THE TOTAL SALES AS PER THE BALAN CE SHEET AND P&L ACCOUNT STATEMENT FILED' BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN THE DEPOSITS FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED B Y THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE SAID DEPOSITS CANNOT BE CONSID ERED AS BUSINESS ADVANCES. 5. REGARDING THE BALANCE BANK CREDITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 16,95,012/-, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRO DUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DURING A PPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM THAT THESE RECEIPT S WERE ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF HIS BUSINESS YET THE LD. CIT(A) REDUCED THE ADDITION TO RS. 6,35,568/- BEING THE PE AK CREDIT DURING THE YEAR. 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY ASSESSEE ARE REPR ODUCED BELOW: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS NOT BEEN JUSTIFIED T O RESTORE AND RETAIN THE ADDITION OF RS.8,92,016/- (WHICH IS LESS BY INCOME SHOWN AT RS.1,67,428/-) RS.10,59,444/- 1,67,428 = 8 ,92,016/-) OUT OF THE INCOME ASSESSED BY A.O. AT RS.54,05,012/ -, THE AMOUNT REPRESENTS THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK DUR ING THE YEAR ITA NOS. 628 & 667(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 3 2005-2006, IT IS HUMBLY REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITION SO RESTORED MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. C.I.T. (APPEALS) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CA SE IN RESTORING THE AMOUNT OF RS.8,92,016/- OUT OF THE ARBITRARY AD DITIONS AS MADE BY THE A.O. AT RS.54,05,012-, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITION SO RETAINED MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ALTER, AME ND, CHANGE, ADD, WITHDRAW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE IT IS HE ARD AND DISPOSED OFF BY THE HON'BLE ITAT. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AP PEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS BEING WITHDRAWN, THE LD. DR HAD NO OBJE CTION TO THE WITHDRAWAL THEREFORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 667/ASR/2014 IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 5. THE LD. DR ARGUING HIS APPEAL SUBMITTED THAT DUR ING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS OBSERVED BY ASSESSIN G OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.54,05,012/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COOPERATE IN COMP LETION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT TIME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.54,05,012/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT. IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE THAT THE RECEIPTS IN THE BA NK ACCOUNT WERE ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPTS OF SALES MADE BY HIM TO M/S SHA H SALES AS ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THAT HE WAS DOING ANY BUSINES S. THE LD. DR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE CERTIFICATE FROM M/S SHAH S ALES WAS NEVER SENT TO ITA NOS. 628 & 667(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 4 ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS EXAMINATION. WITHOUT PREJ UDICE THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT THE SALES DECLARED BY ASSESSEE I N P & L ACCOUNT WERE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AND TH EREFORE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS WERE THE SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE DULY FILED THE SALES BILLS AMOUNTING TO RS .28 LACS OUT OF TOTAL RECEIPTS OF 37,10,000/- ALONGWITH BALANCE SHEET AND P & L ACCOUNT. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS WRONG ON THE PART OF LD . DR TO STATE THAT THE CONFIRMATION OF SHAH SALES WAS NOT SENT TO ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS AND IN THIS RESPECT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVI TED TO REMAND REPORT DATED 27.03.2014 WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY LD. C IT(A) IN HIS ORDER. THE LD. AR SPECIFICALLY INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO SU BMISSIONS OF APPELLANT DATED 24.03.2014 WHICH WERE SUBMITTED TO ASSESSING OFFICER DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD SU BMITTED THE COPY OF CONFIRMATION DATED 29.11.2012 ALONGWITH OTHER EV IDENCES. 7. THE LD. AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 39,90,000/- WAS RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES ON ACCOUNT OF GOODS SOLD B Y HIM TO SHAH SALES AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED HIS ONUS OF PROVING THE SALES AND WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE BUYER FROM WHIC H PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHILE A LLOWING PART RELIEF, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CALCULATED THE RELIEF ALLOWE D TO ASSESSEE AT ITA NOS. 628 & 667(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 5 RS.10,59,444/- AND INSTEAD THE AMOUNT OF RELIEF ALL OWED BY LD. CIT(A) COMES OUT AT RS.7,79,444/-. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THOUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE DEPOSITS OF RS.54,05,012/- INCLUDED CHEQUES DEPOSITS OF RS.3 9,90,000/- WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM M/S SHAH SALES. A COPY OF CONFIRMATION FROM DATED 29.12.2012 FROM SHA H SALES CERTIFYING THEREIN, THE DATES, CHEQUE NOS. AND THE AMOUNTS WHI CH WERE PAID TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF GOODS SUPPLIED BY ASSESSEE W AS FILED BY ASSESSEE. THE CERTIFICATE FURTHER CLARIFIES THAT OUT OF RS.39 ,90,000/- A SUM OF RS.11,90,000/- THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES WERE P AID TO THE ASSESSEE AS ADVANCE PAYMENTS. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR THAT THIS CERTIFICATE WAS NOT SENT TO ASSESSING OFFICER DURIN G REMAND PROCEEDINGS IS NOT CORRECT AS IN THE SUBMISSION DATED 24.04.201 4, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED 29. 11.2012 ALONGWITH OTHER EVIDENCES WHICH WERE SUBMITTED TO ASSESSING O FFICER DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE CONTENTS OF SUBMISSIONS AS NOTED BY LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: A COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT DATED 07-12-2012 FURNI SHED BY THE A.O ANANTNAG IN LIEU OF LETTER DATED 23 RD NOVEMBER 2012 CALLED BY YOUR GOODSELF, HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE FOR FILING THE COMMENTS IF ANY, IF DESIRED. THE ASSESSES APPELLANT WANTS TO FURNISH THE COMMENTS, FPCTS AND THE CONTENTIONS BRIEFLY IN THE MANNER HERE AS UNDER. TO FURNISH THE COMMENTS / SUBMISSIONS BY THE ASSESS EE APPELLANT, IT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO MENTION BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF THAT DURING THE COURSE OF 'REMAND PROCEEDINGS' WHEN ATTENDED IN LIEU OF OPPOR TUNITY PROVIDED BY THE LD. A.O, ANANTNAG, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT DISCU SSED EACH AND EVERY ISSUED AND EXPLAINED THE FACTS WITH SUPPORTING DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCE. THE ITA NOS. 628 & 667(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 6 ASSESSEE APPELLANT EXPLAINED THE FACTS REGARDING MY BUSINESS CARRIED OUT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 AND BEFORE. IT WAS STATED BEFORE THE LD. A.O DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED ALL THE RECORDS LI KE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, BANK ACCOUNTS AND OTHER LEDGER ACCOUNTS WITH SUPPOR TING BILLS AND THAT OF THE CASH BOOK REGARDING MY BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS EARNED OUT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007. THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT ALSO DISCUSSED THE MAIN ISSU E, THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BEARING NO. SB 3058 IT WAS STAT ED THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK WERE RECEIVED MAINLY THROUGH PAYEE S ACCOUNT CHEQUES. THE STATEMENT SHOWN AND EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LD. A. O DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IT WAS SAID THAT THE MATERIAL IN POSSESS ION LIKE BANK ACCOUNT ETC WITH THE HON'BLE DEPARTMENT STANDS CLEARLY EXPLAINE D WHEN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE MAIN REMITTANCE HAVE COME FROM M Y MAIN BUYER TO WHOM THE {FOODS HAVE BEEN SOLD NAMELY M/S SHAH SALE S WHICH IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE BANK STATEMENTS AND SUPPORTING DOC UMENTS LIKE LEDGER ACCOUNTS, COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER 29-11-2012 WI TH EVIDENCE LIKE BILLS ETC. THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT SUBMITTED AND ARGUED BEFORE THE LD. A.O ANANTNAG DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS TH AT MY DEPOSITS ARE FULLY EXPLAINED, IDENTICAL AND CLEARLY VISIBLE, AS THE PAYMENTS AGAINST GOODS SUPPLIED HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE A PPELLANT THROUGH PAYEES ACCOUNT CHEQUES. THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS ENCLOSED FOR THE KIND PERUSAL OF YOUR GOODSELF, THE BANK DEPOSITS IN QUESTION IN THE BANK ACCOUNT HAVING NO.3058 IN THE POSSESSION OF THE HON 'BLE DEPARTMENT, WERE SHOWN TO LD. A.O, WHEN STATED THAT THE SAME IS RECO NCILED WITH SPEAKING EVIDENCE, SUPPORTED WITH LEDGER ACCOUNT AND OTHER R ECORDS. THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT ALSO EXPLAINED, WHILE DISCUS SIONS HELD THAT THE PAYMENT WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED AS ADVANCE FROM 'M/ S SHAH SALES' AGGREGATING RS. 11,90,000/- DULY REFLECTED IN THE S TATEMENT WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY THE CORRESPONDING EVIDENCE/FACTS HAS/B EEN ENCLOSED IN ORDER TO PROVE THE CONTENTION, AS THE AMOUNT THROUG H BANK WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S SHAH SALES WHICH DOES CLEARLY APPEAR AS PE R THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. 3058 AND THAT OF THE RECORDS MAINTAINED. FROM THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS IT IS APPARENT THAT THE SAID CERTIFICATE OF SHAH SALES WAS SENT TO ASSESSING OFFICER DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND SINCE THE PROCEEDS OF RS. 28 LACS REPRESENTED T HE SALE PROCEEDS, THEREFORE THE SAME WERE DULLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSE SSEE. SIMILARLY RS.11,90,0000/- WAS ALSO PROVED TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE AGAINST SALES WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DULY NOTED IN HIS OR DER. THE SECOND ITA NOS. 628 & 667(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 7 ARGUMENT OF LD. DR THAT THE SALES REFLECTED IN THE P & L ACCOUNT WERE LESSER THAN THE DEPOSITS ALSO DOES NOT HAVE MUCH FO RCE AS OUT OF RS.39,90,000/- RS.11,90,000/- REPRESENTED AS ADVANC E AGAINST SALES. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE ALLOWING PART RELIEF TO THE AS SESSEE HAS APPLIED 10% OF PROFITS ON SALES OF RS. 28 LACS AND HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE RECEIPTS OF RS.39,90,000/- WAS NOT UNEXPLAINED CREDITS. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODU CED BELOW: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF APPELLANT, A SSESSMENT ORDER AND REMAND REPORT. IT IS NOTICED THAT M/S SHAH SALES HA S CONFIRMED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SUPPLIED GOODS TO THE SAID CONCERN FO R WHICH IT HAS PAID RS 28,00,000/- AND FURTHER PAID RS 11,90,000/- AS ADVA NCE FOR SUPPLY OF GOODS TO THE APPELLANT. THE BANK STATEMENTS OF BOTH THE CONCERN ALONG WITH LEDGER OF M/S SHAH SALES IN THE BOOKS OF APPELLANT ALSO CONFIRMS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED RS. 39,90,000/- FROM M/S SHA H SALES ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPLY OF GOODS. THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED ITS O NUS TO THE EXTENT OF RS 39,90,000/- REGARDING THE EXPLANATION FOR SOURCE OF SUCH RECEIPTS. THEREFORE, THESE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS. HOWEVER, SINCE THE SALES MADE TO M/S SHAH SALES AMOUNTING TO RS 28,00,000/- HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS DIRECTED TO APPLY A NET PROFIT OF 10% ON SUCH SALES AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS 39, 90,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS. A RELIEF OF RS 37,10,000/- (39 ,90,000/- LESS 2,80,000) ON THIS ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE GROUND NO. 1 TO 4 OF REVENUE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 5 REGARDING RELIEF GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS ON THE BASIS OF PEAK CREDI TS, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS THAT THESE DEPOSITS ALSO REPRESENTED SALE PROCEEDS OF BUSINESS AS THE ASSESS EE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CLA IM AS COMPARED TO THE SALES MADE TO M/S SHAH SALES WHICH WERE RECEIVE D THROUGH CHEQUES AND THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) CALCULATED PEAK CREDIT AND UPHELD THE ITA NOS. 628 & 667(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 8 ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,35,568/- AND ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10,59,444/-. THE R ELEVANT FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: REGARDING THE OTHER BANK CREDITS OF RS. 16,95,012/ -, THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT THESE DEPOSITS ARE ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF S ALE PROCEEDS OF BUSINESS. SINCE, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE AN Y DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM THAT THESE RECEIPTS A RE ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF HIS BUSINESS, THIS PLEA OF THE APP ELLANT COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. HOWEVER, IT IS NOTICED THAT THERE ARE AL SO VARIOUS WITHDRAWALS FROM THIS BANK ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE POSSIBILITY OF REDEPOSITING THE SAME AMOUNT IN THE BANK COULD NOT BE IGNORED. IN MY OPIN ION, IT WOULD BE JUSTIFIED TO TAX THE PEAK CREDIT IN THE BANK AS INC OME EXCLUDING THE ABOVE RECEIPTS FROM M/S SHAH SALES. THEREFORE, IT IS DIRE CTED TO REDUCE THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS 16,95,012/- TO RS 6,35,568/- WHICH IS PEAK CREDIT DURING THE YEAR WHILE NOT CONSIDERING THE RECEIPTS FROM M/S SHAL SALES. THERFORE, A FURTHER RELIEF OF RS.10,59,444/- IS ALL OWED TO THE APPELLANT. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE ALLOWING PART RELIEF HAD CALC ULATED THE RELIEF TO RS.10,59,444/- WHEREAS THE ACTUAL RELIEF ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE WORKS OUT TO BE AT RS.7,79,444/- AS OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION S OF RS.54,05,012/- RS.39,90,000/- REPRESENTED CHEQUE RECEIPTS AND THE BALANCE COMES OUT AT RS.14,15,012/- WHEREAS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN THE FIGURE OF RS.16,95,012/- THIS IS A CALCULATION MISTAKE AND WH ICH DO NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE APPEAL EXCEPT THAT LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN FURTHER RELIEF OF RS.7,79,444/- INSTEAD OF RS.10,59,444/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO READ THE FIGURE OF RS.10,5 9,444/- AS RS.7,79,444/-. 9. OTHER THAT THIS WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE GROUND NO. 5 IS ALSO D ISMISSED. ITA NOS. 628 & 667(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 9 10. IN NUTSHELL, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08.09.2017 SD/- SD/- S (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 08.09.2017. /GP/SR. PS . COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER