S.Pannerselvam, CHENNAI V. DCIT, Tambaram

ITA 734/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7885 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM
• Keywords: Commercial expediency
• Section: 132; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C B ENCH C HENN AI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY , JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NO. 734 /MDS./ 20 12 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 8 - 09 S.PANNERSELVAM, NO.6,PADMAVATHY NAGAR, MANAPAKKA MMAIN ROAD, KOLAPPAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 048. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE I, TAMBARAM, PAN AHGPP 4151 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.MEENAKSHISUNDARAM ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GURU BASH YAM DATE OF HEARING : 15 . 1 0.12 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 . 1 0.12 O R D E R PER ABARAHAN P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ITS GRIEVANCE IS THAT CIT(A) CONFIRMED AN ADDITION OF ` 81,21,440/ - . AS PER ASSESSEE, THE AMOUNT REPRESENTED CONTRACT RECEIPT S FROM ONE M/S. S.PERIYAPALAYAM COMMON EFFLUE NT TREATMENT PLANT PVT. LTD. , AND LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN NOT LIMITING THE ADDITION BY APPLYING ITA . 734 /MDS/ 12 2 THE RATE OF PROFIT ACCRUED ON OTHER CONTRACT RECEIPTS FOR ASCERTAINING THE INCOME. 3. SHORT FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE A CIVIL CONTRACTOR HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DECLARING INCOME OF ` 5,76,550/ - . IN THE P&L ACCOUNT FILED ALONG WITH THE SAID RETURN, ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN CONTRACT RECEIPT OF ` 3,06,25,524/ - FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES. M/S. SHIRUPOOLUVARPATTI COMMON ` EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT P LTD. 3,00,75,000 L&T HOUSE, MUMBAI 5,50,524 TOTAL 3,06,25,524 DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER ATTEMPTED A MATCHING OF THE TDS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT AVAILABLE IN THE NSDL SERVER . THEREUPON, HE STUMBLED UPON CERTAIN TDS NOT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE W HICH BROUGHT INTO LIGHT RECEIPT S OF ` 81,21,440/ - FROM ONE M/S. S.PERIYAPALAYAM COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT PVT. LTD. , NOT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. A SSESSEE HAVING NOT SHOWN SUCH RECEIPTS, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS TO BE ADDED IN THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION ITA . 734 /MDS/ 12 3 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ). ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN HIS APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), ARGUMENT OF ASSESSE E WAS THAT HE WAS EXECUTING CONTRACTS IN THE FIELD OF SET TING UP OF EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANTS FOR DYING INDUSTRY. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE WORK FOR M/S. S.PERIYAPALAYAM COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT PVT. LTD., WAS ACTUALLY EXECUTED BY THE SAID COMPANY ITSELF. HOWEVER, THE SAID COMPANY FOR GENERATING INTERNA L SAVINGS FOR MEETING SOME EXTRAORDINARY EXPENDITURE HAD ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE ASSESSEE, WHICH REMAINED ON PAPER. AS PER LAW , THE SAID COMPANY WAS PROHIBITED F R OM CARRYING OUT THE WORK THEMSELVES. I T WAS A CONTRACT ON PAPER MADE WITH THE ASS ESSEE BUT THE ACTUAL WORK WAS DONE BY THE SAID COMPANY ITSELF. ASSESSEE HAD PASSED ON THE ENTIRE CONTRACT RECEIPTS TO SAID COMPANY, BUT FOR THE T.D.S . AS PER THE A SSESSEE, RECORDS IN RELATION TO SUCH WORK WAS CREATED, SO THAT THE WORK LOOKED AS THOUGH IT WAS AWARDED IN A N OPEN TENDER. C ONTRACT DOCUMENT S WERE ALL A PART OF MAKE - BELIEVE ARRANGEMENT S . ASSESSEE HAD TO AGREE FOR SUCH A SCHEME WITH M/S. S.PERIYAPALAYAM COMMON EFFLUENT TREA TMENT PLANT PVT. LTD., SINCE HE WAS ALSO CARRYING OUT SIMILAR W ORK FOR ANOTHER COMPANY CALLED SHIRUPOOLUVRPATTI ITA . 734 /MDS/ 12 4 COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT, AND BOTH THESE PARTIES WERE CLOSELY RELATED. T AX DEDUCTED BY M/S. S.PERIYAPALAYAM COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT PVT. LTD., WAS THE ONLY BENEFIT RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE , AND THIS WAS RECEIVED AS A GRATIS FROM THE SAID COMPANY FOR HIS CO - OPERATION WITH THEM. IT WAS DUE TO THESE REASONS , AS PER THE ASSESSEE, HI S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DID NOT REFLECT THE RECEIPT OR EXPENSES RELATING TO SUCH WORK. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, AS SESSING OFFI CER FELL IN ERROR IN CONSIDERING THE RECEIPT ALONE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EXPENDITURE, THOUGH BOTH THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNT S. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, PROFIT MARGIN ALONE COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR SUCH CONTRACT RECEIPTS AS HIS INCOME . SUCH PROFIT MARGIN WAS 2.88% ONLY. J UST BECAUSE CONTRACT RECEIPTS WERE OMITTED, IT WOULD NOT MEAN THAT EXPENSES RELATING TO SUCH CONTRACT STOOD ALREADY CHARGED INTO HIS ACCOUNTS. 5. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT IMPRESSED. A CCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE HAVING HIMSELF STATED THAT THE CONTRACT WITH M/S. S.PERIYAPALAYAM COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT PVT. LTD., WAS ALL A PA RT OF MAKE - BELIEVE ARRANGEMENTS, I TS ARGUMENT THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED SHOULD BE ALLO WED COULD NOT BE ACCE PTED. AS PER LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE OR ITA . 734 /MDS/ 12 5 PROOF FOR ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION, MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 6 . NOW, BEFORE US, A.R. STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHO RITIES SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS DOING CIVIL WORK FOR COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANTS. ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS FROM M/S. SHIRUPOOLUVRPATTI COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT PVT. LTD. FOR THE WORK DONE FOR THEM. BOTH M/S. S.PERIYAPALAYAM COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT PVT. LTD., AND SHIRUPOOLUVRPATTI COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT PVT. LTD. WERE UNDER THE SAME MANAGEMENT. ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN BACK WHOLE OF THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM M/S. S.PERIYAPALAYAM COMMON EFFL UENT TREATMENT PLANT PVT. LTD., FOR THE REASON THAT THE WORK WAS DONE BY THE SAID CONCERN ITSELF . N EITHER THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ANY BENEFIT NOR ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE BY ITSELF . THIS CONTRACT WAS NOT AT ALL CONSIDERED AS A PART OF ASSESSE E S INCOME AND HENCE NOT ENTERED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ONCE T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT INCOME AS WELL AS EXPENDITURE WAS OMITTED, IT WAS UNFAIR ON THE PART OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO TREAT THE WHOLE OF RECEIPTS AS INCOME . AS PER LD. A.R., ASSESSEE WA S HAVING PROFIT OF ONLY 2.88% ON OTHER CONTRACT RECEIPT S AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IF AT A LL MADE , OUGHT ITA . 734 /MDS/ 12 6 HAVE BEEN C ONFINED TO 2.88% OF THE RECEIPTS. FOR HIS ARGUMENT THAT CONTRACT RECEIP TS, WHICH WERE NOT ACCOUNTED COULD NOT BE CON SIDERED AS A PART OF THE INCOME, LD. A.R. RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HON BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS BALCHAND A JITHKUMAR (2003) 263 ITR 610 , HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. PRESIDENT INDUSTRIES (2002) 258 ITR 65 4 , HON BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COUR T IN CIT VS. S.M.OMAR (1992) 201 ITR 608 , HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN C IT VS. GURUBACHAN SINGH J.JUNEJA (2008) 302 ITR 63 (GUJ) AND AGAIN THAT OF HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN GLASS LINES EQUIPMENTS C O. LTD VS. CIT 254 ITR 454 . RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S.P.R.CONSTRUCTIONS VS. ITO IN ITA NO.1989/MDS./95 DATED 27TH JULY, 2004. PER CONTRA LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS A ND PERUSED THE ORD ERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THERE IS NO DIS PUTE THAT ASSESSEE WAS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR. IN THE P&L ACCOUNT ALONG WITH THE SAID RETURN, ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN CONTRACT RECEIPT FROM M/S. SHIRUPOOLUVARPATTI COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT P LTD . OF ` 3,00,75,000/ - AND FROM L&T HOUSE, MUMBAI OF ` 5,50,525 / - . THERE IS ALSO NO ITA . 734 /MDS/ 12 7 DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, A SUM OF ` 81,21,440/ - FROM M/S. S.PERIYAPALAYAM COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT PVT. LTD. NEVERTHELES, ASSES SEE OMITTED TO SHOW THIS AMOUNT EITHER IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME OR I N HI S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO KNOW ABOUT SUCH RECEIPTS ONLY BECAUSE HE MADE A MATCHING O F THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE , WITH THE DATA AVAILA BLE IN NSDL SERVER . BUT FOR SUCH DILIGENT MATCHING DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THIS CONTRACT RECEIPT WOULD HAVE GONE UNNOTICED. WHEN IT WAS PUT TO THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH RECEIPTS WERE OMITTED, IT CAME UP WITH A VERSION , WHICH IN OUR OPINION, CAN NEV ER BE ACCEPTED. SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: - THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR. HE HAD EXECUTED MAINLY CONTRACT WORKS IN THE FIELD OF SETTING UP OF EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANTS FOR DYING INDUSTRY. IN RESPECT O F M/S. S.PERIYAPALAYAM COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT PVT. LTD., THE WORK WAS ACTUALLY EXECUTED BY THE COMPANY THEMSELVES FOR EFFECTING ECONOMY IN THE EXECUTION OF THE PLANT. FURTHER THERE WAS AN EXIGENCY FOR THIS COMPANY TO GENERATE INTERNAL SAVINGS FOR MEETING SOME EXTRAORDINARY EXPENDITURE FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO BUDGET PROVISION. SINCE LAW PROHIBITED SUCH M ODE OF CARRYING OUT A WORK A CONTRACT ON PAPER WAS MADE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND RECORDS WERE CREATED TO THE EFFECT THAT THE WORK WAS COMPLETED IN AN O PEN TENDER METHOD THOUGH ITA . 734 /MDS/ 12 8 CONTRACTORS. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS WERE ALL MERE MAKE BELIEVE ARRANGEMENTS ONLY. THE ASSESSEE FOR REASONS OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY HAD TO AGREE FOR SUCH A SCHEME SINCE A BIG CONTRACT FOR ` 3,00,75,000 FOR THE SAME TYPE OF WORK WAS GENUINELY CARRIED OUT BY HIM WITH SHIRUPOOLUVRPATTI COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT THIS COMPANY AND THE OTHER COMPANY ACTED IN TANDEM IN THIS REGARD AND THOUGH EVERY THING APPEARED LEGAL ON RECORDS THE CLANDESTINE UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT M/S. S.PERIYAPALA YAM COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT WORK WAS TO BE CARRIED OUT BY THE COMPANY WITH THEIR OWN MEN AND MATERIALS AND THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE TO COOPERATE FOR MAKING BOOK ENTRIES. THE INCOME TAX DEDUCTED AND PAID INTO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT ALONE WAS GIVEN AS GRATIS TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE COOPERATION RENDERED BY HIM AND FOR MEETING THE TAX LIABILITY THAT MAY RISE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE RECEIPT AS WELL AS THE EXPENSES AND ALSO THE TAX D EDUCTED AT SOURCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THIS EXPLANATION AND HAD ADDED THE ENTIRE CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF ` 81,21,440/ - PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAD AGREED TO AN ARRANGEMENT WITH M/S. S.PERIYAPALAYAM COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT PVT. LTD., WHICH WAS EXECUTING THE WORK BY THEMSELVES , WHICH WAS NOT LAWFUL . IT IS ALSO ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT M/S. S.PERIYAPALAYAM COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLA NT PVT. LTD., WAS PROHIBITED FROM CARRYING OUT SUCH WORKS THEMSELVES AND IT WAS OBLIGED TO GET THE WORK DONE ONLY THROUGH A CONTRACTOR SELECTED THROUGH AN OPEN TENDER METHOD. THUS, ASSESSEE WAS ITA . 734 /MDS/ 12 9 CLEARLY COLLU DING WITH M/S. S.PERIYAPALAYAM COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT PVT. LTD., AND ACTING IN TANDEM WITH ITS MANAGEMENT TO DO SOMETHING, WHICH WAS UNLAWFUL. AS PER ASSESSEE, BY VIRTUE OF AGREEING TO THIS ARRANGEMENT, IT ONLY RECEIVED AS GRATIS , THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY THE SAID PERSON. IT REMAINS UNCONTROVERTED THAT THE RECEIPTS WERE IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE ONLY . THERE IS NO EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SAID M/S. S.PERIYAPALAYAM COMMO N EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT PVT. LTD., IN FACT, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ANYTHING WAS EXPENDED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SUCH RECEIPTS. IN OUR OP INION, NO T RIBUNAL OR AN AUTHORITY CAN G IVE STAMP OF APPROVAL TO A SERIES OF DEEDS, WHICH WAS CALCULATEDLY DONE IN AN UNLAWFUL MANNER OR AN ACT WHICH IS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY . IF ASSESSEE S VERSION IS ACCEPTED , IT WILL RESULT IN APPROVAL OF METHODS , WHICH ARE AGAIN S T PROBITY OF PUBLIC LIFE AND CIRCUMVENT THE PROCESS OF OPEN TENDING NECESSARY IN SU CH TYPE OF PROJECT . THUS, EVEN IF WE ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHOLE OF THE MONEY WAS GIVEN BACK TO THE SAID COMPANY, IT WOULD GET HIT BY EXPLAN A TION TO SEC.37(1) OF THE ACT. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ITA . 734 /MDS/ 12 10 RELIED ON SEC.69A OF THE ACT FOR THE ADDITION . SECTION 69A READS AS UNDER: - 69A. WHERE IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE AND SUCH MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR VALUABLE ARTICLE IS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT, IF ANY, MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME 20 , AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE, OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE 21 [ASSESSING] OFFICER, SATISFACTORY, THE MONEY AND THE VALUE OF THE BULLION , JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME 20 OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR.] IN OUR OPINION, EVERY CONDITION SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 69A IS SATISFIED. ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE MONEY AND COULD NEVER SHOW WITH CREDI BLE EVIDENCE THAT IT DID NOT OWN IT . IT HAD NOT RECORDED IT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. E XPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SATISFACTORY. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR OPINION, THE ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED THE CIT(A). 8 . ADVERTING TO THE CASE LAWS R ELIED UPON BY THE LD. A.R., HON BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. ITA . 734 /MDS/ 12 11 BALCHAND AJIT KUMAR (SUPRA), WAS DEALING WITH AN ISSUE WHERE ASSESSEE HAD RECORDED ITS CASH SALE S IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BUT CREDIT SALES WERE NOT ACCOUNTED . THEIR LO RDSHIP GAVE RELIEF CONSIDERING THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THEIR LORDSHIP HELD THAT SALES BY ITSELF COULD NOT BE CON S I D E RED AS INCOME OF ASSESSEE. HERE ON OTHER HAND, NEITHER WAS THE W ORK DONE ON CREDIT NOR IS THERE AN ARGUMENT THAT NON - RECORDING OF RECEIPTS WAS DUE TO ANY SPECIAL METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF PRESIDENT INDU STRIES(SUPRA), HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WAS DEALING WITH THE ISSUE WHERE RE CORDS PROVED MOVEMENT OF FINISHED GOODS FROM THE PREMISES OF A SSESSEE TO GODOWNS, WHICH REFLECTED SALE OF ` 29,01,300/ - NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS. IT WAS UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS HELD THAT AMOUNT OF SALES C OULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF ASSES SEE. HERE ON THE OTHER HAND, NEITHER HAD THE RECEIPT CA M E FROM SALE OF GOODS NOR WAS ANY PROOF FOR ANY SALES RECEIVED FROM EXCISE REC O RDS . COMING TO THE DECISION OF HON BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF S.M.OMER (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED HAD NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE DELIVERY OF RAW MATERIAL AND SALE OF THE GOODS AND FURTHER ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REJECTED THE TRADING RESULT OF ASSESSEE. ONE ARGUMENT THAT WAS ITA . 734 /MDS/ 12 12 TAKEN THERE WAS THAT THE GOODS WERE NOT MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE AT ALL BUT BY O NE M/S.A.G.MULLER & CO. HERE, ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE IS NO SUBMISSION BY ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT THE RECEIPT FROM M/S. S.PERIYAPALAYAM COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT PVT. LTD. RATHER IT CANNOT SAY SO ALSO SINCE HE HAD RECEIVED THE SUM FROM THEM. COMING TO THE DECISION OF HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF GURUBACHHAN SINGH J.JUNEJA .(SUPRA), THE ADDITION HAD COME OUT OF A SEARCH PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT AND THE SALES WER E FOUND TO BE RECORDED IN LOOSE SHE ET S, WHICH WERE SEIZED. HERE, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ADDITION WAS NOT MADE PURSUANT TO A SEARCH AND ALSO N OT COMING OUT OF ANY SALE. AS FO R THE DECISION OF HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GLASS LINES EQUIPMENTS CO. LTD.(SUPRA), ADDITION MADE W AS ON ACCOUNT OF A PART OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN CAPITALIZED, WHICH WAS INCURRED DURING A PRECEDING YEAR. IN OUR OPINION, THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HERE. COMING TO THE LAST DECISION RELIED UPON BY LD. A.R., VIZ. THAT OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN M/S.P.R.CONSTRUCTIONS(SUPRA), THE PROFITS WERE ESTIMATED AND ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD RETURNED THE PROFIT ON ESTIMA TES. HERE ON THE OTHER HAND, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED, AND PROFIT ITA . 734 /MDS/ 12 13 SHOWN IN TH E RETURN OF INCOME WAS BASED ON SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THUS, IN OUR OPINION, NONE OF THE CASE LAW S RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD FURTHER ITS CASE . WE THUS DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9 . IN THE RES ULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AF TER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON MONDAY THE 15 TH OCTOBER , 2012. SD/ - SD/ - ( VIKAS AWASTHY) ( ABRAHAM P GEORGE ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED 15 TH OCTOBER , 2012 . K S SUNDARAM COPY TO: ASSESSEE / AO / CIT (A) / CIT / D.R. / GUARD FILE ITA . 734 /MDS/ 12 14