Prakash Chand Sharma, Kanpur V. DCIT, Kanpur

ITA 74/LKW/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 7423714 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S S GUPTA
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S UNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 74/LKW/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA PROP. O F M/S PRAKASH BOX FAC TORY 51/5, RAM GANJ, KANPUR V. DCIT - VI KANPUR PAN: AGIPS4954P (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) APP ELL ANT BY: SHRI. S.S. GUPTA, FCA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 18 0 6 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28 0 7 2014 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), INTER ALIA, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1 . BECAUSE ON FACTS AND IN CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE CALCUL ATION OF ENHANCE D/ADDITION AL SA L E WITHOUT A LLOWING THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE . 2 . BECAUSE ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HO L DING THAT GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 48% TO BE APPL IED TO JOB WORK RECEIPTS AND 25% ON SA L ES OUTSIDE BOOKS. 3 . BECAUSE ON FAC TS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ED. A O HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISC L OSED CAPITA L EMPL OYED AT RS. 500000.00. 4 . BECAUSE ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ED. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN GOING INTO IRRE L EVANT CONSIDERATIONS IN CO NFIRMING PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 2 - : ADDITIONS AND HIS OBSERVATIONS/CONC L USIONS ARE NOT BASED ON SOUND R E ASONING AND DESERVES TO BE STRUCK DOWN AND ENTIRE CL AIMS OF THE ASSESSEE BE A LL OWED. 5 . BECAUSE ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WE LL AS OBSERVATION S OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS APPEA L ORDER BY LD. CIT(A) ARE NOT COMPLETEL Y CORRECT, L EGA LL Y AS WE LL AS FACTUALL Y. 6 . THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT A LL OWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7 . T HAT THE APPEAL ORDER AS WEL L ADDITIONS CONFIRMED ARE BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS AND APPROPRIATE RELIEF DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY SPECIFIC GROUND OF APPEAL WITH REGARD TO A PARTICULAR ADDITION, BUT BY RAISING THE AFORESAID GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO DISPUTE THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, ADJUDICATE ALL THESE GROUNDS RELATING TO DIFFERENT ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 3 . THE FACTS IN BRIEF CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, NO AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE FOUND NOR WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE SURVEY PARTY NOR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE LD. CIT(A). A PRINT OUT TAKEN FROM THE COMPUTER W AS CONSIDERED AS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, AS THE FIG URES THEREIN MATCHED WITH THAT OF THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT ALSO CONTAINS LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SALES WHICH HAS DETAILS WITH RESPECT TO EACH BILL DRAWN. THE ASSESSEE WAS FAILED TO PRODUCE BILL BOOKS WHOSE TURNOVER HAD PURPORTEDLY BEEN CAPTURED IN THE SO CALLED AUDITED ACCOUNTS. THE IMPOUNDED BILL BOOK, NAMELY ANNEXURE BK - 2/1 CONTAIN S BILLS ISSUED IN RESPECT OF THE JOB WORK DONE BY THE ASSESSEE TOTALING TO RS.6 ,36,758/ - . THE TOTAL RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF JOB WORK DONE AS SHOWN IN THE FILE D PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 3 - : ACCOUNTS IS ONLY RS.3,36,960/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.2,99,798/ - AS CONCEALED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE - FIRM FROM JOB WORK DONE. 4 . AGAINST THIS ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AS SESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 18.12.2008 WAS REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 3.3.1 OF HIS ORDER. IN THIS LETTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT DISCREPANCIES IN THE ACCOUNTS ARE ON ACCOUNT OF CLERICAL MISTAKE AND THERE WA S NO IOTA OF ATTITUDE TO CONCEAL THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 5 . THE LD. CIT(A) DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND HAVING NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,99,79 8/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED JOB WORK CHARGES. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: - 3.3.1.1. FROM THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT OF HAVING DONE 'JOB WORK' TOTALING TO R S.6,36,758/ - . HOWEVER, WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED WAS THAT 'THE CA WHILE AUDITING THE ACCOUNTS MIGHT HAVE FORGOT THE ENTRY OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT AS SHOWING 'BAD DEBTS'. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER CREDITED THE AMOUNT OF JOB WORK AT RS.6,36,758/ - , NOR HA S CLAIMED BAD DEBTS AS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT LEAD ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO WITH RESPECT OF THE BAD DEBTS, NOR WAS IT DONE BEFORE THE CIT(A). INSTEAD OF LEADING ANY EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIM OF 'BAD DEBTS', THE ASSESSEE/ LD.AR HAS BLAMED THE AO FOR NOT MAKING ENQUIRIES IN THE MATTER. I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHAT FURTHER ENQUIRIES COULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO IN THIS REGARD. THE ONUS OF CLAIMING BAD - DEBTS, IF ANY, IS ON THE ASSESSEE AND NOT THE AO. UNDER THESE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, UNACCOUNTED JOB WORK CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.2,99,798/ - IS CONFIRMED. PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 4 - : 6 . THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THIS ADDITION BEFORE US, BUT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PLACE ANY EVIDENCE TO CO - RELATE THAT THE ENTIRE JOB WORK CHARGES SHOWN WERE DULY RECORDED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.2,99,798/ - . 7 . S O FAR AS THE OTHER ADDITION OF RS.1,60,205/ - BASED ON IMPOUNDED BILL BOOKS, NAMELY ANNEXURE BK - 2/24 IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THIS BOOK CONTAINS BILLS IN RESPECT OF SALES MADE IN CASH. ACCORDING TO THIS BILL BOOK, THE ASSESSEE , DURING THE PERIOD 2.4.2005 TO 31.3.2006 , HAS MADE CASH SALES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,60,205/ - WHICH IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PLACE ANY EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN TH AT THE CASH SALES SHOWN IN THE BILL BOOK, NAMELY BK - 2/24 WAS DULY RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD. CIT(A) RE - EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. T HE CONCLUDING PARA OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: - AS REGARDS ('A'), THE ASSESSEE HAS A POINT WHICH WILL BE DISCUSSED IN LATER PARAGRAPHS. AS REGARDS (B), THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO LEAD ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGAR D EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSERTION MADE BY THE ASSESEE IS A BALD ONE. I HAVE MYSELF GONE THROUGH THE LEDGER AS PER ANNEXURE BK - 1/2 AND BK - 2/20, AND I DO NOT FIND ANY ENTRY OF BK/2/24 MATCHING WITH THE ENTRIES IN BK 1/2 / K - 2/20. UND ER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I CONFIRM THE SALE OF RS.1,60,205/ - OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. 8 . NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, BUT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PLACE ANY EVIDENCE OR ANY MATERIAL IN SUPPOR T OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE CASH SALES DECLARED IN THE PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 5 - : IMPOUNDED BILL BOOK WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN THE ABSENCE OF COGENT MATERIAL IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM TH E SAME. 9 . DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, SOME OTHER BOOKS WERE ALSO IMPOUNDED AND THESE BOOKS, NAMELY BK1/2 AND BK2/20 ARE LEDGERS CONTAIN ING DETAILS OF SALES MADE TO CUSTOMERS. IT CONTAIN S DATE, BILL NO., NAME OF THE CUSTOMER, BILL AMOUNT AND IN MANY CASES I T ALSO HAS VIVID DETAILS OF AMOUNT RECEIVED AND ALSO DATES ON WHICH SUCH AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED FROM SCRUTINY OF THESE TWO BOOKS THAT THE TOTAL SALE OF RS.91,39,327/ - HAS BEEN MADE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. THIS SALE WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ALL THE SALES WHICH HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN BK1/2 ARE BEING REFLECTED IN THE LEDGER BK2/20. THIS SHOWS THA T THESE TWO BOOKS ARE CONTAINING T R ADING ACTIVITIES CARRIED WITHOUT RECORDING IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.26,63,200/ - AS NET PROFIT, HAVING APPLIED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE @ 29.14% ON THE TOTAL S ALE OF RS.91,39,327/ - . 10 . THOUGH THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT HE COULD NOT CO - RELATE THE ENTRIES FOUND IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY HIM. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, TH E ASSESSEE HAS STATED T HAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE REJECTED THE RESULT OF AUDIT REPORT ON THE BASIS OF FACTS THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE SALE OF RS.39,01,030/ - HAS BEEN SEIZED NOR AVAILABLE AND TAKEN THE NET PROFIT AS PER AUDIT REPORT ON THE SALES OF RS.91,39,327/ - . THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS EXTRACTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER IN PARA 3.3.3.3. THE LD. CIT(A) RE - EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AND CONFIRMED THE UNACCOUNTED SALES AT RS.91,39,3 27/ - , ON WHICH HE HAS APPLIED GROSS PROFIT RATE @ 25% ON THE TOTAL SALES OF RS.91,39,327/. THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE EXTRA POLATION PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 6 - : MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CALCULATING THE SALE FOR THE WHOLE YEAR ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL WHICH SPEAKS ABOUT SALES OUTSIDE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: - 3.3.3.4 I HAVE GIVEN MY ANXIOUS THOUGHTS TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSION S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE AO. MY FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER: - (I) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REALLY CHALLENGED THE SALE FIGURE OF RS.91,39,327/ - WHICH HAS BEEN CULLED OUT FROM THE IMPOUNDED BOOKS, NAMELY BK - 1 /2 AND BK - 2/20. WHAT IT HA S BEEN SUBMITTED IS THAT TURNOVER AS PER THE BOOKS WHICH IS RS.39,01,030/ - , SHOULD BE TELESCOPED IN THE FIGURE OF RS.91,39,327/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PIN POINTED AS TO WHICH SALES HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED. THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH SUCH DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR ANY RELEVANT DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT WHOLE OR PART OF RS.39,01,030/ - (REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR/AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS) WAS PART OF RS.91,39,327/ - (AS CULLED OUT FROM THE IM POUNDED BOOKS). THE AO HAS CLEARLY GIVEN A FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT 'NONE OF THE AMOUNT IS MATCHING WITH THE AMOUNT OF SALES AS RECORDED IN ITS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS'. (II) THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AN EXTRACT OF TRIAL BALANCE AS ON 31.03. 2006 WHICH IS PART OF THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS. IN ASSESSEE'S OWN WORDS : '..IN THIS TRIAL BALANCE, THERE IS DETAILS OF PURCHASES/SALES/CLOSING STOCK/EXPENSES AS PER IT RECORDS BUT AT THE SAME TIME THIS TRIAL BALANCE ALSO CONTAINS LIST OF SUNDRY DEBTORS AND CREDITORS....' IT WAS ARGUED THAT SOME OF THESE NAMES ARE SAME (AS SUBMITTED) AS THOSE FOUND IN THE IMPOUNDED BOOKS, NAMELY BK - 1/2 & BK - 2/20, WHICH PROVES THAT SALES SHOWN IN THE AUDITED BOOKS IS PART OF THE GROSS SALES OF RS.91,39,327/ - (AS CULLED OUT FR OM BK - 1/2 & BK - 2/20). I FIND NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO. WHEN SALE OF PLAYING CARDS IS MADE (EITHER ACCOUNTED OR PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 7 - : OUT OF BOOKS), IT WOULD BE MADE TO PEOPLE WHO DEAL WITH THESE ITEMS. IT IS, THEREFORE, OBVIOUS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD GOODS TO HIS CUST OMERS AND ONLY PART OF SUCH SALE HAS BEEN RECORDED AND BALANCE HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED IN THE REGULAR/AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, INSTEAD SUCH UNACCOUNTED SALE HAS BEEN RECORDED IN BK - 1/2 AND BK - 2/20. THEREFORE, IT IS NATURAL THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME COMMON NA MES IN THE REGULAR BOOKS AND ALSO IN THE BOOKS IMPOUNDED. ON PERUSAL OF THE IMPOUNDED LEDGER AND THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS (COMPUTER PRINTOUTS), IT IS SEEN THAT MOST OF THE CUSTOMERS ARE COMMON. EVEN AT THE COST OF REPEATING, I WOULD SAY THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO LEAD ADEQUATE AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO BUTTRESS HIS SUBMISSIONS, WHICH HE HAS FAILED TO D O. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I CONFIRM THE UNACCOUNTED SALES OF RS.91,39,327/ - . AS REGARDS COMPUTATION OF G.P. THEREUPON, IT WOULD BE DEALT WITH IN LATER PARAGRAPHS. 11 . NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, BUT COULD NOT PLACE ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THAT THE SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE , FOUND RECORDED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL , WERE ALREADY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT , T HOUGH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ORALLY SUBMITTED THAT THE SALES FOUND RECORDED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL ARE ALREADY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND IT AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE ADDITION. THOUGH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF LEDGER AND COPIES OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL, BUT COULD NOT CO - RELATE THE ENTRIES FOUND IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL WITH THE LEDGER OF THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. MOREOVER, IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ADMITT ED THAT THE SALES SHOULD HAVE B E EN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.91,39,321/ - AND THEREAFTER NET PROFIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PLACE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE US IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE SALES FOUND IN THE S EIZED MATERIAL WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT HIS CONTENTION. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 8 - : OF ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HAS RIGHTLY DETERMINED THE UNACCOUNTED SALES OF RS.91,39,327/ - . IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS DECLARED GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 29.14%. THE REFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ESTIMATED THE RATE OF PROFIT AT 25%. WE, THUS , FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 12 . SO FAR AS ADDITION OF RS.5 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL EMPLOYED IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED RS.9 LAKHS AS ADDITIONAL CAPITAL REQUIRED TO A CHIEVE THE TURNOVER OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED IN HIS ORDER THAT IT APPEARS THAT ON AN AVERAGE THE ASSESSEE HAS TO DEPLOY ITS CAPITAL FOR ATLEAST 15 DAYS IN A MONTH. HE ACCORDINGLY COMPUTED EXTRA CAPITAL @ 10% OF TOTAL SA LE OF RS.91,39,327/ - AT RS.9 LAKHS. THE LD. CIT(A) REDUCED THE SAME TO RS.5 LAKHS. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT , IN WHICH ADDITIONAL CAPITAL IS REQUIRED AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REDUCED THE ADDITION FROM RS.9 LAKHS TO RS.5 LAKHS IN THIS ACCOUNT. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT NO FURTHER INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 13 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.7.2014. SD/ - SD/ - [ A. K. GARODIA ] [ S UNIL KUMAR Y ADAV ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28 TH JU LY , 2014 JJ: 2207 PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 9 - : COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ )