M/s Himland Agro Foods Ltd., Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 743/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8377 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI SARANGA L
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Agreed addition
• Section: 69C; 92C; 153A; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.743,745 TO 747/CHD/2013 A.YS: 2005-06, 2007-08 TO 2009-10 M/S HIMLAND AGRO FOODS LTD., VS THE DCIT, 1054, INDUSTRIAL AREA, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PHASE-2, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAACH9406Q & ITA NOS.757 & 758/CHD/2013 A.YS: 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S HEERA MOTI AGRO PRODUCTS, VS THE DCIT, 199, HPSIDC, INDUSTRIAL AREA, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BADDI, DISTT. SOLAN (HP) CHANDIGARH. PAN: AACFH8098M & ITA NOS.751 & 752/CHD/2013 A.YS: 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S HERA MOTI HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS LTD., VS THE DC IT, 1054, INDUSTRIAL AREA, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PHASE-II, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAACH3744D & ITA NOS.569 & 570/CHD/2013 A.YS: 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S HERA MOTI SPICES PVT. LTD., VS THE DCIT, 1054, INDUSTRIAL AREA, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PHASE-II, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AABCH4813J 2 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAVI SARANGAL DATE OF HEARING : 04.01.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.01.2017 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS ORDER SHALL DISPOSE OFF ALL THE ABOVE AP PEALS FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES, HOWEVER, OF CONNECTED GROUP . SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUES ARISE IN ALL THE GROUP APPEALS OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES, THEREFORE, ALL APPEALS ARE DECIDED AS UN DER. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ITA 743/2013 ( A.Y. 2005-06) M/S HIMLAND AGRO FOODS LTD., CHANDIGARH 3. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CENTRAL, GURGAON DATED 26.03.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 3(I) LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 AND ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, SAME ARE DISM ISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. ON GROUND NOS. 4 TO 7, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF SUNDRY CREDITORS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,2 4,408/- WHICH WERE TRADE CREDITORS AS PER REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT 3 OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE, SEARCH & SEIZURE OP ERATION WAS CARRIED OUT AND THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A/143(3) OF THE ACT WAS FRAMED. THE ASSESSING OF FICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE S UNDRY CREDITORS AND TO FURNISH CONFIRMED LEDGER ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCE D FRESH CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,24,408/- DURING THE YE AR. IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFIRMATION AND COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT, ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS ) DECIDED SEVERAL APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH COM MON ORDER AND NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THIS GRO UND IS SAME AS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. IT IS, THEREFO RE, NECESSARY TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FINDINGS O F LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUND RY CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO RS. 25,21,860/- WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE CONFIRMATIONS. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS EE THAT SUNDRY CREDITORS AS PER BALANCE SHEET DATED 31.03.2 003 WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 25,21,860/-. 4(I) IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE WHO IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING AND TRADING, WOULD HAVE SUNDRY CRE DITORS AND DEBTORS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. REGA RDING NON FILING OF THE CONFIRMATIONS BEFORE ASSESSING OF FICER, IT WAS PLEADED THAT TIME AVAILABLE WAS VERY SHORT FOR COMPLIANCE. IT WAS ARGUED THAT LEDGER ACCOUNT WAS A LREADY IN POSSESSION OF THE DEPARTMENT, CLEARLY REVEALED T HE 4 RECEIPT OF MATERIAL FROM THE SUPPLIERS DULY ACKNOWL EDGED BY THE PURCHASE BILLS AND PAYMENTS ON THE DEBIT SIDE W HICH WAS EVIDENCED FROM THE BANK STATEMENTS. THESE ARE RUNNING ACCOUNTS IN THE LEDGER. DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, YEARWISE LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR FINANCIAL YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09 INDICATING AMOUNT OUTSTAND ING AT THE END OF EACH YEAR WAS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. HOWEVER, ONLY SOME CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED AS IT WAS CONTEN DED THAT PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION IS AS OLD AS 3 TO 10 YEA RS, SO OBTAINING CONFIRMATION WAS DIFFICULT. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THESE ARE RUNNING BALANCES WHICH HAVE BEEN SQU ARED UP IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO NOTED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL I.E. 2005-06, ASSESSIN G OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF FRESH SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR NON FURNISHING OF CONFIRMATIONS/BILLS. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS FINDINGS OBSERVED THAT SOM E OF THE CONFIRMATIONS FURNISHED NOW HAVE BEEN SOUGHT FO R ADMISSION AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE GROUND OF N ON- PROVIDING OF REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY. THE LD. CIT(A PPEALS) FOUND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 HAD ACCEPTED THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED IN RESPECT OF 9 FRESH CREDITORS OF WHICH FOUR YEAR CASES WERE DISALLOWED AS NO PAN ETC. HAVE BEEN FILED, SOME HAD BEEN ADDED BACK. THE REQUEST OF AD MISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED. T HE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SUNDRY CRED ITORS OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.03.2003 PERTAINING TO ASSESSME NT 5 YEAR 2003-04 HAS BEEN ADDED BACK. THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) NOTED THAT TO HIS MIND, SUCH ADDITION IS NOT TENABL E. TRADING RESULT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 HAS, OTH ERWISE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO IT DEFIES LOGIC TO ADD BACK THE ENTIRE BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT. IT WAS NOTED THAT MANY OF THE PARTIES ARE HAVING RUNNING ACCOUNT S FROM PRIOR TO 01.04.2002 THEREFORE, LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS UNABLE TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AS BY DOING SO, THE ENTIRE TRADING RESULTS OF THE ASSESSE E WOULD BE ABNORMAL. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WAS, ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED. IN A.Y. 205-06 ETC. ADDITION OF SUNDRY CREDITOR WAS LIMITED TO FRESH AD DITION. 6. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AS REGARDS ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL 2005-06 HELD THAT FRESH CASH CREDIT AD DITIONS ARE IN ORDER AND ACCORDINGLY, SAME WAS CONFIRMED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE GROU P CASES OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY M/S HEERA MOTI AGRO INDUSTRIES VS DCIT ETC. IN ITA 739/CHD/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND THE ORDER HAVE BEEN PASSED ON 20.09.2016. THE FINDINGS IN PARA 5 TO 9 (II) OF THE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 5. ON GROUND NOS. 3 TO 6, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,92,647/- IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS/TRADE CREDITORS. IN THIS CASE 6 SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT AND ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A/143(3) OF THE ACT WAS FRAMED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AND TO FURNISH CONFIRMED LEDGER ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED FRESH CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,92,647/- DURING THE YEAR. IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFIRMATION AND COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT, ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DECIDED SEVERAL APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH COMMON ORDER AND NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THIS GROUND IS COVERED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. IT IS, THEREFORE, NECESSARY TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO RS. 55,05,290/- WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE CONFIRMATIONS. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SUNDRY CREDITORS AS PER BALANCE SHEET DATED 31.03.2003 WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 55,05,290/-. 5(I) IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING AND TRADING, WOULD HAVE SUNDRY CREDITORS, DEPOSITORS IN NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. REGARDING NON FILING OF THE CONFIRMATION BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS PLEADED THAT TIME AVAILABLE WAS VERY SHORT FOR COMPLIANCE. IT WAS ARGUED THAT LEDGER ACCOUNT WAS ALREADY IN POSSESSION OF THE DEPARTMENT, CLEARLY REVEALED THE RECEIPT OF MATERIAL FROM THE SUPPLIERS DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE PURCHASE BILLS AND PAYMENTS ON THE DEBIT SIDE WHICH WAS EVIDENCED FROM THE BANK 7 STATEMENTS. THESE ARE RUNNING ACCOUNTS IN THE LEDGER. DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, YEAR-WISE LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR FINANCIAL YEARS 2002-03 TO 2008-09 INDICATING THE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF EACH YEAR WAS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. HOWEVER, ONLY SOME CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED AS IT WAS CONTENDED THAT PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION IS AS OLD AS 3-10 YEARS, SO OBTAINING CONFIRMATIONS WAS DIFFICULT. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THESE ARE RUNNING BALANCES WHICH HAVE BEEN SQUARED UP IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO NOTED THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL I.E. 2007-08, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF FRESH SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR NON FURNISHING OF CONFIRMATIONS/BILLS. 6. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN HIS FINDINGS OBSERVED THAT SOME OF THE CONFIRMATIONS FURNISHED NOW HAVE BEEN SOUGHT FOR ADMISSION AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE GROUND OF NON PROVIDING OF REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE DISPOSING OFF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 HAD ACCEPTED THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED IN RESPECT OF SIX FRESH CREDITORS AND IN RESPECT OF THOSE CASES NOT FILED, THE SAME HAVE BEEN ADDED BACK. IN RESPECT OF ANOTHER SIX CREDITORS, ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT NO PAN NUMBER WAS PROVIDED AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECTED THE CONFIRMATIONS. THE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS REJECTED SEPARATELY. 7. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.03.2003 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04 OF RS. 55,05,290/- HAD BEEN ADDED BACK. THE 8 LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT TO HIS MIND, SUCH ADDITION IS NOT TENABLE. TRADING RESULT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 HAS, OTHERWISE BEEN ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER SO IT DEFINES LOGIC TO ADD BACK THE ENTIRE BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT MANY OF THE PARTIES ARE HAVING RUNNING ACCOUNT FROM PRIOR TO 01.04.2002, THEREFORE, LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS UNABLE TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AS BY DOING SO, THE ENTIRE TRADING RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ABNORMAL. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WAS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 7(I) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), AS REGARDS ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL 2007-08 HELD THAT FRESH CREDIT ADDITIONS ARE IN ORDER AND ACCORDINGLY, SAME WAS CONFIRMED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL ARE TRADE CREDITORS AS PER REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE AND HAVE BEEN AUDITED. NO EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OR SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS BEEN FOUND. THE PURCHASES ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. CHART IS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK TO SHOW BALANCES YEAR AFTER YEAR DUE TO THE PARTIES. NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THAT SUCH BALANCES WERE NOT DUE OR ANY PURCHASES IN RESPECT OF SUCH PARTIES WERE BOGUS. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAD BEEN SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND ALL THE ACCOUNTS WERE WITH THE DEPARTMENT INCLUDING LEDGER ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, 9 THERE IS NO QUESTION OF NON PRODUCTION OF THE RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GIVE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE MATERIAL BEFORE HIM. 8(I) THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. ALL ARE RUNNING ACCOUNTS AND PURCHASES FROM THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AND OUTSTANDING AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN PAID IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE CHART OF SUNDRY TRADE CREDITORS FROM 31.03.2003 TO 31.03.2009 IN THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS FILED AT PAGE 4 TO 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE ASSESSEE HAS RUNNING ACCOUNTS OF THE TRADE CREDITORS AND PAID THE BALANCE AMOUNT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ON THE SAME REASONING AS ADOPTED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE ENTIRE ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELETED. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN GROUP CASES. 8(II) ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RELIED UPON DECISION OF THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF V.I.S.P. (P) LTD. VS CIT 265 ITR 202 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT IF LIABILITY SHOWN IN THE ACCOUNT IS FOUND BOGUS, THEN AMOUNT CAN BE ADDED TOWARDS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS A CASE OF SEARCH AND IT IS NOT INDICATED IF ANY MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT 10 ASSESSEE HAD BOGUS LIABILITY SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF MATERIAL. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT INCLUDING THE LEDGER ACCOUNT WERE ALREADY IN POSSESSION OF THE DEPARTMENT AND ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, ALL THE MATERIALS PURCHASED HAVE BEEN SUPPORTED BY PURCHASE BILLS AND PAYMENTS ARE EVIDENCED BY BANK STATEMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOWHERE MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS TO HOW MANY PARTIES WEE HAVING TRADE BALANCES FOR WHICH ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE AND EVEN NO SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF EACH PARTY HAS BEEN MENTIONED. THEREFORE, NO SPECIFIC FINDING OF FACT HAVE BEEN GIVEN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING THE ADDITION. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HELD IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE ISSUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL I.E. 2007- 08 IS COVERED BY HIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION BECAUSE ENTIRE SUNDRY CREDITORS OUTSTANDING ON END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR CANNOT BE ADDEDE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT THE TRADING RESULTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE, THERE IS NO LOGIC TO MAKE ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE BALANCE IN THIS ACCOUNT. 9(I) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO NOTED THAT MANY OF THE PARTIES ARE HAVING RUNNING ACCOUNTS FROM PRIOR TO 01.04.2002. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO HELD THAT IF ADDITION OF THIS NATURE IS CONFIRMED, THE TRADING RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ABNORMAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL FOR 11 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 HAD BEEN DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN GROUP CASES. WHEN ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY HIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY REASON TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL. THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AND ASSESSEE HAS RUNNING ACCOUNTS WITH THEM. ALL ENTRIES ARE SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH HAVE BEEN SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE CHART IN THE PAPER BOOK FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 TO 2008-09 TO SHOW THAT THESE ARE RUNNING ACCOUNTS WITH VARIOUS PARTIES SINCE LONG. ACCORDING TO LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, EVEN IN SOME OF THE CASES OF THE GROUP, WHO WERE TRADE CREDITORS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, ARE ASSESSED BY THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, FACTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN VERIFIED FROM THEIR RECORD AVAILABLE WITH THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL ALSO, TRADING RESULTS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, FOR BALANCE TRADING AMOUNT, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. THE PARTIES HAVE RUNNING ACCOUNTS WITH THE ASSESSEE AND IF SIMILAR ADDITION IS MADE, IT WOULD GIVE ENTIRE TRADING RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE, TO BE ABNORMAL. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THE ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DELETING THE ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT ADDITION IS LIMITED TO FRESH ADDITIONS ONLY. THIS REASON IS ALSO INCORRECT BECAUSE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATED THAT EVEN IF THERE 12 ARE SOME FRESH CREDITORS FROM THE SAME PARTIES APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THESE ARE RUNNING ACCOUNTS FROM THE EARLIER YEARS, THEREFORE, FOR DIFFERENCE OF THE AMOUNT ITSELF, NO SUCH ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. SINCE, NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE CHART NOW FILED HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, WHEN NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WOULD BE REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THIS ISSUE BY GIVING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 9(II) WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO RE- DECIDE THIS ISSUE BY FOLLOWING THE REASONS FOR DECISION GIVEN BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 (SUPRA) WHEREBY ADDITION ON IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVE BEEN DELETED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GIVE REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6(I) HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF THE ORD ER IS PLACED ON RECORD. LD. DR DID NOT DISPUTE THE SAME. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE FIND THAT ISSUE IS COVE RED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE GROUP CASES OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY M/S HEERA MOTI AGRO INDUSTRIES ETC. (SUPRA) IN WHICH TH E ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE SET ASIDE AND MATT ER 13 WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THIS ISSUE BY FOLLOWING THE REASONS FOR DECISION GIVEN BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2003-04 WHEREBY ADDITION ON IDENTICAL ISSUE HA VE BEEN DELETED. THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE S ET ASIDE AND ISSUE IS REMANDED TO A.O. THE A.O. IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO FOLLOW ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S HEERA MOTI AGRO INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) WHO SHALL RE-DECIDE THIS ISSUE ACCORDINGLY AS IS DIRECT ED IN THIS CASE. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA 745/2013 ( A.Y. 2007-08) M/S HIMLAND AGRO FOODS LTD., CHANDIGARH 8. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CENTRAL, GURGAON DATE D 26.03.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NOS. 1, 2, 4, 7 AND 8 AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THESE GROUNDS ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED AS NOT PRES SED. 9. ON GROUND NO.3, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 28,295/- UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF INCOME T AX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2,89,295/- BECAUSE TDS WAS NOT DEDUCTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE LD . 14 CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IN-FACT, THIS ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN OF RS. 28,295/- ONLY AS AGAINST RS . 2,89,295/- AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS FACT MAY BE VERI FIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATT ER, THE ADDITION IN PRINCIPLE IS CONFIRMED, HOWEVER, ASSESS ING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY WHETHER THIS ADDITION SHOULD BE OF RS. 2,89,295/- OR RS. 28,295/- AS IS SUBMITTE D BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSES. 10. ON GROUND NOS. 5 AND 6, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF SUNDRY CREDITORS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 18,42,115/- WHICH WERE TRADE CREDITORS AS PER REGUL AR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS IS CONSIDE RED AND DECIDED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 743/ 2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. IT IS, THEREFORE, COV ERED MATTER. THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE ACCORD INGLY SET ASIDE AND MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASS ESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO FOLLOW THE ORDER IN ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 (SUPRA) AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCORDING LY. THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA 746/2013 ( A.Y. 2008-09) M/S HIMLAND AGRO FOODS LTD., CHANDIGARH 15 12. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), CENTRAL, GURGAON DAT ED 26.03.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 13. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NOS. 1 TO 6 OF THE APPEAL AS WELL AS ADDITIO NAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THESE ARE, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISS ED AS NOT PRESSED. 14. ON GROUND NOS. 7 TO 10, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF SUNDRY CREDITORS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 8,61,208/- WHICH WERE TRADE CREDITORS AS PER REGULA R BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS IS CONSIDER ED AND DECIDED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 743/ 2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. IT IS, THEREFORE, COV ERED MATTER. THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE ACCORD INGLY SET ASIDE AND MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASS ESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO FOLLOW THE ORDER IN ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 (SUPRA) AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCORDING LY. THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14(I) IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA 747/2013 ( A.Y. 2009-10) M/S HIMLAND AGRO FOODS LTD., CHANDIGARH 15. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CENTRAL, GURGAON DATE D 16 26.03.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHALLENGE GROUND N OS. 1, 2 AND 4 AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE SAME ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. 16. ON GROUND NO. 3 ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 1,12,944/- IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED UNRECOR DED PURCHASES ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENT NO. 26 OF ANNEXU RE A-23 OF DELTA 7. THIS IS A BILL DATED 12.07.2008 R AISED BY M/S HEERA MOTI SPICES PRODUCT TO ASSESSEE COMPAN Y WHICH THE SPECIAL AUDITOR OBSERVED WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. DURING APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMIT TED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT BILL NO. 2936 DATED 12.07.2008 WAS STATED TO BE GOODS SENT BY SISTER CONCERN WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED DUE TO POOR QUALITY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SEARCH OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON 15.07.2008 JUST AFTER TWO DAYS OF THE BILL UNDER DISPUTE HENCE, WAS NOT RECORDED/ENTERED. IT WAS HIGHLIGHTED THAT TRADING ACCOUNT DRAWN UP AND CLOSI NG STOCK WORKED OUT DURING SEARCH DID NOT REFLECT ANY DISCREPANCY IN STOCK AND THE FATE OF THE MATERIAL L YING OUTSIDE WAS EXPLAINED DURING THE SEARCH AND NO ADVE RSE INFERENCE WAS DRAWN BY THE SEARCH PARTY. IT WAS AL SO ARGUED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROVED THAT A NY PAYMENT AGAINST THE PURCHASE HAD BEEN MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SO INVOKING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A OF THE ACT DOES NOT ARISE. 17 16(I) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT ACCEPT CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE NO SUBMISSION WAS MADE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT EVEN IF CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS NON- ACCEPTANCE OF THE GOODS IS ACCEPTABLE, THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE DIFFERENCE OF THE SAME AMOUNT SHOULD CONTINUE TO EXIST IN THE ACCOUNTS OF BOTH THE PARTI ES EVEN IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12. THE TRANSACTION IS BETWEEN SISTER CONCERNS. DETAILS OF THE GOODS AND REASONS FOR REJECTION HAVE NOT BEEN ELUCIDATED EITH ER. THIS GROUND WAS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 17. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BE FORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REFERRED TO PB-7 WHICH IS COP Y OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF M/S HEERA MOTI SPICES PRODUCT FROM FINANCIAL YEARS 2008-09 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SISTER CONCERN HAS SHOWN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,12,944/- I N THEIR BOOKS AS PER BILL NO. 2936 DATED 12.07.2008 W HICH WAS A CREDIT PURCHASE. PB-11 IS COPY OF THE ACCOUN TS OF THIS PARTY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE IN W HICH THIS AMOUNT HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN. HE HAS, THEREFORE , SUBMITTED THAT SINCE NO PAYMENT WAS MADE AND NO STO CK HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THIS BILL, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69 SHOULD BE M ADE. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 18 18. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE A RE OF THE VIEW ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT I S WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69A COULD BE MADE OF UNEXPLAINED INCOME WHICH IS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SOURCE OF THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. THE FACTS NOTED ABOVE CLE ARLY SHOW IT WAS A CREDIT PURCHASE WHICH ACCORDING TO SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BECAUSE IT WAS OF POOR QUALITY. ANY HOW, WHEN CREDIT PURCHASE IS ENTERED INTO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S HEERA MOTI SPI CES PRODUCT AND NO PAYMENT HAVE MADE BY ASSESSEE AND NO FURTHER INQUIRY HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED FROM THIS PARTY WHETHER ANY PAYMENT HAVE BEEN MADE BY ASSESSEE, TH E TRANSACTION REMAINED OF CREDIT PURCHASE WHICH IS AL SO CLEAR FROM THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE SELLER PARTY A S WELL AS ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PAYMENT PROVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A CASE OF UNEXPLAINED MONEY GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FURT HER EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT DURING T HE SEARCH, TRADING ACCOUNT WAS DRAWN UP AND CLOSING ST OCK WAS WORKED OUT IN WHICH NO DISCREPANCY WAS FOUND BY THE SEARCH PARTY AS WELL AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE W AS DRAWN. THESE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NO B EEN REBUTTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THEREFORE, NO ADD ITION UNDER SECTION 69A COULD BE MADE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET AS IDE 19 THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDI TION OF RS. 1,12,940/-. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 19. ON GROUND NOS. 5 TO 8, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF SUNDRY CREDITORS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 31,19,422/- WHICH WERE TRADE CREDITORS AS PER REGUL AR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS IS CONSIDER ED AND DECIDED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 743/ 2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. IT IS, THEREFORE, COV ERED MATTER. THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE ACCORD INGLY SET ASIDE AND MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASS ESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO FOLLOW THE ORDER IN ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 (SUPRA) AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCORDING LY. THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ITA 757/2013 ( A.Y. 2008-09) M/S HEERA MOTI AGRO PRODUCTS, CHANDIGARH 21. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CENTRAL, GURGAON DATE D 18.03.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 22. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NOS. 1, 2, 3 & 5 AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF 20 APPEAL. THESE ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. 23. ON GROUND NO. 4, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 4,60,000/- AS PER PAGE 22 OF ANNEXURE 5 OF S EIZED DOCUMENTS. IT IS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT CASH RECEIPT OF RS. 1,25,000/- FOR THE PERIOD APRIL,2007 TO JUNE,2007 WAS SEIZED WHICH IS MARKED AS A-5 PAGE 22 . THE PAYMENT IS SHOWN AT RS. 5,85,000/-. THE ASSESS EE PRODUCED SUMMARY OF THE RECEIPT AND EXTRACT OF CASH BOOK WHICH WAS FOUND INCORRECT AS THE FIGURE DID NO T MATCH WITH THE SEIZED PAPER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FURTHER CLARIFICATION, THE NEGATIVE CASH AMOUNT OF RS. 4,60,000/- WAS ADDED UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT WHICH IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RECEIPT AND PAYMENT. I N APPEAL, ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT DOCUMENT IS A ROUGH MEMORANDUM ABOUT EXPENSES INCURRED OR TO BE INCURRE D AGAINST CASH MAINTAINED BY MUNIM. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER ARGUED THAT RECEIPT SIDE CANNOT BE RECONCIL ED WITH THE REGULAR BOOKS AS BEING PART OF THE CASH IN HAND AS PER THE REGULAR BOOKS WHEREAS PAYMENTS ARE DULY VERIFIABLE BEING WAGES, BANK DEPOSITS, PAYMENT OF T AXES ETC. TO CLAIM THAT RECEIPT SIDE SHOULD NOT REPRESE NT UNACCOUNTED SALES. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT RECEIPT AND PAYMENT S WERE IRRECONCILABLE. THE ARGUMENT THAT PAYMENTS WE RE OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS, WERE NEVER PUT FORTH TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. MOREOVER, CLAIM IS WITHOUT 21 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IN ANY CASE, EVEN IF PAID, T HE SOURCE HAS TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND WAS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 24. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A DUMB DOCUMENT AND DID NOT LE AD TO ANYWHERE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE FIGURES WERE IN LACS. IN THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION, HE HAS SUBMI TTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NO. 5 , BUT ON GROUND NO. 5 THE IDENTICAL SEIZED PAPER WAS FOUND, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD IN WHICH T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE APPLIED GP RATE CONSIDERING IT TO BE SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, ADDITION MAY BE DELETED OR AT THE BEST, GP RATE MAY BE APPLIED. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORD ERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 25. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE SEIZ ED PAPER SHOWS CASH RECEIPT 2007-08 AND AGAINST HAP [I T IS CONSIDERED TO BE THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE M/S HEERA MOTI AGRO PRODUCT] IN THE RECEIPT COLUMN, THE FIGUR E IS MENTIONED AS 1.25. IN CASH PAYMENT, IT IS 5.85 AND DIFFERENCE IS SHOWN -4.60. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TH AT THIS DOCUMENT IS ROUGH MEMORANDUM ABOUT EXPENSES INCURRED OR TO BE INCURRED AGAINST CASH MAINTAINED BY THE MUNIM. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD IF 22 SAID FIGURES WERE IN LACS. HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GIRISH CHAUDHRY 163 TAXMAN 608 HELD, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE WERE NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW AS TO ON WHAT BASIS THE ASSESSING OF FICER REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT FIGURE 48 WAS TO BE R EAD AS RS. 48 LACS. THE DOCUMENT RECOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS A DUMB DOCUMENT. THUS, TRIBUNAL RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL. THE SAME FACTS ARE NOTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENT. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD AS TO HOW ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THESE FIGURES ARE IN LACS, IT APPEAR S THAT THE SEIZED PAPER IS DUMB DOCUMENT, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE OF THIS NATURE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GIRISH CHAUDHRY (SUPRA) A ND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, SET ASI DE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 26. ON GROUND NOS. 6 TO 9, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF SUNDRY CREDITORS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 8,45,334/- WHICH WERE TRADE CREDITORS AS PER REGULA R BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS IS CONSIDER ED AND DECIDED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE M/S HIMLAND AGR O 23 FOOD LTD. IN ITA NO. 743/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 (SUPRA). IT IS, THEREFORE, COVERED MATTER. THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE ACCORDINGLY SET ASI DE AND MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO FOLLOW THE ORDER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 05-06 (SUPRA) AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY. THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 27. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA 758/2013 ( A.Y. 2009-10) M/S HEERA MOTI AGRO PRODUCTS, BADDI (SOLAN) 28. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CENTRAL, GURGAON DATE D 18.03.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 29. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. THESE GROUNDS ARE, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED AS BEING NOT PRESSED. 30. ON GROUND NOS. 5 TO 8, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF SUNDRY CREDITORS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 10,23,835/- WHICH WERE TRADE CREDITORS AS PER REGLA R BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS IS CONSIDER ED AND DECIDED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE M/S HIMLAND AGR O FOOD LTD. IN ITA NO. 743/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 24 2005-06 (SUPRA). IT IS, THEREFORE, COVERED MATTER. THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE ACCORDINGLY SET ASI DE AND MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO FOLLOW THE ORDER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 05-06 (SUPRA) AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY. THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 31. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA 751/2013 & ITA/752/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10) M/S HEERA MOTI HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS LTD. CHANDIGARH 32. BOTH THE APPEALS BY THE SAME ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEAL S) CENTRAL, GURGAON DATED 18.03.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. 33. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHALLENGE GROUND NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4 A ND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. SAME ARE, ACCORDINGL Y, DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 34. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NOS. 1, 2 AND 6 OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL ALONGWITH ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. SAME ARE DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. 35. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, ASSESSEE ON GROUND NOS. 5 TO 8 CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF SUNDRY CREDI TORS 25 TO THE TUNE OF RS. 18,94,770/- WHICH WERE TRADE CREDITORS AS PER REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, ASSESSEE SIMILARLY RAISED GROUND NOS. 3 TO 5 CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF SUND RY CREDITORS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 17,97,134/- WHICH WERE TRADE CREDITORS AS PER REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. TH IS ISSUE IS SAME AS IS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN THE C ASE OF ASSESSEE M/S HIMLAND AGRO FOOD LTD. IN ITA NO. 743/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 (SUPRA). IT IS , THEREFORE, COVERED MATTER. THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITI ES BELOW ARE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE AND MATTER IS RESTO RED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO FOL LOW THE ORDER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 (SUPRA) AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY. THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 36. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ITA 569/2013 ( A.Y. 2008-09) M/S HEERA MOTI SPICES P. LTD.,CHANDIGARH 37. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CENTRAL, GURGAON DATE D 15.03.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 38. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NOS. 1, 2 AND 6. SAME ARE DISMISSED BEING N OT PRESSED. 26 39. ON GROUND NO. 3, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN APPLYING GP RATE OF 2.5% TO THE GROSS PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT REJECTING B OOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SECTION 145(3) BY APPLYING GP RATE AT 23.22% AS AGAINST GP SHOWN OF 20.13%. IT TRANSPIRE D THAT ASSESSEE HAD AGREED FOR ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,0 00/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GP IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. S O TAKING THE GP RATE OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AS TH E BASE, GP FOR SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE INCREASED BY 5.86%. DURING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIO N 153A, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO OBSERVATION OF SPECIAL AUDITORS THAT NO QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF ST OCK WAS PROVIDED NOR THE STOCK REGISTERS AND OTHER RELA TED REGISTERS DURING AUDIT, DEDUCED THAT THE GP RATIO DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SEEM TO BE JUSTIFI ED AND SO THE PROFITS DECLARED ON THE BASIS OF BOOKS O F ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. A CHART SHOWING RAT IO OF GP IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IS REPRODUCED IN T HE IMPUGNED ORDER TO SHOW THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDE R APPEAL, THE GP RATE WAS 15.75% AS AGAINST 16.58% OF PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE NOTED THAT GP HAS DROPPED BY ALM OST 3% FROM 2003-04 ONWARDS, THEREAFTER GP DECLARED IS QUITE CONSISTENT FLUCTUATING FROM 17.3% TO 15.01%. THE NP RATIO, HOWEVER, HAS BEEN INCONSISTENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE THAT APPLICATION OF GP RATE O F ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IS WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL ON 27 RECORD AND WITHOUT HAVING REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO ARGUE D THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MANUFACTURING CONCERN AND MANY FACT ORS AFFECT THE GP RATIO EVERY YEAR. IT WAS ALSO HIGHLI GHTED THAT THE SEARCH PARTY HAD TAKEN OUT THE INVENTORY O F THE STOCK WHICH WAS COMPARED WITH THE TRADING ACCOUNT DRAWN ON THE DATE OF SEARCH BUT NO DISCREPANCY HAS BEEN FOUND. LASTLY, IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE AG REED ADDITION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 COULD NOT BE U SED FOR BASIS OF MAKING ADDITIONS IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 40. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERING SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE NOTED THAT THE GP ADDITION IN ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2003-04 HAS BEEN USED AS A BASE FOR MAKING THE ADDITION. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF T HE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO COMPUTE T HE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT Y EAR BY CONSIDERING BOTH THE DISCLOSED AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME. SO, WHAT IS PERTINENT HERE IS THE OBSERVATI ON OF THE SPECIAL AUDITOR THAT NO STOCK REGISTER/VALUATIO N DETAILS OF STOCK HAVE BEEN PROVIDED DURING THE AUDI T. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT NO QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF STO CK HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF MASALAS SO THE MAINTENANCE OF QUANTITATI VE DETAIL MAY NOT BE FEASIBLE. HOWEVER, DURING THE SP ECIAL AUDIT AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS DUTY BOUND TO PRODUCE DETAILS SO CALLED BY THE 28 AUTHORITIES BELOW. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE METHOD O F WORKING OUT GP BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, RESTRICTED GP ADDITION FROM 5.86% TO 2.5% AND DIREC TED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 41. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT NO SPECIFIC DEFECTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN MAINTENAN CE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. NO QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF S TOCK WERE PROVIDED. THE SPECIAL AUDITOR DID NOT POINT O UT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE HAS RELIED UPON DECISION OF HON'BLE DE LHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS JACKSONS HOUSE 39 DTR 212 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS COULD NOT BE REJECTED BY INVOKING S. 145(3) WHEN THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DEFECT POINTED OUT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING A REGU LAR METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND STOCK REGISTER WAS ALSO MAINTAINED T HOUGH NOT IN THE FORM EXPECTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER 41(I) ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SPEC IAL AUDIT HAD BEEN DONE BECAUSE CORRECT PROFIT COULD NO T BE DEDUCED FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED. 29 42. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION BY APPLYI NG HIGHER GP OF 2.5%. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN MAINTENANCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY T HE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE SPECIAL AUDITOR HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN MAINTENANCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION IS MADE BY FOLLOWING THE AGREED ADDITION FOR PRECEDING ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2003-04 WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION. EACH YEAR IS SEPARATE YEAR AND MERELY BECAUSE ASSESSEE AGREED FO R ADDITION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, IS NO BASIS TO MAKE THE ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ENHANCING THE GP IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. SINCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED, THEREFORE, TRA DING RESULTS CANNOT BE DISTURBED BY ENHANCING THE GP. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPARED GP OF ASSES SEE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORED THE FACT THAT IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, GP RATIO OF THE ASSESSEE WAS 16.58% AND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, GP IS 15.74% AND THERE IS NO PEAK DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GP. FURTHER, IN PRECEDI NG ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, NP RATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 1.36% AND NP RATE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL 2008-09 IS 2.36% WHICH IS HIGHER AS COMPARED TO THE EARLIER YEAR. THEREFORE, ON THESE BASIS ITSELF, ADDITION IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. THE LD. 30 CIT(APPEALS) IN HIS FINDINGS ADMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF MASALA S SO MAINTENANCE OF QUANTITY DETAILS MAY NOT BE FEASI BLE. THEREFORE, THERE WAS JUSTIFICATION FOR NOT PROVIDIN G QUANTITATIVE DETAILS/STSOCK. 42(I) THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT ASSESSEE IS MANUFACTURING CONCERN AND MANY FACTORS AFFECT GP RATIO EVERY YEAR. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED THROUGH ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT SEARCH PARTY HAD TAKEN OUT INVENTORY OF THE STOCK WHICH WAS COMPARED WITH THE TRADING ACCOUNT DRAWN AS ON THE DATE OF SE ARCH BUT NO DISCREPANCY HAD BEEN FOUND. THEE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE ABOV E DISCUSSION AND THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW ADDITION IS UNJUSTIFIED BY ENHAN CING GP RATE BY 2.5%. THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW A RE, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ADDITION IS DELETED ON A CCOUNT OF APPLYING ENHANCED GP OF 2.5%. THIS GROUND OF APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 43. ON GROUND NO. 4, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 4,96,000/-. IT IS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORD ER THAT AS PER SEIZED PAPER, THE CASH RECEIPTS OF RS. 3,96,000/- FOR THE PERIOD APRIL,2007 TO JUNE,2007 W AS 31 SEIZED WHICH IS MARKED AS A-5 PAGE 22. PAYMENT IS SHOWN AT RS. 8.90 LACS. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE SUMMARY OF RECEIPT AND EXTRACT OF CASH BOOK WHICH W AS FUND INCORRECT AS THE FIGURE DID NOT MATCH WITH THE SEIZED PAPER. IN THE ABSENCE OF FURTHER CLARIFICAT ION, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,96,000/- WAS ADDED UNDER SECTION 69 C OF THE ACT WHICH IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RECEIPT AND THE PAYMENT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT DOCUMENT IS ROUGH MEMORANDUM ABOUT EXPENSES INCURRED OR TO BE INCURRED AGAINST C ASH MAINTAINED BY MUNIM. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REC EIPT SIDE CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS BEING PART OF THE CASH IN HAND AS PER RE GULAR BOOKS WHEREAS PAYMENTS ARE DULY VERIFIABLE BEING WA GES, BANK DEPOSITS, PAYMENT OF TAXES ETC. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 44. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW ADDITION IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED DETAILS FROM THE SEIZED PAPER IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH SHOWS, RECEIPTS 3.96 AND PAYMENTS 8.90 IT IS SUBMITTED BY BOTH THE PARTIE S THAT THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ON GROUND NO. 4 IN THE CASE OF M/S HEERA MOTI AGRO PRODUCTS IN ITA 757/2013. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDE R IN THE CASE OF M/S HEERA MOTI AGRO PRODUCTS (SUPRA) ON WHICH IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE, WE, FOLLOWING THE REASONS FOR DECISION FO R THE 32 SAME CASE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELO W AND DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 45. ON GROUND NO. 5, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 25,12,955/- AND RS. 29,31,819/-. IT IS NOTE D IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THESE ADDITIONS COMPRISE OF TWO PARTS GENERATED FROM DELTA 4 ACCOUNTING SOFTWARE MARKET, PAGE 134 OF A-2 FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2007 T O 30.11.2007. THE SECOND PART IS PAGE 119 OF A-5 OF DELTA 3 FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2007 TO 31.03.2008. THE DOCUMENT CREATED IS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DEPICTING MONEY TRANSACTION JAMA AND NAAM. THE CONTENTS OF THESE TWO DOCUMENTS HAVE B EEN NARRATED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY REPRODUCING THE SAME. THE DATES MENTIONED ARE DIFFERENT SO THERE I S NO QUESTION OF OVER-LAPPING OF THE ENTRIES. THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE, ON BEING ASKED TO GIVE COMPLETE DE TAILS AS WELL AS RECONCILED BOOKS WAS THAT THESE DOCUMENT S DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. INVOKING SECTION 2 92C OF THE ACT, THE SUM OF RS. 53,13,977/- WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 46. IN APPEAL, THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS AG AIN THAT THE PAPERS DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE AND WERE NOT TYPED AT ITS INSTRUCTION. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUE D THAT ASSESSEE'S NAME IS WRITTEN AT THE TOP OF THE DOCUME NT, IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF SPIC ES, 33 COULD NOT HAVE ANY LINK WITH SUCH NAME APPEARING ON THE PAPERS LIKE APSARA SAREES, MANISH KAPUR, MODI NAGAR, CARD WALA, KHARCHAA, MANISH DALAAL ETC. NO SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN AFFIXED AND NEIT HER WAS THE ASSESSEE EVEN CONFRONTED WITH THE SAME DURI NG SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. ANOTHER ARGUMENT WAS THAT AT T HE BEST, AN ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS COULD BE MADE IF TH E DOCUMENT IS READ AS A WHOLE. THE PAYABLE OF RS. 20,12,955/- WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED WHICH, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE ADDED BACK INCLUDING THE ALLEGED INTER EST. AS REGARDS SECOND PAPER, IT WAS STATED THAT ONLY RS . 10 LACS AS JAMA COULD BE ADDED AS RS. 19,13,819/- WA S MENTIONED AS PAYABLE. SIMILARLY, INTEREST COULD NO T BE ADDED. 47. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTED THAT THE ACCOU NT SHOW JAMA WITH BAYAZ DAYS OF RS. 5 LACS AGAINS T WHICH NAAM HAS BEEN SHOWN. BY LENA BAAKI HAI I T IS OBVIOUS THAT SOME PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND BALANCE IS DUE. INTEREST HAS ALSO BEEN WORKED MAN- DAY- WISE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE AMOUNT WHICH HAVE BEEN RECEIVED OF RS. 25,12,955/- AND RS. 29,31,819/- RESPECTIVELY. THE INTEREST IS INTEGRAL PART OF ENTIRE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO REBU T THESE DOCUMENTS THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER WHO MADE THE ADDITION CORRECTLY. THIS GROUND WAS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 34 48. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATE D THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT CONTAIN NAME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON TOP, MEANING THEREBY IT IS SENT BY SOMEBODY ELSE I.E. THIRD PARTY. THE DOCUMENT IS NO T SIGNED BY ASSESSEE AND IT DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASS ESSEE. THE DOCUMENT CONTAINED PAYABLE ONLY. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST, AT THE BEST GP ADD ITION CAN BE MADE. NO INVESTMENT IS PROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 49. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. BOTH THE SEIZED PAPERS ARE FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. BOTH THE SEIZED PAPERS CONTAIN NAME OF T HE ASSESSEE ON THE TOP. THE SEIZED PAPERS CONTAIN THE DETAILS OF AMOUNT JAMA AND AMOUNT NAAM. SINCE THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF T HE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE PRESUMED THAT THESE SEIZED PAPERS BELONG TO T HE ASSESSEE AND THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME ARE TRUE AND CORRECT THEREFORE, AUTHORITIES BELOW RIGHTLY APPLIE D PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292C OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE CON TENTS OF THE SEIZED PAPERS. HOWEVER, IT IS A FACT THAT A S AGAINST FIRST SEIZED PAPER, AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LACS HA VE BEEN SHOWN AS JAMA AND AGAINST NAAM PAYABLE 35 AMOUNT OF RS. 20,12,955/- HAS BEEN SHOWN. THE INTEREST IS ALSO NOTED IN THE SECOND SEIZED PAPER. AS AGAINST AMOUNT JAMA IN SECOND PAPER, AMOUNT OF RS . 10 LACS HAVE BEEN SHOWN AND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 19,31,819/- HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS AMOUNT NAAM I.E. PAYABLE AND INTEREST. SINCE NO AMOUNT IS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, PAYABLE AMOUNT COULD NOT BE AD DED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THERE IS NO EVIDENC E FOUND OF ANY INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREF ORE, THESE ADDITIONS WOULD BE WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. HOWEV ER, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LACS AND RS. 10 LACS HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS AMOUNT JAMA IN BOTH SEIZED PAPER MEANING THEREBY ASSESSEE PAID THIS AMOUNT TO THE CONCERN PA RTLY WHO HAVE PREPARED THE SEIZED PAPER. SINCE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SEIZED PAPER WHICH WERE FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THEREFO RE, JAMA AMOUNT SHALL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO A THIRD PARTY. THEREFORE, ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 15 LACS (5+10) SHALL HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW GP RATE SHOULD BE APPLIED ON THESE TRANSACTIONS . AS AGAINST THE AMOUNT NOTED AGAINST NAAM I.E. PAY ABLE AND INTEREST, NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE PAYABLE ITSELF SHOWS THAT N O AMOUNT HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE NARRATION NAAM. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING TOTALITY OF THE 36 FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS CLEAR THAT BOTH THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 25,12,955/- AND RS. 29,31,819/- CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. AS AGAINST BOTH THESE ADDITIO NS, WE RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO RS. 15 LCS ONLY. 50. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE IS ALLOWED PARTLY. 51. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED, AS INDICATED ABOVE. ITA 570/2013 ( A.Y. 2009-10) M/S HEERA MOTI SPICES P. LTD.,CHANDIGARH 52. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) CENTRAL, GURGAON DATE D 15.03.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 53. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. SAME ARE DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. 54. ON GROUND NO. 3 ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN APPLYING GP RATE OF 2.5% TO THE GP DECLARED BY ASSESSEE WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN ITA 569 OF 2013. FOLLOW ING THE REASONS FOR DECISION IN THAT APPEAL, WE SET ASI DE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ENTIRE 37 ADDITION. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 55. ON GROUND NO. 4, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 32,94,380/-. THIS ISSUE IS SIMILAR TO THE M ONEY TRANSACTION JAMA AND NAAM AS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WHICH HAVE BEEN GENERATED FROM ACCOUNTING SOFTWARE DELTA-3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED T HAT THERE WERE INTEREST CALCULATIONS ON THE BASIS OF NU MBER OF DATES AND IN TOTALITY, THE BALANCE FROM THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND TO BE RS. 32,94,380/- WHICH HA VE BEEN ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2008-09, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 56. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON GROUND NO. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPRODUCED THE SEIZED PAPER I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE FIRST SEIZED PAPER, NOTED IN PARA 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSING OFFICER H AS MENTIONED JAMA AMOUNT OF RS. 22,75,336/- AND AGAI NST NAAM RS. 32,58,279/-. THE BALANCE AMOUNT (LENA BAAKI NAAM) IS RS. 9,82,943/-. THE INTEREST IS A LSO MENTIONED AT RS. 16,657/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, MADE ADDITION OF RS. 3,81,779/- ON THIS IS SUE BY FOLLOWING SECTION 292C OF THE ACT. ANOTHER PAPE R 38 SEIZED IS REFERRED TO IN PARA 8.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH JAMA AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 34,200 /- AND AGAINST NAAM AT OF RS. 28,77,197/- HAS BEEN SHOWN. THE BALANCE (LENA BAAKI) IS MENTIONED AT RS . 28,42,997/-, INTEREST IS ALSO SHOWN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLOWING SECTION 292C OF THE ACT, MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 28,77,197/-. LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS HA VE BEEN CONSIDERED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED AN AMOUNT O F RS. 19,45,700/- IS SAME AMOUNT CONSIDERED IN A.Y. 2008-09 IN PARA 10.1 OF ORDER, THEREFORE, IT IS DUP LICATE AMOUNT. THE CONTENTION OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE IS CORRECT IN THIS REGARD. HOWEVER, FOLLOWING THE REASONS FOR DECISION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WE RESTRI CT THE ADDITION AS REGARDS FIRST SEIZED PAPER, TO RS. 3,81,779/- AS IS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECA USE IT CANNOT BE ENHANCED FURTHER. AS REGARDS THE SECO ND SEIZED PAPER IS CONCERNED, JAMA AMOUNT IS ONLY RS . 34,200/- THEREFORE, AS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS. 28,77,197/-, THE ADDITION IS RESTRICTED TO RS. 34,2 00/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PASS THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND IS, THEREFORE, PARTLY ALL OWED BY FOLLOWING REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 57. ON GROUND NOS. 5 TO 8, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,96,998/-. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ON 39 ACCOUNT OF FRESH CREDITOR CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS IS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN THE C ASE OF ASSESSEE M/S HIMLAND AGRO FOODS LTD. VS DCIT, CHANDIGARH IN ITA NO. 743/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. IT IS, THEREFORE, COVERED MATTER. THE OR DERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE AND MAT TER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRE CTION TO FOLLOW THE ORDER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 (SUPRA) AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY. THESE GROUNDS ARE AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 58. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 59. IN THE RESULT, ALL APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SAIN I) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17 TH JANUARY,2017. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD