PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CC-33, MUMBAI

ITA 7964/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75357 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A C TEJPAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K K LALKAKA; AMARJIT SINGH GUJRAL
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Charitable institution; Additional evidence; Retraction
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 153A; 234B; 80G; 12A; 131; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO.7963/M/2010 (AY: 2006 - 2007) ./I.T.A. NO.7964/M/2010 (AY: 2007 - 2008) PUNJAB SIND DAIRY PRODUCTS P. LTD., AG - 2, CAMA INDL. ESTATE, WALBHAT ROAD, GOREGOAN (E), MUMBAI 400 063. / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC - 33, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. ./ PAN : AADCP 5419 Q ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.K. LAL KAKA & MR. AMARJIT SINGH GUJRAL / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.C. TEJPAL, CIT - DR / DATE OF HEARING : 7.1.2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 .1.2014 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THERE ARE TWO APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) - 41, MUMBAI DATED 17.9.2010 FOR THE AYS 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08. SINCE, THE ISSUES RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD COMBINEDLY AND DISPOSED OF IN THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. SINCE, THE GROUND S RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS IN FIGURES, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.7963/M/2010 (AY 2006 - 2007) ARE TAKEN FOR ADJUDICATION WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD AO HAS ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WITHOUT ISSUE OF A PROPER WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION WHICH IS CONDITION PRECEDENT BEFORE INITIATING SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN T HE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT ASSESSMENT AS CONTEMPLATED U/S 153A IS NOT A DE NOVO ASSESSMENT AND 2 ADDITIONS MADE THEREIN HAS TO BE NECESSARILY RESTRICTED TO UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNEARTHED DURING SEARCH. 3. ON THE FACTS A ND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT, ALTHOUGH NO DEFECTS WERE DISCOVERED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 12,15,244/ - AS ESTIMATED UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON IRRELEVANT AND INCONSEQUENTIAL. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN CASE, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80G OF RS . 28,500/ - . 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE INTEREST CHARGES U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT ARE INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF PANE AND TRADING IN MILK AND OTHER PRODUCTS. ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ORIGINALLY U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THERE WAS A SEARCH / SURVEY ACTION ON 8.5.2007 ON THE RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE DIRECTORS / RELATED PERSONS OF THE ASSESSEE ( M/S. PUNJAB SINDH PANEER GROUP OF COMPANIES). AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT ON 7.9.2009. IN RESPONSE, ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,68,030/ - , WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED DOWNWARDS IN VIEW OF CERTAIN MISTAKES IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITH AN EXCEPTION OF PRODUCTION RELATED RECORDS. THE GROSS PROFIT (GP) OF THE BUSINESS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS YEAR IS 20.45% AS AGAINST THE LAST YEARS GP OF 20.58%. THE ONLY ISSUE THAT AROSE DURING THE SEARCH ACTION RELATES TO THE REASONABILITY OF QUANTITIES OF SALE OF MILK IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITHOUT HAVING PROPER SUPPORT OF EVIDENCES. STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT. THERE WAS A SURVEY ACTION ON ALL THE OUTLETS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE ENGAGED IN THE SALE, ESSENTIALLY IN THE SALE OF DAIRY PRODUCTS. THE MILK SALE WAS THE SUBJEC T MATTER OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT MILK WAS SOLD WITH A LESSER GP AND THE STATEMENTS, WHICH ARE SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED GIVEN BY THE EMPLOYEES, ARE NOT RELIABLE CONSIDERING THE SERVEY AND SEARCH ACTION, WHICH DID NOT FIND ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO THAT THERE IS NO SALE OF MILK AT ALL BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES FAILURE TO FILE THE PRODUCTION REGISTERS EVIDENCING THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITH REGAR D TO THE QUANTITY OF FINISHED PRODUCTS OF DAIRY PROCESSED MILK AND DAIRY PRODUCTS. AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS US 145(3) OF THE ACT AND PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE THE 3 INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSING OFFICER COMPARED THE GP OF THE MILK SALES WITH THAT O F THE DAIRY PRODUCTS. IT IS THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO THAT THE MILK ALLEGEDLY SOLD WAS ACTUALLY USED IN MAKING OF THE PANEER AND OTHER PRODUCTS AND REFLECTED THE SAME AS DIRECT MILK SALES FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE OVERALL GP MARGINS. HE ACCORDINGLY ESTIMATED AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 14,13,628/ - I.E., @ 27% OF THE RS. 52,35,661/ - . CONTENTS OF PARA 8.1 AND 8.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE RELEVANT HERE AND THE SAME READ AS UNDER: 4 8.2. THUS, THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS COMPUTED AT RS. 14 ,13,628/ - (27% OF RS. 52,35,661/ - ). THIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS BEING ADDED TO THE ASSESSEES DISCLOSED INCOME IN ITS PROFIT ANDLOSS ACCOUNT AND THE TAX LIABILITY IS DETERMINED ACCORDINGLY. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) IS ALSO INITIATED IN THIS REGAR D. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE AO, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). ASSESSEE RAISED THE LEGAL ISSUE OF MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO A CASE OF SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT AND NOT SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT. MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CIT (A) ADJUDICATED THE ABOVE LEGAL ISSUE AS PER THE DISCUSSION GIVEN IN PARA 3.1 TO 3.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. AS PE R THE CIT (A), CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SURVEY AND SEARCH ACTION WAS CONDUCTED SIMULTANEOUSLY ON THE SAME DAY AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE WARRANT BEARS THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEES PREMISES, HE UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A O F THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RAISE THE LEGAL ISSUE RELATING TO THE INVOKING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. BEFORE THE CIT (A), ASSESSEE MADE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MENTIONI NG THAT THE ASS ESSEE PURCHASED 8,03,980 LITERS OF MILK OF WHICH 2,35,680 LITERS WERE SOLD DIRECTLY AND THE BALANCE OF 5,68,300 LITERS WERE USED FOR DAIRY / MILK PRODUCTS. ASSESSEE, THOUGH NOT MAINTAINED PRODUCTION REGISTER, HAS MAINTAINED SOME LOOSE SHEETS IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRADING OF MILK WAS A CONTINUOUS BUSINESS ACTIVITY OVER THE YEARS, WHICH WAS NOT DISTURBED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PAST. TRADING OF MILK IS NORMALLY DONE IN THE WEE HOURS OF THE DAY AND NO MILK WILL NOT BE FOUND, WHEN T HE SEARCH / SURVEY PARTIES VISIT THE PREMISES AFTER 10 AM. THESE ARE THE PERISHABLE GOODS AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCUSED OF THE NON - TRADING OF THE MILK. CIT (A) CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS CONSIDERING THE ABSENCE OF RELEVANT MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SALE OF MILK. PARA 2.4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. CIT (A) RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AVDESH PRATAP SINGH ABVDUL REHMAN VS . CIT 76 TAXMAN 106 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT ABSENCE OF STOCK REGISTERS, CASH MEMOS , VOUCHERS ETC., ARE RELEVANT FACTORS AND THE AUTHORITIES WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD (188 ITR 5 44). FINALLY, ON THE QUANTUM, THE CIT (A) DISCUSSED THE ESTIMATION OF GP AND FIND THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE CALCULATIONS MADE BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, HE GRANTED PART RELIE F TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATIONS @ 23.23%. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION IS RESTRICTED TO RS. 12,16,244/ - . RELEVANT DISCUSSION IS GIVEN IN PARA 2.9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS AS UNDER: 2.9. THE SECOND ISSUE REGARDING THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS. TO COMPUTE THE PROFIT, THE AO HAS ADOPTED THE DIFFERENCE OF GP BETWEEN THE MILK SALE AND SALE OF REMAINING ITEMS GP AND COMPUTED THE GP @ 27%. IN THE AY 2006 - 2007, THERE IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN THE LAST PAGE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE HE HAS WRITTEN 25.12% - 1.89% = 27%. IT IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE AND ACTUAL FIGURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN 23.23% BY APPLYING THIS RATION TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 52,35,661/ - THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WILL BE WORKED OUT AT RS. 12,16,244/ - IN PLACE OF RS. 14,13,628/ - COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT THE REQUIRED DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND EVEN BEFORE ME DURING THE APPEL LATE PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY ESTIMATED THE INCOME BY ADOPTING THE METHOD OF DIFFERENCE OF GROSS PROFIT BETWEEN MILK SALE AND GROSS PROFIT OF OTHER MILK PRODUCTS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITI ON MADE OF RS. 14,13,628/ - IS RESTRICTED TO RS. 12,15,244/ - AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,97,384/ - WHICH IS APPARENTLY WRONGLY CALCULATED IS DELETED. GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A) ON THE VALIDIT Y OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE ACT AND INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND ALSO PART CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITIONS AMOUNTING TO RS. 12,16,244/ - , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 2007. 7. D URING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE LETTER WITH A REQUEST FOR ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH CONTAINS THE AUDIT REPORTS FURNISHED TO THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES UNDER VAT PROVISIO NS. AFTER HEARING THE REVENUES OBJECTIONS, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THE SAID REQUEST. ACCORDINGLY, WE REJECT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMITTANCE OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. FURTHER, REFERRING TO THE GROUNDS, LD COUNSEL MENTIONE D THAT THE GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF THE WARRANT AND MENTIONED THAT THE WARRANT IS NOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, HE MENTIONED THA T THE WARRANT IS NOT SHOWN TO THE RESPONSIBLE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE EXECUTING THE SEARCH ACTION ON THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ARGUED THAT THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE EMPLOYEES IS NOT LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE. FURTHER, BRINGING OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPIES OF THE PANCHNAMA AND 6 INVENTORIES AND MENTIONED THAT THE ACT ION WAS DONE U/S 133 OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S 132 OF THE ACT. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, ON THE LEGAL ISSUE, LD DR BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE SEARCH WARRANT TO DEMONSTRATE D THAT THE FACT THAT THOUGH WARRANT BEARS THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHOWN THE EMPLOYEE, PRESENT AT THE PREMISES IS ADEQUATE. T HE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED U/S 132 R.W.S. 133A OF THE ACT. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS LEGAL ISSUE AND FIND THE W ARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION IS AN ORDER . T HE PREMISES AUTHORIZED IN THE WARRANT FOR SEARCH U/S 132 INCLUDES MR. JASWINDER SINGH BAJAJ; MR. SWARANJIT SIJIT SINGH BAJAJ AND PUNJAB SINDH DAIRY PRODUCTS PVT LTD (THE ASSESSEE HERE). THEREFORE, IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SATE THAT WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION IS NOT FAULT AND FAULTILY EXECUTE D. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT MERE FAILURE OF THE DEPARTMENT TO GET THE SIGNATURE OF THE DIRECTORS ON THE WARRANT DOES NOT VITIATE PROCEEDINGS AND MAKE THE SEARCH INVALID AND THEREFORE, ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT. WARRANT IS PROPERLY EXECUTED T OO. CONSIDERING THE FACT THE W ARRANT IS PROPERLY AUTHORIZED AND THE ACTIVITIES ARE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCESS OF LAW, WE FIND NO MISTAKE IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A) WHICH ARE GIVEN IN PARA 2.9, EXTRACTED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 AND 2 RELATING TO THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED . 10. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO INVOKING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL ARGUED THAT MERE FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE PRODUCTION REGISTERS DOES NOT INVITE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT PRODUCTION DETAILS ARE MAINTAINED ON CERTAIN LOOSE SHEETS WHICH WOULD FORM AS A BASIS FOR ACCOUNTING THE ISSUANCE AND CONSUMPTION OF THE RAW MATERIAL , MILK, SUGAR ETC. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR IS CRITICAL OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2, CLAUSE - 12A OF THE ACT. LOOSE SHEETS SHOULD NOT CONSTITUTE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS UNDER THE SAID CLAUSE 12A OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN OTHER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE WRITTEN FORM OR AS PRINT - OUTS OF DATA STORED IN A FLOPPY, DISC, TAPE OR ANY OTHER FORM OF ELECTRO - MAGNETIC DATA STORAGE DEVICE ALONG WITH THE 7 LEDGER TILL THE CASH BOOKS , ACCOUNT BOOKS AND OTHER BOOKS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. ADMITTEDLY, THIS IS THE CASE WHERE THE BOOKS PERTAININ G TO THE PRODUCTION, ISSUANCE, CONSUMPTION ARE NOT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE IS FAIR AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.3 IS DISMISSED . 13. GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO MERITS OF ADDITION OF RS. 12,15,244/ - CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) AS PER THE ESTIMATIONS DISCUSSED ABOVE. WE HAVE ALREADY EXTRACTED THE FINDING OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT (A) IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER. SO FAR AS , WE HAVE NOT ONLY UPHELD THE VALID ITY OF THE SEARCH ASSESSMENT BUT ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACT OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ONCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE REJECTED UNDER TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT, BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT BECOMES A FOLLOW UP ACTIVI TY OF THE AO. IN THIS CASE, AO HAS MADE CERTAIN ERRORS WHILE MAKING ADDITIONS WHICH ARE SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED BY THE CIT (A) , DETERMINING THE GP AT 23.23%. 14. THIS IS A CASE WHERE ALLEGATION OF USE OF MILK FOR DAIRY PRODUCTS WAS NOT S UBSTANTIATED, BY THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO SALE OF MILK AS EVIDENCED BY WAY OF FILING BILLS. THE AO / CIT (A) HAVE CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF THE SALE OF MILK TO THE TUNE OF 12,15,244/ - . THUS, THE SAID ASSESSEES FAILURE CLUBBED WITH THE STATEMENTS OF THE EMPLOYEES GIVEN ON OATH BECAME RELEVANT. THE ARGUMENTS RELATING TO THE RETRACTION OF THE SAID STATEMENTS BY THE EMPLOYEES ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE RETRACTION WAS DONE IN UNDATED LETTERS WITHOUT GIVING SUSTAINABL E REASONS FOR SUCH RETRACTION. THEREFORE, IN PRINCIPLE, THE ALLEGATION OF THE REVENUE ON UTILIZATION OF MILK FOR MAKING OF THE MILK PRODUCTS BY THE ASSESSEE IS SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SUST ENANCE OF ADDITION OF 12,15,244/ - BY THE CIT (A) DOES NOT CA LL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. THE ALLEGATION THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE MADE WITHOUT ANY HELP OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS NOT SUSTAINABLE CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MULTIPLE STATEMENTS OF THE EMPLOYEES TOGETHER WITH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES OF NO SUPPORT ING REGISTERS SHOWING THE CONSUMPTION DETAILS OF MILK CONSTITUTES INCRIMINATING INFORMATION PERTAINING TO 8 THE BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE IN GENERAL AND MILK AND DAIRY PRODUCTS IN PARTICULAR. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. 15. GROUND NO.5 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80G OF THE ACT. IN THE RETURN, ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80G AMOUNTING TO RS. 28,500/ - IN RESPECT OF DONATIONS TO CERTAIN FUNDS, CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM AND THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 28,500/ - BY STATING THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 80G IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF RECEIPT AND ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE. MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY. DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO VIDE PARA 3.3 OF HIS ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER: 3.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELL ANT, ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO AND FACTS OF THE CASE CAREFULLY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS HELD THAT ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO BEFORE CLAIMING ANY DEDUCTION . THE APPELLANT HAS FAIL ED TO SUBMIT THE RECEIPT BEFORE THE AO, THEREFORE, THE A O HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF RS. 28,500/ - . HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 16. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD COUNSEL REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. 17. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT (A). 18. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN GENERAL, PARA 3.3 IN PARTICULAR, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80G BEFORE THE AO. EVEN BEFORE THE CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THER EFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 19 . GROUND NO.6 RELATES TO THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING THE CONSEQUENTIAL NATURE OF THIS GROUND TO THE ABOVE ADJUDICATED GROUNDS, GROUND NO.6 IS DISMISSED AS CONSEQUENTIAL. 20. IN THE R ESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 9 21 . S INCE, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL ITA NO.7964 /M/2010 (AY 2007 - 2008 ) ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 7963 /M/2010 (AY 2006 - 2007 ), THEREFORE, THE ADJUDICATION GIVEN BY US FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER IS APPLICABLE TO THE APPEAL FOR THE 2007 - 2008 TOO . ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 7964/M/2010 ARE DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . 22. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TH E 2 2 N D DAY OF JANUARY, 2014. S D / - S D / - (VIJAY PAL RAO) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 22 .1 .2014 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI