ACIT Cir 2 kolhapur, Kolhapur V. Sachdev Giridhar Jumdamal, Kolhapur

ITA 820/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 82024514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MODI
• Keywords: Business income; Search and seizure; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 132; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.820/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2, KOLHAPUR. . APPELLANT VS. SACHDEV GIRIDHAR JUMDAMAL, 1-2, CHH. SHAHU MARKET YARD, KANDA BATATA MARKET, KOLHAPUR. PAN : ADLPS2809D . RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY : MR. A. K. MODI ASSESSEE BY : MR. M. K. KULKARNI DATE OF HEARING : 30-07-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-07-2014 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGA INST AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOLHAPUR DATED 30.03.2007 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 27.0 3.2006 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 153A(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.28 ,26,152/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES. 2. IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN RELYING ON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SUNDER, P ROP. M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING CO. THAT HE HAD CARRIED THE BUSINESS WITH D 'SAVIO ONLY AND THAT THE PAPERS SEIZED CONTAINED TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THEM O NLY. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE , THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCES OF EXPEN SE AT 10% OF RESIDENTIAL AND CELL PHONE ONLY. 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A ) BE MODIFIED ON THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ITA NO.820/PN/2012 A.Y. : 2001-02 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND, ALTER OR VA RY ANY GROUNDS OR ADD NEW GROUNDS WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 3. THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF TRADING IN ONION, POTATO AND GARLIC AS A WHOLESA LER AND COMMISSION AGENT IN HIS PROPRIETORY CONCERN UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S J. GIRDHAR & SONS. ASSESSEE IS ALSO A PARTNER IN A FIRM RECEIVING SALA RY. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN A GROU P OF CASES INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE ON 19.11.2003. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH CA SH, JEWELLERY AND OTHER INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS/PAPERS WERE FOUND AND SEIZE D. IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE U/S 153A(A) OF THE ACT ON 01.09.2004, ASSESS EE FURNISHED A RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,28,940/- AS AGAINST AN INCOME OF RS.6,67,124/- DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY FILED U/S 139 OF THE ACT ON 29.10 .2001. THE RETURN OF INCOME SO FILED WAS SUBJECT TO AN ASSESSMENT WHEREBY THE T OTAL INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT RS.36,24,050/-, WHICH, INTER-ALIA, INCL UDED AN ADDITION OF RS.28,56,152/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES. THIS ADDITION IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF CONTROVERSY BEFORE US AS THE SAME HAS SINCE BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A). BY WAY OF GROUND OF APPEAL NOS.1 & 2, THE REVENUE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING SUCH AD DITION. 4. BRIEFLY PUT, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CERTAIN PAPERS WERE SEIZED WHICH HAVE BEEN IDENTIFI ED AS PAGE NOS. 7 TO 9 OF SEIZED BUNDLE NO.4. THE SAID DOCUMENTS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SHOWED TRANSACTIONS OF SALE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY. ON COMPARISON WITH THE REGULAR BO OKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE WAS DIFFERENCE I N THE SALES. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAVING REGARD TO THE AFORESA ID SEIZED MATERIAL, SALES SHOWN IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE SUPPRESS ED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.28,26,152/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LUCIDLY DISCUSSED THE IMPUGNED SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND THE EXPLANATIONS RENDERED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN PARAS ITA NO.820/PN/2012 A.Y. : 2001-02 6.5 TO 6.5.7 OF HIS ORDER. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS SHOWED TRANSACTIONS OF SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY, WHICH WERE NOT RECORDED I N THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE CIT(A), ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS COME T O CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO DISCREDIT THE SALES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF AC COUNT. THE STAND OF THE CIT(A) IS TO THE EFFECT THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED PAPERS WERE THE COR RECT AMOUNTS VIS--VIS THE AMOUNTS RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUN T. THE AFORESAID STAND OF THE CIT(A) IS IN CHALLENGE BEFORE US. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT THE SEIZE D DOCUMENTS CONTAINED A HEADING M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY . THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS NOTED THEREIN PERTAINED TO THE PERIOD 28.01.2001 TO 16.02.2001. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTIONS IS STATED TO BE RS .58,30,179/- INCLUSIVE OF CLOSING BALANCE OF RS.13,68,928/-. IT IS ALSO NOTI CED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE LAST PAGE CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF PAYMENTS W HICH SHOWED TWO PAYMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS.35,00,000/- IN CASH ON 05. 02.2001 AND 13.02.2001 AND PAYMENTS BY WAY OF TWO DEMAND DRAFTS TOTALING T O RS.13,00,000/- ON 07.04.2001. THE BALANCE IS SHOWN AT RS.10,30,179/- . ON BEING SHOW-CAUSED, ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE PAPERS DID NOT PERTAIN TO HIS TRANSACTION WITH M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY. M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY IS A PROPRIETORY CONCERN OF ONE SHRI SUNDER, BASED IN TUTICORIN (TAMILNADU). SHRI SUNDER WAS ALSO EXAMINED BY ACIT, CIRCLE-1, TUTICOR IN WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPUGNED SEIZED DOCUMENTS. THE SAID PERSON STATED THAT HE WAS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND CONTENDED THAT HE HAD MADE THE PURCHASES OF ONION FROM ASSESSEE AS WELL AS FROM ON E DSAVIO, WHOSE ADDRESS AND WHEREABOUTS WERE NOT KNOWN TO HIM. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO TAKEN A STAND BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SEIZED PAPER WAS CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING C OMPANY AND ONE ITA NO.820/PN/2012 A.Y. : 2001-02 DSAVIO. ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT M/S RAJAN OVE RSEAS TRADING COMPANY HAD PURCHASED GOODS FROM DSAVIO TO WHOM PAYMENTS W ERE MADE BY M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY. IN THIS MANNER, AS SESSEE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT HE WAS NOT RELATED TO THE TRANSACTIONS NOTED I N THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BY NOTICING THAT THE PAYMENTS BY WAY OF DEMAND DRAFTS NOTED IN THE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE CONNECTED WITH THE ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS COPIES OF SUCH DRAFTS DATED 07.04.2001 TOTALING TO RS.13,00,000/- WERE SEIZED FROM PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH PAYMENTS WERE ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AGAINST SALES MADE TO M/S RAJAN OV ERSEAS TRADING COMPANY, SUBSEQUENT TO THE SALE DATES MENTIONED ON THE SEIZED PAPERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOTED THAT A PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF SHRI SUNDER OBTAINED DURING THE COURSE OF ENQUIRY AT TUT ICORIN REVEALED THAT THE BANK DRAFTS WERE MADE BY DEBIT TO SUCH ACCOUNT. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, THE DEMAND DRAFTS OF RS.13,00,000/- WERE ACCOUNTED FOR AGAINST SALES OF RS.58,30,179/- MADE UPTO 16.02.2001 WHEREAS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SUCH PAYMENTS WERE CREDITED AGAINST SALES MADE FROM 01.03.2001 ONWARDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NEG ATED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TRANSACTIONS NOTED IN THE SEIZED DOCU MENTS WERE SALES MADE BY DSAVIO TO M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTICED THAT THOUGH THE DETAILS OF NUMBER OF B AGS, LORRY NUMBER, BILL NUMBERS, ETC. APPEARING IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS TAL LIED WITH THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE YET THE BILL AMOUNTS REC ORDED IN THE SEIZED PAPER WAS HIGHER THAN BILLS AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE ACCOUN T BOOKS. IN THIS MANNER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE SEIZED DOC UMENTS REVEALED TRANSACTIONS OF SALE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S RA JAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY AND WHEREAS TOTAL SALES AS PER THE SEIZED D OCUMENTS, INCLUDING CLOSING BALANCE CAME TO RS.58,30,179/- WHILE AS PER THE ACCOUNT BOOKS TOTAL SALES INCLUDING CLOSING BALANCE CAME TO RS.30,04,02 7/- THEREBY SHOWING ITA NO.820/PN/2012 A.Y. : 2001-02 SUPPRESSED SALES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.28,26,152/-. SUCH AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME AS SUPPRESSED SALES. 7. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BY POINTING OUT THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS PERTAINED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE 3 PAGES OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS CONTAINED ENTRIES OF PAYMENTS BY DEMAND DRAFTS WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE SAID PAYMENTS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR AGAINST SALES WHICH ARE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE MADE BY DSAVIO W HEREAS IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SUCH PAYMENT RECEIVED HAS BEEN ACC OUNTED FOR AGAINST SALE MADE BY ASSESSEE TO M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMP ANY. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FO R THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BY P OINTING OUT THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZ ED PAPER WERE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS, BUT IN THE ACCOUNT OF DS AVIO. THE LEARNED COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT SO FAR AS THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE MADE BY ASSESSEE TO M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY IS CONCERNED, THE SA ME HAVE BEEN DULY INCORPORATED IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS, INCLUDING THE PA YMENT OF RS.13,00,000/- RECEIVED BY WAY OF BANK DRAFTS, A COPY OF SUCH ACCO UNT HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGES 4 & 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY THE LEAR NED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT BALANCE OF TRANSACTIONS ARE SALES MADE BY DSAVIO TO M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY AN D ON THAT BASIS IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE SALES RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT QUA THE TRANSACTIONS WITH M /S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED THAT SHRI SUND ER, PROPRIETOR OF M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY HAS CONFIRMED THAT H E PURCHASED GOODS FROM DSAVIO, WHO IN-TURN WOULD HAVE PURCHASED FROM ASSESSEE. IT WAS THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) JUSTIFIABLY DEL ETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. ITA NO.820/PN/2012 A.Y. : 2001-02 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED, WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED AT PAGES 1 TO 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, CONTAIN DETAILS VIZ. NUMBER OF BAGS , LORRY NUMBER, BILL NUMBERS, AMOUNT, ETC. OF SALES. THE ENTIRE STATEME NT RUNNING INTO THREE PAGES IS FOLLOWED UP WITH PAYMENT SUMMARY SHOWING PAYMENT S IN CASH ON 05.02.2001 AND 13.02.2001 OF RS.15,00,000 AND RS.20 ,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY TOTALING TO RS.35,00,000/-. THE PAYMENT SUMMARY AL SO SHOWS TWO DEMAND DRAFTS DATED 07.04.2001 OF RS.13,00,000/- HAVING BE EN PAID. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE OF M/S RAJAN OVER SEAS TRADING COMPANY. THE PERIOD OF TRANSACTIONS STARTS FROM 28.01.2001 A ND IS UPTO 16.02.2001 AND THE TOTAL SALES ARE RS.58,30,179/-. THE REVENUE HA S INFERRED THAT THE SAID SUMMARY RELATES TO SALES MADE BY ASSESSEE TO M/S RA JAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY AND THE DIFFERENCE IN SALES BETWEEN SEIZED DOCUMENT AND THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REFLECT SUPPRESSED SALES. NOTABLY, AS PER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY APPEA RING IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED I N THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AT PAGES 4 & 5, IT SHOWS TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN MARCH, 2001 TO JUNE, 2001, WHE REAS THE SEIZED DOCUMENT SHOWS TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN 28.01.2001 TO 1 6.02.2001. THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DO NOT SHOW ANY TRANSACTIO N WITH M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY BETWEEN 28.01.2001 TO 16.0 2.2001. 10. THE AFORESAID DOCUMENT HAS BEEN CONNECTED TO TH E ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE SALES TO M/S RAJAN OV ERSEAS TRADING COMPANY ALSO. ON THE ASPECT OF CONNECTION WITH ASS ESSEE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE BECAUSE ASSESSEE IS ALSO MAKING SALES TO M/ S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY. SO HOWEVER, IN SO FAR AS THE TRAN SACTIONS NOTED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IS CONCERNED, ASSESSEE EXPLAINED TH AT THEY WERE SALES MADE BY DSAVIO TO M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY. IN THIS CONNECTION AN ITA NO.820/PN/2012 A.Y. : 2001-02 ACCOUNT OF DSAVIO APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO FURNISHED, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGES 6 TO 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE BILL NUMBERS, NUMBER OF BAGS, LORRY NUMBERS, ETC. APPEARING IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS ARE ALSO RECORDED IN SUCH ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE THEY HAVE TO BE TAKEN AS SALES EFFECTED B Y DSAVIO TO M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY. IN OUR VIEW, IT IS QUITE PECULIAR THAT THE ACCOUNT OF DSAVIO MAINTAINED IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF ASSES SEE IS BEING SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE AMOUNTS STATED AGAINST THE SAME BILL NUMBERS IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT ON ONE HAND AND THAT RECORDED IN THE ACCOUNT OF DSAVIO MAINTAINED IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE DIFFER. AN ILLUSTRATIVE TABULATION OF SUC H DIFFERENCES IS FOUND IN PARA 6.5.7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE BILL NUMBERS, E TC. ENTERED IN THE ACCOUNT OF DSAVIO MAINTAINED IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE A SSESSEE, WOULD REFLECT SALES MADE BY ASSESSEE TO DSAVIO. ON THE CONTRARY THE ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT ARE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE SALES MADE BY DSAVIO TO M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY. IF THE SAID EXPLAN ATION IS TO BE TAKEN AS CORRECT THEN IT IS INEXPLICABLE AS TO WHY THE SALES BY DSAVIO TO M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY ARE REFLECTED BY SALES BIL L NUMBERS ISSUED BY ASSESSEE. THE SALES MADE BY DSAVIO TO M/S RAJAN O VERSEAS TRADING COMPANY WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE INVOICED SEPARATELY BY D SAVIO AND SEIZED DOCUMENT SHOULD HAVE EVIDENCED ACCORDINGLY. THEREF ORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT THE SALES WERE INDEED EFFECTED BY DSAVIO TO M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY, IT DOES JUSTIFY INF ERENCE THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT DOES REFLECT SALES MADE BY ASSESSEE TO M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY. THIS INFERENCE IS ALSO LOGICAL CO NSIDERED IN THE BACKGROUND THAT THE ENTRY IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT OF RECEIPT OF PAYMENTS BY WAY OF DEMAND DRAFTS TO RS.13,00,000/- IS FOUND ENTERED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE NAME OF M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY. IT MAY ALSO BE PERTINENT TO OBSER VE THAT NEITHER SHRI ITA NO.820/PN/2012 A.Y. : 2001-02 SUNDER, PROPRIETOR OF M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING CO MPANY AND NOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE EXISTENCE OF DSAVIO, LIVE ALONE ESTABLISHING HIS IDENTITY. THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION RENDERED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE CONTEXT OF DSAVIO, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE STAND TAKEN BY SHR I SUNDER, ARE SELF-SERVING AND BELIE A REASONABLE ACCEPTANCE. THEREFORE, CONS IDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE ONUS WAS ENTIRELY ON THE AS SESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS FOUND RECORDED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL DID NOT BELONG TO HIM. IN OUR VIEW, THE EXPLANATION RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DIS-PROVE THE INTERFERENCE DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT TH E TRANSACTIONS IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT REFLECT UNRECORDED SALES MADE BY THE ASSES SEE TO M/S RAJAN OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY. THUS, THE CIT(A), IN OUR VIEW, WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) IS HEREBY REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RESTORED ON TH IS POINT. 11. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 RELATES TO DISAL LOWANCES OF RS.51,740/- AND RS.22,635/- MADE OUT OF TELEPHONE A ND TRAVELLING EXPENSES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED T HE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING SUCH DISALLOWANCE ON AN AD-HOC BASIS. WE FIND NO REASON S TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT AS THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ELEMENT OF PERSONAL NATURE BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WHILE MAKING THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. THUS, ON THIS GROUND, REVENUE FAILS. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JULY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (G . S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED : 31 ST JULY, 2014. SUJEET ITA NO.820/PN/2012 A.Y. : 2001-02 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR; 4) THE CIT, KOLHAPUR; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., PUNE