ITO, V. Sri. Kamlesh Shanthilal Oswal Jain,

ITA 883/BANG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8579 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: L BHARATH
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Revised return
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.883(BANG) 2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), VI FLOOR, BANGALORE-560 027 APPELLANT VS SRI KAMLESH SHANTILAL OSWAL JAIN, PROP: MK TRADING, NO.10 ES LANE, CHICKPET CROSS, BANGALORE-560 053 PAN NO.ADUPJ5588R RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SMT. PRAVEENA, ADDL.CIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI L.BHARATH, CA DATE OF HEARING : 11-03-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 8-03-2016 O R D E R PER SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05-03-2013 OF CIT(A)-II, BANGALORE FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR : 2009-10. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER ; 2.1 THE ASSESSEE IS A DEALER IN TEXTILES AND IS THE P ROPRIETOR OF M/S M K TRADING HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ON 30-09-2009 DECLARING T OTAL INCOME AS NIL. THE TOTAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE A SSESSEE 2 ITA NO.883 (B)/2013 INCLUDES LOSS FROM BUSINESS, HOUSE PROPERTY AND INC OME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCE SSED U/S 143(1) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) WERE I SSUED AND THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ITS REPRESENTATIVE FILED COPIES OF THE 3CD REPORT ALONG WITH ACCOUNTS, EXPENDITURE SCHEDULES, CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF CREDITORS AND SOME EVIDENCES FOR THE OCCURRENCE OF FIRE ACCIDENT IN THE FORM OF PHOTOGRAPHS, POLICE MA HAJAR, FIRE REPORT, APPLICATION TO THE INSURANCE AUTHORITIES ET C. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENDITURE QUA L OSS OF STOCK DUE TO FIRE ACCIDENT. THE LEARNED AO PERUSED THE P &L ACCOUNT WHICH SHOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.44.00 LAKHS CREDITED T O THE TRADING ACCOUNT (REDUCED FROM PURCHASES ACCOUNT) ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS OF STOCK DUE TO FIRE. THE SAME AMOUNT OF R S.44.00 LAKHS HAS BEEN BALANCED WITH A DEBIT ENTRY IN THE P&L ACC OUNT AS INDIRECT EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS DUE TO FIRE ACCIDENT. THE LEARNED AO AFTER EXAMINING THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE SUCH AS POLICE MAHAJAR AND THE FIRE REPORT, FOUND T HE PLACE OF FIRE ACCIDENT AT NO.25/79, SHOP 4,5 & 6 ES LANE, RE NUKHA BUILDING CHICKPET CROSS, BANGALORE-53, BUT THE ORIG INAL ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS PREMISES IS NO.10,1 ST CROSS, ES LANE, 3 ITA NO.883 (B)/2013 SHANKAR MARKET, CHICKPET CROSS, BANGALORE-560 053. THE AO ALSO CONFRONTED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE LEARNE D AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REPLY OF THE ASSSESSEE IS AS UNDER ; IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN REPAIR AND RENOVATIO N WORK AT HIS ORIGINAL PLACE OF BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO TEMPORARILY SHIFT THE GOODS TO ANOTHER GODOWN SITUATED AT NO.4, 5& 6, BUILDING NO.25/7, RENUKHA BUILDING, AM LANE, CHICKPET CROSS, BANGALORE- 560 053. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INTIMATED TH E INSURANCE AUTHORITIES REGARDING SUCH A TEMPORARY CHANGE IN TH E LOCATION OF THE STOCK. IN THE INTERIM PERIOD, THERE WAS FIRE AT THE GODOWN PURSUANT TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD TO INCUR HUGE ST OCK LOSS. COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING STOCK LOSS FURTHER ACTION TAKEN TO INFORM THE FIRE AUTHORITIES IMMEDIATELY ON THE H APPENING OF THE INCIDENT. COPY OF THE INSURANCE PREMIUM RECEIPT PAI D TO M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD HAS ALSO BEEN ATTACHE D FOR KIND REFERENCE.. 2.2 THE LD AO OBSERVED THAT AS THE EVIDENCE FURNISHE D BY THE ASSESSEE SATISFACTORILY PROVES THE OCCURRENCE OF FI RE TOOK PLACE ON 06-04-2008, BUT TILL THE DATE OF PASSING THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEES CLAIM OF INSURANCE HAD NOT BEEN C LEARED WHICH GAVE ROOM FOR THE ELEMENT OF DOUBT TO THE AO WHETHE R THE GOODS GUTTED IN FIRE BELONGS TO M/S M.K.TRADING AND ALSO ABOUT THE 4 ITA NO.883 (B)/2013 VALUATION OF STOCK ARRIVED. THE AO IN ORDER TO VER IFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE VALUATION ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH MONTHLY PURCHASES AND SALES AS PER HIS ACCOUNTS AND ALSO MONTHLY VAT-100 RETURNS FILED BEFORE THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES. PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE FILED MONTH WIS E SALES AND PURCHASES, BUT FAILED TO FURNISH COPIES OF VAT RETU RNS. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE VAT RE TURNS REMAINED WITH THE SALES TAX CONSULTANT WHO IS PRESE NTLY ABSCONDING WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO. THE AO ADDRESSED A LETTER TO THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES AND COPIES OF VAT-100 RETURNS WERE OBTAINED FOR THE MONTHS OF APRIL 2008 TO MARCH 2009 THERAFTER, THE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF T HE PURCHASES AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE PURC HASES AS PER THE VAT RETURNS HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE JUGGLERY IN T HE ACCOUNTS IN ORDER TO ADJUST THE LOSS ALREADY CLAIMED TO MANI PULATE THE SITUATION AND TO ADJUST THE PURCHASES TO THE ACTUAL CLOSING STOCK PURCHASES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.45,56,822/- HAS BEEN INTRODUCED FROM THE MONTH OF MARCH. FURTHER, BY DECREASING TH E SALES THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO SUPPRESS SALES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.9,75,951/- . 5 ITA NO.883 (B)/2013 2.3 THE LEARNED AO ALSO FOUND FROM THE RECORDS THAT THERE WAS ADJUSTMENT OF ACCOUNTS AT ALL STAGES AND THE PU RCHASES HAVE BEEN INFLATED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.13,87,216/- AS THE SAME REFLECTS FROM TABLE-I DRAWN BY THE AO IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER AND THE CLOSING STOCK HAS ALSO BEEN SHOWN LESSER TO THE EXTENT OF RS.14,98,122/-. FURTHER, THE LEARNED AO FOUND THAT TOTAL OF ALL THESE ADJUSTMENTS WERE AROUND RS.40.00 LAKHS AN D BALANCE OF RS.4.00 LAKHS LOSS CLAIMED IS ALSO SOME MANIPULA TION OF ACCOUNTS. 2.4 FINALLY, THE LEARNED AO VIDE ANALYZING AND CONSIDER ING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, CAME TO THE CO NCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MANIPULATED THE ACCOUNTS IN O RDER TO CLAIM EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS OF STOCK DUE T O FIRE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE GOODS AND IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ACCOUNTS THAT THE GOODS GUTTED IN FIRE WAS OUT OF OPENING STOCK OR THE PURCHASE MADE IN THE FIRST FIV E DAYS OF THE APRIL MONTH. THE AO ALSO HELD THAT THE GOODS GUTT ED APPEARS TO BE SOME CONDEMNED GOODS AND FURNITURE OR ELSE UN ACCOUNTED STOCK BUT NOT OUT OF THE ACCOUNTED GOODS. IN THE S AID 6 ITA NO.883 (B)/2013 CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE ON LOSS OF STOCK DUE TO FIRE WAS DISALLOWED BY THE LEARNED AO. 2.4 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO THE ASSES SEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 2.5 BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED TH E SAME, AS CONTENDED BEFORE THE LEARNED AO. HOWEVER, SOME NEW FACTS WERE INTRODUCED SUCH AS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INTIMATED THE COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT ABOUT THE CHANGE OF B USINESS PREMISES HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE REMAINED SILENT ON W HETHER COMPENSATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INSURANCE COMPAN Y OR NOT. 2.6 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT DA TED 08-01-2013 BY WHICH THE AO HAD STATED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT INFORMED THE INSURANCE COMPANY ABOUT THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY SUPER IMPOSED THE NAME BOARD ON THE FIRE STRICKEN PREMISES TO MISLED THE A UTHORITIES. EVEN OTHERWISE, FAILED TO ESTABLISH LINK BETWEEN TH E FIRE AND THE STOCK AND THE FIRE ACCIDENT HAD ONLY BE MADE A PRET EXT TO PRESENT A NEGATIVE PICTURE TO THE DEPARTMENT. AS N O CORRECT VALUATION WAS MADE ON THE ALLEGED LOSS OF STOCK AND THAT THERE IS NO REASON FOR ALLOWING LOSS AS AN EXPENDITURE. 7 ITA NO.883 (B)/2013 2.7 THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE LEARNED ARS SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, REMAND REPORT ETC. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE VAT ACT PERMITS RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES IF ANY, THEREIN WITH THE ANNUAL VAT RETURNS FILED INFORM NO.115 WERE VALID IN LAW. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED VAT 115 AND THE AUDITORS RELIED UPON THE SAME, HENCE THERE WAS NO MANIPULATION OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE PERIO D APRIL 2008 TO MARCH 2009, AS THE FIRE TOOK PLACE ON 05-04-2008 . LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INTIMA TED THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS OF THE GODOWN TO THE COMMERCIAL T AX DEPARTMENT, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN FURNISHED AT T HE TIME OF APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) ONLY. FINALLY, LEARNED CIT(A) ON PERUSAL OF ALL THE DETAI LS AND EVIDENCES OF THE ASSESSEE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED CLOSING STOCK OF EACH AND EV ERY ITEMS BURNT IN THE FIRE, THE BALANCE AVAILABLE GOODS RETR IEVED ETC. AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY SUFFERED LOSS DUE TO FIRE AND THE CLAIM OF RS.44.00 LAKHS DUE TO LOSS IN THE VALUE OF STOCK LOST IS GENUINE AND HAD FILED A CASE FOR THE CLAIM OF RS.44 .00 LAKHS AGAINST THE INSURANCE COMPANY BEFORE THE CONSUMER C OURT AT 8 ITA NO.883 (B)/2013 BANGALORE. ON THE AFORESAID OBSERVATION, THE LEARNE D CIT(A ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US, RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS; 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT (A) IS CLEARLY OPPOSED TO LAW AS FAR AS THE FINDINGS ARE PERVERSE, CONTRARY TO HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND HENCE NOT SUSTAINABLE. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF RS.44.00 LAKHS. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RELYING ON THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.44.00 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS IN TERMS OF THE VALUE OF STOCK LOST IN FIRE WHICH WAS HELD BY AO TO BE NOT GENUINE. 4. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT OF INVESTIGATION DONE BY THE AO TO PROVE THE NON- GENUINENESS OF STOCK OF RS.44.00 LAKHS DUE TO FIRE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LEARNED DR FORCEFULLY ARGUED BEFORE US THAT T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CLEARLY OPPOSED TO LAW AND THE FINDINGS ARE PERVERSE, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE 9 ITA NO.883 (B)/2013 CASE, AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING T HE ADDITION OF RS.44.00 LAKHS. LEARNED DR ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTI ON TO THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTE D THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS TOTALLY IGNORED THE CONCLUSION D RAWN BY THE LEARNED AO, THE AO HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE TO BE NOT GENUINE AND FURTHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT APPR ECIATIVE OF THE FACTS OF INVESTIGATION DONE BY THE AO TO PROVE NON- GENUINENESS OF LOSS OF STOCK OF RS.44.00 LAKHS DUE TO FIRE ACCIDENT AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS; 1. CIT VS RELAXO FOOTWEARS LTD., 2009 TIOL 660-HC-D EL-IT 2. MOTAMAL JETHUMAL VS CIT S 15 ITR 155 BY REFERRING THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND ALSO THE OR DERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, TRIED TO ESTABLISH THAT ITS CASE IS GENUINE, BECAUSE THE FIRE ACTUALLY TAKEN PLACE I N THE PREMISES WHICH BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS A LSO FILED THE 10 ITA NO.883 (B)/2013 REVISED RETURN OF VAT UNDER VAT NO.115 THEREFORE; T HE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND ALSO ANALYZED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY TH E RIVAL PARTIES AND SPECIFICALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. IN CRUX, LEARNED AO WHILE DISALLOWING THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE CONCLUDED THAT THE FIRE HAS TAKEN PLACE IN A DIFFERENT PREMISES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO CO-RELATE W ITH THE OPENING STOCK OR PURCHASES MADE AND ALSO FOUND THAT SOME CONDEMNED GOODS AND FURNITURE UNACCOUNTED STOCK, BU T NOT OUT OF THE ACCOUNTED GOODS. FURTHER HELD THAT THE CLA IM OF EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF FIRE ACCIDENT IS ONLY MAN IPULATION AND DOES NOT BELONGS TO ACCOUNTED STOCK AND FINALLY HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT GENUINE, BUT A MAN IPULATED ONE. LEARNED CIT(A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AO BASICA LLY ON TWO POINTS WHICH ACCORDING TO OUR MINDS WERE THE BA SIS OF PASSING OF THE ORDER. FIRST THE LETTER ADDRESSED T O THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THE CONTENTS OF W HICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW AND THE SECOND ONE WITH REGARD TO FILING OF 11 ITA NO.883 (B)/2013 CLAIM UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, BY THE ASSESSE E FOR CLAIMING RS.44.00 LAKHS AGAINST UNITED INDIA INSURA NCE CO.LTD. M.K.TRADING WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANTS & COMMISSION AGENTS SPECIALISTS IN DRESS MATERIALS FABRICS NO.10, 1 ST FLOOR, E.S.LANE CHICKPET CROSS, BANGALORE-560 053 26-12-2007 TO THE ACCTO LVO OO GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE DEAR SIR, SUB : CHANGE OF ADDRESS (TIN:29560091851) WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE, WE WOULD LIKE TO BRI NG KIND NOTICE, THE ABOVE SAID FIRM M.K.TRADUING BUSINESS P REMISES SHIFTED TO NEW ADDRESS SHOP NO.4,5 & 6 BUILDING, NO .25/79, RENUKHA BUILDING, A.M.LANE, CHICKPET, BANGALORE. KI NDLY UPDATE TO YOUR RECORDS IN FUTURE OFFICIAL CORRESPON DENCE. KINDLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE SAME. PLACE: BANGALORE YOURS FAITHFULLY, (M.K.TRADING) SD/- PROPRIETOR 12 ITA NO.883 (B)/2013 IN OUR OPINION, THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY ADDRESSED TO THE ITO, WARD-5(3), IS ALSO IM PORTANT AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW; UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REGIONAL OFFICE, BANGALORE TO 19-12-2012 THE ITO, WARD-5(3), O/O ITO, UNITY BLDGS. MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027 MADAM, REG . INFORMATION IN THE CASE OF SRI KAMLESH SHANTHILAL OSWAL JAIN , PROP: M/S M.K.TRADING POLICY NO.071804/48/07/34/01871. WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR LETTERNO.F.NO.ADUPJ5588R /ITO/W5(3)2011-12 DATED 04-12-2012 WE FURNISH BELOW THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR THEREIN. 1. CLAIM FORM HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY D.O.13, THE POLICY ISSUING OFFICE, THE THEN BRANCH OFFICE, KG ROAD, 2. THE CLAIM WAS NOT ADMITTED. 3. THE CLAIM WAS REJECTED AS THE LOCATION WHERE THE AC CIDENT OCCURRED WAS NOT COVERED UNDER THE POLICY. HOPE INFORMATION FURNISHED ABOVE WOULD SUFFICE THE REQUIREMENTS. THANKING YOU, YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER 13 ITA NO.883 (B)/2013 6. IN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION, IT IS EVIDENT FRO M THE RECORD AND ALSO FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE PARTIES B EFORE THE AO, NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO FILING OF THE CASE UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT AG AINST THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND EVEN OTHERWISE, LETTER DATED 26-12- 2007 ADDRESSED TO THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERC IAL TAXES WAS ALSO WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AO . IT IS VERY MUCH IMPORTANT TO MENTION HEREIN THAT FR OM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IT REFLECTS THAT THE AS SESSEE INFORMED THE SHIFTING OF THE BUSINESS PREMISES FROM NO.10, 1 ST CROSS, CHICKPET CROSS, BANGALORE TO NEW ADDRESS I.E SHOP N O.4,5 & 6,BLDG. NO.25/79, RENUKHA BLDG. AM LANE, CHICKPET C ROSS, BANGALORE, WHEREAS FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO IT REFL ECTS THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN REPAIRS AND RENOVATION WORK AT HIS ORIGINAL PLACE OF BUSINESS HAD TO TEMPO RARILY SHIFT THE GOODS TO ANOTHER GODOWN SITUATED AT NO.4,5& 6 B LDG. NO. 25/79, RENUKHA BLDG. AM LANE,CHICKPET, BANGALORE. IT IS VERY STRANGE THAT THE ASSESSEE ALTHOUGH CLAIM ED THAT HE HAD SHIFTED TO NEW PLACE IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT C ERTAIN REPAIR WORKS, RENOVATION AT HIS ORIGINAL PLACE OF BUSINESS , BUT HE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE LEARNED AO AS W ELL AS FROM 14 ITA NO.883 (B)/2013 THE LETTER ITSELF REFLECTS THAT NO REASON HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE SAID LETTER FOR SHIFTING AT NEW PLACE. EVEN OTHERWISE THE LEARNED CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS F ILED A CLAIM OF RS.44.00 LAKHS AGAINST THE INSURANCE COMPANY WI TH REGARD TO CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND THE MATTER IS IN CONSUMER COURT ALSO AT BANGALORE BUT FROM THE LETTER OF UNITED INDIA IN SURANCE CO.LTD. IT REFLECTS THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT AS THE LOCATION WHERE THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED WAS NOT COVERED UNDER THE POLICY . MEANING THEREBY, ASSESSEE NEVER INTIMATED ABOUT THE CHANGE OF BUSINESS PREMISES TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY ,INCOME-TAX, POLI CE, FIRE OR ANY OTHER CONCERNED DEPARTMENT, EXCEPT MAKING A CLA IM TO INFORM THE COMMERCIAL DEPARTMENT, OTHERWISE PRIMA F ACIE IT APPEARS TO BE NOT GENUINE, BECAUSE THE SAID LETTER WAS NEVER BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THE AO AND THE CONDITIONS OF TH E SAME ARE ALSO CONTRARY TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN REPLY TO THE JUDGMENTS REFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IT IS CLARIFIED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASES ARE DISSIMILA R TO THE INSTANT CASE, BECAUSE THERE IS NO CHANGE OF BUSINESS PREMIS ES HENCE, ARE NOT APPLICABLE. 15 ITA NO.883 (B)/2013 7. CONCLUSION: FINALLY, ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION O F THE SUBMISSION ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES AND MATERIALS ON RECORD AND ANALYZING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH HIS CASE AS GENUINE AND FROM THE RECORDS IT REFLECTS TH AT HE HAD TIED TO MANIPULATE THE THINGS IN ORDER TO CLAIM RS.44.00 LAKHS TOWARDS LOSS OF STOCK DUE TO FIRE ACCIDENT. HENCE, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 18-03-201 6 SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH ) SD/- (NARENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHURY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: BANGALORE D A T E D : 18-03-2016 COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER, AR,ITAT, BANGALORE