ACIT CIRCLE-2(1), BILASPUR(CG) V. Shri NARESH KUMAR KEDIA, CHAMPA (CG)

ITA 90/BIL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 9024714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARMOHAN MAHARANADR
• Assessee Lawyers: G N PUROHIT
• Keywords: Competent authority; Retraction
• Section: 145; 133A

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,BENCH -RAIPUR . . , , . . BEFORE S/SH.H.L.KARWA,PRESIDENT AND RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /.ITA NO.90/BLPR/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), BILASPUR. V/S. SHRI NARESH KUMAR KEDIA, PROP. M/S. D.L. KEDIA & CO. AKALTARA, JANJGIR CHAMPA. PAN:ABDPA 4069 R ( % / APPELLANT ) ( &'% / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : SH. HARMOHAN MAHARANA,DR ASSESSEE BY : SH.G.N. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE ) /DATE OF HEARING : 18-122014 ) /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 -12-2014 ,1961 ) )) ) 254 )1( ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,AM - 0 0 0 0 , : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT.27.12.2010 OF THE CIT(A), BILASPUR,AO HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. (A). THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.3,53,912/- IN SPITE OF THE FACTS ON RECORD AND RELIANCE OCULD NOT BE PLACED ON THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCO UNT. (B).THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ABOVE ADDITION AND ALS O FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE METICULOUS FINDINGS OF THE A.O. WHICH BEEN BASED ON THE COMPAR ABLE CASES. 2. (A). THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.13, 04,540/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXCESS STOCK OF RS.8,98,785/- AND UNEXP LAINED CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,05,755/- WAS UNEARTHED DURING THE SURVEY U/S. 133-A DATED 09 .12.2002. (B). THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ABOVE ADDITION AND ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE METICULOUS FINDINGS OF THE A.O. WHICH HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FA CTS COLLECTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMI TTED EXCESS STOCK AND CASH IN STATEMENT RECORDED AND SURRENDERED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME AND DID NOT RETRACT FOR ABOUT ONE YEAR. (C).THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ABOVE ADDITION IN SPIT E OF THE FACTS ON RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE INTERPOLATED THE ENTRIES IN CUSTOM MILLING REGISTER IN SUCH A WAY THAT ENTIRE EXCESS STOCK FOUND WAS ADJUSTED. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS, PERVER SE AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS ON RECORD, THE SAME MAY BE REVERSED WHILE THAT OF THE A.O. IS RESTORED. THE ASSESSEE,AN INDIVIDUAL,FILED HIS RETURN OF INCO ME ON 07.11.2003,DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1, 99, 780/-.THE AO FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT ON 26.12. 2005 DETERMINING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.17.58 LACS. 2. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT ADDITION OF RS. 2.53 LACS MADE BY THE AO AND DELETED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA).IN THIS CASE,A S URVEY ACTION U/S. 133A OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES ON 09.12.2002. AN EXCESS STOCK OF RS.8.98 LACS AND EXCESS CASH OF RS.4.05 LACS WAS FOUND DURING THE SU RVEY THAT WAS SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION. WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME ITA/90/BLPR/2011-NKKEDIA 2 ON 07.11.2003,HE DID NOT INCLUDE THE SURRENDERED AM OUNT CLAIMING THAT WORKING OF EXCESS CASH AND EXCESS STOCK WERE NOT CORRECT.THE AO DIREC TED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS RETRACTION WITH RESPECT TO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND STO CK REGISTER.ON THE BASIS OF LETTER DATED 13.03.2006 FROM THE DISTT. MANAGER,CG STATE CIVIL S UPPLIES CORP. LTD. JANJGIR AND CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF THAT CORPORATI ON IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FIRST REQUIRED TO COLLECT DELIVERY ORDER AND THEN L IFT THE STOCK FROM GOVT. WAREHOUSE,THAT AFTER PHYSICAL POSSESSION SUCH STOCK COULD BE ENTERED IN STOCK REGISTER.IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE AO HAD WRONGLY PRESUMED THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF DELI VERY ORDER AS THE DATE OF LIFTING OF THE STOCK, WHICH WAS TOTALLY INCORRECT,THAT THE STOCK L IFTED FROM THE GOVT. WAREHOUSE,FULLY TALLIED WITH THE ENTRIES IN THE STOCK REGISTER SUBMITTED TO THE SURVEY TEAM,THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK PROJECTED BY THE SURVEY TEAM, AS EXCESS STOCK, WAS NOTHING BUT THE STOCK PERTAINING TO CUSTOM MILLING, RECEIVED FROM GOVT. WAREHOUSE.A COPY OF DO CUMENT CERTIFYING SAID FACT, ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF THAT CORPORATION WAS SUB MITTED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS.THE AO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSES SEE.THE AO OPINED THAT NO RELIANCE COULD BE PLACED ON THE APPELLANTS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND H ENCE GP WAS ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF COMPARABLE CASE,@ 5% AS AGAINST 3.16% SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE.IT RESULTED IN THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.2,53,912/-,TO THE INCOME RETURNED. 2.1. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FAA.BEFORE HIM IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN INDIVIDU AL DERIVING INCOME FROM RICE MILLING AND TRADING IN THE MILLED PRODUCTS;THAT REGULAR BOOKS O F ACCOUNT WERE MAINTAINED BY HIM,THAT THE BOOKS WERE SUBJECTED TO STATUTORY AUDIT AND THE AUD ITORS HAD NOT ADVERSELY COMMENTED;THAT THE SALES AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE ACCEPTED BY THE CTO JANJGIR, VIDE ORDER DATED 11.08.05,THAT THE CONVERSION OF PADDY INTO RICE AND DELIVERY THEREOF AS PER THE GOVT. REGULATIONS WAS THE SUBSTANCE OF CUSTOM MILLING AND IT HAD NO IMPACT OR RELEVANCE ON SALES OR PURCHASES,THAT SAME COULD NOT BE A GROUND FOR ES TIMATING THE GP.IT WAS STATED THAT DETAILS IN RESPECT OF OPENING STOCK, PURCHASES, SALES AND C LOSING STOCK, WERE FULLY REFLECTED IN THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT WAS URGED THAT THE RIC E MILLER COULD NOT BE TREATED AT PAR WITH RETAIL TRADER,THAT THE GP SHOWN AT 3.16% WAS FAR BE TTER THAN THAT SHOWN BY THE FOLLOWING RICE MILLERS OF THAT AREA: IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WAS BRO UGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT EARNED MORE THAN THAT RETURNED AS PER A UDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE LAWS, RELIED UPON BY THE AO, BEING ON DIFFERENT FACTS, HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. THE FAA,AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE,HELD THAT THE AO HAD REJECTED THE AUDITED BOOK RESULTS IN SPI TE OF THE FACT THAT ALONG WITH THE RETURN, STATUTORY AUDIT REPORT WAS SUBMITTED,THAT NO DEFECT , OMISSION OR COMMISSION WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THE BOOKS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE W HICH COULD JUSTIFY REJECTION OF BOOK RESULTS,THAT WITHOUT RECORDING JUSTIFICATION FOR IN VOKING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145 OF THE ACT THE AO REJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS AND HAD ESTIMATED GP @ 5% AS AGAINST 3.16% SHOWN BY HIM AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,53,912/- TO THE DECLA RED BOOK RESULT,THAT THE AO HAD NOT DISPUTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ACCOUNTS,THAT THE A O HAD NOT RECORDED SPECIFIC FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT THE METHOD EMPLOYED WAS SUCH THAT CORRE CT PROFITS COULD NOT BE DEDUCED THERE FROM,THAT IN ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC FINDING IN RESPE CT OF APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 145 THE BOOK SN. NAME OF RICE MILLERS OF AKALTARA SALES PROF IT SHOWN % 1. ANNAPURNA TRADERS 1,81,64,540 1,48,272 0.82% 2. BANSAL TRADING COMPANY 1,52,59,766 1,46,186 0.98 % 3. PARVATI TRADING COMPANY 1,57,97,731 1,68,057 1.0 6% 4. NANAK TRADING COMPANY 1,31,74,104 1,71,373 1.30% 5. D.L. KEDIA & COMPANY 1,37,76,826 1,82,283 1.32% ITA/90/BLPR/2011-NKKEDIA 3 RESULTS COULD NOT BE REJECTED,THAT AO HAD NOT DETEC TED ANY SERIOUS DISCREPANCY, DEFECTS, OMISSION OR COMMISSION, IN THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACC OUNT EXAMINED BY HIM,THAT NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY REJECTI ON OF BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE,THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN CASH AND STOCK ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN F OUND BY THE SURVEY TEAM WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED DAY-T O-DAY STOCK REGISTER AND QUANTITATIVE DETAILS,THAT THE CONJOINT READING OF ASSESSEES EXP LANATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS ON THE CRUX OF THE ISSUES LED TO AN IRRESISTIBLE CONCLUSION THAT T HE ACTION OF THE AO,IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION,IN THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS MADE,WAS UNS USTAINABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW.THE FAA DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 2.2. BEFORE US,THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR)STATED THAT THERE WAS HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THE STOCK AND CASH ON THE DAY OF SURVEY,THAT THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT RECONCILE THE SAME,THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT RELIABLE ,THAT GP RATE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL WAS JUSTIFIABLE.AUTHORISED REPRES ENTATIVE(AR)SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. 2.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD ADOPTED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 5%,AS AGAIN S THE 3.16% ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE.IN OUR OPINION AUDITED BOOK RESULTS OF AN ASSESSEE CAN BE DISTURBED IF THE AO FINDS SOME SERIOUS DISCREPANCY IN THE ACCOUNTS BOOKS.IN A ROUTINE MATT ER THE GROSS PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED.THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY COM PARABLE CASE TO JUSTIFY THE ADOPTION OF GP RATE OF 5%.ESTIMATION OF GP RATE WITHOUT ANY BAS IS IS LIKE A BUILDING WITHOUT A FOUNDA - TION.WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A RECONCILIATION A BOUT THE ALLEGED DISCREPANCY OF STOCK AND CASH THERE WAS NO PLACE FOR TINKERING WITH THE GROS S PROFIT RATE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE.ANY ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT ASSIGNING REASONS I S LIABLE TO BE REVERSED.THE CASE BEFORE US IS ONE OF SUCH CASES.IN THE MATTER BEFORE US,THE AO HAS ARBITRARILY ADOPTED HIGHER RATE OF GP AND MADE ADDITION.IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE FAA RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION.UPHOLDING HIS ORDER,WE DECIDE GROUND NO.1 AGAINST THE AO. 3. NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT ADDITION OF RS.13,04 ,540/- MADE BY THE AO. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXCESS STOCK OF RS.8,98,785/- AND UNEXP LAINED CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,05,755/-. AS STATED EARLIER,DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCE EDINGS THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED EXCESS STOCK AND CASH AND LATER ON,HE RETRACTED HIS STATEMENT.W ITH REGARD TO THE CASH IT WAS STATED THAT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY THE ASSESSEE WAS AWAY FROM HEADQ UARTERS,THAT HIS FATHER WAS AVAILABLE ON THE SPOT AND THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER WAS RECORDED. WHEN CONFRONTED BY THE SURVEY TEAM, THE ASSESSEES FATHER,SURRENDERED THE IMPUGNED EXCESS CASH IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE SURVEY TEAM, THAT ON VERIFICATION,T HE ASSESSEE NOTICED MISTAKE COMMITTED BY HIS FATHER IN DETERMINING THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH, SO MUCH SO THAT THE CLOSING CASH BALANCE ON 08.12.2002 WAS RS.5,75, 999/-BUT BY MISTAKE THE OPE NING CASH BALANCE AS ON 09.12.2002 WAS ADOPTED AT RS.1,74,244/ .AS PER THE AO IT WAS OBVIO USLY INCORRECT AND HAD RESULTED IN EXCESS CASH AS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY.AS PER THE ASSE SSEE THE STOCK, AS REFLECTED IN CUSTOM MILLING REGISTER, WAS NOT PROPERLY TAKEN INTO CONSI DERATION WHILE PREPARING THE DETAILS OF AVAILABLE STOCK AND IT RESULTED IN DISTORTED FIGURE OF STOCK OF RS.8,98,785/-.HE CLAIMED THAT THE SURRENDER WAS MADE UNDER CLEAR MISCONCEPTION OF FAC TS.BUT THE AO DID NOT AGREE AND HELD THAT THERE WERE INTERPOLATION IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS,THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD SURRENDER -ED THE EXCESS STOCK AND CASH.RELYING UPON CERTAIN CASE LAWE,THE AO HELD THAT THE RETRACTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OF NO USE.FINALLY,HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.13.04 LAKHS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA/90/BLPR/2011-NKKEDIA 4 3.1. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,BEFORE THE FAA,THE ASS ESSEE ARGUED THAT THE IMPUGNED SURRENDER WAS NOT MADE BY THE APPELLANT, BUT BY HIS FATHER WHO WAS STATED TO BE NOT CONVERSANT WITH THE REAL FACTS RELEVANT TO THE CRUX OF THE ISSUES CONFRONTED TO HIM BY THE SURVEY TEAM,THAT WHILE SUBMITTING THE DETAILS BEFOR E THE SURVEY AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED EXCESS STOCK THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT INCLUDE THE AVAILABLE STOCK IN CUSTOM STOCK REGISTER AND THROUGH OVERSIGHT THE ENTRIES OF CUSTO M STOCK REGISTER WERE MISSED BY HIM,THAT THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND A UTHORITIES OF THE STATE GOVT. CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION WERE WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR EVIDENCE IN P OSSESSION OF THE AO,THAT PERUSAL OF THE STOCK REGISTER OF CUSTOM MILLING CLEARLY SHOWED THA T THE STOCK AVAILABLE IN THAT REGISTER WAS OMITTED TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION,THAT THE AO S ALLEGATION THAT ENTRY OF 10.12.2002 WAS MADE ABOVE THE SIGNATURE OF THE INSPECTOR DID NOT M ITIGATE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE COULD BE DRAWN,THAT THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED EXCESS STOCK AND CASH,MADE BY THE AO WERE UNJUSTIFIED,THAT THE SUBSE QUENT RETRACTION STATEMENT BY THE APPELLANT,CORROBORATED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS ACCEPTABLE.HE REFERRED TO THE CASES OF PAUL MATHEWS(263ITR101),S.S. KHADER KHAN SON (300 I TR157)AND CBDTS INSTRUCTION NO. 286/2/2003/ IT(INV.)DATED 11.03.2003.FINALLY,HE HEL D THAT THE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE SURVEY TEAM HAVING NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE HAD TO BE E XCLUDED,THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND THE INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE BOARD, COUPLED WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD,THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS-MADE BY THE AO-HAD TO BE DELETED. 3.2. BEFORE US,THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)STATED T HAT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRESENT,THAT THE STATEMENT OF FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WERE RECORDED,THAT LATER ON THE ASSESSEE REACHED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES AND MADE STATEMENT,THAT THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONVERSANT WITH THE AFFAIRS OF THE RICE MIL L,THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING DAY TODAY STOCK REGISTER,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RETRACTE D HIS STATEMENT,THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE CASH OR STOCK FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY,TH AT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE STOCK WAS EXPLAINED BY COGENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES,THAT THE STATE GOVE RNMENT AUTHORITIES HAVE CERTIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO PROCESS RICE AS PER THE S CHEME OF THE STATE,THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN REJECTING THE RATE OF GROSS PROFIT .HE RELIED UPON THE CASES OF VIJAYKUMAR KESAR,(327ITR497),DIGAMBAR KUMAR JAIN-HUF(84DTR 365 )AND SATYANARAYAN AGARWAL (319 ITR396).DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR)SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE AO AND ARGUED THAT THE FAA HAD WRONGLY MENTIONED THE FACTS ABOUT RECORDING OF STATEMENT OF THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE,THAT ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK,THAT RETRACTION WAS AN AFTER THOUGHT,THAT THERE WERE INTERPOLATION AND TAMPERING IN THE ENTRIES OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 3.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.FROM THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT IS CLEAR THAT AT THE TIME OF BEGINNING OF SURVEY OPERATION THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES,THAT THE S TATEMENTS OF THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WERE RECORDED AND THE INITIAL ADMISSION OF EXCESS CASH A ND STOCK WAS MADE BY HIS FATHER,THAT THE ASSESSEE LATER ON ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS DIFFERENC E IN THE STOCK AND THE CASH FOUND DURING THE SURVEY,THAT THE ASSESSEE RETRACTED HIS STATEMENT,TH AT HE HAD PRODUCED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FROM THE STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THAT HE WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE STOCK OF STATE GOVERNMENT,THAT THE SURVEY TEAM HAD NOT ASKED THE BASIC QUESTION ABOUT THE STOCK BELONGING TO OTHERS AT THE PREMISES OF THE AS SESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY.IT IS A GENERAL PRACTICE TO ASK QUESTION ABOUT CASH AND GOO DS BELONGING TO OTHERS AND LYING AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE SURVEY STARTS.WE DO NOT FIND THAT THIS BASIC EXERCISE WAS DONE BY THE SURVEY TEAM. THE ASSESSEE WHEN CONFRONTED WITH DISCREPANCY FILED A REASONED AND DOCUMENTED EXPLANATION BEFORE THE AO.T HE AO WAS NOT ABLE TO REBUT THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE.IF HE HAD DOUBT ABOUT THE VERACITY OF THE DOCUMENTS OF CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT OF THE C G GOVT.,HE SHOUL D HAVE MADE INQUIRY ABOUT THE SAME WITH ITA/90/BLPR/2011-NKKEDIA 5 THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED.BUT,HE CHOOSE NOT TO MAKE ANY INQUIRY AND JUST MADE THE ADDITION.IN OUR OPINION,THE APPROACH OF THE AO IS B EYOND COMPREHENSION.WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF VIJAYKUMAR KESAR(SUPRA).DEALING WITH ISSUES OF ADMISSION MADE BY AN ASSESSEE DURING THE SURVEY AND RETRACTION FILED HIM THE COURT HAS HELD THAT THE CO NFESSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING SURVEY PROCEEDINGS IS NOT CONCLUSIVE AND IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH BY FILING COGENT EVIDENCE THAT THE SAME WAS NOT TRUE AND CORRECT.IN THE MATTER BEFORE US,THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED WITH COGENT EVIDENCES THAT THE ADMISSIO N MADE DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT TRUE AND CORRECT.THEREFORE,CONFIRMING THE O RDER OF THE FAA,WE DECIDE GROUND NO.2 AGAINST THE AO. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS DISMISSED 1 1 - 3 4 ) . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 DECEMBER,2014. ) 8 22, 9 ,2014 ) . SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA/ . . ) ( / RAJENDRA) PRESIDENT/ 0 0 0 0 /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /RAIPUR. 9 DATE: 22.12.2014 ) )) ) &:; &:; &:; &:; <; <; <; <; / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / % 2. RESPONDENT / &'% 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ = > , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / = > 5. DR ITAT,RAIPUR BENCH/ ; & , . . ., 6. GUARD FILE/ . '; & //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, RAIPUR