ITO, WARD-1, Yavatmal V. SMT. SHAILBALA CHOUDHARY, L/H OF LATE SHRI KAILASHCHANDRA CHOUDHARY, Yavatmal

ITSSA 10/NAG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1028 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA KANE
• Assessee Lawyers: HIMESH DEMBLE
• Keywords: Loose papers
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

1 IT(SS)A. NO. 10/NAG/2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. IT(SS)A. NO.10/NAG/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 - 06. THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, SMT. SHAILBALA CHOUDHARY, WARD - 1, YAVATMAL. VS. L/H OF LATE SHRI KAILASHCHANDRA CHOUDHARY, KOLHE LAYOUT, DARWHA ROAD, YAVATMAL. (APPELLANT) RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI NARENDRA KANE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HIMESH DEMBLE. DATE OF HEARING : 08 - 09 - 2015. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 TH SEPT., 2015. O R D E R PER SHRI SHAMIN YAHYA, A.M . THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - I, NAGPUR DATED 12 - 09 - 2011 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 2,68,294/ - BEING THE EXCESS DIFFERENCE OF DEBTORS IN CASE OF VAPI PAPERS IGNORING THE SEIZED MATERIAL. 2. ON THE FACTS AN D THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE EXCESS DEBTORS OF ` 2,68,294/ - IN THE CASE OF VAPI PAPERS AS SHOWN IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL VIS - - VIS THE DEBTORS SHOWN IN BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31 - 03 - 2005. 2 IT(SS)A. NO. 10/NAG/2011 3. ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CASH BALANCE OF ` 12,84,863/ - IGNORING THE SEIZED MATERIAL. 4. ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE EXCESS CASH BALANCE OF ` 12,84,863/ - AS SHOWN IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL VIS - - VIS THE CASH BALANCE SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31 - 03 - 2005. 5. ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN TOTALING IGNORING THE FACTS ON RECORD AND RELYING ON IRRELEVANT ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. IN THIS CASE A SEARCH U/S 132 WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SHRI HARIOM CHOUDHARY AT HIS RE SIDENCE AND IN THE OFFICES OF HIS ASSOCIATED COMPANIE S AND OTHERS. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI HARIOM CHOUDHAR ON 14 - 03 - 2007 THE ASSESSEE SHRI KAILASHCHANDRA CHOUDHARY WAS ALSO PRESENT. IN A LOOSE PAPER FOUND FROM HIM, FOLLOWING NOTINGS WERE FOUND : BHAGAT PAPER ` 77,085.50 R.A. SHEIKH ` 2,03,150.30 VAPI PAPERS MILLS ` 5,06,860.33 VIDHI INDUSTRIES ` 3,21,878.75 MAHENDRA BHAI ` 11,08,974.99 CASH BALANCE: ` 16,47,346.92 THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH STATED THAT THESE ENTRIES APPEAR ED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN AS ON 31 - 03 - 2005. 3. A SURVEY WAS ALSO CONDUCTED ON 15 - 03 - 2007 AT THE ASSESSEES PREMISES AT YAVATMAL. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY THE ASSESSEE STATED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HA VE BEEN MAINTAINED UPTO MARCH, 2006. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT BOOKS FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006 - 07 HAVE BEEN WRITTEN 3 IT(SS)A. NO. 10/NAG/2011 UPTO 24 - 01 - 2007. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE A TRIAL BALANCE ON 24 - 01 - 2007 WAS FOUND IN THE COMPUTER AND COPY OF THE SAME WAS ALSO SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT DID NOT GIVE ANY CREDENCE TO MATERIALS FOUND ON SURVEY AT THE ASSESSEES PREMISES AND THE STATEMENT RECORDED. HE COMPARED THE LOOSE DETAILS F O UND FROM THE ASSESSEE AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI HARIOM CHOUDHARY WITH THE ASSESSEES BALANCE SHEET ON 31 - 03 - 2005. THE DIFFERENCE IN THE CASH ACCOUNT AND THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PARTIES ACCOUNT WAS ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INC O ME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THIS ORDER, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). 4. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF ` 12,84,863/ - BEI NG THE DIFFERENCE IN CASH, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ALSO OBTAINED REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. IN THE REMAND REPORT THE AO STATED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND SUBSTANTIALLY RELEASED BY THE ITO, YAVATMAL. HOWEVER, AS THEY WERE NOT PRODUCED, THEREFORE, THE RELIANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE TRIAL BALANCE AS ON 24 - 01 - 2007 CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD MADE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) : 'DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH / SURVEY PROCEEDINGS THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IDENTIFIED AS ANNEXURE B ITEM NO.1 ALONG WITH NAME - OF THE DEBTORS ALSO GIVES THE BALANCE CASH IN HAND AT RS. 16,47,346.92. THE BALANCE SHOWN IN TH E SEIZED PAPER IS ALSO FULLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CASH BALANCE SHOWN IN THE TRIAL BALANCE AS ON 24 - 1 - 2007. BUT THE AO SIMPLY BY RECONCILING THE CASH BALANCE AS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED PAPER WITH THE TRIAL BALANCE AS ON 31 - 3 - 2005 WHICH WAS RS.3,62,714/ - AND DIFFERENCE OF RS. 12,84,868/ - MADE AN ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE ABOVE YOUR HONOUR WILL OBSERVE THAT ALL THE FIGURES MENTIONED IN SAID PIECE OF PAPER WHICH WAS IDENTIFIED AS ANNEXURE B HEM NO.1 GIVES THE DETAILS OF CASH BALAN CE AS PER BALANCE SHOWN IN THE TRIAL BALANCE AS ON 24 - 1 - 2007 TILL THE DATE THE BOOKS WERE WRITTEN. AND THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE BOOKS WERE WRITTEN UPTO 24 - 01 - 2007. IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION N NO. 5 OF HIS STATEMENT (A COPY OF THE SAME 4 IT(SS)A. NO. 10/NAG/2011 IS ENCLOSES AS ANNEXURE - B). THE CASH BALANCE SHOWN IN THE SAID SEIZED PAPER IS FULLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND AS PER THE TRIAL BALANCE AS ON 24 - 01 - 2007. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R SIMPLY BY IGNORING THE TRIAL BALANCE AS ON 24 - 01 - 2007 AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS ABSOLUTELY UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND SURMISES. ' CONSIDERING THE ABOVE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION HOLDING AS UNDER : 7. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT AO HAS CHOSEN TO IGNORE THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AT YAVATMAL ON 14 - 03 - 2007 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY STATED THAT THE BOOKS OF' ACCOUNT HAS BEEN MAINTAINED UPTO 24 - 01 - 2007. AO HAS THEREFORE NOT CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE IN PROPER LIGHT AND PREFERRED TO GO BY THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE BALANCES RELATED TO 31 - 03 - 2005. THE TRIAL BALANCE AS ON 24 - 01 - 2007 OBTAINED DURING THE TIME OF SURVEY IS A CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCE AND AO HAS REJECTED THIS WITHOUT ADEQUATE REASONS. THE STATEMENT OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THAT WERE IMPOUNDED AND LATER RELEASED REVEAL THAT AO HAS BEEN CASUAL IN HIS APPROACH TO THE MAT TER. STATUTORY PROVISIONS ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO TO CALL FOR THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN ANY CASE THE BOOKS HAS BEEN IMPOUNDED AND RELEASED AND THEREFORE NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE GROUND THAT THESE WERE NOT PRODUCED ONCE AGAIN BEFORE THE AO. I FIND NO MERIT IN THE AO'S ASSERTION THAT THE AMOUNT IS BALANCE OUTSTANDING AS ON 31 - 03 - 2005 AS AO HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OF THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL BEFORE HIM. THIS GROUND IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. 5. AGAINST THIS ORDER, REVENUE IS IN A PPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. SHRI NARENDRA KANE, LEARNED D.R., RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE AO IN THE REMAND PROCEEDI NGS. HENCE HE CLAIMED THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY NOT TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE TRIAL BALANCE AS ON 24 - 01 - 2007 FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. REFERRING TO THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVATION THAT STATUTORY PROVISIONS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO TO CALL FOR THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS, SHRI KANE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME PROVISIONS WERE ALSO AVAILABLE TO THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). SHRI KANE CONTENDED THAT THE LEARNED 5 IT(SS)A. NO. 10/NAG/2011 CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALSO FAILED TO APPLY STATUTORY PROVISIONS TO EXAMINE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HENCE THE M ATTER NEEDS TO BE REMITTED FOR PROPER EXAMINATION ON THIS ISSUE. 7. PER CONTRA LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI HIMESH DEMBLE SUBMITTED THAT FIRSTLY A LOOSE SHEET CONTAINING SOME JOTTINGS FOUND DURING THE SURVEY DID NOT HAVE THE SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI DEMBLE CONTENDED THAT THE SAME DOCUMENT IS A DUM B DOCUMENT AND CANNOT BE A BASIS OF ADDITION AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS. SHRI DEMBLE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE VERY NEXT DAY OF THE SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI HARIOM CHOUDHARY, SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE IMPOUNDED AND THE TRIAL BALANCE WAS SEIZED. THE TRIAL BALANCE SEIZED WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE AO AND THE BALANCES FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AT SHRI HARIMO CHOUDHARYS PREMISES WERE DULY EXPLAINED BY THE TRIAL BALANCES FOUND AS ON 24 - 01 - 2007. LEARNED COUNSEL CLAIMED THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS QUITE CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE DIFFERENCE IS PROPERLY EXPLAINED AND NO ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS CALLED FOR. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. WE FIND THAT IN THE SEARCH CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI HARIOM CHOUDHARY THE PRESENT ASSESSEE WAS ALSO PRESENT ON THE DATE OF SURVEY I.E. ON 14 - 01 - 2007. A LOOSE SHEET CON TAINING THE NOTINGS WAS FOUND WHICH SHOWED SOME PARTY BALANCE S AND A NO TING FOR CASH BALANCE. THE NOTING FOR CASH BALANCE WAS TAKEN BY THE AO AS A CASH I N HAND AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE AO COMPARED THE SAME WITH THE ASSESSEES BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31 - 03 - 2005. IN THIS REGARD THE AO TOTALLY IGNORED THE FACT THAT ON THE VE RY NEXT DAY I.E. ON 15 - 03 - 2007 SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED AT THE ASSESSEES PREMISES. BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE IMPOUNDED AND TRIAL BALANCE AS ON 24 - 01 - 2007 WAS SEIZED. THE NOTING FOR CASH IN HAND WAS DULY EXPLAINED IN THIS TRIAL 6 IT(SS)A. NO. 10/NAG/2011 BALANCE AND NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID TRIAL BALANCE. IN THE REMAND REPORT IN THIS REGARD THE AO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE B O OKS OF ACCOUNTS TO CORROBORATE THE BALANCE MENTIONED IN THE TRIAL BALANCE. WE AGREE WITH THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD THAT THE TRIAL BALANCE AS ON 24 - 01 - 2007 OBTAINED DURING THE SURVEY IS A CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCE AND THE AO HAS REJECTED IT WITHOUT ADEQUATE REASONS. WE FULLY AGREE WITH THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVATION THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THAT WERE IMPOUNDED AND LATERON RELEASED REVEALED THAT THE AO HAS BEEN CASUAL IN HIS APPROACH TO THE MATTER. WHEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAV E BEEN IMPOUNDED AND RELEASED W E AGREE WITH THE LEARNED CIT( APPEALS) THAT NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN THAT THESE WERE NOT PRODUCED ONCE AGAIN BEFORE THE AO. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DELETING THE ADDITION. WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH T HE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED D.R. SHRI KANE THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED TO THE AO FOR FRESH EXAMINATION. THE FACTS O N RECORD DO NOT WARRANT THAT THE AO SHOULD BE GIVEN A SECOND INNING AGAINST THE SAME ASSESSEE ON THE SAME FACTS. ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE DELETION OF ADDITION IN THIS REGARD. BEFORE PARTING WE MAY ADD THAT IT IS ALSO STRANGE THAT A LOOSE NOTE SHOWING A CERTAIN SUM OF MONEY AS CASH BALANCE HAS BEEN TREATED AS CASH IN HAND FOUND AND SEIZED DURING SEARCH. 9. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN BALANCE ON ACCOUNT OF BHAGAT PAPERS AND VAPI PAPERS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE SAME WAS CLEARLY EXPLAINED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE LOOSE PAPERS PERTAINS TO THE PERIOD FROM 01 - 04 - 2006 TO 31 - 03 - 2007. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE A TRIAL BALANCE AS ON 24 - 01 - 2007 WAS FOUND IN THE COMPUTER AND THE COPY OF THE SAME WAS ALSO SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT. ALL THE FIGURES OF THE SUNDRY DEBTORS AS 7 IT(SS)A. NO. 10/NAG/2011 WEL L AS CASH BALANCE MENTIONED IN THE SAID LOOSE PAPERS ARE FULLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE BALANCE SHOWN AS PER TRIAL BALANCE AS ON 24 - 01 - 2007. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ASKED FOR A REMAND FROM THE AO. IN THE REMAND REPORT THE AO SUBMITTED THAT NO CONFIRMATION WAS RE CEIVED FROM THE PARTIES. HENCE THE BALANCES CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION HOLDING AS UNDER : I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE FACTS. AS POINTED OUT BY THE AR AT THE TIME OF SURVEY THE AS SESSEES PREMISES AT YAVATMAL DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED INCLUDED A TRIAL BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD 01 - 04 - 2006 TO 24 - 01 - 2007. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SUCH ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE AVAILABLE WERE ALSO PRODUCED. THE DEBTORS APPEARING IN THE SEIZED DOC UMENTS B - 1 ALSO APPEAR IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF 31 - 03 - 2005 AND 31 - 03 - 2006 AND THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING HAVE BEEN CARRIED FORWARD AND APPEAR IN THE TRIAL BALANCE UPTO 24 - 01 - 2007. IN THIS CASE I FIND THAT AO HAS MERELY ADDED THE BALANCE AS THEY ARE DIFFERENT I N THE CASE OF BHAGAT PAPER AND VAPI PAPERS. THERE IS A DECREASE IN THE BALANCE OF BHAGAT PAPER AS COMPARED TO THE BALANCE SHEET OF 31 - 03 - 2005. IN THE CASE OF VAPI PAPERS THERE IS AN INCREASE IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS COMPARED TO THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31 - 03 - 2005. THE AMOUNTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: NAME OF PARTY BALANCE AS PER SEIZED PAPER. BALANCE AS PER B/S AS ON 31 - 03 - 2005. BHAGAT PAPER ` 77,085.50 ` 2,88,566 VAPI PAPER ` 5,06,860.33 ` 2,38,566 THE AO HAS ADDED BOTH THE AMOUNT WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO RECONCILE OR EXPLAIN WHY AN ALLEGED INCREASE AND DECREASE IN BALANCE IS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME. I FIND THAT AO HAS APPROACHED THE MATTER CASUALLY. EVEN THE FINDINGS IN THE REMAND REPORT DO NOT LEAD TO A CONCLUSION THAT THESE ARE BALANCES AS ON 31 - 03 - 2005 - 06. CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 8 IT(SS)A. NO. 10/NAG/2011 10. AGAINST THE DELETION UPTO ` 2, 68,294/ - IN THE CASE OF VAPI PAPERS, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. LEARNED D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIAL BALANCE FOUND AT THE TIME OF S URVEY CANNOT BE GIVEN CREDENCE AS THE NECESSARY BOOKS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. 12. PER CONTRA LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TRIAL BALANCE DURING THE SURVEY WAS SEIZED. A STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO RECORDED AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE IMPOUNDED BY THE DEPARTMENT. HENCE LEARNED COUNSEL CLAIMED THAT THE REVENUE CANNOT NOW DISREGARD THE BALANCES FOUND IN THE TRIAL BALANCE AND THE BOOKS THAT WERE IMP OUNDED. 1 3 . UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WE NOTE THAT THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL ON THIS ISSUE WAS THE SAME AS THE ONE DEALT WITH BY US IN THE ABOVE IS SUE AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH BALANCE. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE ADMITTED FACTS OF THE CASE, THE DIFFERENCE IN PARTY ACCOUNT NOTED BY THE AO HAS ARISEN SOLELY DUE TO THE AO S TREATMENT OF PARTY A/C BALANCE MENTIONED IN LOOSE SHEET FOUND ON SEARCH ON 14 - 0 3 - 200 7 AS BALANCE REQUIRING EXPLANATION . THE SAME WAS DULY EXPLAINED BY THE BALANCE SHEET AS PER THE TRIAL BALANCE THAT WAS SEIZED AS ON 15 - 03 - 2007. THIS WAS FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IMPOUNDED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND L ATER ON RELEASE D . HENCE WE AGREE WITH THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT NOW THE AO CANNOT DISREGARD THE FINDINGS IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY DULY EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE ON THIS ACCOUNT. HENCE NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. WHEN A SEARCH IS FOLLOWED BY A SURVEY ON THE SAME ASSESSEE, THE SAME IS MEANT TO EXAMINE FURTHER ON THE BASIS OF 9 IT(SS)A. NO. 10/NAG/2011 FINDING IN SEARCH. THE FINDING ON SURVEY DULY CORROBORATED THE FINDING ON SEARCH. HENCE WE HOLD THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY WE UPHO LD THE SAME. 1 4 . IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF SEPT., 2015. SD/ SD/ (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ( SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. NAGPUR, DATED: 16 TH SEPT., 2015. COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT, NAGPUR. 5. THE D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NAGPUR WAKODE .