1 IT(SS)A NO. 132/COCH/2004 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI B.R. BASKA RAN(AM) I.T(SS)A NO. 132/COCH/2004 (BLOCK PERIOD 01-04-1995 TO 20-11-2001) M/S CHINNANSONS JEWELLERS VS THE DY.CIT, CENT.CI R. CALICUT ROAD, PERINTHALNNA THRISSUR PAN : AACFC7130R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI JOSE POTTOKKARAN RESPONDENT BY : SMT. S. VIJAYAPRABHA DATE OF HEARING : 18-04-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-06-2012 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-I, KOCHI DATED 25-10-2004 AND PERTAIN S TO BLOCK PERIOD 01-04-1995 TO 20- 11-2001. 2. SHRI JOSE POTTOKKARAN, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ADDITION OF RS. 14,40,115 AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME TOWARDS CASH PURCHASES. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRES ENTATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,55,04,950. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION ON 09-01-2004 POINTING OUT THE MISTAKE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDI NG TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 14,40,115. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT AL L THE PURCHASES WERE ENTERED IN THE 2 IT(SS)A NO. 132/COCH/2004 PRIMARY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED THE VOUCHER. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY ADDITION AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. VIJAYAPRABHA, THE LD.DR SU BMITTED THAT THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE VERIFIED SINCE TH E PURCHASE VOUCHERS DID NOT CONTAIN THE PARTICULARS OF THE PURCHASERS. THE PURCHASES M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON 19-11-2001 WERE NOT ENTERED IN THE CASH BOOK. HOWEVER, THE SA LES AND OTHER EXPENSES OF THE VERY SAME DAY WERE RECORDED. THERE IS NO EXPLANATION FR OM THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT RECORDING THE PURCHASES ALONE ON 19-11-2001. THEREFORE, ACCO RDING TO THE LD.DR, THESE PURCHASES WERE MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. NO DOUBT, THE ASSESS EE HAS PRODUCED THE PURCHASE VOUCHERS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, TH E DETAILS COULD NOT BE VERIFIED SINCE THE PURCHASE VOUCHERS DID NOT CONTAIN ANY DETAILS O F PURCHASERS. CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES APPEARS TO BE THAT IN CASE OF CASH PURCHASES, THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOW THE DETAILS OF PURCHASERS. HOWEVER, T HE FACT REMAINS IS THAT WITH REGARD TO THE PURCHASES MADE ON 19-11-2001, THERE IS NO ENTRY IN THE CASH BOOK. HOWEVER, THE OTHER EXPENSES AND SALES MADE ON THE VERY SAME DAY WERE ENTERED IN THE CASH BOOK. THERE WAS NO EXPLANATION FORTHCOMING FROM THE ASSES SEE FOR NOT RECORDING THE PURCHASES ALONE. IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION WHICH WAS CON FIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A). THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY INFIR MITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 5. INA THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND JUNE, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 22 ND JUNE, 2012 PK/- 3 IT(SS)A NO. 132/COCH/2004 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH