DCIT, Circle-XXIII, Kolkata, Kolkata V. Late Parmeshwar Lal Bhaniramka Represented by Mahesh Bhaniramka, L/H, Kolkata

ITSSA 136/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3281 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 28-02-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MALLIKARJUNA CIT LD
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Valuation report
• Section: 142(1); 69

Judgement Text

IT(SS) NO.136/KOL/14 MAHESH BHANIRAMKA L/H LATE PARMESHWAR LALL BHANIRAMKA 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,CBENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE: SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS) A NO. 136/KOL/2014 BLOCK PERIOD:01-04-1996 TO 28-10-2002 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF VS. MAHESH BHANIRAMKA INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE L/H OF LATE PARMESHWAR XXIII, KOLKATA BH ANIRAMKA PAN:ADUPB 6504D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPEARANCES BY : SHRI MALLIKARJUNA, CIT, LD.DR FOR THE REVEN UE NONE APPEARED/ADJ. PETITION NOT FILED ON BEHA LF OF ASSESSEE DATE OF HEARING : 28-02-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26-04-2017 O R D E R SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DT: 17-06- 2014 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS), III, KOLKATA FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01-04-1996 TO 28-10-20 02. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS UNJUST, IMPROPER, BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS HE HAS ALLOWED FULL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. U/S.LS8 BC/143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON ADDITIO N OF UNDISCLOSED IT(SS) NO.136/KOL/14 MAHESH BHANIRAMKA L/H LATE PARMESHWAR LALL BHANIRAMKA 2 JEWELLARY CONSIDERING ONLY THE ASSESSEE'S DISCLOSUR E IN VDIS-97 SCHEME, WHICH IS MORE THAN THE QUANTITY FOUND DURIN G THE SEARCH. 2.1 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO RECONCILE THE SPECIFIED' JEWELLERIES WITH THE VALUATION REPOR T, THOUGH HE WAS GIVEN DUE OPPORTUNITY AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AN ATE TIME OF REMAND REPORT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON ADDITIO N OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON THE BASIS OF THE BALANCE SHEET FOUND DURI NG THE SEARCH WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO RECONCILE AND EXPLAIN THE SPECIFIED ENTRIES IN THE ALLEGED BA LANCE SHEET, THOUGH HE WAS GIVEN DUE OPPORTUNITY AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AND AT THE TIME OF REMAND REPORT. 3.1 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON ADDITIO N OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE REMAND REPORT SUBMI TTED BY THE AO IN WHICH THE AO. HAS POINTED OUT NON-COOPERATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN GETTING THE ENTRIES VERIFIED. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN TIMBER TRADING. THE APPEL LANT REVENUE HAS CONDUCTED A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S. 1 32(1) OF THE ACT ON 28-10-2002 IN THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS AND RE SIDENTIAL PREMISES. DURING SEARCH OPERATION VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT RELATING TO CASH AND JEWELLERY WER E FOUND AND SEIZED AND MARKED AS PB/1 TO PB/10. A NOTICE U/S. 1 58BC OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 09-07-2003 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE BLOCK RETURN WITHIN 45 DAYS OF SERVICE OF SAID NOTI CE. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS BLOCK RETURN ON 19-11-2003 SHOW ING TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS. NIL. THEREAFTER, THE AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S. 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT. IN RESP ONSE TO WHICH, THE ASSESSEE, SRI PARAMESHWAR LAL BHANIRAMKA , HIMSELF ATTENDED AND FURNISHED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER INFORMATION AS CALLED FOR BY THE AO. ACCORDING TO AO, THE ASSES SEE DID NOT RECONCILE THE VALUE OF GOLD JEWELLERY, WHICH WERE SEIZED TO THE VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE REVENUE. BEFORE THE AO T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS H AD ALREADY IT(SS) NO.136/KOL/14 MAHESH BHANIRAMKA L/H LATE PARMESHWAR LALL BHANIRAMKA 3 DISCLOSED GOLD JEWELLERY OF 4741.200 GMS AND DIAMON D OF 208.700 CT IN THEIR RESPECTIVE WEALTH TAX RETURN. T HE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ITEMS WHICH WERE FOUND AND SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH OPERATION WERE ALSO DISCLOSED UNDER VDIS SCHEME-87. THE AO CROSS VERIFIED THE VALUATION REPO RT WITH THAT OF JEWELLERY ITEMS AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT RECONCILE WITH THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION REPORT TO AN EXTENT OF RS.9,08,836/-. THUS, THE AO ADDED THE SUM OF RS. 9,08,836/- TREATING THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. 4. REGARDING SEIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MARKED PB/1 TO PB/10, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAINTAINING AND PREPARING TWO TYPES OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATE MENTS AND BALANCE SHEETS, ONE IS ACCOUNTED I.E REGULAR BALANC E SHEET AND THE OTHER IS UNACCOUNTED I.E UNDISCLOSED BALANCE SH EET. THE AO EXAMINING THE UNDISCLOSED BALANCE SHEET I.E. DEMO NSTRATION COMPANY 15 FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE BA LANCE SHEET AT RS.68,29,122/- BEING UNDISCLOSED INCOME F OR THE BLOCK PERIOD. BUT THE AO ESTIMATED THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD AT RS.77,37,948/- (RS.68,29,122 + RS.9,08,836) AND TO THAT EFFECT AN ORDER U/S. 153BC /143(3) DATED 23-07-2007. 5. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE SAME BEFORE THE CIT- A. THE CIT-A DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE U/S. 69 OF THE ACT BY REFERRING THE COMPARATIVE CHART AS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT-A DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION B Y OBSERVING THAT THE AO ON MERE PRESUMPTION THAT THE BALANCE IT(SS) NO.136/KOL/14 MAHESH BHANIRAMKA L/H LATE PARMESHWAR LALL BHANIRAMKA 4 SHEET AS ON 28-10-02 COULD BE THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31-03- 2003. 6. BEFORE US THE LD.DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF T HE AO. 7. HEARD THE LD.DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILAB LE ON RECORD. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE U/S. 69 OF THE ACT, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT-A CONTENDE D THAT THE JEWELLERIES AND ORNAMENTS AS PART OF INVENTORY FOUN D AND SEIZED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WERE DU LY DISCLOSED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS, VDIS DISCLOSURE AND PURC HASED AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. BEFORE THE CIT-A THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THE COMPARATIVE CHART SHOWING THE JEWELLE RY DISCLOSED IN THE VDIS SCHEME AND THE JEWELLERY INVE NTORISED DURING SEARCH IN RESPECT OF GOLD AND DIAMONDS. THE CIT-A FOUND FAULT WITH THE AO THAT ADDITION WAS ONLY MADE IN TH E HANDS OF ASSESSEE, BUT NOT ON THE FAMILY MEMBERS. THE CIT-A EXAMINED ALL THE DETAILS AS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF THE COMPARATIVE CHART AND FOUND SATISFIED THAT THE JEWE LLERIES WERE ALREADY DISCLOSED AND PROPERLY EXPLAINED. WE FIND N O INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT-A IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. RELEVANT FINDING OF THE CIT- A ON THIS ISSUE IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR BETT ER UNDERSTANDING:- 3.6 DISCUSSION, AND, DECISION: 3.6.1 IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITS ELF THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH ACTION, SOME JEWELLERY HAD JUST BEEN SEI ZED AS SOME ITEMS COULD NOT BE RECONCILED WITH THE LIST PREPARED BY THE VALUER DURING THE SEARCH. THIS WAS JUST A SUMMARY SEIZURE-FOR SEIZURE SAKE ONLY. IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT, SAME HAS BEEN DONE. WHA TEVER HAS BEEN SEIZED, HAS BEEN ADDED. 3.6.2 NO DUE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE BA SIC OVERALL FACT THAT THE APPELLANT AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE DISCLOSED JEW ELLERIES THAT EXCEED THE JEWELLERY INVENTORISED DURING THE SEARCH. THE DISCL OSED JEWELLERIES ARE AS PER THE WEALTH TAX RETURNS, DISCLOSURE MADE IN VDIS 1997, A ND, PURCHASES AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE COMPARATIVE CHART IS HEREUNDER: SL.NO. JEWELLERY DISCLOSED INVENTORISED IT(SS) NO.136/KOL/14 MAHESH BHANIRAMKA L/H LATE PARMESHWAR LALL BHANIRAMKA 5 DESCRIPTION JEWELLERY DURING SEARCH (1) (2) (3) (4) 1 GOLD 5062.830 GRAMS 3351.540 GRAMS 2 DIAMOND 208.700 CARATS 102.500 CARATS 3 JEWELLERY WITH UNCUT DIAMOND 46 GRAMS - 4 SILVER 32.068 KILOGRAMS - 5 GINNI 47 PIECES THE ABOVE CHART ITSELF IS SUFFICIENT TO HOLD THAT T HE JEWELLERIES HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED AND ARE THEREFORE EXPLAINED. 3.6.3 THE NOT BEING ABLE TO RECONCILE SOME ITEMS W ITH THE VALUERS LIST PREPARED DURING THE SEARCH THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN HIS EX PLANATION WHICH IS A REALISTIC AND NORMAL ONE THAT SOME ITEMS MAY HAVE UNDERGONE CHANGE IN DESIGN/ALTERATION, WHICH IS NORMAL WITH LADIES. WHA T IS RELEVANT IS THE TOTAL WEIGHT RATHER THAN ONE-TO-ONE ITEM-WISE MYOPIC COMPARISON. 3.6.4 ANOTHER ASPECT IS THAT IT IS THE JEWELLERY OF ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS; WHEREAS THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ONLY IN THIS CAS E OF THE APPELLANT BEING THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY. THIS IS A FLAWED SUMMARY APPROA CH. 3.6.5 THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS HEREBY DELETED. 8. REGARDING THE OTHER ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDIS CLOSED INCOME, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN IN HIS BALANCE SHEET DEMONSTRATION COMPANY 15 CONSISTS O F CONSOLIDATED GROUP TRANSACTION INCLUDES INTER ALIA, THOSE APPEARING IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE GR OUP CONCERNS AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS AL SO CONTENDED THAT UPTO DATE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES WERE NOT MADE TIL L 08-10- 2002 AS MOST OF THE OPENING ENTRIES WERE NOT PASSE D AS THE AUDITED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE BUSINESS CONCE RNS OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS WERE NOT RECEIVED TILL THE DATE OF S EARCH OPERATION I.E ON 28-10-2002. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED TH AT THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 08- 10-2002 WAS DOUBTED BY THE AO AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENT PB-7 REFLECTS ONLY PART AND INCOMPLETE EN TRIES OF GROUP CONCERNS TRANSACTIONS FOR AND UPTO 08-10-2002 . BEFORE THE CIT-A AND THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED AL L THE ENTRIES IN DETAIL. THE AO WAS WRONG IN TALLYING AND MATCHING THE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES AS PER THE AUDITED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF IT(SS) NO.136/KOL/14 MAHESH BHANIRAMKA L/H LATE PARMESHWAR LALL BHANIRAMKA 6 THE OF THE GROUP BUSINESS CONCERNS AS ON 31-03-2013 . THEREFORE, DRAWING INFERENCE THAT ON THE DATE OF SE ARCH I.E 28- 10-2002, THE SEARCH TEAM WILL FIND THE ACCOUNTS MAD E UPTO 31.03.2003 IS HIGHLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ASSUME THAT THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2003 SHOULD BE DRAWN ON 08-10-200 2 OR 28- 10-2002. AFTER PERUSING THE DETAILED ORDER OF THE C IT-A ON THIS ISSUE, IN OUR OPINION THAT THE CIT-A HAS RIGHTLY HE LD THAT THE AO ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT TREATING THE SAME AS UNDISCL OSED INCOME ON MERE PRESUMPTION AND IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS PER LAW. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGN ED ORDER OF THE CIT-A AND IT IS HELD TO JUSTIFIED IN LAW. RELEV ANT FINDING OF THE CIT-A ON THIS ISSUE IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING:- 4.5 DISCUSSION, AND, DECISION: 4.5.1 FOREMOST, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS VERY CRYPTI C; IT IS JUST ABOUT A SINGLE PAGE IN A BUNDLE OF SEIZED PAPERS PAGE N UMBERS 35 OF BUNDLE PB-7, IGNORING ALL THE OTHER PAGES IN THE SA ME BUNDLE. THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER PRESUMES THAT IT APPEA RS: 7. FROM THE ABOVE PARA IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN MAINTAIN AN UNDISCLOSED BALANCE SHEET IN ADDIT ION TO A REGULAR BALANCE SHEET. THE TOTAL ASSET AS PER THE RECENT UNDISCLOSED BALANCE SHEET I.E. DEMONSTRATION COMPAN Y 15HAS BEEN SHOWN AS RS.68,29,112/-. THIS REPRESENT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OVER THE YEARS. THEREFORE, RS.68,29,112/- HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS MERE PRESUMPTION. 4.5.2 THE LEARNED ARS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ELABORAT E AND DETAILED SUBMISSIONS HAVE EXPLAINED EACH AND EVERY IN THE LI ABILITIES SIDE AND HAVE CORRELATED WITH THE OTHER PAGES IN THE SAME B UNDLE PB-7. ALL THESE ACCOUNTS ARE DISCLOSED IN THE RESPECTIVE RETU RNS OF THE GROUP CONCERNS AND THE FAMILY MEMBERS. THE LEARNED ARS HAVE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT WHAT IS R ELEVANT IN THE ANALYSING A BALANCE SHEET OF THE INCOME TAX POINT O F VIEW IS THE LIABILITIES SIDE - BEING THE SOURCES OF FUNDS. 4.5.3 THE SAID PAPER PAGE 35 OF BUNDLE PB-7 IS CONSOLIDATED WORKING BALANCE SHEET OF ALL THE GROUP CONCERNS AN D THE FAMILY MEMBERS. THUS, IT WAS ALSO TECHNICALLY FLAWED TO CO NSIDER THIS FAMILY CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET ONLY IN THE ASSESSMENT O F THE APPELLANT JUST BECAUSE HE IS THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY. 4.5.4 THE WORKING BALANCE SHEET IS JUST AUTOMATICAL LY CAPTIONED AS DEMONSTRATION COMPANY AS IT IS A PRE-PROGRAMMED T EMPLATE OF THE COMPUTER SOFTWARE PROGRAM. IF IT WERE THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS HAVING UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS, THEN BEING A SEARCH AND SEIZU RE ACTION THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS CONCERN S WHICH IS NOT THE FACT OR THE CASE. IT(SS) NO.136/KOL/14 MAHESH BHANIRAMKA L/H LATE PARMESHWAR LALL BHANIRAMKA 7 4.5.5 IN THE REMAND REPORT OF THE SUBSEQUENT INCUMB ENT ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS JUST FOR NAME SAKE THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD REPORTED AS : AFTER RECEIVING YOUR LETTER CALLING FOR REMA ND REPORT IN THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF ENTRIES RECORDED IN THE SEIZED BALANCE SH EET. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, ASSESSEES A/R SHRI MANISH TEWARI APPEARED ON 1/4/2011. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.68,29,112/- WAS ON THE CONSIDERED ON THE BASIS OF A BALANCE SHEET FOUND IN ASSESSEES COMPUTER AS ON TH E DATE OF SEARCH WHICH WAS SEIZED AND MARKED AS PB/7. ASSESSEES A/R STATED THAT THE SEIZED BALANCE SHEET REPRESENTED THE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS OF SEVERAL G ROUP CONCERNS AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. A/R WAS ASKED TO FURNISH NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEE S CLAIM. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO FURTHER RESPONSE FROM ASSESSEES END TILL DATE. SINCE THE SEIZED BALANCE SHEET AS PER PB/7 COMPRIS ED OF FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS OF SEVERAL GROUP CONCERNS AN D OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, NO MEANINGFUL CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN UNLESS THE ACCOUNTS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AND DETAILS RELATED TO THE TRANSACTIONS MADE BY THE RESPECTIVE PERSONS DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YE AR ARE EXAMINED AND RECONCILED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SAME TILL DATE, THE UNDERSIGNED IS NOT IN A POSITION TO FURNISH ANY REPORT ON THIS ISSUE. WHEN THE LEARNED AR IN THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AND EXPLAINED EACH AND EVERY ENTRY WITH REFERENCE TO THE OTHER PAGES I N THE SAME BUNDLE ITSELF, THERE WAS NO NECESSITY TO STILL INSIST FOR FURNISHING OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. 4.5.6 AS REGARDS THE LEARNED ARS REFERENCE TO THE APPELLATE ORDERS PASSED IN THIS GROUP OF CASES, VIZ: 3.8 THE APPELLANT ALSO REFERS TO YOUR ORDER DATED 2 5 TH MARCH, 2013 IN THE CASE OF RMAESH BHANIRAMKA IN APPEAL NO. 68/CC- XXIII/CIT(A)C-III/07-08/KOL FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD FR OM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 TO 2002-2003 & BROKEN PERIO D FROM 01/04/02 TO 28/10/02 AND YOUR ORDER DATED 27.01.201 4 IN THE CASE OF SHREE DADU IMPEX PVT. LTD IN APPEAL NO. 67/ CC- XXIII/CIT(A)C-III/07-08/KOL FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD FR OM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 TO 2002-03 & BROKEN PERIOD FROM 01/04/02 TO 28/10/02, WHERE UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AT PARA 3.1 AT PAGE 4 OF 5 OF THE ORD ER, YOUR HONOUR HAVE HELD AND OBSERVED THAT:- A) THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS VERY VAGUE AND CRYPTIC. B) THE AO HAS SIMPLY ADDED THE TOTAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET PRINTOUT. THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID ORDERS ARE ENCLOSED FOR Y OUR KIND PERUSAL. IT IS THAT A VERY IMPORTANT ERROR OF FACT HAD BEEN COMMITTED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENTS WHEREIN IMPUGNED ADDITIONS HAD BEEN MADE FROM THE SEIZED COMPUTER OF PRINTOUTS OF BALANCE SH EETS OF YET TO COME FUTURE DATES JUST BECAUSE THE SOFTWARE PROGRAM HA D PRE-PROGRAMMED TEMPLATE FUTURE DATES. THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTIO N WAS CARRIED OUT ON 28.10.2002, WHEREAS THE COMPUTER PRINTOUTS WERE FOR THE YET TO COME FUTURE DATE AS ON 31.03.2003. THESE FACTUALLY ERRONEOUS IMPUGNED ADDITIONS HAD BEEN DELETED IN THE AFORESAI D MENTIONED APPELLATE ORDERS. IT(SS) NO.136/KOL/14 MAHESH BHANIRAMKA L/H LATE PARMESHWAR LALL BHANIRAMKA 8 THUS, IN A WAY, THE SAME THING HAS HAPPENED IN THIS IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ALSO. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS STARTING P OINT OF PRESUMPTION WAS THAT THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE FY 2002-03 I.E. AS ON 31.03.2003 DID NOT MATCH WITH THE IMPUGNED SEIZED PAPER PAGE 3 5 OF BUNDLE PB-7. IT JUST COULD NOT BE, AND FURTHER THAT THE SEIZED P APER WAS CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF ALL THE FAMILY BUSINESSES. 4.5.7 THUS, FOR THE ABOVE AFORESAID FACTUAL DISCU SSION, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION AT RS.68,29,112/- IS HEREBY DELETED. THE G ROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED THUS. 9. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DISCUSSION AND FINDING, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT-A IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO A SSESSEE. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 26 /04 /2017 SD/- SD/- J.SUDHAKAR REDDY S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 26-0 4-2017 * PP/SPS: COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . THE APPELLANT/DEPARTMENT: THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE XXIII, 110, SANTI PALLY, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-107. 2 THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: SHRI MAHESH BHANIRAMKA, L EGAL HEIR OF LATE PARMESHWAR LAL BHANIRAMKA, 4 RAM SETT ROAD, KOLKATA -700 006. 3 4. THE CIT(A) THE CIT 5 . DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR IT(SS) NO.136/KOL/14 MAHESH BHANIRAMKA L/H LATE PARMESHWAR LALL BHANIRAMKA 9