The ACIT, Circle-7, Surat V. Shri Kamlesh B.Khicha, Surat

ITSSA 187/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8567 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-10-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B K S PANDYA
• Assessee Lawyers: PF JAIN
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Loose papers; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Block assessment; Retraction; Documents seized

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO. 187/AHD/2009 BLOCK PERIOD: 1989-90 TO 1998-99 & PERIOD FROM 1.4.1998 TO 23.2.1999 IN A.Y. 1999- 2000 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-7, SURAT V/S . SHRI KAMLESH B. KHICHA PROP. M/S. PUSHPAK IMPEX, 9, SHAKTI CHAMBERS, RUGHNATHPURA MAIN ROAD, SURAT, KHICHA BHAVAN, BHAVARWADI, VIJAYNAGAR, DIST. AJMER, RAJASTHAN PAN NO. A DTPK8620L (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) BY APPELLANT SHRI B.K.S. PANDYA, CIT DR. /BY RESPONDENT SHRI P.F. JAIN. A.R. /DATE OF HEARING 12.10.2012 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07.12.2012 O R D E R PER : T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE REVENUE WHIC H HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-IV, SURAT, ORDER DATED 07. 09.2009 FOR BLOCK PERIOD A.Y. 1989-90 TO 1998-99. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: IT(SS)A NO. 187/AHD/09 FOR BLOCK PERIOD A.Y. 1989-90 TO 1998-99 PAGE 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING TO TAKE THE UNACCO UNTED TURNOVER AT RS.3,18,61,782/- INSTEAD OF RS.12 CRORE S FOR WORKING OUT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PE RIOD. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE CONFESSI ON STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF TH E ACT WHERE HE HAD ADMITTED UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS WORT H RS.12 CRORES AND ALSO IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE CONFESSION THOUGH RETRACTED IS AN ADMISSION AND BIN DS THE PETITIONER AS HELD BY THE HON SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SURJEET SINGH CHHABRA VS. UNION OF INDIA (1 997 (89) E.L.T. 646 (SC) AND VARIOUS MATERIALS BROUGHT ON RECORD DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE IS THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH CONDUCTED BY THE MUMBAI INVESTIGATION DIRECTORATE IN THE GROUP K NOWN AS GANDHI GROUP. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CERTAIN PURCHASE BILLS OF THE ASSESSEE M/S. PUSHPAK IMPEX FOR LOOSE DIAMOND WERE FOUND IN THE N AMES OF SHRI NIKHIL GANDHI AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. CONSIDERING THE INC RIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, A SURVEY ACTION U/S.133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE M/S. PUSHPAK IMPEX ON 23.02.1999 AND SAME WAS LATER ON CONVERTED INTO SEARCH U/S.132 OF THE IT ACT ON THE SAME DAY. THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WERE FINALLY CONCLUDED ON 12.03.1999. THE ASSESSEE SHRI KAMLESH B. KHICHH A IS THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. PUSHPAK IMPEX WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F IMPORT AND PURCHASE OF ROUGH AND POLISHED DIAMONDS AND THE SALE OF POLI SHED DIAMONDS. M/S. IT(SS)A NO. 187/AHD/09 FOR BLOCK PERIOD A.Y. 1989-90 TO 1998-99 PAGE 3 PUSHPAK IMPEX HAS TWO BRANCHES, ONE AT MUMBAI AND A NOTHER AT SURAT AND THERE WERE TRANSACTIONS OF GOODS, I.E. DIAMONDS BET WEEN THE TWO BRANCHES. THE SEARCH ACTION WAS CARRIED OUT AT MUMBAI OFFICE ONLY. DURING SEARCH, A CASH OF RS.13,91,800/- WAS FOUND, OUT OF WHICH CASH OF RS.13 LACS WAS SEIZED AS PER ANNEXURE C, DATED 23.02.1999. A NOTICE U/ S.158BC OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED ON 02.08.1999, WHICH WAS SERVED UPO N THE ASSESSEE ON 05.08.1999. 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE BUSINESS AS WELL AS RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF GANDHI FAMILY, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE S EIZED WHICH SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEE, M/S. PUSHPAK IMPEX, HAS GIVEN ACCOMMO DATION ENTRIES IN THE FORM OF PURCHASE BILLS FOR SALE OF LOOSE DIAMONDS B Y GANDHI FAMILY. NEITHER ANY REAL TRANSACTION OF SALE OF DIAMONDS TOOK PLACE NOR ANY PHYSICAL DELIVERY OF DIAMONDS WAS GIVEN BY GANDHI FAMILY TO THE ASSES SEE. THE MODUS OPERANDI ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TO ACCEPT THE CASH FROM THE MEMBERS OF GANDHI FAMILY AND TO DEPOSIT IT IN DIFFERENT BAN K ACCOUNTS OF ITS ASSOCIATED CONCERNS. THE DIAMONDS, ALLEGEDLY PURCHASED FROM G ANDHI FAMILY, WERE SUBSEQUENTLY SHOWN TO BE SOLD TO THESE ASSOCIATED C ONCERNS. AS A RESULT, THE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED BY THE ASSOCIATED CONCERNS TO T HE ASSESSEE FIRM OUT OF THE CASH DEPOSITED AND IN TURN THE ASSESSEE ISSUED CHEQUES TO THE MEMBERS OF GANDHI FAMILY. AS A RESULT, THE CASH OF GANDHI FAMILY USED TO GO BACK TO THEM IN THE FORM OF CHEQUE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE F IRM. IN THE PROCESS, THE ASSESSEE USED TO CHARGE COMMISSION FROM GANDHI FAMI LY. THIS MODUS OPERANDI IS APPARENT FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND THE ASSESSEE, SHRI IT(SS)A NO. 187/AHD/09 FOR BLOCK PERIOD A.Y. 1989-90 TO 1998-99 PAGE 4 KAMLESH B. KHICHHA, ALSO STATED ABOUT THIS MODUS OP ERANDI ELABORATELY IN ANSWER NO.11 OF HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) O N 23.02.1999. 2.2 IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) DATED 23.0 2.1994, IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.11, THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED RS.10 LACS A S UNACCOUNTED COMMISSION EARNED FROM THE BUSINESS OF GIVING ACCOM MODATION BILLS. BY QUESTION NO.14, ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO STATE THE QUA NTUM OF THE BILLS ISSUED BY HIM AND THE TOTAL COMMISSION EARNED THEREUPON. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE STARTED THIS BUSINESS OF GIVING BOGU S PURCHASE BILLS SINCE DEEWALI, 1997 AND DURING THIS PERIOD, (I.E. DEEWALI 1997 TO THE DATE OF SEARCH) HE HAD EARNED TOTAL RS.20 LACS, INCLUDING RS.10 LAC S FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AS ALREADY STATED BY HIM IN THE EARLIER PART OF THE ST ATEMENT. THEREFORE, RS.20 LACS WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD AND WAS OFFERED BY HIM AS ADDITIONAL INCOME WITHOUT CLA IMING ANY EXPENSES OR LOSS THEREFROM. HOWEVER, IN THE RETURN FOR THE BLO CK PERIOD FILED ON 17.09.1999, AS AGAINST THE DISCLOSURE OF RS.10 LACS FOR CURRENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED ONLY RS.2,70,825/- AND THE REMAI NING DISCLOSURE OF RS.10 LACS FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS WAS FULLY RETRACT ED BY THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CASH OF RS.13,91,800/- WAS FOU ND. AS PER CASH BOOK, A CASH WAS AVAILABLE AT RS.11,24,695/-. THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN CASH OF RS.2,67,105/-. THE LD. A.O. HAD DISCUSSED THE DISC LOSURE MADE U/S. 132(4) THOROUGHLY AT PAGE NOS. 3 TO 14 OF THE ASSESSMENT O RDER. AFTER DISCUSSING THE MODUS OPERANDI AND CONSIDERING THE STATEMENT RECORD ED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O. THAT THE APPELL ANT PROVIDED BOGUS IT(SS)A NO. 187/AHD/09 FOR BLOCK PERIOD A.Y. 1989-90 TO 1998-99 PAGE 5 PURCHASE BILL TO THE DIFFERENT CUSTOMERS. HE USED TO ACCEPT THE CASH FROM THESE PARTIES WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS OF HIS ASSOCIATED CONCERNS. IT WAS EVIDENT FROM THE DETAILED DISCUSS ION MADE IN THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IN CASE OF M/S. KHUSHBOO IMPEX, M/S. SILVER MI NES AND M/S. SANGAM GEMS. IN ALL THESE CONCERNS CASH WAS DEPOSITED AND IMMEDIATELY CHEQUES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE OF THE SAME AMOUNT. TH E ASSESSEE ALSO TALLIED THE DIAMONDS PURCHASED AND DIAMOND SALES IN GIVING BOGUS BILLS. AGAINST THESE SALES TO SISTER CONCERNS, CHEQUES WERE ISSUED BY SISTER CONCERNS TO THE ASSESSEE WHO IN TURN ISSUED CHEQUES TO THE FICTITIO US CUSTOMERS FROM WHOM CASH WAS TAKEN. IN THIS WAY, THE CASH OF THESE FIC TITIOUS CUSTOMERS WAS RETURNED BACK TO THEM IN THE FORM OF CHEQUES ISSUED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT USED TO CHARGE THE COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS OF THE ABOVE NATURE WHICH WAS NOT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAD DISCLOSED UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF R S. 2,70,825/- FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD IN THE RETURN. ON THE BASIS OF VERIFI CATION OF TRANSACTIONS, THE BOGUS TURN OVER WAS FOUND TO THE TUNE OF RS. 3,18,6 1,782/- ONLY ON WHICH COMMISSION AT THE RATE OF .85% WAS EARNED I.E. RS. 2,70,825/-. AS PER A.OS. OBSERVATION, THE APPELLANT NOT ONLY HAD PROVIDED AC COMMODATION BILLS TO THE GANDHI FAMILY BUT TO OTHER CONCERNS ALSO. THE APP ELLANT HAD DISCLOSED INCOME ON THE TRANSACTION MADE WITH THE GANDHI FAMI LY NOT OTHERS AND RETRACTED THE DISCLOSURE MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.11 OF HIS STATEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAD A DMITTED HIS TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS.55 TO 60 CRORES DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 1998-99 , THERE WERE IMPORTS OF IT(SS)A NO. 187/AHD/09 FOR BLOCK PERIOD A.Y. 1989-90 TO 1998-99 PAGE 6 ABOUT RS.17 CRORES, PURCHASES FROM HINDUSTAN DIAMON DS ABOUT RS.22 CRORES AND OTHER GENUINE PURCHASES OF ABOUT 6 TO 7 CRORES AND PURCHASES OF RS.12 CRORES WERE FICTITIOUS PURCHASES WHICH WERE ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ONLY TO ACCOMMODATE THE SELLERS BY CHARGING COMMISS ION. THEREFORE, THE LD. A.O. CALCULATED THE COMMISSION INCOME @.85% ON RS.1 2 CRORES, ACCOMMODATION BILL I.E. RS.10,20,000/-. THE APPELL ANT ALSO ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT R S. 10 LACS. AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, THE LD. A.O. ASSESSED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.10,20,000/- FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ADD ITION WHICH WAS CHALLENGED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE A BENCH, A HMEDBAD. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS AS UNDER: 1. FOR THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT9A) HAS WRONGLY UPHELD THE ESTIMATION OF THE FICTITIOUS PUR CHASE TURNOVER OF RS.8,81,38,218/- ON WHICH THE ESTIMATED INCOME @ 0. 85% COMES TO RS.7,49,175/-. THE CO-ORDINATE A BENCH IN IT(SS)A NO. 221/AHD/20 04 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD, ORDER DATED 27.02.2008, RESTORED BACK THE ISSUE TO THE CIT(A) FOR PASSING SPEAKING ORDER. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER IS AS UNDER: 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. AS THE FACTS EMERGE, CIT(A) HAS DISMIS SED APPEAL BY A CRYPTIC ORDER, WHICH AMOUNTS TO PASSING A NON-SPEAK ING ORDER. WHEN IT(SS)A NO. 187/AHD/09 FOR BLOCK PERIOD A.Y. 1989-90 TO 1998-99 PAGE 7 ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED EXPLANATIONS, SUPPORTED BY CASE LAWS, ISSUES ARE TO BE ADDRESSED ACCORDING TO MERIT OF THE EXPLA NATIONS. SINCE CIT(A) HAS PASSED A NON-SPEAKING, SUMMARY ORDER, WE SET ASIDE ISSUE RESTORE IT BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND BY PASSING PROPER AND SPEAKING ORDER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE CIT (A)-IV, SURAT, VIDE ORDER DATED 07.09.2009 HAD PASSED THE SPEAKING ORDER AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE FROM PAGE NO.1 TO 10 AND OBSERVED THAT AS PER A.O., THE FICTITIOUS TURNO VER WAS RS.12 CRORE SINCE THE SAME WAS ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT HIMSELF IN H IS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY/SEARCH PROCEEDING ON 23 .02.1999. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APPELLANT, AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT, THE TOTAL FICTITIOUS TURN OVER WAS RS.3,18,61,782/- IN PLACE OF RS.12 CRORE ADMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN HIS STATEMENT. THE APPELLANT FILED AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE DDIT(INV.), MUMBAI ON THE NEXT DATE OF T HE CONCLUSION OF THE SEARCH AND HAD RETRACTED THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE APPELLANT U/S.132(4) OF FURTHER, THE EVIDENCE OF WITHDRAWAL OF CASH OF RS.1 .45 CRORES FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF KHUSHBOO IMPEX DID NOT LEAD TO AN INFERE NCE OF FICTITIOUS TURNOVER WITH THE APPELLANT SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS PAYING L ABOUR CHARGES TO KHUSHBOO IMPEX. SIMILARLY, THE WITHDRAWAL OF CASH FROM THE OTHER BANK ACCOUNTS ALSO DID NOT LEAD TO AN INFERENCE THAT THE SAME WAS FICT ITIOUS TURNOVER OF THE APPELLANT UNLESS, IT WAS SHOWN THAT THE CASH CAME B ACK TO THE APPELLANT AND IT(SS)A NO. 187/AHD/09 FOR BLOCK PERIOD A.Y. 1989-90 TO 1998-99 PAGE 8 THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE OPERATED BY THE APPELLA NT AND THE PARTY WAS BOGUS AND MERE NAME LENDER WHICH THE AO HAD NOT BEE N ABLE TO ESTABLISH. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, AHMADABAD DECISION IN CASE OF NIRMAN TEXTILE MILLS (P) LTD. V. ACIT. (2006) 284 I TR 325 (GUJ) AND IN CASE OF KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSI VS. CIT (2008) 14 DTR ( GUJ) 325, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT AS AGAINST THE STATEM ENT WHICH FORMED THE BASIS OF THE ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD ITS LETTER OF RETRACTION AND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH RETRACTION AND THEREFOR E, WHEN THERE IS FAILURE TO DISCUSS WITH REASON AND EVIDENCE, AS TO WHY THE SAM E IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, THE ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ACCEPTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RETURN ON THE BASIS OF FICTIT IOUS TURNOVER AT RS.3,18,61,782/- @ .85%. 4. NOW THE MATTER IS BEFORE US. LD. CIT DR HAS VEH EMENTLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON TH E ANNEXURE ENCLOSED ALONGWITH BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER TO PROVE THE MODUS OPERANDI OF THE APPELLANT AND QUANTUM OF ACCOMMODATION BILL. HE AL SO PLACED RELIANCE ON PAGE NO.8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH SHOWS THE C ASH WITHDRAWAL MADE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S. KHUSHBOO IMPEX. DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH, SEIZED MATERIAL CONTAINING TWO LOOSE PAPERS FILES M ARKED AS ANNEXURE A-1 & A-2 AND ONE COMPUTER CARTAGE. THE A.O. HAD ENCLOSE D ONLY A PORTION OF THE BANK TRANSACTION NOT WHOLE TRANSACTION MADE BY THE APPELLANT THROUGH 24 BANK ACCOUNTS AND SEVEN CONCERNS, WHICH WERE RUNNING FRO M HIS PREMISES. THEREFORE, HE ARGUED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE A.O. FROM THE SIDE IT(SS)A NO. 187/AHD/09 FOR BLOCK PERIOD A.Y. 1989-90 TO 1998-99 PAGE 9 OF THE APPELLANT, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT CON TENDED THAT ALL THE DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DURING THE APP ELLANT PROCEEDING. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE APPELLANT FURTHER RELIED UPON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS AND CIRCULARS AND REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A): I. CIRCULAR NO. 286/2/2003-IT (INV.) DATED 10-03-20 03 II. SHYAMAL DEVELOPERS (GUJARAT HIGH COURT) TAX APP EAL NO. 1409 OF 2005 DATED 04-09-2006 III. PUSHPA VIHAR V/S. ACIT (ITAT BOMBAY) 48 TTJ 38 9 IV. ACIT V/S. HASTIMAL K. BHANSALI (ITAT AHMEDABAD) BENCH C ITA NO. 348/AHD/1998 V. AMAR NATVARLAL SHAH (ITAT AHMADABAD) 60 ITD 560 VI. ACIT V/S. B.N. CORPORATION 255 ITR 238 (GUJARAT HIGH COURT) VII. MS. AISHWARYA K. RAI 104 ITD 166 (MUM) (TM) 5. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW AND GONE THROUGH THE CO-ORDINATE A BENCH DECISION, DATED 27.02.200 8 IN ASSESSEES CASE AND CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION BILL TO THE VARIOUS PARTIES ON WHICH HE HAD MADE DISCLOSURE AT RS.10 LACS U/S. 132(4) OF THE IT ACT. BUT LATER THE APPELLANT FILED AN AFFIDAVIT FOR RETRACTION OF THE DISCLOSURE WITHI N 24 HOURS BEFORE THE DDIT (INV.), MUMBAI. THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO FILED BLOCK RETURN ALONGWITH AUDIT REPORT WHEREIN THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT AT RS. 2,70,825/-. THE LD. A.O. HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECOR D THE WORKING OF TOTAL FICTITIOUS TURNOVER ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND EVIDENCE COLLECTED IN INVESTIGATION AFTER SEARC H. HE HAD NOTED THE IT(SS)A NO. 187/AHD/09 FOR BLOCK PERIOD A.Y. 1989-90 TO 1998-99 PAGE 10 QUANTUM OF FICTITIOUS TURNOVER ON THE BASIS OF ADMI SSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED A ND REVNUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . THESE ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07.12.2012 SD/- SD/- ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA ! ! ! ! '! '! '! '! / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. '(' ) * / CONCERNED CIT 4. *- / CIT (A) 5. !./ ), ) , 12( / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. /45 67 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , 8/ 1 ': ) , 12( ; STRENGTHEN PREPARATION & DELIVERY OF ORDERS IN THE ITAT 1) DATE OF TAKING DICTATION 27.11.2012 2) DIRECT DICTATION BY MEMBER STRAIGHT ON COMPUTER/LAPTOP/DRAGON DICTATE XXX 3) DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACE BEFORE MEMBER 29.11.2012 4) DATE OF CORRECTION ,, ,, 5) DATE OF FURTHER CORRECTION XXX 6) DATE OF INITIAL SIGN BY MEMBERS 07.12.2012 7) ORDER UPLOADED ON ,, ,, 8) ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD HAS BEEN ENCLOSED IN THIS FILE YES 9) FINAL ORDER AND 2 ND COPY SEND TO BENCH CLERK ON 07.12.2012