Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belgavi V. Shri Shivaraj Shivashankarappa Nigudgi (HUF), Gulbarga

ITSSA 37/PAN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8619 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKESH HEGDE
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Document seized; Retraction; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 131; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , A M AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI , J M ITA (SS) NO. 37/ PAN ./ 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 ) DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SHRADDHA BUILDING, SARAF COLONY, KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI VS. SHRI SHIVARAJ SHIVASHANKARAPPA NIGUDGI (HUF) PROP: M/S. PRABHULING NIGUDGI, AMARESH NILAYA, GANDHI NAGAR, HUMNABAD ROAD, GULBARGA PAN/GIR NO. AACHS 2239 H ( APPELLANT ) : ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI Y. V. RAVIRAJ RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRAKESH HEGDE DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.12 .2018 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A. M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 2 , PAN AJ I PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14. 2. THE GROUND S OF APPEAL READS AS UNDER: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 64,97, 000 / - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN STOCK OF FOOD GRAINS KEPT IN THE WAREHOUSES CLAIMED TO BE BELONGING TO M/S BAJARANG TRADERS EVEN THOUGH IT ACTUALLY BELONGED TO ASSESSEE HUF? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HUF USED THE NAME OF M/S BAJARANG TRADERS IN CONNIVANCE WITH ITS PROPRIETOR SRI MALLIKARJUN HAVAN, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE STATEMENT U/S 131 DATED 27/08/2013 OF SRI SHIVRAJ NIGUDGI, KARTA OF ASSESSEE HUF WHEREIN HE HAD ADMITTED THAT THE NAME OF BAJRANG TRADERS WAS CREATED BY THEM JUST TO BIFURCATE THE STOCK IN TWO DIFFERENT NAMES AND THAT THE HUF ONLY HAD MADE ALL THE INVESTMENTS WHICH WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF HUF. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT IN THE SAID STATEMENT, THE KARTA OF ASSESSEE HUF HAD OFFERED INCOME OF RS 12,89,300 FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14 WHICH WAS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 153 C UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WITH A NARRATION' DECLARATION DURING THE SURVEY'. 2 ITA(SS) NO.37/PAN./2017 3. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APP RECIATING THE FACT THE ABOVE STATEMENT OF KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE HUF WAS GIVEN ON 27/08/2013 AND HAS EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND THAT THE RETRACTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS AFTER CONSIDERABLE LAPSE OF TIME IE ON 23/11/2015 WHICH IS NOTHING BUT AN AFTERTHOUGHT ACT . THE LD CIT(A) ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT EVEN IF SHRI MALLIKARJUN HAVAN PROP BAJRANG TRADERS IS HAVING SEPARATE TIN NUMBER AND SHOP AND ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE, THE FACT REMAINED THAT THE STOCK FOUND IN ITS NAME IN THE WARE HOUSE IN FACT BELONGED TO TH E ASSESSEE HUF ADMITTEDLY NOT RECORDED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER : THE ASSESSEE IS A HUF ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF COMMISSION AGENCY AND DEALS IN FOOD GRAINS IN THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S PRABHULING NIGUDGI. THE ASSESSEE FILED ORIGINAL RETURN ON 15.02.2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.20,71,710/ - . M/S HYDERABAD KARNATAK EDUCATION SOCIETY AND THE RESIDENCE OF KARTA OF ASSESSEE HUF WERE SUBJECTED TO SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE I.T. ACT ON 18.07.2013. THE SAID ORIGINAL RE TURN FILED WAS AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH. AFTER RECORDING SATISFACTION ABOUT THE DOCUMENT SEIZED IN THE SAID SEARCH BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE , A NOTICE U/S. 153C WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE . IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.03.2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.20,71,710 / - ( ASSESSEE RETURNED THE SAME INCOME U/S. 153C AS RETURNED U/S. 139) SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O. FOR SHORT) COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S. 153C R.W.S. 143(3) DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,09,68,0 40/ - . IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT, THE AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.88,96,330/ - TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE STOCK OF FOODGRAINS KEPT IN WAREHOUSE AND PROFIT EARNED THEREON OF M/S BAJRANG TRADERS AND M/S PRABHUIING NIGUDGI, PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF ASSE SSEE HUF . 4. D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO RELIED UPON CERTAIN SEIZED DOCUMENTS MARKED AS A/SN/2 WHICH CONTAINED WAREHOUSE RECEIPT FOR HAVING STORED FOOD GRAINS IN MAHUL WAREH OUSE, NAVYUG WAREHOUSE AND SHRI MANIKANDAN WAREHOUSE. ALL 3 ITA(SS) NO.37/PAN./2017 THESE RECEIPTS WERE FOR THE F INANCIAL YEAR S 2012 - 13 AND 2013 - 14 AND IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ONE M/S BAJRANG TRADERS. THE AO HAS REPRODUCED THE DETAILS OF THESE 5 RECEIPTS IN PARA 5 ON PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. DURING THE COURSE OF POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, MR. SHIVRAJ NIGUDGI, KARTA OF ASSESSEE AND MR MALLIKARJUN HAWAN, PROPRIETOR OF M/S BAJRANG TRADERS WERE SUMMONED AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED U/S. 131. IN HIS STATEMENT, MR. SHIVRAJ NIGUDGI STATED IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 7 THAT M/S BAJ RANG TRADERS WAS CREATED BY HIM TO BIFURCATE THE STOCK IN TWO DIFFERENT NAMES. HE ALSO ADMITTED THAT ALL THE INVESTMENTS SHOWN TO HIM AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL NO.A/SN/2 ARE HIS INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE NOT REFLECTED IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT AND ACCORDINGLY, HE DECLARED AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.12,89,300/ - AND RS.9,20,500/ - RESPECTIVELY FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14 AND 2014 - 15. 5. ON PAGE 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS PRODUCED A CHART CONTAINING STOCKS MAINTAINED AT MAHUR WAREHOUSE OF BENGAL GRAM, JAWAR, RED TOOR, GREEN GRAM AND SOYABEAN BY M/S BAJRANG TRADERS VALUED AT RS.72,40,700/ - . AT PAGE NO. 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS PRODUCED A CHART OF STOCK OF TOOR AND RED TOOR KEPT BY THE APPELLANT AT NAVYUG WAREHOUSE AND MAHUR WAREHOUSE V ALUED AT RS.24,59,900/ - . THE STOCKS OF BAJRANG TRADERS AND THE ASSESSEE WERE ADDED AND 5% GROSS PROFIT WAS FURTHER ADDED TO THE SAID FIGURE AND TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.88,96,330/ - WAS BROUGHT TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE HUF ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT U/S. 131 GIVEN BY THE KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE . THE ADDITION OF STOCK BELONGING TO BAJRANG TRADERS WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT U/S. 131 OF THE KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE , AO MADE THE ADDITION ON THE VALUE OF THE STOCK IN THE WAREHOUSE KEPT IN THE NAME OF M/S BAJRANG TRADERS. 4 ITA(SS) NO.37/PAN./2017 6. UPON THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A LETTER DATED 21.05.2015 RETRACTING HIS STATEMENT U/S. 131. HE NOTED THAT I N THE SAID LETTER, THE KARTA SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD ADVANCED LOAN TO MR. MALLIKARJUN HAWAN, PROPRIETOR OF M/S BAJRANG TRADERS AND TO SAFEGUARD THE RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNT LENT, TWO WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS OF STOCKS KEPT IN MAHUR WAREHOUSE BY M/S BAJRANG TRADERS WERE TAKEN WHICH WERE FOUND DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT OTHER THAN THESE TWO RECEIPTS WHICH WERE TAKEN AS SECURITY AGAINST THE AMOUNT LENT, THE ASSESSEE FIRM DID NOT HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S BAJRANG TRADERS. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT HIS REPLY TO QUE STION NO. 7 IN THE STATEMENT U/S. 131 DATED 27.08.2013 WAS MIS - INTERPRETED AND WRONGLY RECORDED AND THE ACTUAL FACT WAS THAT HE HAD LENT AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,43,700/ - TO MR. MALLIKARJUN HAWAN IN A.Y, 2013 - 14 OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SAME WAS - ADMITT ED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR. 7. DURING THE POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, A STATEMENT U/S. 131 OF MR. MALLIKARJUN HAWAN, PROPRIETOR OF M/S BAJRANG TRADERS WAS ALSO RECORDED ON 15.07.2015 AND IN HIS STATEMENT ALSO IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 11, MR. MALLIKARJUN DENIED THE FACT THAT THE INVESTMENT IN HIS BUSINESS WAS THAT OF THE ASSESSEE . DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) , IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMMISSION AGENT AND HAD MERELY LENT SOME MONEY TO MR. MALLIKARJUN HAWAN AGAINST THE SECURITY OF WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS. IT WA S FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MR. BAJRANG TRADERS WAS HAVING SEPARATE TIN NUMBER ISSUED BY COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, WHICH WAS OBTAINED MUCH BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. EVEN THE SHOP AND ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE WAS OBTAINED BY MR. MALLIKAR JUN HAWAN IN HIS OWN NAME AND HENCE, NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO TO PROVE THAT INVESTMENT IN BAJRANG TRADERS WAS THAT OF THE ASSESSEE 5 ITA(SS) NO.37/PAN./2017 HUF. THE ASPECTS RELATING TO TIN NUMBER AND SHOP AND ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE AO AND HENCE, A REMAND REPORT WAS SOUGHT FROM THE AO WITH HIS COMMENTS ON AIL THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE . 8. THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 07.06.2017 SUBMITTED THAT THE VAT REGISTRATION DOCUMENTS OF SHRI. MALLIKARJUN HAWAN, PROPRIETOR OF BAJRANG TRADERS, GULBARGA WERE OBTAINED FROM ACCT, LVO 525, KALBURGI, WHO CONFIRMED THAT M/S BAJRANG TRADERS HAD OBTAINED TIN NUMBER ON 19.05.2008 AND THE SAID CONCERN WAS FILING REGULAR VAT RETURNS FROM MAY 2008 TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) O BSERVED THAT T HIS GOES TO SHOW THAT M/S BAJRANG TRADERS IS A SEPARATE ENTITY OF SHRI MALLIKARJUN HAWAN AND WAS IN EXISTENCE RIGHT SINCE MAY 2008,MUCH BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH IN JULY 2013. THAT I N THE PAPER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL TAX AUTHORITIES, MR. MALLIKARJUN HAWAN HAS BEEN SHOWN AS THE PROPRIETOR. HENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT I N VIEW OF THAT, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS NOT PROVED THAT M/S BAJRANG TRADERS IS THE CONCERN OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE HUF. 9 . HE FURTHER NO TED THAT E VEN ON VERIFICATION OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS, THERE WERE ONLY TWO WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS BELONGING TO M/S BAJRANG TRADERS WERE FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE OF MAHUR WAREHOUSE AND THE VALUE OF THE GOODS KEPT IN THE WAREHOUSE ON 21.02.2013 WAS TO T HE TUNE OF RS.7,43,700/ - . HE NOTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT THESE TWO RECEIPTS WERE KEPT AS SECURITY FOR HAVING LENT AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE VALUE OF GOODS. 10. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 6 ITA(SS) NO.37/PAN./2017 4.8. FROM THE ABOVE ANALYSIS WHICH IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE AO DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT M/S BAJRANG TRADERS IS A SEPARATE ENTITY OWNED BY MR. MALLIKARJUN HAWAN AND APPELLANT HUF HAD ONLY ONE TRANSACTION WITH M/S BAJRANG TRADERS I.E. OF LENDING MONEY IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2012 - 13 ON SECURITY OF WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS. OTHER THAN THIS TRANSACTION, NOTHING ELSE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NOR ANYTHING ADDITIONAL WAS ESTABLISHED DURING THE COURS E OF POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS OR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE COPIES OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS FILED BY MR. MALLIKARJUN HAWAN ALONG WITH THE AUDITED P & L ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR GO TO PROVE THAT THE STOCK IN THE WAREHOUSES FOUND DURING POST SEARCH ENQUIRY WAS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS IS OFFERED TO TAX BY HIM SEPARATELY. 4.9. THEREFORE, THE EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS REMAND PROCEEDINGS DO NOT PROVE THAT M/S BAJRANG TRADERS IS THE ENTITY OWNED BY THE APPELLANT HUF HENCE, THE STOCK OF M/S BAJRANG TRADERS CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED STOCK IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT HUF. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO RS.68,59,0357 - BE ING STOCK AND ESTIMATED PROFIT OF M/S BAJRANG TRADERS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT STANDS DELETED. AS REGARDS, UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN STOCK RELATING TO THE APPELLANT AND THE ESTIMATED PROFIT THEREON TOTALING TO RS.20,37,295/ - ASSESSED BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED IN PRINCIPLE. GROUND NO.3 TO 6 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED . 11. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FOLLOWING TWO ADDITIONAL GROUNDS: 1. THE AO HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THERE CAN'T BE ANY PROFIT WITHO UT SELLING THE GOODS. WHEN HE HAS ADDED INCOME ON ESTIMATED BASIS, HE CANNOT REJECT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REFERENCE TO THE SELLING OF GOODS IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE SAME. 2. THE AO HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE FACT THAT WHEN THE GOODS ARE SOLD IN THE MARKET AND ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE SAID AMOUNT AS INCOME AND AGREED TO ISCHARGE THE TAX LIABILITY ON THE SAME, THE SAID AMOUNT IS AVAILABLE FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR REINVESTMENT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 12. THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 6. A DDITIONAL GROUND NO.1 AND 2 ARE RELATING TO PRAYER FOR TELESCOPING OF INCO ME E ARNED DURING A.Y. 2009 - 10 AND 2011 - 12 AGAINST THE INCOME ASSESSED IN A.Y. IN APPEAL. IN A.Y. 2013 - 14, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN STOCK OF M/S PRABHULING NIGUDGI (PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE APPELLANT) AND ESTIMATED PROFIT ON THE SALE OF THE SAID STOCK TOTALING TO RS.20,37,295/ - . THE APPELLANT IS SEEKING TELESCOPING OF UNEXPLAINED INCOME BROUGHT T O TAX IN A.Y. 2009 - 10 AND 2011 - 12 TOTALING TO RS.9,97,500/ - , IT IS 7 ITA(SS) NO.37/PAN./2017 SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME EARNED IN THE BUSINESS IN A PARTICULAR YEAR IS PLOUGHED BACK INTO THE BUSINESS BY INVESTING IN STOCK IN TRADE AND THEREFORE, ONLY THE INVESTMENT IN STOCK OVER AND ABOVE THE INCOME ASSESSED IN THE EARLIER YEAR BE BROUGHT TO TAX. I FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF RS.9,97,500A BROUGHT TO TAX IN A.Y. 2009 - 10 AND 2011 - 12 IS AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT FOR INVESTMENT IN STOCK IN TRADE. HENCE, ANY INVESTMENT OVER AND ABOVE RS.9,97,500/ - NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN APPEAL, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN STOCK OF M/S PRABHULING NIGUDGI AMOUNTING TO RS.20,37,295/ - HAS BEEN CONFIRMED VIDE PA RA NO.4.9 ABOVE. AO IS DIRECTED TO GIVE TELESCOPE EFFECT OF RS.9,97,500/ - AND BRING TO TAX THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.10,39,795/ - DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN APPEAL AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN STOCK IN PRABHULING NIGUDGI. ADDITIONAL GROUND NO.1 AND 2 ARE ALLOWED. 13. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (LD. DR FOR SHORT) RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O . HAS CORRECTLY MADE THE ADDITION. 15. PER CONTRA, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION HAS SOLELY BEEN BASED ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OBTAINED AND THERE IS NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADMISSION HAS BEEN DU LY RETRACTED. HE PLEADED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 16. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE NOTE THAT THE ADDITION IN THIS CASE IS BASED UPON THE STATEMENT OBTAINED DURING SEARCH. THE DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD I S ONLY TWO COPIES OF GODOWN RECEIPTS . THE ASSESSEE HUF KARTA HAS DULY RETRACTED HIS STATEMENT. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID GODOWN RECEIPTS WERE ACTUALLY AMOUNT R ECEIVED FOR MONEY LENT EQUIVALENT TO THE VALUE OF GOODS. FURTHERMORE, AMPLE EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN BRO UGHT ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF PLEA THAT TWO CONCERNS ARE NOT MERE FRONT ENTITIES OF THE HUF. SEPARATE VAT REGISTRATION OF M/S BAJARANG TRADERS UNDER PROPRIETOR SHIP OF SRI 8 ITA(SS) NO.37/PAN./2017 MALLIKARJUN HAVAN H OWEVER HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. T HESE WERE VERIFIED BY THE A.O. ON RE MAND FROM LD. CIT(A). W E NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER. IT IS ALSO SETTLED LAW T HAT DE HORSE CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE, ONLY ON TH E BASIS OF STATEMENT OBTAINED WHICH IS DULY RETRACTED , ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE WELL REASONED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 17. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. O RDER PRONOUNCED BY LISTING THE RESULT ON THE NOTICE BOARD OF THE BENCH UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. SD/ - RAM LAL NEGI JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 12.12.2018 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, PANJI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, PANJI ; (6) GUARD FILE . BY ORDER ROSHANI , SR. PS ( SR. P.S. / P.S. ) ITAT