Puspa Ranjan Sahu, Khurda V. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubnaeswar

ITSSA 72/CTK/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3730 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAAD KIDWAI
• Assessee Lawyers: D K SHETH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 80C

Judgement Text

1 IT(SS)A NOS.72 TO 78/CTK/2017 IT(SS) A NO.71/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT (SS) A NO S.72 TO 78 /CTK/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 06 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 PUSPA RANJAN SAHOO, AT/PO: CHANAGIRI, DIST: KHURDA. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), BHUBANESWAR PAN/GIR NO. AVUPS 4421 Q (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) IT (SS) A NO .71 /CTK/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 2012 - 13 DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), BHUBANESWAR VS. PUSPA RANJAN SAHOO, AT/PO: CHANAGIRI, DIST: KHURDA. PAN/GIR NO. AVUPS 4421 Q (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.K.S H ETH , AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SAAD KIDWAI, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 2 5 / 0 4 / 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 / 0 4 / 201 8 O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI, AM TH ESE ARE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER S OF THE CIT(A) - 2, BHUBANESWAR ALL DATED 30.5.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13, RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 30.5.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. IT(S) A NO.72/CTK/2017 FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07. 2 IT(SS)A NOS.72 TO 78/CTK/2017 IT(SS) A NO.71/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 3. GROUND NOS.1 & 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE, REQUIRES NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION BY US. 4. IN GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRE D IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,31,847/ - MADE UNDER THE HEAD UNDISCLOSED GROSS RECEIPTS. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE STATE BANK OF INDIA. ON VERIFICATION OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS ARE AUDITED BY A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. THE PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK WAS HIGHER THAN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,31,847/ - TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 9.9.2011, THE ASSESSEE POSSESSED SALES REGISTER FOR THE PERIOD 11.6.2009 TO 13.7.2011 AND PURCHASE REGISTER FOR THE PERIOD 18.5.2009 TO 7.6.2011 ALONGWITH SEVEN SALES VOUCHERS FOR THE PERIO D FROM 1.9.2009 TO 26.8.2011 AND ONE PURCHASE VOUCHER BOOK FROM 28.8.2009 TO 7.6.2011. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS SALE/PURCHASE REGISTER, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H, A STOCK OF RS.62,9,961/ - OF GOLD AND SILVER JEWELLERY WAS 3 IT(SS)A NOS.72 TO 78/CTK/2017 IT(SS) A NO.71/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 FOUND IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS STOCK WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE PLEA THAT THE EXCESS STOCK BELONGS T O HUF OF THE ASSESSEE BUT NO RECORD EVIDENCING THE CLAIM WAS FOUND. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED IN PARA 6.5 AT PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 AS UNDER: Q. 6 PLEASE SPECIFY YOUR NATURE OF BUSINESS? ANS: WE MAKE RETAIL TRADE OF FINISHED JEWELLERY ITEMS OF BOTH GOLD AND SILVER ITEMS. WE BUY THE JEWELLERY ITEMS AS FINISHED FROM DIFFERENT KARIGARS AND SELL IT FROM TIME TO TIME. THE SALE IS MADE TO DIFFERENT LOCAL PEOPLE. THE PURCHASE RS ARE MADE FROM MANJILAL AD ANUP FROM CUTTACK. I DO NOT KNOW MUCH ABOUT THESE PERSONS OTHER THAN THEIR NAME. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE BACKGROUND AND EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE BANK, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE LOWER PROFIT DISCLOSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,31,847/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEA L IS DISMISSED. 8. IN GROUND NO.3 OF APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.27,365/ - MADE UNDER THE HEAD NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4 IT(SS)A NOS.72 TO 78/CTK/2017 IT(SS) A NO.71/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 9. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF FIXED DEPOSIT OF RS.25,000/ - AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED DEPOSIT AND INTEREST THEREON OF RS.1375/ - AND THEREBY MADE ADDITION OF RS.26,375/ - . 10. BEFORE THE CIT(A), LD A.R. DID NOT MAKE ANY SUBMISSION ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 11. BEFORE US ALSO, NO ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED BY LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMIS SED. 12. IN GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A)ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,79,783 - MADE U/S.69 OF THE ACT. 13. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE BANK, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERSTATED THE STOCK BY RS.11,79,783/ - WHEN COMPARED WITH THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE STOCK BELONGING TO HUF WAS LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS WRONGLY BEEN ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AS THE STOCK OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISMISSED THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE 5 IT(SS)A NOS.72 TO 78/CTK/2017 IT(SS) A NO.71/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE HYPOTHECATED STOCK OF ANY OTHER PERSON TO THE BANK AND THAT ONE CAN HYPOTHECATE ONLY ONES OWN STOCK. 14. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 15. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO POSSES S SALES REGISTER FROM THE PERIOD 11.06.2009 TO 13.07.2011 AND PURCHASE REGISTER FROM 18.05.2009 TO 07.06.2011, ALONG WITH SEVEN SALES VOUCHERS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.09.2009 TO 26.08.2011 AND ONE PURCHASE VOUCHER BOOK FROM THE PERIOD FROM 28.08.2009 TO 07.0 6.2011. EVEN THOUGH THE A SSESSEE MAINTAINS SALE/PURCHASE REGISTER, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT MAINTAINED BY THE A SSESSEE . D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, A STOCK OF RS. 62,99,961/ - OF GOLD AND SILVER JEWELLERY WAS FOUND IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE A SSES SEE . THIS STOCK WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE A SSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE PLEA THAT THE EXCESS STOCK BELONGS TO HUF OF THE ASSESSEE BUT NO EVIDENCE FOR THE SAME WAS FILED. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT HE IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ARGUMENT OF EXCESS STOCK BEING THE STOCK OF HUF IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE THAT THE A SSESSEE WILL HYPOTHECATE THE STOCK BELONGING TO SOMEONE ELSE. IN FACT, THE EXCESS STOCK WAS REFLECTED IN THE ANNUAL STATEMENT FILED BY THE A SSESSEE BEFORE THE BANK IN HIS OWN CASE AND NOT OF SOMEONE ELSE CASE. THEREFORE, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.11,79,783/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISMISSED THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6 IT(SS)A NOS.72 TO 78/CTK/2017 IT(SS) A NO.71/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 16. BEFORE US, THE ONLY SUBMISSION OF LD A.R. WAS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR, THEREFORE, NO SEPARATE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN CLOSING STOCK COULD BE MADE. 17. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE AS SESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS PROFIT SHOWN IN THE AUDITED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE STATE BA NK OF INDIA. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN EXCESS STOCK OF GOLD AND SILVER OF RS.11,79,783/ - AND HENCE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND GROUND NO.4 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 18. IN GROUND NO.5 OF APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80C SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. 19. NO SUBMISSIONS WERE ADVANCED BY LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. IT(SS) A NO.73/CTK/2017: AY. 2007 - 08. 20. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. FOR THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.2,08,776/ - AS MADE UNDER HEAD UNDISCLOSED GROSS RECEIPTS IS UNJUSTIFIED. 2. FOR THAT THE ADDITION OF R S.1375/ - AS MADE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS UNJUSTIFIED AND UNWARRANTED. 3. FOR THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.37,320/ - AS MADE OUT OF INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED CAPITAL IS IMPROPER AND UNJUSTIF IED. 4. FOR THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80C AS CLAIMED SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. 7 IT(SS)A NOS.72 TO 78/CTK/2017 IT(SS) A NO.71/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 21. BEFORE US, NO SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND, THEREFORE, SAME ARE DISMISSED. IT(SS) A NO.74/CTK/ 2017:A.Y. 2008 - 09: 22. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. FOR THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.1,90,721/ - AS MADE UNDER HEAD UNDISCLOSED GROSS RECEIPTS IS UNJUSTIFIED. 2. FOR THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.1,37,683/ - AS MADE U/S.69 AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS AS UNJUSTIFIED AND UNCALLED FOR 3. FOR THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80C AS CLAIMED SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. 23. BEFORE US, NO SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE AND HENCE, T HE GROUND S OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. IT(SS) A NO.7 5 /CTK/2017:A.Y. 200 9 - 2010 24. GROUND NO.1 OF APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.4,52,565/ - MADE UNDER THE HEAD UNDISCLOSED GROSS RECEIPTS. 25. NO SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE , HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 26. IN GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,56,390/ - MADE U/S.69 UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. 8 IT(SS)A NOS.72 TO 78/CTK/2017 IT(SS) A NO.71/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 27. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERSTATED THE STOCK BY RS.23,25,638/ - WHEN COMPARED WITH THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE REPEATED THE SUBMISSION THAT THE STOCK BELONGING TO HUF WAS LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS WRONGLY BEEN ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE STOCK OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT HAVE HYPOTHECATED THE STOCK OF ANY OTHER PERSON TO THE BANK AND THAT ONE CAN HYPOTHECATE ONLY ONES OWN STOCK. 28. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 9.9.2011, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . THE A SSESSEE WAS FOUND TO POSSESS SALES REGISTER FROM THE PERIOD 11.06.2009 TO 13.07.2011 AND PURCHASE REGISTER FROM 18.05.2009 TO 07.06.2011. ALONG WITH SEVEN SALES VOUCHERS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.09.2009 TO 26.08.2011 AND ONE PURCHASE VOUCHER BOOK FROM THE PERIOD FROM 28.08.2009 TO 07.06.2011. FURTHER, E VEN THOUGH THE A SSESSEE MAINTAINS SALE/PURCHASE REGISTER, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT MAINTAINED BY THE A SSESSEE . D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, A STOCK OF RS. 62.99.961 / - OF GOLD AND SILVER JEWELLERY WAS FOUND IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE A SSESSEE . THIS STOCK WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE A SSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS ONLY DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE 9 IT(SS)A NOS.72 TO 78/CTK/2017 IT(SS) A NO.71/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 ASSESSEE TOOK THE PLEA THAT THE EXCESS STOCK BELONGS TO HUF OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT NO RECORD EVIDENCING THE CLAIM WAS FOUND. 29. THE CIT(A) THEREFORE HELD THAT HE WAS IN AGREEMENT A SSESSING O FFICER THAT THE EXCESS STOCK BELONGS TO HUF IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE THAT THE A SSESSEE WILL HYPOTHECATE THE STOCK BELONGING TO SOMEONE ELSE. IN FACT, THE EXCESS STOCK WAS REFLECTED IN THE ANNUAL STATEMENT FILED BY THE A SSESSEE BEFORE THE BANK IN HIS OWN CASE AND NOT OF SOMEONE ELSE CASE. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, THE A SSESSING O FF ICER HAS ALREADY MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED STOCK OF RS. 11,69,248/ - WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY HIM . HE OBSERVED THAT I T WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE THAT THE UNEXPLAINED STOCK, IF ANY, WAS CARRIED FORWARD BY HIM TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AND THEREFORE, NO FRESH ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF UNEXPLAINED STOCK DETERMINED BY THE A SSESSING O FFICER FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 SHOULD BE MADE. HE HELD THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THE A SSESSEE WA S LOGICAL AS THERE WAS NO FINDING REGARDING SALE OF THIS U NEXPLAINED STOCK. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT SI NCE, THE A SSESSING O FFICER HAS ALREADY TAXED UNEXPLAINED STOCK OF RS. 11,69,248/ - IN A.Y. 2008 - 09, THE ADDITION FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR IS RESTRICTED TO RS. 11,56,390/ - (RS. 23,25,638/ - - RS. 11,69,248/ - ). ACCOR DINGLY, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.11,56,390/ - . 30. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10 IT(SS)A NOS.72 TO 78/CTK/2017 IT(SS) A NO.71/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 31. THE ONLY SUBMISSION OF LD A.R. IS THAT SINCE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ESTIMATED DURING THE YEAR, NO SEPARATE ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED STOCK SHOULD BE MADE. 32. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE AUDITED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE BY ESTIMATING THE INCOME THEREFROM BY APPLYING RATE OF 8%. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE INCOME SO ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY REJECTING B OOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. IT(SS) A NO.7 6 /CTK/2017:A.Y. 20 10 - 2011 33. IN GROUND NO.1 OF APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.7,76,346/ - UNDER THE HEAD UNDISCLOSED GROSS RECEIPTS. 34. NO ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED BY LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE SAME IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 35. IN GROUND NO.2 OF APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CO NFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,757/ - MADE U/S.69 UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. 36. WE FIND THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010, WE HAVE UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). S INCE THERE IS NO CHANGE IN 11 IT(SS)A NOS.72 TO 78/CTK/2017 IT(SS) A NO.71/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 FACTS IN THIS ASSESSMEN T YEAR, WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) AND REJECT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IT(SS) A NO.7 7 /CTK/2017:A.Y. 20 11 - 2012 37. IN GROUND NO.1 OF APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS. 13,36,619 / - UNDER THE HEAD UNDISCLOSED GROSS RECEIPTS. 3 8 . NO ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED BY LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE SAME IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 39. GROUND NO.2 OF APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.80,736/ - MADE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES 40. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF FIXED DEPOSIT OF RS.74,652/ - AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED DE POSIT AND INTEREST THEREON AND THEREBY MADE ADDITION OF RS.80,736/ - . 41. BEFORE THE CIT(A), LD A.R. DID NOT MAKE ANY SUBMISSION ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 42. BEFORE US ALSO, NO ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED BY LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 43. IN GROUND NO.3 OF APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.18,18,973/ - MADE U/S.69 UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. 12 IT(SS)A NOS.72 TO 78/CTK/2017 IT(SS) A NO.71/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 44. WE FIND THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010, WE HAVE UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED STOC K OF RS.24,26,395/ - WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE UNEXPLAINED STOCK, IF ANY, WAS CARRIED FORWARD BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011 AND, THEREFORE, NO FRESH ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF UNEX PLAINED STOCK DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 SHOULD BE MADE. SINCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY TAXED UNEXPLAINED STOCK OF RS.24,26,395/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS. 18,18, 973/ - (RS.42,45,368 RS.24,26,395/ - ). WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR, HENCE WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) AND REJECT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. S INCE THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR, WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) AND REJECT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IT(SS) A NO.7 8 /CTK/2017:A.Y. 20 12 - 2013 45. GROUND NO.1 OF APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,685/ - MADE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES 46. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF FIXED DEPOSIT OF 13 IT(SS)A NOS.72 TO 78/CTK/2017 IT(SS) A NO.71/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 RS.1685/ - AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED DEPOSIT. 4 7 . BEFORE THE CIT(A), LD A.R. DID NOT MAKE ANY SUBMISSION ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 4 8 . BEFORE US ALSO, NO ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED BY LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED . 4 9 . IN GROUND NO. 2 OF APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 26,84,589 / - MADE U/S.69 UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN STOCK . 50 . WE FIND THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 2010, WE HAVE UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED STOCK OF RS.42,45,368/ - WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE UNEXPLAINED STOCK, IF ANY, WAS CARRIED FORWARD BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 AND, THEREFORE, NO FRESH ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF UNEXPLAINED STOCK DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 SHOULD BE MADE. SINCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY TAXED UNEXPLAINED STOCK OF RS.42,45,368/ - IN ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.26,84,589/ - (RS.62,29,957 / - RS.42,45,368/ - ). WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR, HENCE WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) AND REJECT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 14 IT(SS)A NOS.72 TO 78/CTK/2017 IT(SS) A NO.71/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 51. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 52. IN IT(SS) A NO.71/CTK/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13, THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.42,45,368/ - O UT OF RS.69,29,957/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 53. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY US IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT(SS) A NO.78/CTK/2017 AND WE HAVE UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.26,84,589/ - . HENCE, WE REJECT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 54. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 26 / 0 4 /201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ( N.S SAINI) JUDICIALMEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 26 / 0 4 /201 8 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT /ASSESSEE: PUSPA RANJAN SAHOO, AT/PO: CHANAGIRI, DIST: KHURDA. 2. THE RE VENUE: DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(1), BHUBANESWAR 3. THE CIT(A) - 2, BHUBANESWAR 4. PR.CIT - 2, BHUBANESWAR 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//