New Modern Technomech Pvt Ltd., Baripada V. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack, Cuttack

ITSSA 83/CTK/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3123 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-05-2018
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAAD KIDWAI
• Assessee Lawyers: A K TIBREWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Document seized; Opportunity of cross examination; Application of stay; Third party statement; Documents seized
• Section: 40A(3); 68

Judgement Text

1 NEW MODERN TECHNOMECH PVT LTD 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 . 81, 82, 83, 84,& 85/CTK/2017 S.P. NOS.0 1 ,02,03,04 /CTK/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2007 - 2008,2008 - 09, 2009 - 10, 2010 - 11&2011 - 2012 NEW MODERN TECHNOMECH PVT LTD., S - 2/29, CHHACHAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, STATION BAZAR, BARIPADA, ODISHA. VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK PAN/GIR NO. AABCN 0353 P (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.K.TIBREWAL REVENUE BY : SHRI SAAD KIDWAI, CIT , DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 5 / 0 5 / 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 / 0 6 / 201 8 O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI, AM THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) - 3, BHUBANESWAR ALL DATED 26.5.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 , 2008 - 09, 2009 - 10, 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 , RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS AS UNDER: 2007 - 08 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3 / BHUBANESWAR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS 2,66,653/ - (PAGE - 8 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER) REPRESENTING ESTIMATED ADDITION EVEN AFTER RECORDING A CATEGORICAL FINDING IN PAGE - 5 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITIONS MA DE BY THE 2 NEW MODERN TECHNOMECH PVT LTD LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT PARTICULARLY WHEN SUCH CONTENTION IS AGAINST THE PROPOSITION OF SECTION 292C DEALING WITH THE PRESUMPTIONS RELATING TO DOCUMENTS SEIZED IN SEARCH. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3 / BHUBANESWAR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS 28,00,000/ - (PAGE - 33 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER) UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT REPRESENTING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM ONE COMPANIES ON THE BASIS OF THIRD PARTY STATEMENT WHO HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDERTAKEN ON THE APPELLANT AND WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE PARTY WHOSE STATEMENT HAD BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. THAT, THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3 / BHUBANESWAR IN CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATED ADDITIONS, EITHER IN PART OR FULL, IS BASED ON IRRELEVANT AND ILLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER APPEAL IS PERVERSE AND CONSEQUENTLY, BAD IN LAW. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND/ OR TO AMEND OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE FOREGOING GROUNDS BEFORE, OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 2008 - 2009 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3 / BHUBANESWAR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS 3,84,672 / - (PAGE - 8 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER) REPRESENTING ESTIMATED ADDITION EVEN AFTER RECORDING A CATEGORICAL FINDING IN PAGE - 5 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT PARTICULARLY WHEN SUCH CONTENTION IS AGAINST THE PROPOSITION OF SECTION 292C DEALING WITH THE PRESUMPTION S RELATING TO DOCUMENTS SEIZED IN SEARCH. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3 / BHUBANESWAR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS 45,00,000 / - (PAGE - 33 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER) UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT REPRESENTING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM ONE COMPANIES ON THE BASIS OF THIRD PARTY STATEMENT WHO HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDERTAKEN ON THE APPELLANT AND WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE PARTY WHOSE STATEMENT HAD BE EN RELIED UPON BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. THAT, THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3 / BHUBANESWAR IN CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATED ADDITIONS, EITHER IN PART OR FULL, IS BASED ON IRRELEVANT AN D ILLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER APPEAL IS PERVERSE AND CONSEQUENTLY, BAD IN LAW. 3 NEW MODERN TECHNOMECH PVT LTD 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND/ OR TO AMEND OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE FOREGOING GROUNDS BEFORE, OR AT TH E TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 2009 - 2010 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3 / BHUBANESWAR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS .5,30,556 / - (PAGE - 8 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER) REPRESENTING ESTIMATED ADDITION EVEN AFTER RECORDING A CATEGORICAL FINDING IN PAGE - 5 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT PARTICULARLY WHEN SUCH CONTENTION IS AGAIN ST THE PROPOSITION OF SECTION 292C DEALING WITH THE PRESUMPTIONS RELATING TO DOCUMENTS SEIZED IN SEARCH. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3 / BHUBANESWAR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS 15 ,00,000/ - (PAGE - 33 OF THE APPE LLATE ORDER) UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT REPRESENTING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM ONE COMPANIES ON THE BASIS OF THIRD PARTY STATEMENT WHO HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDERTAKEN ON THE APPELLANT AND WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY O PPORTUNITY TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE PARTY WHOSE STATEMENT HAD BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. THAT, THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3 / BHUBANESWAR IN CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATED ADDITIONS, EITHER IN PART OR FULL, IS BASED ON IRRELEVANT AND ILLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER APPEAL IS PERVERSE AND CONSEQUENTLY, BAD IN LAW. 2010 - 2011 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3 / BHUBANESWAR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS 8,48,592 / - (PAGE - 8 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER) REPRESENTING ESTIMATED ADDITION EVEN AFTER RECORDING A CATEGORICAL FINDING IN PAGE - 5 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO JUS TIFY THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT PARTICULARLY WHEN SUCH CONTENTION IS AGAINST THE PROPOSITION OF SECTION 292C DEALING WITH THE PRESUMPTIONS RELATING TO DOCUMENTS SEIZED IN SEARCH. 2 . THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3 / BHUBANESWAR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS 45,00,000 / - (PAGE - 33 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER) UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT REPRESENTING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM ONE COMPANIES O N THE BASIS OF THIRD PARTY STATEMENT WHO HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDERTAKEN ON THE APPELLANT AND WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE PARTY WHOSE STATEMENT HAD BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4 NEW MODERN TECHNOMECH PVT LTD 3. THAT, THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3 / BHUBANESWAR IN CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATED ADDITIONS, EITHER IN PART OR FULL, IS BASED ON IRRELEVANT AND ILLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER APPEAL IS PERVERSE AND CONSEQUENTLY, BAD IN LAW. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND/ OR TO AMEND OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE FOREGOING GROUNDS BEFORE, OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 2011 - 2012 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3 / BHUBANESWAR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS .6,20,347 / - (PAGE - 8 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER) REPRESENTING ESTIMATED ADDITION EVEN AFTER RECORDING A CATEGORICAL FINDING IN PAGE - 5 OF THE APPELL ATE ORDER THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT PARTICULARLY WHEN SUCH CONTENTION IS AGAINST THE PROPOSITION OF SECTION 292C DEALING WIT H THE PRESUMPTIONS RELATING TO DOCUMENTS SEIZED IN SEARCH. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3 / BHUBANESWAR HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS 11,60,000 / - (PAGE - 33 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER) UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT REPRE SENTING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM ONE COMPANIES ON THE BASIS OF THIRD PARTY STATEMENT WHO HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDERTAKEN ON THE APPELLANT AND WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE PARTY WHOSE ST ATEMENT HAD BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. THAT, THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3 / BHUBANESWAR IN CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATED ADDITIONS, EITHER IN PART OR FULL, IS BASED ON IRRELEVANT AND ILLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER APPEAL IS PERVERSE AND CONSEQUENTLY, BAD IN LAW. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND/ OR TO AMEND OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE FOREGOING GROUNDS BE FORE, OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 3. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED ADDITION OF RS.2,66,653/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CONSUMABLES AND FUEL LUBRICANTS AND RS.28,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 5 NEW MODERN TECHNOMECH PVT LTD 4. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED ADDITION OF RS.3,84,672/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CONSUMABLES AND FUEL LUBRICANTS AND RS.45,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 5. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED ADDITION OF RS.5,30,556/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CONSUMABLES AND FUEL LUBRICANTS AND RS.15,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 6. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED ADDITION OF RS.8,48 ,592/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CONSUMABLES AND FUEL LUBRICANTS AND RS.45,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 7. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED ADDITION OF RS.6,20,347/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CONSUMABLES AND FUEL LU BRICANTS , RS.20,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT AND ADDITION OF RS.11,60,000/ - U/S.69 OF THE ACT. 8. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT AS THE ASSESSMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE NOT ABATED, THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE ADDITION WAS CONFINED TO THE SEARCH MATERIALS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH . AS NONE OF THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCES OR ADDITIONS WERE BASED ON ANY SEARCH MATERIAL, SUCH ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES ARE BAD IN LAW. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT MUCH MORE AMOUNT WAS VOLUNTARILY DECLARED BY THE 6 NEW MODERN TECHNOMECH PVT LTD ASSESSEE DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH AND WAS INCLUDED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S.153A OF THE ACT, NO SEPARATE ADDITION OR DISALLOWANCE WAS AGAIN WARRANTED. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WERE CONDUCTED ON 30.11.2012. THE DATE OF FILING OF THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND THE DATE ON WHICH THEY BECAME FINAL ARE TABULATED AS UNDER: AS ST.YEAR DT. OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1 ) DATE ON WHICH TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) EXPIRES DATE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) DT. ON WHICH RETURN /ASSESSMENT BECOME FINAL 2007 - 08 29.10.2007 30.9.2008 - 30.9.2008 2008 - 09 27.9.2008 30.9.2009 - 30.9.2009 2009 - 10 25.9.2009 30.9.2010 - 30.9.2010 2010 - 11 13.10.2010 30.9.2011 - 30.9.2011 2011 - 12 23.3.2012 30.9.2012 - 30.9.2012 11. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT IN NONE OF THE YEARS, THE ASSESSMENTS WERE PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH. THEREFORE, IT IS AN INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT THAT IN NONE OF THE ABOVE YEARS, ASSESSMENT WAS ABATED BECAUSE OF THE SEARCH OPERATION. 12. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ADDITION OR DISALLOWANCE WAS CONFINED TO THE SEARCH MATERIAL UNEARTHED BECAUSE OF THE SEARCH. THE ABOVE VIEW WAS HELD IN THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 7 NEW MODERN TECHNOMECH PVT LTD 1) PR. .CIT VS. MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP. M/S.FEMS 'N' PETALS [2017) 395 ITR 526 (DEL). 2) ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. (2015) 374 1TR 645 (BOM) 3) PR. CIT - 2, KOLKATA VS M/S. SALASAR STOCK BROKING LTD., G.A.NO.1929 OF 2016(KOL) 4) PR. CIT VS. SOMAYA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD., 387 ITR 529 (GUJ) 5) CIT VS. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD., 385 ITR 346 (KAR) 6) CIT VS. GURINDER SINGH BAWA, 386 ITR 143 (BOM) 7) PR. CIT VS. DHARMAPAL PREMCHAND LTD., IN ITA NO. 512, 513 & 514/2016 ORDER DATED 21.08.2017(DELHI) . 13. WE FIND THAT NONE OF THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF 5% OF CONSUMABLES AND FUEL LUBRICANT EXPENSES WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF NON - AVAILABI LITY OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ANY SEARCH MATERIAL. 14. SIMILARLY, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WAS BASED ON THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE A N D NOT ON THE BASIS OF ANY SEARCH MATERIAL. 1 5 . FURTHER, IN RESPECT OF ADDITION RELATING TO SHARE CAPITAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFERRED THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS MARKED AS NMTPLO - 25 BUT THE ADDITION WAS NOT MADE ON THE BASIS OF CONTENT OF THE SAID SEIZED MATERIALS. 1 6 . FURTHER, A DDITION OF RS.11,60,000/ - WAS MADE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS 8 NEW MODERN TECHNOMECH PVT LTD MARKED AS NMTPLO - 4 BUT THE ADDITION WAS NOT MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE CONTENT OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL. 1 7 . THE LOWER AUTHORITIES COULD NO T POINT OUT ANYTHING TO SHOW THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS CONTAINED ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIALS OR ANY INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT ALREADY DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT IN THE REGULAR RETURN. 1 8 . ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BECAUS E OF CERTAIN NON - COMPLIANCE BY THE SHARE APPLICANTS IN PURSUANCE TO THE POST SEARCH ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, WE FIND THAT ALL THE ABOVE ADDITION S BEING NOT BASED ON ANY SEARCH MATERIAL WHICH WAS UN - EARTHED IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, THE SAME ARE UNSUSTAINABLE 1 9 . FURTHER, WE FIND THAT AS AGAINST TOTAL ADDITIONS MADE IN THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE AMOUNT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLO SED INCOME ARE AS UNDER: ASST. YEAR AGGREGATE OF D ISALLOWANCE / ADDITION UNDER DISPUTE INCOME DISCLOSED U/S.132(4) 2007 - 08 30,66,653 1,20,00,000 2008 - 09 48,84,672 2,45,55,252 2009 - 2010 20,30,556 NIL 2010 - 2011 53,48,592 45,74,560 2011 - 12 37,80,347 2,26,99,700 TOTAL: 1,91,10,820 6,38,29,512 9 NEW MODERN TECHNOMECH PVT LTD 20 . WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT SUNDRY CREDITORS IN RESPECT OF WHICH CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND WERE PAID OFF BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT WHY STILL SEPARATE ADDITION WAS NECESSARY IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES UNDER APPEAL IN THE FACE OF MORE AMOUNT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSME NT YEAR OR EARLIER YEAR. 2 1 . IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCES AND ADDITIONS UNDER APPEAL FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE ALLOWED. 21. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED STAY APPLICATION S FOR STAY OF DEMAND. AS WE HAVE HEARD AND DECIDED THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE, THE STAY PETITION S OF THE ASSESSEE HA VE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND ACCORDINGLY , THEY ARE DISMISSED 2 2 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AND STAY PETITIONS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28 / 0 6 /201 8 . S D/ - SD/ - ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ( N.S SAINI) JUDICIALMEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 28 / 0 6 /201 8 B.K.PARIDA, SPS 10 NEW MODERN TECHNOMECH PVT LTD COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT: NEW MODERN TECHNOMECH PVT LTD., S - 2/29, CHHACHAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, STATION BAZAR, BARIPADA, ODISHA. 2. THE RESPONDENT. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK 3. THE CIT(A) - 2, BHUBANESWAR 4. PR.CIT - 2, BHUBANESWAR 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//