Manoj Kumar Sahoo, Khurda V. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

ITSSA 93/CTK/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3729 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAAD KIDWAI
• Assessee Lawyers: S K AGRAWALLA
• Keywords: Gift; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Retraction
• Section: 153A; 133(6); 56

Judgement Text

1 IT(SS)A NOS.93/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 2015 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 NOS.93/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 2015 MANOJ KUMAR SAHOO, PROP. MANOJ SEASON CENTRE, RAILWAY MARKET, JATNI, KHURDA VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BHUBANESWAR. PAN/GIR NO.AMYPS 7561 A (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.K.AGRAWALLA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SAAD KIDWAI, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 25/04/ 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 /04/ 2018 O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 3, BHUBANESWAR DATED 12.6.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15. 2. GROUND NO.1 OF APPEAL READS AS UNDER THAT, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS WRONG IN MAKING ADDITIONS OF RS 20,00,000 UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED MONEY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SAID CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM THE PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM DULY DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT A ND THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS WRONG IN ENDORSING THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY BASING ON THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 20,00,000 IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 2 IT(SS)A NOS.93/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 2015 3 . T HE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A WHOLESALE DEALER OF SEASONAL STATIONARY ITEMS OF RAKHI, GREETINGS, FIREWORKS, HOLICOLOUR ETC. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15 IN THE CAPACITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL. ON 07.11.2013 HE WAS TRAVELLING FROM BHUBANESWAR TO DELHI BY INDIGO FLIGHT AND ON REACHING NEW DELHI AIR PORT, HE WAS INTERCEPTED BY AIU TEAM NEW DELHI AT TERMINAL ID, IGI AIRPORT. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS U/S. 132, IT WAS FOUND THAT HE WAS CARRYING IN PERSON C ASH WORTH RS.20 LAKHS OUT OF WHICH RS. 19 LAKHS WAS SEIZED 4. AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, TWO STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED. F IRST STATEMENT WAS RECORDED U/S. 131(1A) OF THE I.T.ACT , 1961 ON 7.1.2011 AT 1.25 PM. SECOND STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON THE SAME DATE AT 8.35 PM U/S.132(4) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. IN THE FIRST STATEMENT, THE ASSESSEE DEPOSED THAT CASH OF RS.20 LAKHS WAS HIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME EARNED BY HIM DURING THE FINANCI AL YEAR 2013 - 2014. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE UNACCOUNTED CASH OF RS.20 LAKHS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. IN OTHER WORDS, HE RETRACTED HIS ADMISSION MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT. WHEN SHOW CAU SED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON 8.3.2016 STATED THAT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, HE WAS IN PANIC AND NOT IN PROPER STATE OF MIND AND HENCE, STATEMENT WAS GIVEN TO ESCAPE. IT WAS STATED THAT HE WAS MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACC OUNT, BILL, REGISTERS, ETC AND THAT HE HAD NO UNACCOUNTED SALES. HE WAS CARRYING RS.20 LAKHS FROM THE BALANCE OF HIS FIRM MANOJ SEASON CENTRE AND THAT ON 6.11.2013, HE HAS DRAWN RS.20.15 3 IT(SS)A NOS.93/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 2015 LAKHS FROM HIS FIRM, WHICH WAS REFLECTED IN THE ASH BOOK DATED 6.11. 2013. ON THAT DATE, CASH BOOK SHOWED SUFFICIENT BALANCE TO WITHDRAW THE SUM OF RS.20 LAKHS IN QUESTION. HE ALSO SUBMITTED COPY OF CASH BOOK FOR THE PERIOD 5.11.2013 TO 8.11.2013 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE WAS NOT IN PROPER STATE OF MIND AT THE TIME OF DEPOSITION OF HIS STATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT 1.25 PM AND 8.35 PM ON 7.11.2013. HE OBSERVED THAT IT COULD BE UNDERSTANDABLE IF THE ASSESSEE RETRACTED HIS FIRST STATEMENT AT THE TIME OF DEPOSITION OF HIS SECOND STATEMENT. THERE WAS ALSO SEVEN HOURS GAP BETWEEN THE TWO ST ATEMENTS. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS ADMISSION TO THE DISCLOSURE OF CASH ALSO STATED ITS SOURCE AS HIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM M/S. MANOJ SEASON CENTRE WHICH HAS ORIGINATED OUT OF UNACCOUNTED SALES FOR THE F INANCIAL YEAR 2013 - 14. THIS SHOW S THAT WHILE MAKING THE STATEMENT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES , THE ASSESSEE HA S APPLIED HIS MIND AND NOT ONLY MADE THE DISCLOSURE OF CASH BUT ALSO EXPLAINED ITS SOURCE. THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION DURING THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS THAT HE WAS NOT IN PROPER STATE O F MIND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS SUCH. RATHER THE PRESENT EXPLANATION IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT RESORTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO EVADE TAX. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE SECOND CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN EXPLAINING THE CAS H THAT HE WAS SUFFICIENT AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN HIS CASH BOOK FROM WHICH HE HAD DRAWN 4 IT(SS)A NOS.93/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 2015 RS.20.15LAKH S ON 06.11.2013. IT WAS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ABSOLUTELY FORGOT TO INTIMATE THIS VITAL INFORMATION TO SEARCH PARTY ON 07.11.2013 WHICH IS ONLY THE NEXT DAY OF THE ALLEGED DRAWAL OF CASH. AT THE TIME OF GIVING STATEMENT ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT HE DOES NOT MAINTAIN ANY REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS EXCEPT SOME PAPERS RELATING TO SALE AND PURCHASE. DURING THE COURSE OF P RESENT PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED PURCHASE, SALE REGISTERS AS WELL AS CASH BOOK FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2013 - 14. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT I T IS UNDERSTANDABLE THAT ASSESSEE COULD PREPARE HIS PURCHASE AND SALE REGISTER FROM THE VOUCHERS MAINTAIN BY HIM IN THIS REGARD. HOWEVER, PREPARING CASH BOOK OUT OF SUNDRY PURCHASE AND SALE VOUCHERS IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE UNRELIABILITY OF THE PREPARED CASH BOOK CAN BE GAUGED FROM THE FACTS THAT F ROM THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. 1612 MAINT AINED AT PNB, JATNI , IT IS NOTED THAT ON SEVERAL DATES THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE CASH BOOK TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THESE DEPOSITS IN BANK. ON PERUSAL OF THE CASH BOOK ALONG WITH THE BANK BOOK REVEALED THAT THERE IS AN APPARENT MISMATCH IN THE AMOUNT OF CASH DRAWN FROM THE CASH BOOK AND DEPOSIT OF THE SAME IN THE BANK BOOK AS UNDER: DATE OF TRANSACTION CASH DEPOSIT AS BANK ACCOUNT CASH WITHDRAWN AS PER CASH BOOK 10.3.2013 4,70,000/ - 47,000/ - 14.03.2013 5,00,000/ - 50,000/ - 22.03.2013 5,00,000/ - 50,000/ - 5 IT(SS)A NOS.93/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 2015 5. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THIS DISCREPANCY IN HIS CASH BOOK. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED NO EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT T HIS IS ALSO A CLEAR INDICATION TO THE EFFECT THAT NOT MUCH OF A RELIABILITY CAN BE PLACED ON THE CASH BOOK FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT ALSO GOES TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNSUCCESSFULLY TRIED TO EXPLAIN AWAY THE CASH OF RS.20,00,000/ - FOUND IN HIS POSSESSION ON THE DATE OF SEARCH BY FABRICATING HIS CASH BOOK WHICH IS NOTHING BUT AN AFTERTHOUGHT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE PROPENSITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO KEEP LARGE AMOUNT OF CASH IN HIS POSS ESSION WITHOUT DEPOSITING THE SAME IN THE BANK UNLIKE ANY OTHER PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN DEFIES LOGIC. FOR EXAMPLE, FROM THE LEDGER COPIES OF 'ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS' FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE , IT IS NOTED THAT FROM 03.04.2013 TO 24.07.2013 , ASSES SEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.33,75,000/ - FROM DIFFERENT CUSTOMERS IN CASH AS ADVANCE. FROM THE CASH CREDIT ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE BANK BY THE ASSESSEE , IT IS FOUND THAT FROM 03.04.2013 TO 24.07.2013 , ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEPOSITED ANY CASH IN HIS BANK A CCOUNT. THE PROBABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE UTILIZING THIS CASH TOWARDS MAJOR PURCHASE OF ANY STOCK IN TRADE DURING THIS THREE MONTHS IS RULED OUT AS FROM THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE 10 TOP SUPPLIERS OF THE ASSESSEE , IT IS NOTED THAT MOST OF THE PAYMENTS TOWARDS THE PURCHASE HAS BEEN MADE AFTER JULY - 2013. IN OTHERWORDS THE CASH OF RS.33,75,000/ - WAS LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE DURING TH ESE THREE MONTHS WITHOUT BEING UTILIZED TOWARDS ANY PURPOSE. FROM 25.07.2013 ASSESSEE STARTED DEPOSITING CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON A REGULAR BASIS. FURTHER, THE 6 IT(SS)A NOS.93/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 2015 ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HE WAS CARRYING CASH FOR PURCHASING THE ITEMS OF CALENDARS, DIARIES, GREETING CARDS ETC. AND OUTSTANDING PAYMENT OF M/S. CALENDAR CORPORATION, SIDDHIPURA, DELHI - 06. DURING THE COU RSE OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS , NOTICE U/S. 133(6) WAS ISSUED TO M/S. CALENDAR CORPORATION AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT. THE SAID NOTICE WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY WITH A COMMENT 'INCOMPLETE ADDRESS'. WHEN CONFRONTED WIT H THIS, THE ASSESSEE VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS STATED THAT FROM THE MARKET HE HAD HEARD THE NAME OF M/S. CALENDAR CORPORATION, NEW DELHI AND WAS PLANNING TO MAKE A VISIT TO IT FOR PURCHASE OF STOCKS. HE HAD NO TRANSACTION WITH THIS CONCERN DURING THE YEAR 2014 - 15. HE WAS CARRYING THE CASH FOR PURCHASE AND PAYMENT FROM AND TO M/S. CALENDAR CORPORATION. UNFORTUNATELY, ON HIS REACHING DELHI AIRPORT HE WAS INTERCEPTED BY THE I.T. DEPARTMENT AND HIS CASH WAS SEIZED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE EXPLA NATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS BASED ON HEARS A Y AND CONJECTURE AND HENCE NOT ACCEPTABLE. A PRUDENT BUSINESS MAN IN ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD NOT CARRY SUCH A LARGE SUM OF AMOUNT IN CASH WITHOUT MAKING ANY PRIOR APPOINTMENT WITH THE PERSON/SUPPLIER FROM WHOM HE INTENDS TO MAKE PURCHASE. THEREFORE, H E ADDED RS.20 LAKHS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15. 6 . ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR ANY OF THE YEARS WHERE NOTICE U/S 7 IT(SS)A NOS.93/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 2015 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. HE OBSERVED THAT T HE DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE SERIOUS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO MAKE COLOURABLE DEVICES TO CAMOUFLAGE HIS OWN MONEY , CUSTOMER ADVANCES, GIFTS ETC., BUT COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE UNACCOUNTED CASH SALES WITH PRO PER EVIDENCE. THE CIT(A) RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. VRS STATE OF KERLA 1972 CTR (SC) 253,WHERE, IT WAS HELD THAT AN ADMISSION IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE THOUGH IT IS NOT CONC LUSIVE. THEREFORE, A STATEMENT MADE VOLUNTARILY BY THE ASSESSEE COULD FORM THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT. THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE RETRACTED THE STATEMENT COULD NOT MAKE THE STATEMENT UNACCEPTABLE. THE BURDEN LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ADMISS ION MADE IN THE STATEMENT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IS WRONG AND IN FACT, THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL INCOME. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IN ASSESSEES CASE, HE RETRACTED FROM THE BUT HE HAS GROSSLY FAILED TO PRODUCE PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BILLS AND VOUCHE RS OF EXPENSES, INVOICES / CASH MEMOS OF PURCHASES AND SALES NOT ONLY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT ALSO FOR THE EARLIER YEARS BEGINNING FROM PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURD EN TO PROVE THAT THE CASH SEIZED BY THE AIU TEAM, NEW DELHI WAS THE ACCOUNTED CASH WITHDRAWN FROM THE CASH BOOK OF THE A SSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE RETRACTION FROM THE STATEMENT ADMITTING CASH SEIZED AS UNACCOUNTED CASH IS N OT JUSTIFIED. THE CIT(A) THEREF ORE, CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8 IT(SS)A NOS.93/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 2015 7. BEFORE US, LD A.R. ARGUED THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF ADMISSION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE IN A STATEMENT MADE U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT UNLESS THE SAME IS CORROBORATED W ITH MATERIALS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. FOR THIS, RELIED ON THE DECISION OF AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACTI VS. JANAK RAJ CHAUHAN (2006) 102 TTJ 316, WHERE, IT WAS HELD THAT ADMISSION MADE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH ACTION IS AN IMP ORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE BUT THE SAME IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE WHO MADE THE ADMISSION TO SHOW THAT IT IS INCORRECT AND THE SAME WAS MADE UNDER A MISTAKEN BELIEF OF LAW OR FACTS . FURTHER, THE JODHPUR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN MAHESHWARI INDUSTRIES V. ASSTT . CIT [2005] 148 TAXMAN 74 (JODH) (MAG.) HAS HELD THAT ADDITIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ON MERITS RATHER THAN ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT WAS SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE . IT WAS HIS ARGUMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FILED THE CASH BOOK AND DEMONSTRATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE IN HIS FIRM M/S. MANOJ SEASON CENTRE ON 6.11.2013 AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.20 LAKHS WAS WITHDRAWN, WHICH WAS REFLECTED THEREIN. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MAKING ADDITION OF RS.20 LAKHS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED MONEY. 8. LD D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE CASH OF RS.20 LAKHS WAS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF THE 9 IT(SS)A NOS.93/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 2015 ASSESSEE ON 7.11.2013 OUT OF WHICH RS.19 LAKHS WAS ALSO SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT. A T THE TIME OF SEIZURE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT HE WAS NOT MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF HIS BUSINESS INCOME AND CASH OF RS.20 LAKHS W A S OUT OF HIS UNACCOUNTED SALES. 10. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED CASH BOOKS IN RESPECT OF HIS BUSINESS AND SUBMITTED THAT CASH OF RS.20 LAKHS WAS AVAILABLE IN THE SAID CASH BOOK ON 6.11.2013. 11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT CASH BOOK PRODUCED WAS UNRELI ABLE AND, THEREFORE, NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED R S.20 LAKHS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND OBSERVED THAT EXCEPT FEW PURCHASES AND SALES INVOICES, THE CASH BOOK PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY BILLS, VOUCHERS, CASH MEMO OR INVOICES. 13. BEFORE US, LD A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT GIVEN AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH IS NOT CONCLUSIVE AND THE A SSESSEE CAN ALWAYS SHOW THAT THE STATEMENT WAS GIVEN UNDER A MISTAKEN BELIEF OR LAW OR FACT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS, HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JANAK RAJ GHAUHAN (SUPRA). HE CONTENDED THAT IN THE INS TANT CASE, THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF THE SEIZURE WAS INCORRECT AND SAME WAS MADE IN PANIC. HE FURTHER CONTENDED 10 IT(SS)A NOS.93/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 2015 THAT AS CASH OF RS.20 LAKH WAS AVAILABLE IN THE CASH BOOK BEFORE THE DATE OF SEIZURE AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS N OT WARRANTED. 14. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE CASH BOOK WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROPER PURCHASE AND SALES VOUCHERS AND EXPENSE VOUCHERS . IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE CONCL USION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CASH BOOK PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IS UNRELIABLE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY RELIABLE MATERIALS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF CASH OF RS.20 LAKHS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE ON 7.11 .2013, WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: THAT, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN MAKING ADDIT IONS OF RS. 8,00,000 AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE WHICH ARE THE GIFT RECEIVED FROM RELATIVES AND EXEMPTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56 OF THE ACT. FURTHER THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS WITH AN OBSERVATION THAT THE DATE OF GIFTS ARE NOT KNOWN AND NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS THAT THE DATE GIFT ARE ALREADY RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 8, 00,000 LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED GIFTS OF RS.8 LAKHS IN AGGREGATE FROM 12 PERSO NS CLAIMED TO BE THE REL ATIVES. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 11 IT(SS)A NOS.93/CTK/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 2015 17. WHILE DECIDING GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL ABOVE, WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.20 LAKHS. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR TELESCOPING OF THE ADDITION UNDER CONSIDERATION WITH THAT AMOUNT AND SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS.8 LAKHS AGAIN IS NOT WARRANTED. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE RS.8 LAKHS AND ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 18 . GROUND NO.3 OF APPEAL IS AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 19 . NO ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED BY LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 2 0 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 26 /04/2018. S D/ - SD/ - (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ( N.S SAINI) JUDICIALMEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 26 /04/2018 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT :MANOJ KUMAR SAHOO, PROP. MANOJ SEASON CENTRE, RAILWAY STATION, JATNI. 2. THE RESPONDENT. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BHUBANESWAR 3. THE CIT(A) - 3, BHUBANESWAR 4. PR.CIT - 3, BHUBANESWAR 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//