M/s. Susee Auto Ltd., Tuticorin V. ACIT, Madurai

MA 153/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9278 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GURU BHASHYAM
• Assessee Lawyers: V S JAYAKUMAR
• Keywords: Gift; Business income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. M.P. NOS. 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158 & 159/MDS/20 12 (IN I.T.A. NOS. 292 TO 298/MDS/2011) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 TO 2007-08 M/S SUSEE AUTO LIMITED, 109/6A, ETTAYAPURAM ROAD, TUTICORIN. PAN : AACCS5276R (PETITIONER) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE III, MADURAI. (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI V.S. JAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GURU B HASHYAM, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 02.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02.11.2012 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THROUGH THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS, GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL REINSTATED THE OR DER OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ALL THE YEARS, INSOFAR AS IT RELATED TO AN ADDITION MADE WITH REGARD TO THE COLLECTION OF REGISTRATION EXPENSES F ROM ITS CUSTOMERS, IN EXCESS OF WHAT WAS RECORDED. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, NO SUCH CHARGES WERE COLLECTED FOR VEHICLES REGISTERED BY THE ASSES SEE AT ITS TUTICORIN M.P. NOS. 153 TO 159/MDS/12 2 OUTLET AND DETAILS THEREOF WERE ALL FURNISHED BEFOR E CIT(APPEALS). LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION FOR A REASON THAT COLLECTION OF EXCESS AMOUNT OF REGISTRATION CHARGES WAS ONLY IN R ESPECT OF VEHICLES SOLD AND REGISTERED BY THE COMPANY ONLY AND NOT VEH ICLES SOLD BY THE COMPANY FOR WHICH REGISTRATION WORK WAS NOT UNDERTA KEN BY IT. 2. WHEN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION CAME UP FOR HEAR ING, LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI R. VADIVE LRAJAN, RELIED ON BY THIS TRIBUNAL FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CI T(APPEALS), WAS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON 5 TH JULY, 2006, WHICH WAS THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH SWORN STATEMENT WA S RECORDED. AS PER THE LEARNED A.R., THIS COULD NOT BE APPLIED FOR YEARS MUCH PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE STATEMENT. ACCORDING TO L EARNED A.R., THE STATEMENT COULD NOT BE BLINDLY ADOPTED FOR A PERIOD PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH. INCOME PER VEHICLE SOLD WAS ACCOUNTED IN T HE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, AND THE YEAR-WISE DETAILS OF VEHI CLES SOLD/REGISTERED INCLUDING REGISTRATION CHARGES COLL ECTED IN A BLOCK PERIOD OF SIX YEARS WERE ALL TABULATED AND FURNISHE D TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS PER LEARNED A.R., THE INCOME ARISING O UT OF REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLES SOLD AND REGISTERED STOOD OFFERED IN P ROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ALREADY. M.P. NOS. 153 TO 159/MDS/12 3 3. PER CONTRA, LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THERE WA S NO MISTAKE, WHICH WAS APPARENT ON THE RECORD, WHICH WOULD WARRA NT RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SH ORT 'THE ACT'). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSMENT WAS PURSUANT TO A SEA RCH CONDUCTED IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI R. VADIVELRAJAN, W HO WAS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. SHRI R. VADIVELR AJAN HAD GIVEN A STATEMENT AND IN SUCH A STATEMENT, HE HAD MENTIONED THAT A SUM OF ` 230/- OUT OF ` 700/- COLLECTED FROM BUYERS OF THE VEHICLES, FOR T HE PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION, WAS ACCOUNTED AS OTHER IN COME IN THE BOOKS. HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER GOING THROUGH TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, FORMED AN OPINION THAT SUMS SHOWN IN SUCH BOOKS WERE MUCH LESS THAN WHAT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE MANAGING DI RECTOR IN THE STATEMENT. ASSESSEE HAD PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DEC ISION OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITS SISTER CONCERN, NAMELY, SUSEE AUTO PLAZA PVT. LTD. V. ADDL. CIT (20 10) 3 ITR (TRIB) 166. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH, THIS TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER AT PARAS 12 AND 13 OF ITS ORDER DATED 21 ST JUNE, 2012:- M.P. NOS. 153 TO 159/MDS/12 4 12. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. CIT(APPEALS) HAS PLACED A STRONG RELIANCE ON THE DE CISION OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUSE E AUTO PLAZA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITIONS AND DISAL LOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT SU SEE AUTO PLAZA PVT. LTD. WAS A SISTER-CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REL EVANT PARA OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: - 8. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO TH E RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WITH REFERENCE TO THE AVAILABLE MATERIA L ON RECORD. THE UNDENIABLE FACTS OF THE CASES ARE THAT ADMITTEDLY N O INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WAS EITHER FOUND OR SEIZED, WHICH CAN BE S AID TO BE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY BUT WHATEVER EVIDEN CE WAS FOUND WAS RELATED TO THE GROUP COMPANIES. IN SO FAR AS A LLEGED EXCESS COLLECTION TOWARDS REGISTRATION OF VEHICLES, ETC. I S CONCERNED, WE ARE FAIRLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSION OF LD.AR TH AT, IN NO CASE, THIS AMOUNT CAN BE TREATED AS A PART OF THE BUSINESS REC EIPT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE SIMPLE REASON FOR THE SAME I S THAT THIS RECEIPT UNLESS IT RELATES TO BUSINESS OF SALE OF TW O WHEELERS, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS RECEIPT. TO GET THE VEHICL ES REGISTERED IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. IN ANY CASE, IF ANY INCOME IS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FROM THE REGISTRATION ACTIVITY, IT CAN BE TREATED AS ITS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. BE THAT AS IT MAY, IT IS NOBODYS CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT COLLECT MO NEY FOR GETTING SOLD VEHICLE REGISTERED AS PER THE LAW OF THE STATE WITH THE CONCERNED RTO. MOREOVER, IT IS AN ACCEPTED CASE THAT THIS A SSESSEE-COMPANY FACILITATE THE CUSTOMER BY GETTING THEIR VEHICLES R EGISTERED. UNDISPUTEDLY, NO INCRIMINATING DIRECT EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING SEARCH UNDERTAKEN IN ANOTHER GROUP-ASSESSEES CASE. BUT BY DRAWING ANALOGY, WHEN THIS ASPECT WAS EXAMINED, IT WAS FOUN D THAT THIS ASSESSEE WAS ALSO COLLECTING SOME MONEY FOR GETTING THE VEHICLES REGISTERED. WE FIND THAT THIS ASSESSEE WAS COLLECT ING RS. 3310/- FOR REGISTRATION OF ONE TWO WHEELER AND CREDITED UNDER THE ACCOUNT CALLED REGISTRATION AND DELIVERY CHARGES ACCOUNT GROUPED UNDER THE INCOME IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND DEBITED A SUM O F RS. 2,763/- TOWARDS SAID AMOUNT AND OFFERED REMAINING SUM OF RS . 547/- FOR TAXATION. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IGNORED TH E DEBIT, ALTHOUGH HE HAS HIMSELF FOUND THIS FACT DURING SEARCH IN GRO UP-ASSESSEES CASE M.P. NOS. 153 TO 159/MDS/12 5 WHO DEALS BOTH IN FOUR WHEELERS AND TWO WHEELERS AN D HAS RELIED MAINLY ON THE STATEMENTS RECORDED IN OTHER CASES FR OM THE DIRECTORS WHO ALSO HAPPEN TO BE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE-COM PANY. THE MAIN REASON FOR DISALLOWANCE IS MAINLY BASED ON THE REAS ON THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUPPORT THE REMAINING EXPENDITUR E WITH THE BILLS/VOUCHERS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER REDUCED THE ADDITION BY MAKING HIS OWN ESTIMATION. UNDISPUTEDLY, THIS ADDI TION IS BASED ON SHEER ESTIMATION BASED ON STATEMENTS, WHICH WERE NE VER CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. ANY ADDITION WHICH IS BAS ED ON STATEMENTS WHICH WERE NEVER CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. NOBODY CAN DENY THAT IN THI S LINE OF BUSINESS WHERE THE ASSESSEE PURCHASES AND SELLS TWO WHEELERS , IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF ASSESSEES SALES AS WELL AS IN THE INTE REST OF THE CUSTOMER AND MORE PARTICULARLY IS TOWARDS LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF SENDING A VEHICLE ON THE ROADS ONLY AFTER IT IS REGISTERED AS PER LA W OF THE STATE. THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FACILITATE THE WORK OF REGI STRATION OF THE VEHICLE, THEREFORE, THIS PART OF SERVICE PROVIDED B Y THE ASSESSEE TO ITS CUSTOMERS WHO ARE ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO TAKE THE VEHICLE ON ROADS ONLY AFTER GETTING IT REGISTERED, MAY BE A TEMPORAR Y REGISTRATION FOR A LIMITED PERIOD, BE GOT BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, BUT IN THE LARGER INTEREST AND EXPEDIENCY OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS, THI S GESTURE IS A SORT OF HELP PROVIDED TO THE CUSTOMERS AND OF-COURSE IN THE LARGER INTEREST OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS. BUT ANY AMOUNT COLLECTED F OR THAT PURPOSE, WITH WHATEVER NAME IT IS CALLED, TO FACILITATE THE CUSTOMER, CANNOT BE TREATED AS, BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, AS BUSIN ESS RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMA TED SUCH A COLLECTION ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN GROUP CONCERNS CASE BUT NOT DIRECTLY IN THIS ASSESSEES CASE. THE ESTIMATI ON IS BASED ON, OF- COURSE CERTAIN RECORDS FOUND IN GROUP CONCERNS CAS E, AS WELL AS ON ADMISSIONS MADE BY THE COMMON DIRECTORS BUT IN OTHE R ASSESSEES CASE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THIS SERVIC E IS PROVIDED TO THE CUSTOMERS TO HELP THEM OUT IN GETTING THEIR VEHICLE S REGISTERED FOR WHICH LEGAL FEES, ETC. ALONGWITH SUNDRY EXPENSES LI KE TYPING, FEES FOR PURCHASING FORM OF REGISTRATION, STAMPS AFFIXED TO THE APPLICATION AND THE LIKE INCLUDING SOME EXPENSES GIVEN TO THE PERSO N ATTENDING THE WORK IN QUESTION, BUT NOT A SINGLE PIE IS POCKETED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BEYOND WHATEVER HAS BEEN DISCLOSED. IN SO FAR AS NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IS CONC ERNED, NOBODY CAN M.P. NOS. 153 TO 159/MDS/12 6 DISPUTE THE SAME AS IT IS A COMMON PLACE EXPERIENCE . WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE REALLY COLLEC TS MORE AMOUNT THAN WHAT IS SPENT TOWARDS REGISTRATION CHARGES PRE CISELY BECAUSE THE CUSTOMERS ARE NOT FOOLISH WHO WOULD SPEND MORE MON EY, THAN REQUIRED SAVE THEIR HARASSMENT AND TIME IN GETTING THIS PET TY WORK DONE. SINCE NO DIRECT EVIDENCE WAS COLLECTED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN THE FORM OF ANY STATEMENT OF ANY OF THE CUSTOMERS, WHICH CAN BE SAID TO BE A DIRECT AND BEST EVIDENCE, AND THE STATEMENT S OF DIRECTORS AND RTO WERE RECORDED IN THE CASE OF OTHER CONCERN. OT HERWISE ALSO IN THOSE STATEMENTS IT HAS NOT BEEN ADMITTED THAT ANY PORTION OF THE EXPENSES SO COLLECTED IS POCKETED BY THE ASSESSEE-C OMPANY. SO WHAT HAS BEEN STATED IS THAT SOME EXTRA AMOUNT IS COLLEC TED FOR FACILITATING THE WORK OF REGISTRATION, ROAD TAX ETC. AND THAT TO O, ON BEHALF OF THE CUSTOMERS AND FOR THE HELP OF CUSTOMERS ONLY. SINC E THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT POCKETED ANY PORTION OF THIS AMOUNT, IT WOULD N OT BE WORTHWHILE TO DISCUSS ABOUT UNLAWFUL EXPENDITURE WHICH MAY HAVE B EEN SPENT IN GETTING THE REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE THAT IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED OR NOT BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ON THAT POINT AS THAT POINT IS N OT DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN ASSESSEES CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTI MATED EXTRA COLLECTION @ RS.2000/- PER VEHICLE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCES COLLECTED IN A DIFFERENT ASSESSEES CASE AND THAT TOO, IS NOT RELEVANT BECAUSE THERE IS NO ADMISSION OF POCKETING ANY PORTION OF T HIS AMOUNT BY THEM ALSO. AS CONTRAST TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS COME TO A DIFFERENT FIGURE. THE PLEA TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ES TIMATION DONE @ RS.2,000/- PER VEHICLE WAS IN RELATION TO FOUR WHEE LERS AND NOT TWO WHEELERS WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS UNDENIABLY DEALING IN TWO WHEELERS ONLY AND THIS FACT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE CORRECT BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMAINED UNCONTROVERTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THIS FA CT HAS NOT BEEN DENIED EVEN BEFORE US. AS FAR AS TWO WHEELERS ARE CONCERNED, AS PER PARA 7.1 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.12.2008 WITH REFERENCE TO SEIZED MATERIAL IN THE GROUP CASE, MARKED AS WVS/B& D/S-I(16) FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ALSO CONTAINS SALE RECO RDS OF TWO WHEELERS PERTAINING TO OTHER CONCERNS, IN WHICH RECEIPT OF R S. 3,310/- WAS NOTICED AS A RECEIPT ISSUED TO EACH PURCHASER ON AC COUNT OF REGISTRATION AND ROAD TAX EXPENSES. AS PER RTOS I NFORMATION, ACTUAL EXPENSES ARE RS. 2500/- TOWARDS ROAD TAX AND RS. 60/- TOWARDS REGISTRATION TOTALING TO RS. 2560/- PER VEHICLE. I N THIS WAY, AFTER DEDUCTING THIS AMOUNT FROM RS. 3310/-, EXTRA AMOUNT COLLECTED COMES M.P. NOS. 153 TO 159/MDS/12 7 TO RS. 750/- ONLY. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ACCEPTE D INCIDENTAL EXPENSES OF S 150/- PER VEHICLE. THE PLEA OF THE A SSESSEE THAT THE ENTIRE EXCESS AMOUNT, IF ANY, COLLECTED WAS HELD IN TRUST BY THE COMPANY AND IT DID NOT ACCOUNT TOWARDS ASSESSEE COM PANYS INCOME. THIS PLEA WAS TURNED DOWN BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE REASONING THAT THERE BEING NO CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY SHOWN IN THIS REGARD AND MOREOVER, A PART OF EXTRA AMOUNT SO COLLECTED HAS BEEN CREDIT ED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS INCOME. SINCE THIS IS ASSESSMENT BASED ON SEARCH MATERIAL, PRESUMPTIONS CANNOT OVERRIDE THE MATERIAL FACTS UNEARTHED IN GROUP ASSESSES, BECAUSE, HAD THERE BEEN SEARCH I N THIS ASSESSEES CASE THEN PRESUMPTION COULD HAVE BEEN A VALID MODE FOR ESTIMATING EXTRA INCOME IN THIS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE, VIDE L ETTER DATED 6.10.2008 HAD PLEADED THAT IT COLLECTED MONEY FROM THE CUSTOMERS TOWARDS ROAD TAX, REGISTRATION, APPLICATION FORM EX PENSES, REGISTRATION FEES AND OTHER INCIDENTAL REGISTRATION EXPENSES AND ACCOUNTED THEM FOR UNDER THE HEAD ADMINISTRATIVE I NCOME ACCOUNT. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT OUT OF SUCH AMOUNT, MONE Y WAS SPENT TOWARDS TAXES, REGISTRATION FEES, STAMP FEES, POSTA L EXPENSES, POOJA EXPENSES, PETROL EXPENSES, PAYMENT TO PERSON ENTRUS TED WITH THE JOB OF REGISTERING THE VEHICLES ETC. THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE COMPANY IS THAT ALL THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED ON BEHALF OF THE BUYERS. THESE EXPENSES WERE ALSO DEBITED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE IN COME ACCOUNT AND THE NET OF THE INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE WAS INCLUDED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE LD. CIT( A) HAS ACCEPTED, TO SOME EXTENT, THAT CERTAIN PETTY EXPENSES WHICH D O NOT AMOUNT TO PROHIBITED GIFTS ARE INCIDENTAL TO THE WORK IN QUES TION AND HAVE TO BE LEGITIMATELY INCURRED AND FOR THAT VOUCHERS CANNOT BE OBTAINED. HE HAS ACCEPTED THE DEDUCTIBILITY OF SUCH PETTY EXPENS ES. HE HAS ESTIMATED RS. 150/- TOWARDS NECESSARY EXPENSES AND HAS HELD THEM ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION AND BALANCE OF RS. 600/- PER VEHICLE HAS BEEN TREATED AS EXCESS COLLECTION FOR WHICH NO CORRESPON DING DEDUCTION WOULD BE AVAILABLE. AS STATED ABOVE, THE ASSESSE E HAS COLLECTED RS. 3310/- BUT HAS DEBITED ONLY RS. 2763/-. AS DISCUSS ED ABOVE, RS. 2560/- PER VEHICLE HAS BEEN TREATED AS VALID EXPEND ITURE. THEREAFTER ONLY RS. 203/- REMAINS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR. THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESS EE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ESTIMATED RS. 150/- AS PETTY EXPENSES T OWARDS POOJA ETC WHICH ARE TREATED AS PERMISSIBLE . IN CASE, THIS A MOUNT OF RS. 150/- IS M.P. NOS. 153 TO 159/MDS/12 8 REDUCED FROM RS. 203/-, RS. 53 REMAINS WITH THE ASS ESSEE BUT BECAUSE THE ESTIMATION DONE BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS SIMPLICITO R AN ADHOC ESTIMATION AND GIVEN IN THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT EVEN RS . 53/- CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS ITS BUSINESS INCOME. IN CASE ANYBODY HAS TO COMMUTE TW O/THREE TIMES TO RTOS OFFICE, FOR GETTING THE REGISTRATION, A GOOD AMOUNT IS SPENT EVEN ON PETROL. THEREFORE, IN THE TOTALITY OF FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHERE(I) NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT WAS FOUND IN THIS ASSESSEES CASE, (II) WHATEVER HAS BEEN FOUND AS EV IDENCE IS FOUND IN ASSESSEES GROUP CASE WHO MAINLY DEALS IN FOUR WHEE LERS, (III) NO EVIDENCE WAS COLLECTED FROM ANY CUSTOMER WHICH CAN BE A DIRECT AND BEST EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD, (IV) THIS AMOUNT WHIC H IS TAKEN IN TRUST FOR GETTING THE VEHICLE REGISTERED ETC. CANNOT BE A PART OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS (V) THAT BARRING ANY UNLAWFUL EXPENSES EVE N LEGITIMATE EXPENSES ARE REQUIRED, (VI) THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN EITHER REJECTED OR FOUND DEFECTIVE, ( VII) NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND RELATABLE WITH ASSESSEES CASE DIRECTLY FROM THE ASSESSEE OR ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ANY ESTIMATION U/S 153(C) CAN BE DONE, NO SUCH ADDITION CAN BE MADE. THE ENTIRE ADDITION DES ERVES TO BE DELETED. THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION M ADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THIS ACCOUNT. ACCORDING LY, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REV ENUE. THE CONNECTED GROUNDS RAISED IN REVENUES APPEALS, FOR ALL THE YEARS, ALSO STAND DISMISSED. 13. WHAT WE CAN DISCERN FROM ABOVE IS THAT THERE WE RE TWO MAIN REASONS WHY THIS TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED REVENUES A PPEALS IN THE SAID CASE. FIRST WAS THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT BASED ON ANY SEIZED MATERIAL RELATABLE TO M/S SUSEE AUTO PLAZA PVT. LTD . SECOND WAS THAT THE STATEMENT OF DIRECTORS AND RTO WHICH WERE RECOR DED RELATED TO A SISTER CONCERN. IT IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ESTIMATED THE AMOU NTS ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN GROUP CONCERNS CASE, BUT NOT DIRECTLY IN THAT CASE. SO, THIS WOULD CLEARLY IMPLY THAT THERE WERE EVIDENCES CONNECTED TO A GROUP CONCERN, WHICH WERE FOUND IN T HE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS OF SHRI R. VADIVELRAJAN. SHRI R . VADIVELRAJAN WAS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. IN OUR OPINION, M.P. NOS. 153 TO 159/MDS/12 9 STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI R. VADIVELRAJAN DURING THE COURSE OF A SEARCH, AT HIS RESIDENTIAL PREMISES, WILL HAVE CONSIDERABLE BEARING ON THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY SINCE SHRI R. VA DIVELRAJAN WAS ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. AS OPINED BY THE CO-ORDINAT E BENCH, SUCH STATEMENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A PIECE OF EVIDEN CE IN RESPECT OF OTHER COMPANIES IN SAME GROUP. HOWEVER, IT IS DEFI NITELY A VALUABLE EVIDENCE, AS FAR AS ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS CONCERNED WHERE SHRI R. VADIVELRAJAN WAS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY STARTED FROM THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI R. VADIVELRAJAN FOR PROCEEDING WITH THE ASSESSMENT. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT SHRI R. VADIVELRAJAN HAD ACCEPTED ` 700/- PER VEHICLE, AS COLLECTED FOR REGISTRATION. THE BREAK-UP OF THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ALSO GIVEN BY SHRI R. VADIVELRAJAN. SHRI R. VADIVELRAJAN ALSO MENTION ED THAT THE BALANCE WHATSOEVER WHICH WERE LEFT AFTER MEETING EXPENSES O F REGISTRATION WERE ACCOUNTED FOR IN M/S SUSEE AUTO LIMITED, WHICH IS THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY, UNDER THE HEAD OTHER INCOME. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE AN ANALYSIS OF OTHER INCOME SHOWN IN THE ACC OUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND CAME TO AN OPINION THAT THE SU MS SHOWED THERE WAS MUCH LESS THAN WHAT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE MANAGIN G DIRECTOR TO HAVE BEEN EARNED. ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN ACCEPTED A FURTHER CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT STATEMENT OF ITS MANAGING DIRE CTOR DID NOT INCLUDE ` 60/- PAID FOR REGISTRATION. THUS, AGAINST ` 230/- PER VEHICLE MENTIONED BY SHRI R. VADIVELRAJAN, ASSESSING OFFICE R HAD CONSIDERED ONLY ` 170/- AS OTHER INCOME. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, I N OUR OPINION, RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LEARNED A.R. AS WELL AS CIT( APPEALS) ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF SUSEE AUTO PLAZA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD NOT HELP THE ASS ESSEE. SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT CLEARLY SAYS THAT AN OATH STATEME NT RECORDED FROM A PERSON WHO WAS IN CONTROL OF THE AFFAIRS, COULD B E USED AS AN EVIDENCE IN AN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT . WHEN ASSESSEE HAD NOT ACCOUNTED A PART OF ITS INCOME WHICH WAS TH ERE BY ITS OWN ADMISSION, WE CANNOT FATHOM HOW IT COULD BE AGGRIEV ED BY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IN THIS REGARD. 5. IN FACT, THIS TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF CI T(APPEALS) DELETING OTHER ADDITIONS CONSIDERING THE EVIDENTIAR Y VALUE OF M.P. NOS. 153 TO 159/MDS/12 10 STATEMENT RECORDED FROM SHRI R. VADIVELRAJAN. THIS TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE STATEMENT COULD NOT BE RELIED ON BY THE REVENUE , WHERE IT SUITED ITS PURPOSE, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, HAD TO BE CONSI DERED EVEN WHERE SUCH STATEMENT WENT IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES CASE. HENCE, TRIBUNAL HAD CONSIDERED SUCH STATEMENT IN ALL ITS FAIRNESS A ND SUSTAINED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. WHICH WERE FULLY ENDORSE D IN SUCH STATEMENT. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MISCELLA NEOUS PETITION NOW FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH RUNS INTO SIX PAGES CON SISTING OF VARIOUS TABLES, IS NOTHING BUT AN ATTEMPT TO GET A REVIEW O F THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL. VARIOUS PARAS IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETIT ION ARE ARGUMENTATIVE AND STATE THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAD NOT REACHED A CORRECT DECISION AND HAD NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE NUMBE R OF VEHICLES SOLD AND REGISTERED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINIO N, THE ASPECT WHETHER THE SWORN STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI R. VADIVE LRAJAN COULD BE USED FOR EARLIER YEARS AND WHETHER ASSESSEE HAD COR RECTLY SHOWN WHATEVER IT HAD RECEIVED AS REGISTRATION CHARGES, A RE ALL MATTER WHICH GO BEYOND THE REALM AND PARAMETERS OF A RECTIFICATO RY PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE, IN GUIS E OF RECTIFICATION APPLICATION, IS SEEKING A REVIEW OF ORDER OF THIS T RIBUNAL FOR WHICH THIS TRIBUNAL IS HAVING NO POWERS. M.P. NOS. 153 TO 159/MDS/12 11 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, TH E 2 ND OF NOVEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 2 ND NOVEMBER, 2012. KRI. COPY TO: (1) PETITIONER (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) (4) CIT (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE