Shri Razakbhai R.Arbiani, Ahmedabad v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-10(4),, Ahmedabad

ITA 1124/AHD/2009 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 112420514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAVPA3552E
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1124/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant Shri Razakbhai R.Arbiani, Ahmedabad
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-10(4),, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 29-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 05-05-2011
Next Hearing Date 05-05-2011
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 13-04-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI D. K. TYAGI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1124 / AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) RAZAKBHAI R ARBIANI 9-A GIRISH SOCIETY 8 TH TELEPHONE HOTEL SARKHEJ ROAD JUHAPURA AHMEDABAD 380055. VS. ITO WARD 10(4) AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : AAVPA3552E (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI S N DIVOTIA AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S A BOHRA JCIT O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA AM:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) XVI AHMEDABAD DATED 28.12.2009 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE AS UNDER: THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 OF THE ACT ON 28.1.2009 FOR A.Y.2004-05 BY CIT(A)-XVI A'BAD PARTLY CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY AO IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL UNLAWFUL AN D AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE LD. CIT(A] HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING TH E ADDITIONS MADE BY AO WITHOUT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPERLY THE EXPLANATION OFFERED AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY TH E APPELLANT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND/OR O N FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO : A) ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED STOCK RS.27 70 000/- B) UNEXPLAINED CASH RS.01 10 000/- THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE AF ORESAID ADDITIONS MADE BY AO. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING TH AT THERE WAS UNACCOUNTED STOCK FOUND IN RAMAVADAR GODOWN OF 138. 5 MT. OF STEEL AND THE SAME BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THAT THE AFORES AID STOCK WAS FOUND AND BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE AND CONCLUSION REACHED BY CIT (A) ARE CONTRADICTORY AS WELL AS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS O F THE CASE. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A)) MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT GROUNDS NO S. 1 & 4 ARE GENERAL. REGARDING GROUNDS NOS. 2 & 3 THE FACTS IN BRIEF TI LL THE BEGINNING OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 3 O F HIS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: I) THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER:-IN THI S CASE A SURVEY U/S. 133A WAS CARRIED OUT ON 14-10-2003 AT THE BUSI NESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. M/S. M I F STILL (P ROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE) SITUATED AT 603 LOHA BHAV AN NR OLD HIGH COURT NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD. II) - DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS INCR IMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND WHICH WERE INVENTORISED AS PE R ANNEXURE A ITEM NO 1 TO 6. III) THE CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 10 0007- WAS ALSO FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ON 14-10-2003. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY A STATEMENT ON OATH OF SHRI RAZKBHAI THE PROP M I F STEEL WERE RECORDED ON 14- 10-20 03. IV I.T.A.NO.1124 /AHD/2009 3 V) IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH ON 14-10-2003 THE ASSESSEE SHRI RAZAKBHAI HAD MADE FOLLOWING DISCLOSURE :- 1 UNDISCLOSED STOCK FOUND IN RARNAVTAR GODOW N OF 138.5 METRIC TON OF STEEL @ 20 0007- PER M.T. 27 70 0007- 2 TRADING INCOME SHOWN ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPERS FOUND FILE PAGE 4 TO 8 6 22 0007- 3 UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND 1 10 0007- 4 IN RESPECT OF COMMISSION INCOME EARNED BY ISSUIN G BOGUS BILL AS PER ANN. A THE BOGUS BILLS WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF RUPESH TRADING CO. PANKAJ AGRO & GANESH TRADING CO. 1 65 0007- 36 73 0007- VI) HOWEVER WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE ABOVE MENTIONED UNDISCLOSED IN COME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS EXPLANATION OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16-11- 2006. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON VARIOUS ITEMS AS DISCUSSED BELOW. 3. VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BE FORE THE A.O. BUT THE A.O. WAS NOT SATISFIED AND HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.36.67 LACS COMPRISING OF RS.27.70 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF STOCK DIF FERENCE RS.1.10 LACS BEING UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SURVE Y RS.6.5 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM BOGUS BILLS AND RS.6.22 ON A CCOUNT OF TRADING INCOME. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT O F STOCK DIFFERENCE OF I.T.A.NO.1124 /AHD/2009 4 RS.27.70 LACS AND UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND IN THE COU RSE OF SURVEY OF RS.1.10 LACS BUT DELETED THE REMAINING TWO ADDITION S BY HOLDING THAT THIS INCOME HAS BEEN UTILIZED IN ACQUIRING CLOSING STOCK AND CASH. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 4.3 OF HIS ORDER THAT ON EXAMINATION OF BANK S TATEMENT AND THE STATEMENT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY IT IS SEE N THAT ASSESSEE IS DOING THE BUSINESS OF ISSUING BILLS (HAWALA TRANSACTION) AND NO GENUINE PURCHASE AND SALES ARE MADE THROUGH THESE BANK ACCOUNTS IN M EMON COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A.R. THA T SINCE IT IS HELD BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF HAWALA TRANSACTION HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED STOCK AND ALLEGED UN EXPLAINED CASH. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY A HA WALA OPERATOR NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF STOCK AND CASH. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO BILL FOR PURCHASE/SALE WAS FOUND AND HAWALA INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED AND ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. REGARDING THE STATEMENT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE SAME WAS RETRACTED. IN THIS REGARD OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PAGE 91-93 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ONE MORE SUBMISSION WAS MADE THAT STAT EMENT IN QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN CORROBORATED AND HENCE IT HAS NO EVID ENTIARY VALUE AND IT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. REGARDING THE STOCK AND C ASH FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME AR E DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS. IN THIS REGARD OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PAGE 66-68 OF THE PAPER BOOK FOR STOCK AND PAGES 113-114 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN RESPECT OF CASH FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. 6. AS AGAINST THIS THE LD. D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUP PORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. I.T.A.NO.1124 /AHD/2009 5 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIE S BELOW. WE FIND THAT A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WAS C ARRIED OUT ON 14.10.2003 AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. MIF STEELS THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE COUR SE OF SURVEY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND WHICH WERE INVE NTORISED AND IMPOUNDED. CASH OF RS.1.10 LACS WAS ALSO FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY A STATEMENT ON OATH OF THE ASSESSEE BEING THE PROPRIETOR OF MIF STEELS WAS RECORDED. IN THE SAID STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH ON 14.10.2003 THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE DISCLOSUR E OF RS.36.37 LACS COMPRISING OF UNDISCLOSED STOCK FOUND IN RAMAVTAR G ODOWN OF 138.5 MT OF STEEL @ RS.20 000/- PER M T VALUING RS.27.70 LAC S UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND OF RS.1.10 LACS TRADING INCOME ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPERS FOUND RS.6.22 LACS AND ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS INCOME EARN ED BY ISSUING BOGUS BILLS OF RS.1.65 LACS TOTAL RS.36.37 LACS. THIS G OES TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN TWO TYPES OF BUSINESS; ONE OF THE BUSINESSES WAS DEALING IN STEEL AND OTHER BUSINESS WAS HAWALA TRAN SACTION BY WAY OF ISSUING BOGUS BILLS. THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE ONLY BASIS REGARDING THE ALLEGATION OF THE A.O. THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS HOLDING UNDISCLOSED STOCK AND CASH AND WAS ALSO HAVING UNDI SCLOSED TRADING INCOME AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM HAWALA TRANSACTI ON. IN ADDITION TO THE STATEMENT THE A.O. HAS FOUND UNDISCLOSED STOCK AND UNDISCLOSED CASH AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND WITH REGARD TO UNDISCLOSE D TRADING INCOME AND UNDISCLOSED HAWALA TRANSACTION BUSINESS INCOME ALSO LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY. HENCE THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT A LONE. REGARDING UNDISCLOSED STOCK FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY IT WAS THE SUBMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S THAT SALES WERE MADE I.T.A.NO.1124 /AHD/2009 6 BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS SONS FIRM M/S. WORLD STEEL CENTRE TO THE TUNE OF 31.815 MT BUT THE MATERIAL WAS LYING IN THE SAME GO DOWN AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED CONFIRMATION FROM TARUS PVT. LTD. FOR THE PURCHASE OF STEEL WEIGHING 79.460 MT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE STOCK WAS TAKEN ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND IN FACT THE GOODS WEIGHING 159. 250 MT WERE LYING IN THE GODOWN WHICH INCLUDED THE QUANTITY OF 31.815MT STEEL SOLD TO THE FIRM OF THE ASSESSEES SON BUT LYING IN THE GODOWN OF THE ASSESSEE. ALL THESE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. WERE REJECTED BY HIM FOR THIS REASON THAT IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER PURCHASE B ILLS WERE LYING WITH THE ACCOUNTANT WHO HAD GONE OUT OF STATION ON THE D ATE OF SURVEY. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF SUR VEY PROCEEDINGS THAT THESE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND PURCHASE BILLS ETC WILL BE PRODUCED TO THE A.O. AFTER RETURN OF HIS ACCOUNTANT BUT THE SAME WA S NEVER PRODUCED TILL THE DATE OF HEARING IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS. ON THIS BASIS THE A.O. HAS STATED ON PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER THAT WHETHER TRANSACTION SUCH AS PURCHASE AND SALE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY I.E. ON 14.10 .2003 OR NOT IS NOT VERIFIABLE. THE 2 ND REASON GIVEN BY THE A.O. IS THAT ASSESSEE HAS TRIE D TO WORK OUT THE CLOSING STOCK AT THE END OF THE FINANC IAL YEAR BUT THE WORKING OF CLOSING STOCK AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY WAS NOT F URNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND BEFORE US. BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED MONTHLY SUMMARY OF STOCK AS ON PAGES 66-68 OF THE PAPER BOO K AS PER WHICH THERE IS A CLOSING STOCK OF 127.445 MT AS ON 14.10. 2003. MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THESE STATEMENTS FURNISHED BEFORE THE A.O. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND BEFORE US IN THE PAPER B OOK IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE STOCK IS EXPLAINED. THE RELEVANT POINT TO BE CONSIDERED IS THAT ON I.T.A.NO.1124 /AHD/2009 7 THE DATE OF SURVEY NO SUCH STOCK REGISTER OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR PURCHASE/SALE BILLS WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE SURV EY PARTY AND IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS STATEMENT THAT THE SAME ARE LYING WITH THE ACCOUNTANT AND WILL BE PRODUCED AFTER HIS ARRIVAL. IN THIS REGARD THE REPLY OF QUESTION NO.16 OF THE STATEMENT IS RELEVANT WHIC H IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE LETTER DATED 23.11.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE A.O. IN REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF THE A.O. DATED 16.11.2006 THERE IS NO SUBMISSION THAT AFTER ARRIVAL OF THE AC COUNTANT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BILLS OF PURCHASE AND SALES ETC. WERE PROD UCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. IN FACT FINDING OF THE A.O. IS ON PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND PURCHASE BILLS ETC. WERE NEVER PRODUCED TILL THE DATE OF HEARING AND THEREFORE T HE STOCK POSITION NOW BEING SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF SURVEY I S NOT VERIFIABLE. WHEN THIS FACTUAL POSITION IS CONSIDERED ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE DISCLOSURE OF STOCK WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IF THE STOCK FOUND AT THE T IME OF SURVEY WAS AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IT WAS OPEN T O THE ASSESSEE TO BRING THESE FACTS TO THE NOTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT IMMEDIA TELY AFTER RETURN OF ACCOUNTANT OR WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER HIS RE TURN. BUT THIS WAS NOT DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE IN THIS REGARD ONLY AFTER ISSUANCE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BY THE A.O. IN THE YEAR 2006. HENCE ITS RELIABILITY IS IN DOUBT. 8. REGARDING THE RETRACTION OF THE STATEMENT OUR A TTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE SAME LETTER DATED 23.11.2006 WHICH IS AVAILA BLE ON PAGES 91-98 OF THE PAPER BOOK BUT THERE IS NO SUCH RETRACTION AS S UCH IN THE LETTER. IF WE GO BY THE THEORY OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES IF A DISCLOSURE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND IF THIS WAS ADMITTED BY HIM UNDER MISTAKEN BELIEF OF FACTS THEN HE WILL IMMEDIATELY RETRACT I.T.A.NO.1124 /AHD/2009 8 THE STATEMENT WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER RETUR N OF THE ACCOUNTANT BUT NO SUCH RETRACTION HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE A ND HENCE THESE DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM OF STOCK REGISTER ON THE DATE OF SURVEY FURNISHED IN THE PAPER BOOK DO NOT INSPIRE CONFIDENCE OR RELIABI LITY AND IT APPEARS TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND IT IS VERY MUCH POSSIBLE THAT E XTRA PURCHASES CAN BE SHOWN AND ACTUAL SALES CAN BE CONCEALED TO SHOW MOR E STOCK IN THE BOOKS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY. WE THEREFORE ARE NOT SATI SFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE STOCK FOU ND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. 9. REGARDING THE CASH FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY EXPLANATION AT THE TIME OF SURVEY OR WI THIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE RETURN OF THE ACCOUNTANT WHO WAS NOT AVA ILABLE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND NOW IN THE PAPER BOOK THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED A COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2003 WHICH SHOWS CASH IN HAND OF RS.3 84 932/-. THIS BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE PART OF AUDITED ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2003 AND THE AUDI T REPORT IS DATED 13.10.2003 WHEREAS THE DATE OF SURVEY WAS 14.10.20 03. IT IS VERY SURPRISING THAT THE AUDIT REPORT DATED 13.10.2003 W AS NOT AVAILABLE & NOT PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ON 14.10.2003 TO EXP LAIN THE CASH IN HAND FOUND OF RS.1.10 LACS AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. MOREO VER EVEN IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT CASH OF RS.3.85 LACS WAS AVAILABLE WI TH THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31.03.2003 IT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY EXPLAIN THE C ASH FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY ON 14.10.2003. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED IN THE COURSE OF STATEMENT ON THE DATE OF SURVEY THAT THIS CASH OF R S.1.10 LACS FOUND ON THE DATE OF SURVEY IS UNDISCLOSED CASH. EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT SUCH STATEMENT BY THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER MISTAKEN BELIEF OF FACTS IT WAS VERY MUCH POSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN THE SAME WITHIN A REASONAB LE TIME AFTER RETURN OF THE ACCOUNTANT WHO WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. ON PAGE 119 I.T.A.NO.1124 /AHD/2009 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED DAILY SUMMARY OF CASH FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2003 AND AS PER THE SAME IT I S SHOWING ON 14.10.2003 THE CASH AVAILABLE IN THE BOOKS WORTH RS .2 83 113/-. IF THIS IS THE REAL POSITION IT WAS REQUIRED FORM THE ASSESSE E TO BRING THESE FACTS TO THE NOTICE OF THE A.O. IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE RETURN OF THE ACCOUNTANT OR AT LEAST WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE RETURN OF THE ACCOUNTANT WHEN THE BOOKS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. THIS WAS N OT DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE WITH REGARD TO THIS CASH ALSO WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE EXPLANATION NOW BEING F URNISHED IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS MAD E DISCLOSURE IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WH ICH WAS NEVER RETRACTED AND THE BOOKS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE TH E A.O. WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE RETURN OF THE ACCOUNTANT TO BRING HOME THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CASH FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SU RVEY WAS OUT OF DISCLOSED CASH OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE ON BOTH THE SE ACCOUNTS THE EXPLANATION NOW BEING OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT INSPIRE CONFIDENCE AND THE SAME APPEARS TO BE AN AFTER THOU GHT. 10. REGARDING THIS SUBMISSION OF LD. A.R. THAT ONCE IT IS HELD BY LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF HAWALA T RANSACTION HE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXP LAINED STOCK WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS ARGUMENT BECAUSE THAT MA Y BE A VALID ARGUMENT IN THOSE CASES WHERE IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSE E IS ENGAGED ONLY IN HAWALA TRANSACTIONS AND IS NOT DOING ANY REAL BUSIN ESS. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE IT WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY SUPPORTE D BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING STOCK AND THE RE WERE PAPERS REGARDING UNDISCLOSED TRADING INCOME AS WELL AS UND ISCLOSED HAWALA TRANSACTION BUSINESS INCOME. THESE DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCES FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EN GAGED IN REAL BUSINESS I.T.A.NO.1124 /AHD/2009 10 BEING PURCHASE AND SALE OF STEEL AS WELL AS IN THE BUSINESS OF HAWALA TRANSACTION OF PROVIDING BOGUS BILLS. HENCE THIS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. THERE IS ONE MORE IMP ORTANT POINT THAT REGARDING TWO OTHER ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. ON A CCOUNT OF TRADING INCOME SHOWN ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPERS FOUND OF RS.6.23 LACS AND COMMISSION INCOME EARNED BY ISSUING BOGUS BILLS OF RS.1.65 LACS IT WAS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THESE TWO INCOME OF RS. 1.65 LACS AND 6.22 LACS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED IN ACQUIRING CLOSING STOCK AND CASH. HE HAS DELETED THESE TWO ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS THAT THE S AME WERE USED IN ACQUIRING UNDISCLOSED STOCK AND UNDISCLOSED CASH. THIS FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) GOES TO SHOW THAT THESE TWO INCOME WERE UTIL IZED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACQUIRING UNDISCLOSED STOCK AND UNDISCLOSED CASH AND NO GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THIS FINDING OF LD. CIT(A). CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS DI SCUSSED ABOVE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALL ED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 11. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DI SMISSED. 12. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JULY 2011. SD./- SD./- (D. K. TYAGI) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED : 29 TH JULY 2011 SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD 6. THE GUARD FILE I.T.A.NO.1124 /AHD/2009 11 1. DATE OF DICTATION 21/7 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 25/7 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 28/7 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 29/7 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 29/7 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 29/7/11 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. ..