Khemani Murlidhar Saduram, Nashik v. ACIT CENT CIR -3, Nashik

ITA 1699/PUN/2012 | 2000-2001
Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2014 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 169924514 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AKWPK3427N
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 1699/PUN/2012
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant Khemani Murlidhar Saduram, Nashik
Respondent ACIT CENT CIR -3, Nashik
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 28-11-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 05-11-2014
Next Hearing Date 05-11-2014
Assessment Year 2000-2001
Appeal Filed On 16-08-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.1699 1700 & 1701/PN/2012 (ASST. YRS. : 2000-01 2002-03 & 2003-04) KHEMANI MURLIDHAR SADURAM SAVITRI VILLA TIDKE COLONY BEHIND VED MANDIR NASHIK 422 002. PAN : AKWPK3427N . APPELLANT VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3 NASHIK. . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. SUNIL PATHAK DEPARTMENT BY : MRS. M. S. VERMA CIT DATE OF HEARING : 05-11-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-11-2014 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU AM THE CAPTIONED THREE APPEALS RELATE TO THE SAME ASSE SSEE FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND SINCE THEY INVOLVE CERTAIN COM MON ISSUES THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND A CONSOLID ATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 2. ITA NOS.1699 & 1700/PN/2012 ARE APPEALS DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS)-II NASHIK DATED 14.06.2012 WHICH IN TURN HAVE ARISEN FROM R ESPECTIVE ORDERS DATED 30.03.2006 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2000-01 & 2002-03 RESPECTIVELY; AND ITA NO.1701/PN /2012 IS AND APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II NASHIK DATED 19.06.2012 WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 30.03.2006 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. ITA NOS.1699 1700 & 1701/PN/2012 3. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE-UP THE APPEAL PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 WHEREIN THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IS WITH REGA RD TO AN ADDITION OF RS.1 10 000/- SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED GIFTS. IN THIS REGARD BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THREE GIFTS TOTALING TO RS.1 00 000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM (I) MRS . GEETA RATNANI RS.25 000/-; (II) MR. DEEPAK RATNANI RS.25 000/-; AND (III) MR. SANJAY RATNANI RS.50 000/- AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE RETURNED INCOME BY INVOKING SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ADDED A SUM OF RS.10 000/- I.E. 10% OF THE GIFT AMO UNT BEING INCURRED ON PURCHASE OF THE NON-GENUINE GIFTS THEREBY RESULTIN G IN A TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.1 10 000/-. THE CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE NECESSARY INGREDIENTS OF SEC TION 68 OF THE ACT WERE NOT FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE QUA THE AFORESAID SUM. A GAINST THE AFORESAID ACTION OF THE CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE F OR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS PUT-FORTH BEFORE THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES WHICH ARE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ON US CAST ON HIM U/S 68 OF THE ACT BY PROVIDING THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE NAMELY RETURN OF INCOME COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNT PAN NUMBERS DRAFT/CHEQUE N UMBER DETAILS OF ASSESSMENT CONFIRMATIONS AND STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT INCLUDING THE BALANCE- SHEETS OF THE THREE DONORS IN QUESTION. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT MERE NON-PRODUCTION OF THE DONORS COULD NOT BE A GROUND TO CONSIDER THE GIFTS AS NON-GENUINE IN THE FACE OF THE AFORESAID M ATERIAL FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. CIT-DR HAS RELIED UPO N THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO POINT OUT THAT THE FACTUM OF T HE ASSESSEE GROUP INTRODUCING UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN THE GUISE OF GIFTS STOOD ESTABLISHED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON THE ASSESSEE AND HIS GROUP. TH E SEARCH AND THE POST- ITA NOS.1699 1700 & 1701/PN/2012 SEARCH ENQUIRIES REVEALED THAT ASSESSEE AND HIS FAM ILY MEMBERS INDULGED IN PROCURING BOGUS GIFTS. THEREFORE IN THE CONTEXT O F THE INSTANT GIFTS THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THEIR GENUINENESS AND WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ITS A TRITE LAW THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF A NY CREDIT APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO A WELL-SETTLED P ROPOSITION THAT IN ORDER TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST U/S 68 OF THE ACT AN ASSES SEE IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR CREDITWORTHINESS OF T HE CREDITOR AS WELL AS GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IN THE PRESENT CAS E ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT SUCH ONUS HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BECAUSE IT HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT PAN NUMBERS DETAILS OF ASSESSMENT CONFIRMATIONS ETC. OF THE DONORS. NO DOUBT THE AFORESAID MATERIAL ESTAB LISHES THE IDENTITY OF THE DONORS. SO HOWEVER THE MOOT POINT IS WHETHER UNDE R THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED OR NOT. UNDENIABLY IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH ACTION ON THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ON 09.10.2003 IT C AME TO LIGHT THAT ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS HAD OBTAINED BOGUS GIFTS I.E. UNACCOUNTED MONIES WERE INTRODUCED IN THE GUISE OF GIFTS. A FE W TRANSACTIONS OF GIFTS WERE SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE GROUP AS UNEXPLAINED AL SO. SO FAR AS THE THREE GIFTS IN QUESTION ARE CONCERNED THERE WAS NO SURRE NDER BY THE ASSESSEE. SO HOWEVER UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES A HEAVY ONUS WA S CAST ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE IMPUGNED GIFTS ALSO. IT IS FOR THIS PURPOSE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CARRIED OUT A VERIFICATI ON EXERCISE. IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE LETTERS SENT TO THE DONO RS AT THE ADDRESSES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE RETURNED BACK WITH REMARKS NO T KNOWN AND NO INFORMATION RECEIVED. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ALLOW ED OPPORTUNITIES BY THE ITA NOS.1699 1700 & 1701/PN/2012 ASSESSING OFFICER TO PRESENT THE DONORS. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE COULD NEITHER PRODUCE THE DONORS AND NOR PROVIDE THEIR CORRECT AD DRESSES. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IN OUR VIEW THE LOWER AUTHORITIES H AVE CORRECTLY COME TO A FINDING THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE PRESENT GIFTS H AS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE ACTION OF THE LOWER A UTHORITIES IN INVOKING SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS H EREBY AFFIRMED. AS A RESULT ON THIS ISSUE ASSESSEE FAILS. 7. THE SECOND ADDITION IN DISPUTE IN ASSESSMENT YEA R 2000-01 IS OF A SUM OF RS.1 20 736/- ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS PROFIT DECLARE D BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS ASPECT OF THE DISPUTE IS COMMON TO ALL THE ASSESSME NT YEARS BEFORE US. THE BRIEF BACKGROUND IS THAT ASSESSEE IS A DEALER IN IN DIAN MADE FOREIGN LIQUOR (IMFL) AND COUNTRY LIQUOR AND A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 09.10.2003. THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE SEARCH REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINI NG ANY DAY TO DAY STOCK REGISTER AND THE DETAIL OF SALES OF IMFL AND COUNTR Y LIQUOR EVEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXCISE AND SALES-TAX WERE ENTERED IN T HE ACCOUNT BOOKS ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED IN THE COURSE OF ENQUIRIES THAT SALE BILLS WERE NOT BEING ISSUED TO THE CUSTOMERS ON A REGULAR BASIS. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED OF THE EMPLOYEES O F THE ASSESSEE WHICH REVEALED THAT THE SALES AND STOCK FIGURES WERE MATC HED ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY FOUND IN THE PHYSICAL STOCK VIS--VIS STOCK AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND DURING THE COURSE S URVEY/SEARCH ESTABLISHED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAI NTAINING A CORRECT TRADING ACCOUNT. FOR ALL THE ABOVE REASONS THE AS SESSING OFFICER CAME TO CONCLUDE THAT ASSESSEE WAS MANIPULATING VARIOUS REC ORDS KEPT FOR VARIOUS AUTHORITIES INCLUDING EXCISE AND SALES-TAX. ACCORD INGLY TRADING RESULTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE HELD UNRELIABLE. THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS COMMON FOR ALL THE THREE ASSES SMENT YEARS BEFORE US. ON ITA NOS.1699 1700 & 1701/PN/2012 ACCOUNT OF THE AFORESAID ADVERSE FINDING THE ASSES SING OFFICER DISREGARDED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 5.09% 4.65% AND 5.39% DEC LARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 2002-03 AND 2003-04 RESPE CTIVELY. INSTEAD FOR ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS HE ADOPTED GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 6% AND ACCORDINGLY THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT WAS BROUGHT TO TAX AS UNDISCLOSED PROFIT AMOUNTING TO RS.1 20 736/- RS.1 70 948/- AND RS.73 226/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 2002-03 AND 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY. T HE AFORESAID ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THIS ISSUE FOR ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS . SINCE THE ISSUE IS COMMON IN ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS THE SAME IS BEING TAKEN-UP FOR CONSIDERATION TOGETHER. 8. BEFORE US THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESS EE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IS SUBJECT TO A CONTROL BY THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES AND THEREFORE THE FIGURES OF SALES AND STOCK DECLARED IN THE RECORDS KEPT FOR EXCISE AUTHORITIES IS A RELIABLE INDICATOR OF THE ACTUAL TRADING ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE IT IS NOT PROPER FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HAVE REJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS AND ESTIM ATED THE PROFIT ON AN AD-HOC BASIS. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. CIT-DR APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR TH E REASONS WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED IN THE EARLIER PARAS AND ARE NOT BEI NG REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A ) HAVE SUCCINCTLY BROUGHT OUT INFIRMITIES/DISCREPANCIES IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. OSTENSIBLY THE ENQUIRIES DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH/SURVEY ACTION CLEARLY POINTED OUT THAT THE TRADING RESULTS DECLARED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE IMPAIRED INASMUCH AS THE SALES AS WELL AS THE STOCK FIGURES ARE RECORDED ON ESTIMATION ITA NOS.1699 1700 & 1701/PN/2012 AND NOT ON ACTUAL BASIS. THE EXCESS PHYSICAL STOCK FOUND ON THE DATE OF SEARCH ALSO JUSTIFIES THE INFERENCE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER THAT THE BOOK RESULTS ARE NOT RELIABLE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCE S IN OUR VIEW THE LOWER AUTHORITIES MADE NO MISTAKE IN DISREGARDING THE BOO K RESULTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFIT @ 6%. THE REFORE WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 20 736/- RS.1 70 948/- AND RS.73226/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT FOR T HE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS OF 2000-01 2002-03 AND 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY. THUS ASSESSEE FAILS ON THIS ASPECT ALSO. 11. LASTLY THE ONLY ISSUE WHICH SURVIVES FOR OUR C ONSIDERATION IS AN ADDITION OF RS.10 50 000/-IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WHICH H AS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT BY INVOKING SECT ION 68 OF THE ACT. 12. IN BRIEF THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED LOANS FROM FIVE PERSONS DETAILED AS UNDER :- (I) GEETA R. PURSWANI RS.4 00 000/- (II) KANHYALALJI DULANI RS.1 50 000/- (III) RAMESH PURSWANI RS.1 00 000/- (IV) SHARDA K. DULLANI RS.2 00 000/- (V) SHARDHA SILK RS.2 00 000/- ------------------ TOTAL RS.10 50 000/- =========== 13. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR REVEALS THAT D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS N OT SATISFIED ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE ABOVE CREDITS. THE AFORESAID CR EDITORS DULY APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED HAVING A DVANCED LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE CREDITORS COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS INASMUCH AS THEY HAD DECLARED INCOMES RANGING FROM RS.58 000/- TO RS.61 000/- IN THEIR RESPECTIVE INCOME- TAX RETURNS FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD. ANOTHER ASPEC T NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT ALL THE CREDITORS HAD DEPOSITED CA SH IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS ITA NOS.1699 1700 & 1701/PN/2012 IMMEDIATELY BEFORE ISSUING DEMAND DRAFT IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE CREDITORS DID NOT OFFER ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS. FOR ALL THE ABOVE REASONS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE AFORESAI D CASH CREDITS AS UNEXPLAINED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO AFFIRMED THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND A CCORDINGLY ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 14. BEFORE US THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE REITERATED THAT THE CREDITORS HAVE CONFIRMED ADVANCING OF LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE DISCHARGED THE BURDEN CAST ON HIM IN TERMS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. CIT-DR HAS DEFENDED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BY RELYING ON THE DI SCUSSION CONTAINED THEREIN. 15. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. OSTENSIBLY THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CASH CREDITS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONTEXT THE CIT(A) HAS REP RODUCED THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS OF THE CREDITORS TO SHOW THAT CASH DEPOS ITS HAVE BEEN MADE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE ISSUING DEMAND DRAFTS TO THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED LOANS. IT IS A CONCURRENT FINDING OF FACT RENDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) THAT THE CREDITORS HAVE NOT EXPL AINED THE SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS. NO DOUBT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED TH E INCOME-TAX PARTICULARS ETC. OF THE SAID CREDITORS BUT THEIR FAILURE TO EV EN PRIMAFACIE EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOUND INDULGING IN INTRODUCING UNACCOUNTED INC OME BY WAY OF CASH CREDITS (I.E. GIFTS ETC.) THE IMPUGNED LOANS CANN OT BE CONSIDERED AS GENUINE. EVEN BEFORE US THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO INFER OTHER WISE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN CONCLUDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE C IT(A). THEREFORE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE WE AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE ITA NOS.1699 1700 & 1701/PN/2012 CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JU STIFIED IN INVOKING SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.10 50 000/-. 16. BEFORE US AN ALTERNATIVE PLEA HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS TO THE EFFECT THAT TO THE EXTENT OF THE ADDITION SU STAINED ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT THE CORRESPONDING ADDITION MADE U/S 6 8 OF THE ACT BE REDUCED. IN OTHER WORDS AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE ADDITION O N ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT BE CONSIDERED FOR TELESCOPING AGAINST THE AD DITION OF RS.10 50 000/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT THE LD. REPRES ENTATIVE HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. JAWANMAL GEMAJI GANDHI 151 ITR 353 (BOM.). 17. ON THIS ASPECT THE LD. CIT-DR SUBMITTED THAT T HE AFORESAID PLEA WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THEREFO RE THE SAME BE NOT ADMITTED AT THIS STAGE. 18. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS WITH REGARD TO THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTENDED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE SOU RCE OF THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT WAS THE INTANGIBLE ADDITIO N MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT YET THE SAID PLEA HAS BEEN RAISED BEFO RE US. OF-COURSE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUCH A PLEA COULD NOT HAVE B EEN RAISED AS ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE IN KNOW OF THE FACT THAT AN ADDITION W OULD BE MADE TO HIS RETURNED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CRED IT OR THE LOW GROSS PROFIT. BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALSO THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WA S THAT THE CASH CREDIT OF RS.10 50 000/- IN QUESTION WERE GENUINE. THOUGH BE FORE US ALSO IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE CASH CREDIT OF RS.10 50 000/- IS GENUINE BUT AN ALTERNATIVE PLEA HAS BEEN RAISED THAT IF ASSESSEES CONTENTION OF THE CASH CREDIT BEING GENUINE IS NOT ACCEPTED THEN IN THE ALTERNATIVE SO URCE OF SUCH UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT COULD BE ASSUMED TO HAVE COME PARTIALLY FROM THE INTANGIBLE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT FOR T HE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS. ITA NOS.1699 1700 & 1701/PN/2012 NOTABLY IN THE PRESENT CASE IT HAS BEEN HELD BY T HE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES AND WHICH HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY US IN THE EARLIER PA RAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED HIS UNEXPLAINED INCOME IN THE GUISE OF I MPUGNED LOANS. THEREFORE IN OUR VIEW ASSESSEE IS JUSTIFIED IN RAISING THE A LTERNATIVE PLEA THAT THE SOURCE OF SUCH UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT CAN BE ASSUMED TO H AVE COME OUT OF THE INTANGIBLE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3 64 910/- (I.E. RS.1 20 736/- PLUS RS.1 70 948/- PLUS RS.73 226/-) FOR THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 19. THEREFORE IN CONCLUSION WE HOLD THAT THE ADDI TION U/S 68 OF THE ACT BE RESTRICTED TO RS.6 85 090/- (RS.10 50 000/- MINUS R S.3 64 910/-). THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 20. RESULTANTLY WHEREAS THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2002-03 ARE DISMISSED THAT OF ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2003-04 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH NOVEMBER 2014. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 28 TH NOVEMBER 2014. SUJEET COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-II NASHIK; 4) THE CIT-II NASHIK; 5) THE DR A BENCH I.T.A.T. PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T. PUNE