The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar. v. Sh. Ajit Singh Randhawa, Amritsar.

ITA 217/ASR/2016 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 21720914 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AAPPR1846L
Bench Amritsar
Appeal Number ITA 217/ASR/2016
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar.
Respondent Sh. Ajit Singh Randhawa, Amritsar.
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Department
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 30-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 14-06-2017
Next Hearing Date 14-06-2017
First Hearing Date 14-06-2017
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 13-04-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. T. S. KAPOOR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO. 217/(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAN: AAPPR1846L DY. C. I. T. CIRCLE-5 AMRITSAR. VS. SH. AJIT SINGH RANDHAWA 309-GREEN AVENUE AMRITSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH.RAHUL DHAWAN (D. R.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. P. N. ARORA (ADV.) DATE OF HEARING: 06.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.11.201 7 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDE R OF LD. CIT(A) AMRITSAR DATED 28.01.2016 FOR ASST. YEAR: 2009-10. 2. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOUR GROUNDS OF APPEAL HO WEVER THE CRUX OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) BY WH ICH HE HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.54 93 686/- WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS AS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT A SURVEY TOOK PLACE AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 13.02.2009 AND FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE CASH IN HAND AS ON T HE DATE OF SURVEY WAS FOUND TO BE AT RS.2 98 728/- WHEREAS THE PHYSICALLY CASH WAS FOUND TO BE AT RS.2 76 885/-. THE TRIAL BALANCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE ITA NO. 217(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 2 ALSO SHOWED DIFFERENCES TO WHICH ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN TRIAL BALANCE WAS DUE TO SOME SOFTWARE ERROR AND SUBMITTED THAT THE EXACT POSITION SHALL BE EXPLAINED LATER ON. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED FROM TH E CASH BOOK THAT ON THE DATE OF SURVEY THAT IS ON 13.02.2009 THE CASH IN HAND SHOWN IN THE CASH BOOK WAS OF RS.57 70 571/- WHEREAS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY THE ASSESSEE HAD HIMSELF STATED THAT CASH IN HAND AS PE R THE BOOKS WAS OF RS.2 98 728/- AND ASSESSEE ON OATH HAD STATED THAT PHYSICAL CASH WAS FOUND TO BE TO THE TUNE OF RS.2 76 885/-. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO FURNISH HIS REPLY REGARDING THE DIFF ERENCE IN CASH AND IN RESPONSE TO THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFE RENCE ON ACCOUNT OF SOFTWARE ERROR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER WAS N OT SATISFIED WITH THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE MADE AN ADDITIO N OF RS.54 93 686/- BEING DIFFERENCE OF CASH IN HAND IN CASH BOOK AS ON 13.02.2009 WHICH WAS FOUND IN THE CASH BOOK AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AN D DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD . CIT(A) AND LD. LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER RECORDING HIS FIN DINGS AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRI TTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING A HOSPITAL UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE M/S AJIT HOSPITAL IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR. DURING THE YEAR A SURVEY OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED U/S 133A OF THE ACT ON THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 13-09-2009. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION CASH PHYSICALLY FOU ND WAS RS 276 885/- WHEREAS CASH AS PER CASH BOOK AVAILABLE ON THE DATE OF SURVEY WAS RS 298 728/-. IN THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDE D ON OATH AT THE TIME OF SURVEY IN REPLY TO SPECIFIC QUERIES REGARDING AVAIL ABILITY OF CASH ON THE DATE OF SURVEY THE ASSESSEE HAD REPLIED THAT THE D IFFERENCE OF RS 21 843/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN REFUNDS AMOUNTING TO RS 5 500/- MADE TO THE PATIENTS AND THE BALANCE DIFFERENCE OF RS 16 343/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS YET TO BE RECORDED. WITH REGARD TO THE QUERY TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE OF RS 619 525/- IN THE TRIAL BALANCE IT WAS ITA NO. 217(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 3 EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN TR IAL BALANCE WAS DUE TO SOME SOFTWARE ERROR BUT THE AO FOUND THE REPLY UNSATISFACTORY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASS ESSEE HAD PRODUCED HIS CASH BOOK FOR EXAMINATION WHEREIN CASH IN HAND ON THE DATE OF SURVEY I.E. 13-02-2009 WAS RECORDED AT RS 57 70 571/-. THE AO FOUND THAT THE CASH IN HAND NOW SHOWN IN THE CASH BOOK WA S GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE PHYSICAL CASH FOUND BY THE SURVEY TEAM AT RS 298 728/- ON THE DATE OF SURVEY. THE AO ASKED THE A SSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE IN CASH FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND AS REFLECTED IN THE CASH BOOK PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION BEFORE THE AO. THE AS SESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE INCOMPLETE AND FURTHER TH ERE WAS SOME CORRUPTION ON THE ACCOUNTING SOFTWARE DUE TO WHICH THERE WERE ERRORS IN THE TRIAL BALANCE SUBMITTED ON THE DATE OF SURVEY. LATER ON WHEN THE ACCOUNTING SOFTWARE WAS REPAIRED THERE WAS DIFFERE NCE IN 26 ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLANT EXPLAINED THAT THE SAID DIFFERENCE OC CURRED BECAUSE OF FOLLOWING REASONS - (A) THAT ASSESSEE HAS ONLINE SYSTEM OF NETWORKING THROUGH WHICH RECEIPTS ARE TRANSFERRED FROM ONE COMPUTER (SOURCE) TO THE M AIN SERVER. HOWEVER DUE TO FAULTY FUNCTIONING OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE THE SERVER WAS NOT GETTING UPDATED WITH THE DATA ENTERED IN THE SOURCE COMPUTER. AS SUCH RECEIPT WERE RECORDED IN THAT SOURCE COMPUTER BUT W ERE NOT BEING TRANSFERRED TO MAIN SOURCE WHICH GOT RECTIFIED LATE R ON. (B) THAT BANKS WERE NOT FULLY INCORPORATED IN BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS. (C) THAT PART OF MANUAL RECEIPTS ISSUED LIKE X-RAY RECEIPTS VAN RECEIPTS ETC. WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. (D) THE ASSESSEE GAVE DETAILS OF DIFFERENCES IN ACC OUNTS WITH DETAILED EXPLANATION AS ANNEXURE A. THE DIFFERENCE RESULTE D IN AN INCREASE OF INCOME OF RS 40 06 540.42. (E) WITH REGARD TO ADJUSTMENT OF OPENING ADVANCE F ROM PATIENTS OF RS.847 800/- WITH THE CASH IN HAND IT WAS SUBMITTE D THAT WHILE SETTLING THE ACCOUNTS OF PATIENTS WHO ARE ADMITTED IN THE PR EVIOUS FINANCIAL YEAR THE SOFTWARE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE ADVANCE RECEIVE D IN THE PREVIOUS FINANCIAL YEAR AND SETTLED THE ACCOUNTS OF PATIENTS BY RECEIVING THAT CASH AGAIN FROM THE PATIENT. DUE TO THIS REASON THE OPE NING ADVANCE FROM PATIENT IS ADJUSTED WITH CASH IN HAND SO THAT THERE IS NO DOUBLE EFFECT OF THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE THUS EXPLAINED THAT FROM THE INCOME AN D EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET IT IS REVEALED THAT INCR EASE IN CASH HAND OF RS 54 71 843/- WAS PARTLY DUE TO INCREASE IN INCOME (I .E. HOSPITAL RECEIPTS ETC) AND PARTLY DUE TO CHANGES IN BANK BALANCES. THEREFO RE THE APPELLANT ARGUED THAT HE HAD COME OUT TRULY WITH THE CORRECT FIGURE WHICH HAS RESULTED IN AN INCREASE OF INCOME BY RS 4006 540.42 AND THE SAID INCREASED INCOME STANDS REFLECTED IN THE AUDITED IN COME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31-03-2009. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE A RGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT MAINLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE ACTUAL CAS H AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF SURVEY WAS RS 276 885/- AND HE DID NOT ACCEPT ITA NO. 217(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 4 THAT THE CASH AVAILABLE ON THAT DATE COULD SUDDENLY JUMP TO RS 57 70 571.68. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THERE WAS ERROR IN THE COMPUTER SOFTWARE WITHO UT ASSIGNING ANY REASON. THE INCREASE IN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY RS 40 06 540.42 WAS HELD TO BE INCORRECT BY THE AO BECAUSE OF THE F ACT THAT THE RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE S HOWN IN THE INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AT RS 1 74 96 954/- AS COMPARED TO LAST YEARS RECEIPTS OF RS 1 97 64 658/-. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THAT THE RECEIPTS OF ASSESSEE FROM HOSPITAL CT SCAN OPD HAS BEEN SHOWN MUCH LESS AS COMPARED TO THE LAST YEARS RECEIPTS FROM THIS SOUR CES. HOWEVER IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT THE AO EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF S URVEY OPERATION ON 13-02-2009 AND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS HAD NOT DETECTED ANY ITEM OF RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSE E WHICH WAS NOT RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ON THE OTHER HAND THE AO HAD OBSERVED THAT THE EXPE NSES UNDER THE HEADS SALARY TO STAFF OXYGEN GAS AND OTHER EXP ENSES HAVE INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAD NOT POINTED OUT ANY ITEM OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF TH E YEAR ENDED 31-03-2009 WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE BOGUS OR EXCESSIVE LY CLAIMED. LIKEWISE EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATIO N NO ITEM OF EXPENDITURE WAS FOUND TO BE BOGUS OR NOT RECORDED I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. FURTHER THE NEXT OBJECTION OF THE AO THAT THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT THE SAME WHICH WERE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE A RELEVANT ARGUMENT BECAUSE EVEN AT THE TIME OF SURVEY OPERATION THE APPELLANT IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED BY SURVEY TEAM HAD STATED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TRIAL BA LANCE WAS DUE TO PROBLEM IN THE COMPUTER SOFTWARE. THE AO HAD NOT DENIED THE SAID CLAIM OF APPELLANT AND THUS IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT SOFTWARE PROBLEM EXISTED ON THE DATE OF SURVEY. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A THAT THE CLAIM F THE APPELLANT THAT THERE WAS A FAULT IN THE COMPUTER SO FTWARE OF THE APPELLANT ON THE DATE OF SURVEY OPERATION WAS A LIE AND THE AO HAD NOT DENIED SUCH A CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT AFTER THE SURVEY OPERATION THE SOFTWARE THE ASSESSEE GOT THE SOFTWARE REPAIRED AND COMPLETED THE INCOMPLETE BOOKS AND DIFFERENCE WAS FOUND IN 26 ACC OUNTS CANNOT BE DENIED. MORESO BECAUSE THE CORRECTED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DULY SUPPORTED BY COMPLETE VOUCHERS WERE SUBJECTED TO AU DIT AND THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD NOT FOUND ANY DEFECT IN THE SAID CORRECTED AND AUDITED HOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE CASE OF CHAWLA BROTHERS (P) LTD VS ACIT CENTRA L CIRCLE 10 MUMBAI IT WAS HELD THAT THE REPORTS AND FACTS COLLECTED AT TH E TIME OF SURVEY ARE ALWAYS SUBJECT TO EXPLANATION AND RECONCILIATION BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH CAN BE EXPLAINED EITHER AT THE TIME OF SURVEY OR AF TER SURVEY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. THEREF ORE MERELY ON THE BASIS THAT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY SOME DIFFERENCES WERE FO UND IN THE STOCK DOES ITA NO. 217(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 5 NOT MEAN THAT THERE WILL BE AUTOMATIC ADDITION ON A CCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCES. IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN DETAI LED POINT BY POINT RECONCILIATION OF EACH DIFFERENCE IN THE IMPOUNDED TRIAL BALANCE ON THE DATE OF SURVEY AND TRIAL BALANCE ON THE DATE OF SURVEY PREPARED FROM THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITH DETAILED EXPLANATION AS ANNEXURE A WHICH RESULTED IN AN INCREASE OF INCOME OF RS 40 06 540.42 IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER THE SAME WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE SAID EXPLANATIONS OF THE APPELLANT . FOR THIS REASON AS WELL THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT AFT ER THE REPAIR OF SOFTWARE AND COMPLETION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE TOTAL INCO ME HAD INCREASED BY RS 4006540.42 AND HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED IN THE AUD ITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE DENIED AND IS UPHELD. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO CONSIDER THAT THE AO HAD ACC EPTED THE INCREASED RECEIPTS AS PER AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BUT HAD ONLY NOT ACCEPTED THE INCREASED CASH IN HAND AS PER AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHEREAS THE APPELLANT HAD HIMSELF SHOWN THE INCREAS ED RECEIPTS AS INCOME AND TAXED ACCORDINGLY. THE NEXT OBJECTION OF THE AO WAS THAT SINCE MOST OF RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE IN CASH THEY COULD EASILY BE MANIPUL ATED IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE THE AO HAD NOT POINTED OUT EVEN A SINGLE EN TRY OF RECEIPT WHICH WAS MANIPULATED OR NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE THE SAID OBJECTION OF THE AO IS DISMISSED. AS REGARDS THE OBJECTION OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS MADE CASH EXPENDITURE OF RS 51 LACS ON 20-03-2009 ON PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY AND THE INVOICES OF PURCHASE WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE A O ON THE PLEA THAT THE SAME WAS NOT AVAILABLE IS NOT CONSIDERED A RELEVAN T OBJECTION SINCE THE SAME WERE PERSONAL ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT H IS BUSINESS ASSETS. FURTHER BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY REFLECTED THE SAID PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY IN HIS WEALTH TAX RETURNS FOR AY 2007-08 TO 2009-2010 WHOSE COPIES WERE SUBMITTED ALONGWITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS . ACCORDINGLY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D INFLATED THE CASH IN HAND SO AS TO COVER THE CASH EXPENDITURE OF RS 51 L ACS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED ON 20- 03-2009 FOR PURCHASE OF JEWELL ERY IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. AS REGARDS THE OBJECTION OF THE AO THAT THE CASH PH YSICALLY FOUND ON THE DATE OF SURVEY WAS ONLY RS 276 885/-AS AGAINST THE CASH AS PER AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON THE SAME DATE OF RS 57 70 571.68 THE AO HAD OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THE RESIDENCE OF THE A SSESSEE DOCTOR WAS WITHIN THE HOSPITAL AND IS ON THE FRONT OF THE HOSP ITAL AND THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE EXCESS CASH WAS KEP T AT HOME WITHOUT PASSING ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY DEBITING CASH TO HOME ACCOUNT IS ACCEPTED. NOT FINDING THE BALANCE CASH AT THE TIME OF SURVEY IS THEREFORE NOT CONSIDERED RELEVANT IN THIS SURVEY CASE. ACCORDINGLY IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND CA SE LAW THE ADDITION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL CAS H FOUND ON THE DATE OF ITA NO. 217(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 6 SURVEY AND CASH IN HAND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS AS ON 13-02- 2009 OF RS 54 93 686/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME U/S 68 O F THE ACT IS DELETED. 4. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5 AT THE OUTSET THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITION WHICH WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AS THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF CASH IN HAND ON 13.02. 2009 IN THE CASH BOOK AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND ON THE SAME DATE DURING A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) H AS IGNORED THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD INFLATED CASH IN HAND TO COVER IN VESTMENT IN JEWELLERY TO THE TUNE OF RS.51 00 000/- WHICH WAS MADE ON 20. 03.2009. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE FACT TH AT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS SHOWN TO SURVEY TEAM DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT WAS AR GUED THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE UPHELD. 6. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND ARGUED THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IGNORED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY ASSESSEE DURING AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICE R PRIMARILY RELIED UPON THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH PH YSICALLY AVAILABLE WITH HIM WAS AT RS.2 76 885/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T EXPLANATION REGARDING DIFFERENCE IN CASH IN HAND WAS GIVEN TO T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND A COPY WHICH WAS AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO. 38 TO 42 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS SPECIFICALLY BROUG HT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE INCOM E & EXPENDITURE ITA NO. 217(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 7 ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET FOUND ON 13.02.2009 AND T HE DIFFERENCE IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS DULY EXPLAINED. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT INCREASE IN CASH IN HAND AT RS.54 71 843/- WAS PARTLY DUE TO INCREASE IN INCOME AND PARTLY DUE TO CHANGES IN BANK BALANCES. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSI NG OFFICER DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD COME OUT WITH TRUE AND CORRECT FIGURES WHICH HAD RESULTED IN INCREASE IN INCOME AT RS.40 0 6 540/- AND THE SAID INCREASED INCOME STOOD REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS AS EV ERYTHING WAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD. AR F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY U/S 133A I S NOT CONCLUSIVE PIECE OF EVIDENCE AS HAS BEEN HELD BY HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI KADAR KHAN SONS 25 TAXMAN.COM 413. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY CAME TO THE CONCL USION THAT BETWEEN THE DATE OF SURVEY OPERATION ON 13.02.2009 AND TILL THE CLOSING OF ACCOUNTS ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED ANY ITEM OF RECE IPT WHICH WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. AS REGARDS THE OBJECTION OF LD. DR THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD REFLECTED CASH IN HAND FOR COVERING UP THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 51 00 000/- ON PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY ON 20.03.2009 THE LD. AR SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY REFLECTED THESE ASSETS IN THE WEA LTH TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND ALL THESE FACTS HAVE BE EN CONSIDERED BY THE WORTHY CIT(A) IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER AND THEREF ORE IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) BE UPHELD. ITA NO. 217(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 8 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH OUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT AT THE TIME OF SURVE Y THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE WERE NOT COMPLETED AND THERE WERE CERTA IN DIFFERENCES IN TRIAL BALANCE OBTAINED BY SURVEY TEAM AND IT WAS SUBMITTE D BY ASSESSEE THAT THE MISTAKES HAD OCCURRED DUE TO SOME DEFECTS IN SO FTWARE AND ITS CORRECT POSITION WILL BE SUBMITTED LATER ON. THE DI FFERENCE IN SUCH TRIAL BALANCE WAS EXPLAINED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED NIL PLACED AT P.B. PAGE 38 TO 42 WHEREIN THE INCREASE I N CASH IN HAND AS ON 13.02.2009 HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF I NCREASE IN HOSPITAL RECEIPTS AND DUE TO CHANGES IN BANK BALANCES AT PAG E 22 TO 28 IS A COPY OF REPLY SUBMITTED TO ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN THE PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY WORTH RS.51 00 00 0/- HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED OUT OF CASH ACCRUA LS AND IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE INCREASE IN INCOME AS PER TRIAL BALANCE IMPOUNDED AS ON 13.02.2009 HAS ALREADY BEEN OFFERED IN THE FORM OF INCOME AND WHICH HAS ALREADY SUFFERED INCOME TAX. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE INCREASE CASH IN HAND DECLARED BY ASSESSEE AS ON 13.02.2009 HAS BEEN DECLARED BY ASSESSEE AS INCOME DURING THE YEAR AND THEREFORE HE HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE ASPECTS AND HAS R IGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A). 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENU E IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.11.2017 ITA NO. 217(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 9 SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30.11.2017. /GP/SR. PS . COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A) (4) THE CIT (5) THE SR DR I.T.A.T. TRUE COPY BY ORDER