A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Gwalior v. Sh. Manohar Lal Bhawani, Gwalior

ITA 273/AGR/2012 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 27320314 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN ACKPB5658H
Bench Agra
Appeal Number ITA 273/AGR/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Gwalior
Respondent Sh. Manohar Lal Bhawani, Gwalior
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 19-07-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 11-07-2013
Next Hearing Date 11-07-2013
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 15-06-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 273/AGRA/2012 ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 A.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 VS. SHRI MANOHAR LAL BHAWA NI GWALIOR. PROP. M/S. AWATRAM & SONS HEMRAJ CLOTH MARKET LASHKAR GWALIOR. (PAN : ACKPB5658H) C.O. NO. 52/AGRA/2012 (IN ITA NO. 273/AGRA/2012) ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI MANOHAR LAL BHAWANI VS. A.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 PROP. M/S. AWATRAM & SONS GWALIOR. HEMRAJ CLOTH MARKET LASHKAR GWALIOR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI S.L. MAURYA SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NAVIN GARGH ADVOCATE. DATE OF HEARING : 11.07.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 19.07.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI J.M.: THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) GWALI OR DATED 09.03.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ITA NO. 273 & C.O. NO. 52/AGRA/2012 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. THE REVENUE ON GROUND NO. 1 CHALLENGED THE DELET ION OF ADDITION OF RS.76 84 864/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.83 44 31 8/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES/CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE ON GROUN D NO. 1 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION CHALLENGED UPHOLDING OF ADDITION ON THE SAME ISSUE OF RS.6 59 464/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED TRANSACTION WITH M/S. SHIVA SARIES. THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.83 44 318/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES AND CR EDITORS. ACCORDING TO THE AO LETTERS U/S. 133(6) HAVE BEEN SENT TO VARIOUS PARTI ES ON THE ADDRESS MADE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. OUT OF TOTAL SUCH LETTERS 32 HA VE BEEN RECEIVED BACK UN-SERVED. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED AS TO WHY THE PURCHASES OF A BOVE AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS BOGUS. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THAT TH E FIRMS HAVE BEEN CLOSED AND THEIR ADDRESSES HAVE BEEN CHANGED. THE AO THEREFOR E INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED EARLIER WRONG ADDRESSES TO MISGUIDE HI M. THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN ASKED TO PROVE ABOVE STATEMENT WITH DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCES BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE WAS AS KED TO EXPLAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDITORS. REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOU ND SATISFACTORY THEREFORE ADDITION OF RS.83 44 318/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF B OGUS PURCHASES/CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE A O HAS SUPPLIED THE LIST OF 26 PARTIES AND NOT OF 32 PARTIES AT THE ASSESSMENT STA GE. NO COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE ITA NO. 273 & C.O. NO. 52/AGRA/2012 3 ALONG WITH ENVELOPS OF THE LETTERS RECEIVED UNDELIV ERED HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ENTIRE DETAILS ALO NG WITH THE PURCHASE BILLS AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE NOT BEEN RE JECTED. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE GOODS THROUGH BILLS AND PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AO. THE AO ACCE PTED THE SALES AND THE SALES COULD NOT BE EFFECTED IN ABSENCE OF PURCHASE OF GOO DS. THEREFORE THE PURCHASES COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE BOGUS. SALES HAVE BEEN ACCE PTED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT ALSO AND COPY OF SALES TAX ASSESSMENT OR DER WAS FURNISHED. ALL THE PURCHASES AND SALE BILLS BANK STATEMENT CASH BOOK AND LEDGER WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF THE PURCHASES AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION FROM THE 13 PARTIES AT THE LATER STAGE AND REQUESTED THAT SAME MAY BE ADMITTED U/R 46A OF THE IT RULES. SUBMISSIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE SENT TO THE AO FOR REMAND REPORT. TH E AO FILED HIS REMAND REPORT AND DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE B ECAUSE WHATEVER EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FILED NOW WERE NOT FILED AT THE ASSESSMENT STA GE. IN MANY CASES LETTERS RETURNED UN-SERVED AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE CONFIRMATION OF THE SAME. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CALLED FOR THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE ON THE REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSEE IN THE REJOINDER REITERATED THE STAND ALREADY TAKEN ABOVE. PARA-WISE EXPLANATION WAS ALSO SUBMITTED WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLAT E ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES ITA NO. 273 & C.O. NO. 52/AGRA/2012 4 RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.6 59 454/- AND DELETE D REMAINING ADDITION. HIS FINDINGS IN APPELLATE ORDER IN PARA 2.3 TO 2.5 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 2.3 APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS ALONGWITH ASSESSMENT O RDER REMAND REPORT OF THE A.O. AND REJOINDER OF THE APPE LLANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED CAREFULLY. ASSESSMENT RECORDS HAVE ALSO BEEN PERUSED. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AP PELLANT HAS GIVEN A LIST CONTAINING NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF 318 PARTIE S FROM WHOM GOODS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED. OUT OF THAT A.O. HAS MEN TIONED 32 PARTIES IN RESPECT OF WHOM LETTERS ISSUED U/S 133(6 ) SEEKING INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THESE PARTIES WITH THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED UNSERVED. ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT DURING APPEAL PROCEE DINGS A.O. HAS NOW MENTIONED NAMES OF ONLY 8 SUCH PARTIES WHERE AG AIN THE LETTERS ISSUED U/S 133(6) HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED FROM POSTAL AUTHORITIES. FROM PERUSAL OF RECORD IT IS SEEN THA T DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS REMAND PROCEEDINGS. A.O. H AS ISSUED THESE LETTERS U/S 133(6) (FOR THESE 8 PARTIES) ON THE SAM E ADDRESS MENTIONED BELOW AND NOT AT CHANGED ADDRESS AS GIVEN BY THE AP PELLANT AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH POSTAL AUTHORITIES HAVE ALSO MADE REMARKS SPECIFIED AGAINST EACH FOR THE REASON OF NON SERVICES: S.NO. NAMES AND ADDRESS AS PER PURCHASE BILL ADDRESS AT WHICH LETTERS WERE SENT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CHANGED ADDRESS GIVEN BY ASSESSEE ON RECEIVING INTIMATION OF LETTERS RETURNED UNDELIVERED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE LETTER DATED 31.12.2010 ADDRESS AT WHICH LETTERS WERE SENT DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS POSTAL REMARK ON LETTERS RETURNED UNDELIVERED WHICH WERE SENT DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS 1. SURYA SILK MILLS PVT. LTD. 1421 1 ST FLOOR GALI KISHAN DUTT MALI BADA NAI SARAK DELHI 1421 1 ST FLOOR GALI KISHAN DUTT MALI WARA NAI SARAK SURAT (GUJARAT) 1421 1 ST FLOOR GALI KISHAN DUTT MALI BADA NAI SARAK DELHI 1421 1 ST FLOOR GALI KISHAN DUTT MALI BADA NAI SARAK SURAT INCOMPLETE ADDRESS 2. RITURAJ SILK MILLS Z-2174/75 SURAT TEXTILE Z-2174/75 SURAT TEXTILE MARKET SURAT (GUJARAT) C-1537 KOHINOOR MARKET RING ROAD SURAT-GUJRAT Z-2174/75 SURAT TEXTILE MARKET SURAT (GUJRAT) LEFT ITA NO. 273 & C.O. NO. 52/AGRA/2012 5 MARKET SURAT 3. SHIV SAREES R-3104 2 ND FLOOR SURAT TEXTILE MARKET RING ROAD SURAT. M/S SHIVA SAREES SURAT TEXTILE MARKET SURAT (GUJARAT) ANNAPURNA MARKET SURAT-GUJART SURAT TEXTILE MARKET SURAT (GUJRAT) INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS 4. SARIKA FASHION Z-2160/61 1 ST FLOOR SURAT TEXTILE MARKET RING ROAD SURAT Z-2160-61 1 ST FLOOR SURAT TEXTILE MARKET SURAT (GUJRAT) A-1070 KOHINOOR MARKET RING ROAD SURAT-GUJRAT Z-2160-61 1 ST FLOOR SURAT TEXTILE MARKET SURAT (GUJRAT) LEFT 5. ABHISHEK SAREES 50 SIR HARIRAM GOENKA STREET 2 ND FLOOR KOLKATTA- 700007 50 SIR HARIRAM GOENKA STREET 2 ND FLOOR KOLKATTA-WEST BENGAL SHOP NO.58 SIR HARIRAM GOENKA STREET 2 ND FLOOR KOLKATTA-WEST BENGAL 50 SIR HARIRAM GOENKA STREET 2 ND FLOOR KOLKATTA-WEST BENGAL LEFT WITHOUT ADDRESS 6. AMAR SHAKTI SILK MILLS Z-2174/75 SURAT TEXTILE MARKET RING ROAD SURAT C-1537 KOHINOOR MARKET RING ROAD SURAT (GUJARAT). Z-2174/75 SURAT TEXTILE MARKET SURAT (GUJRAT) C-1537 KOHINOOR MARKET RING ROAD SURAT (GUJRAT) LEFT 7. SANKALP FASHION Z- 2160-61 1 ST FLOOR SURAT TEXTILE MARKET RING ROAD SURAT Z-2160-61 1 ST FLOOR SURAT TEXTILE MARKET SURAT (GUJRAT) A-1070 KOHINOOR MARKET RING ROAD SURAT (GUJRAT) Z-2160-61 1 ST FLOOR SURAT TEXTILE MARKET SURAT (GUJRAT) LEFT 8. SONIKA PRINTS S-102 J.J.A.C. MARKET LOWER GROUND RING ROAD SURAT S-12 LOWER GROUND J.J.A.C. MARKET SURAT (GUJRAT) NO INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE ACIT HENCE NO FURTHER ADDRESS COMMUNICATED. HOWEVER THE CHANGED ADDRESS IS B-4261 KOHINOOR TEXTILE MARKET RING ROAD SURAT-2 S-102 LOWER GROUND J.J.A.C. MARKET RING ROAD SURAT (GUJRAT) LEFT 2.4. THUS ON PERUSAL OF ABOVE NO PARTY IS FOUND T O BE BOGUS OR FICTITIOUS AS THEY HAVE LEFT THEIR OLD BUSINESS PRE MISES. THE APPELLANT HAS ORIGINALLY GIVEN ADDRESS OF PARTIES BASED ON PU RCHASE BILLS ETC. THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT DURING CALEN DAR YEAR 2008-09 WHEREAS THE ENQUIRIES ARE BEING CONDUCTED DURING TH E YEAR 2012 I.E. ITA NO. 273 & C.O. NO. 52/AGRA/2012 6 AFTER A GAP OF ABOUT THREE YEARS AGAIN AT OLD ADDRE SSES. THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS IN FORM PURCHASE BILLS COPY OF ACCOUNTS BANK STATEMENT ETC. WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE A. O. HIMSELF AS MENTIONED IN THE REMAND REPORT ALSO. AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. AFTER THEI R EXAMINATION AS MENTIONED IN PARA 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. SALES PURCHASES AND STOCK AS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT HAVE ALSO BE EN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. THUS THE QUESTION OF BOGUS PURCHASES DOES NOT ARISE AS THESE SALES AS WELL AS STOCK HAVE BEEN AFFECTED OUT OF PU RCHASES MADE BY HIM. FURTHER THE APPELLANT HAS CONSISTENTLY DECLAR ED GROSS PROFIT @ 6.8% DURING THE LAST TWO YEARS WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEP TED BY THE A.O. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO GROSS PRO FIT @ 6.84% HAS BEEN DECLARED ON TOTAL SALES OF RS.6 59 76 510/-. I F THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES I S ADDED TO APPELLANTS GROSS PROFIT THE SAME STANDS AT @ 23.7 6% WHICH IS FOUND TOTALLY ABSURD AND UNACCEPTABLE IN THE LINE OF WHOL ESALE CLOTH BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE APPELLANT. SALES MADE BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST DECLARED PURCHASES HAVE ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES. PURCHASES ARE FOUND DULY RECORDED IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AND ARE SUPPORTED BY AUTHE NTICATED PURCHASE BILLS AND VOUCHERS. PAYMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN MADE TH ROUGH BANKING CHANNELS ONLY. A.O.S REASON FOR REJECTING THE EVID ENCE GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT EVEN DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS THAT IN MA NY CASES CONFIRMATION LETTERS HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED ALONGWI TH COPY OF PURCHASE BILLS IS FOUND MISPLACED. NO ADVERSE INFER ENCE CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AND SUPPORTING DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCE GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT EXCEPT IN CASE OF M/S. SHIVA SAREES WHERE THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN INCOMPLETE AND INSUFFICIENT ADD RESS BOTH DURING ASSESSMENT APPEAL AND REMAND PROCEEDINGS. 2.5 KEEPING IN VIEW FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND OTHER PERUSAL OF RECORDS ADDITION OF RS.6 59 454/- IS HE REBY CONFIRMED ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED TRANSACTION OF M/S. SHIVA SA REES OUT OF RS.83 44 318/- MADE BY THE A.O. 4. THE LD. DR MERELY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A O WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ON THE OT HER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND RELIED UPON THE ITA NO. 273 & C.O. NO. 52/AGRA/2012 7 FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). WITH REGARD TO THE ADDI TION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN A SUM OF RS.6 59 454/- THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PB-26 WHICH IS GIST OF THE SUBMISSIONS BUT SUBMITTED THAT NO C ONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION AND RESTRICTING THE ADDITION T O RS.6 59 454/-. THE LD. CIT(A) DISCUSSED EACH AND EVERY PARTY IN RESPECT OF WHOM T HE AO TOOK ADVERSE INFERENCE. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE AO HAS NOT ISSUED THE LETTERS U/S. 133(6) ON THE CORRECT ADDRESS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE NO FAU LT COULD BE FOUND WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE. PURCHASE BI LLS ARE SUPPORTED BY BANK STATEMENTS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE AO. T HE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AUDITED. SALES ARE ACCEPTED BY THE AO WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT ALSO IN THEIR ASSESSMENT. PROFIT RATE OF ASSESSEE IS BETTER IS COMPARED TO THE EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE BOGUS PURCHASES. ALL THE PURCHASES AR E RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE FINDINGS OF THE AO HAVE BEEN CO RRECTLY SET ASIDE BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.6 59 454/- THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTION MADE WITH M/S. SHIVA SAREES AND EVE N NOW IN THE PAPER BOOK NO ITA NO. 273 & C.O. NO. 52/AGRA/2012 8 SUCH CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FILED. THE LD. CIT(A) T HEREFORE ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD CORRECTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.76 84 864/-. THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL THEREFORE FAILS. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PROVE GENUINE TRANSACTION WITH M/S. SHIVA SAREES THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS.6 59 454/- HAS BEEN CORRECTLY RESTRICTED TO B Y THE LD. CIT(A). THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILS AND IS DISMISS ED. 6. ON GROUND NO.2 THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELET ION OF ADDITION OF RS.25 68 587/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.28 21 45 2/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCIES IN THE CREDITORS ACCOUNT. THE ASS ESSEE ON GROUND NO. 2 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION HAS CHALLENGED UPHOLDING OF ADDITIO N OF RS.2 52 865/- ON THE SAME ISSUE. 7. THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.28 21 452/- ON ACCOUN T OF DISCREPANCIES FOUND IN THE ACCOUNTS OF 33 PARTIES MENTIONED IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO FILE RECONCILIATION IN RESPECT OF CREDITORS BUT NO PROPER RECONCILIATION HAS BEEN FILED. THEREFORE ABOVE ADD ITION WAS MADE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE A TTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS REGULARLY BEFORE THE AO AND GOT RECONCILED ALL THE ACCOUNTS OF THESE PARTIES. THE DETAILS OF ALL THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THESE CREDIT ORS WERE SUBMITTED. THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO WAS CALLED FOR BUT THE AO DID NO T ACCEPT CONTENTION OF THE ITA NO. 273 & C.O. NO. 52/AGRA/2012 9 ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO RECONCILIATION OF THE CREDI TORS/SUPPLIERS EVEN AT THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER CONSIDERING T HE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSE E SUBSTANTIALLY EXCEPT OF RS.2 52 865/- AND DELETED REMAINING ADDITION. FINDI NGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 3.4 AND 3.5 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 3.4 APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS ALONG WITH FINDINGS OF A.O. HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED CAREFULLY. A.O.S MAIN REASONS FOR REJECTING APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS IS THAT RECONCILIATION STAT EMENTS DO NOT HAVE THE HOMOGENEITY OF CREDIT AND DEBIT TO THE SUPPLIER S IN THE DISCOUNT ACCOUNT AND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE RECONCILIAT ION FORCEFULLY WITHOUT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR DISCOUNT. HOWEVER IT IS NOT FOUND TRUE IN RESPECT OF ALL THE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT WITH ABOVE MENTIONED PARTIES. THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABL E TO SATISFACTORILY RECONCILE THE DISCREPANCIES/DIFFERENCE FOUND IN THE COPY OF ACCOUNTS OF THESE CREDITORS VIS--VIS HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS EXC EPT FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 52 865/- AS PER FOLLOWING DETAILS FOR WHICH NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT EVEN DU RING APPEAL OR REMAND PROCEEDINGS EXPLAINING PAYMENTS MADE TO RESP ECTIVE SUPPLIERS BUT NOT FOUND RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF AC COUNTS: SL.NO. NAME OF THE SUPPLIER DATE OF PAYMENT AS PER RECONCILIATION STATEMENT AMOUNT RS. PAGE NO.OF PAPER BOOK 1. SONIKA PRINITS 30.10.2007 13 000/- 139 2. AMARSHAKTI SILK MILLS 05.10.2007 21 951/- 183 3. RITURAJ SILK MILLS 10.06.2007 25 540/- 193 4. SARIKA FASHION 03.03.2008 41 595/- 199 5. MANISH DESIGNER (P) LTD. 29.08.2007 39 700/- 372 6. SHWETA FASHION 16.04.2007 20.04.2007 12 000/- 1 189/- 375 375 7. SAJAN SILK MILLS .11.2007 .11.2007 365/- 365/- 402 402 8. RAJESH SAREE 25.10.2007 26.10.2007 05.03.2008 15 000/- 10 000/- 18 150/- 407 407 407 9. SAHIBA FABRICS LTD. 25.04.2007 13 995/- 415 ITA NO. 273 & C.O. NO. 52/AGRA/2012 10 26.04.2007 20 000/- 415 10. SAGAR FASHION 31.10.2007 31.10.2007 10 000/- 10 000/- 437 437 TOTAL 1 52 865/- FURTHER A.O. HIMSELF IS EMPOWERED TO GET RECONCILI ATION STATEMENTS VERIFIED FROM THIRD PARTIES IF FOUND SO NECESSARY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY HIM. IT HAS ALSO BEEN HELD BY HONBLE ITAT AGRA IN CASE OF ITO WD-2(2) GWALIOR VS. SHRI MAYU R AGARWAL PROP. M/S MAYUR TRADING CO. IN ITA NO.86/AGR./2007 VIDE ORDER DTD. 04.01.2010 AS UNDER :- NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE PROCURED BY THE THIRD PARTY UNLESS AND UNT IL THAT PARTY IS PUT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CROSS EXAMINATION SPECI ALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICALLY DENIED THE TRANSACTION. STATEMENT RELIED ON BY THE REVENUE ITSELF DO NOT DISCLOSE THE BILL NO THROUGH WHICH TRANSACTION IS ENTERED INTO. IT ONLY CONTAINS THROUGH DRAFTS ETC. ONLY. THEREFORE THIS EVIDENCE IN MY VIEW CANNOT BE A VALID EVIDENCE TO MAKE THE ADDITION. ON CE THE ASSESSEE HAD DENIED THE TRANSACTION THE A.O. WAS B OUND TO ADDUCE THE EVIDENCE FOR THE REBUTTAL OF ASSESSEE. T HE AO HAS NOT DONE SO. THEREFORE UNDER THE FACTS OF THE CASE I AGREE WITH THE LD. J.M. DELETING THE ADDITION. HONBLE ITAT PUNE HAS ALSO BEEN HELD IN CASE OF IT VS. BALA PRASAD R. LOKMANYAWAR IN ITA NO. 471 VIDE ORDER DTD. 04.04 .1983 THAT ADDITION MADE ON BASIS OF ENTRY IN THIRD PARTIES AC COUNTS NARRATING THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN SALES BY THE ASSESSEE IS N OT SUSTAINABLE AS THIS WOULD AMOUNT TO TAXING THE ASSESSEE ON FLIMSY MATER IAL. 3.5. ON THE BASIS OF FACTS ABOVE AND AFTER CAREFULL Y CONSIDERATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD ADDITION OF RS.2 52 865/- OUT O F TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.28 21 452/- IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 8. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON T HE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NO. 273 & C.O. NO. 52/AGRA/2012 11 9. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THESE GROUNDS O F THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SATISFACTORILY RECONCILE D THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTIES EXCEPT FOR AMOUNT OF RS.2 5 2 865/-. IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE B EFORE US TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). SIMILARLY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE US TO EXPLAIN THE ADDITION OF RS.2 52 865/-. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THESE GROUNDS OF BOTH THESE P ARTIES. IN THE RESULT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSE SSEE ON THIS ISSUE ARE DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AS WELL AS CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. DR ITAT AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY