Shri Rameshbhai Nathabhai Patel, Mehsana v. The ACIT., Cent.Circle-2(3),, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 246/AHD/2005 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 24620516 RSA 2005
Assessee PAN AGCPP4443N
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITSSA 246/AHD/2005
Duration Of Justice 5 year(s) 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant Shri Rameshbhai Nathabhai Patel, Mehsana
Respondent The ACIT., Cent.Circle-2(3),, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 09-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 09-09-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 25-08-2011
Next Hearing Date 25-08-2011
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 17-10-2005
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI D. K. TYAGI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T(SS).NO. 243/AHD/2005 (BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1996 TO 06.06.2002) ACIT CC-2(1) VS. SHRI RAMESH NATHALAL PATEL AHMEDABAD 70 NEW MARKET YARD UNJHA MEHSANA I.T(SS). NO. 246 / AHD/2005 (BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1996 TO 06.06.2002) SHRI RAMESH NATHALAL PATEL 70 NEW MARKET YARD UNJHA MEHSANA VS. ACIT CC-2(1) AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : AGCPP4443N (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S N SOPARKAR SR. ADV. DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI ALOK JOHARI CIT DR DATE OF HEARING: 25.08.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.09.2011 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA AM:- THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) III A HMEDABAD DATED 16.08.2005 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD FORM 01.05.1996 TO 06.06.2002. BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISP OSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. I.T.(SS).NO. 243 246 /AHD/2005 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. IN PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT DURING THE SEARCH A D IARY IDENTIFIED AS ANNEXURE A/8 WAS FOUND FORM THE BUSINESS PREMISES O F THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.45 91 9 05/- WAS RECORDED IN THIS DIARY. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT IN COMPLIA NCE TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE COULD RECONCILE THE PURCHASES OF RS.11 13 789/- ONLY IN THE REGULAR BOOKS AND BALANC E PURCHASES OF RS.34 78 116/- HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS. THE A.O. ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE SHOW CAUSE NO TICE THE A.O. HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE ENTIRE PUR CHASE OF RS.34 78 116/- SHOULD NOT BE ADDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT IT IS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT. THE A.O . NOTED THAT IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM THAT THAT ONL Y COMMISSION @ 1.5% OF THESE PURCHASE CONSTITUTES THE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE BUT THE A.O. WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THIS EXPLANATION BECAUSE THE SEI ZED DOCUMENTS DID NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT THESE PURCHASES WERE FOR COMMISSION BUSINESS. IN REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE VARIO US SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. BUT THE A.O. W AS NOT SATISFIED. THE A.O. ALSO STATED IN PARA 5.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT PURCHASES HAD BEEN FOR COMMISS ION TRADE. THE A.O. HELD THAT ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE ADDITION IS REQ UIRED TO BE MADE OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES WORTH RS.34 78 116/- AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. BEING AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT ON TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE RELEVANT FACTS IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO HOLD THAT AT LEAST THE INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF 10% O F THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TRADING PURPOSES AND 5% PURCHASES MADE ON COMMISSION BASIS WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF HIS INCOME FO RM UNDISCLOSED I.T.(SS).NO. 243 246 /AHD/2005 3 SOURCES. REGARDING THE QUANTUM OF PURCHASES MADE F OR THE TRADING PURPOSES AND ON COMMISSION BASIS IT WAS HELD BY TH E LD. CIT(A) THAT IT IS LOGICAL TO HOLD THAT 1/3 RD OF THE PURCHASES WERE MADE FOR TRADING PURPOSES AND REMAINING 2/3 RD PURCHASES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS AS COMMISSION AGENT. ACCORDINGL Y IT WAS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT AS TOTAL PURCHASE OF RS.45 91 905/- WAS FOUND RECORDED IN THE SEIZED DIARY ON THE DATE OF SEARCH IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO HOLD THAT AT LEAST FUNDS OF RS.3.10 LACS (10% OF 1/3 RD OF TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS.45 91 905/- + 5% OF REMAINING 2/3 RD OF PURCHASES OF RS.45 91 905/) WERE REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING SUCH PURCH ASES. HE FURTHER HELD THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE O F FUNDS INVESTED IN HIS BUSINESS IT WAS HELD THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF INITI AL CAPITAL OF RS.3.10 LACS WAS MET BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF HIS INCOME FROM UNDI SCLOSED SOURCES. IT IS FURTHER HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE HAS NO T DISCLOSED ANY PROFITS FROM TRADING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. IT IS NOTED THAT IN THE TRADING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE THE NET PROFIT OF 5% IS EARNE D. ACCORDINGLY HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE MAY HAVE EARNED AT LEAST PROFIT OF RS .81 000/- (5% OF 1/3 RD OF TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS.45 91 905/-) FROM THE TRAD ING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH. REGARDIGN THE CO MMISSION INCOME ON UNRECORDED PURCHASES IT WAS HELD BY HIM THAT NO AD DITION ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION ON UNRECORDED PURCHASES IS CALLED FOR BE CAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED SUCH COMMISSION FOR ASSESSMENT AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE BLOCK RETURN FILED ON 23.07.2003. IN THIS MANNER HE UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.3.91 LACS OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.34 78 116/- AND ALLOWED RELIEF OF RS.30 87 116/- TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ACCOUNT. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US R EGARDING THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE US REGARDING THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) OF RS.3.91 LACS. I.T.(SS).NO. 243 246 /AHD/2005 4 3. LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LD. A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO TH E REVENUES APPEAL AND REGARDING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IT WAS SUBMITT ED BY HIM THAT NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROFIT IN TRADING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND REGARDING ALLEGED INVESTME NT OF RS.3.10 LACS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FIXED DEPOSIT WORTH RS.7.92 LACS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WERE ENCASHED AND H ENCE SUCH INVESTMENT WAS NOT OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. BUT HE WAS FAIRLY AGREED THAT HE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO BRING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD REGARDING THESE TWO CONTENTIONS THAT THERE WAS NO PROFIT IN TRADING OPERATION AND THAT INITIAL INVESTMENT WAS OUT OF MATURITY PROCEEDS OF FDRS. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE AFTER EXAMIN ING THE FACT IN GREAT DETAIL AND THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) FROM PAGES 13- 18 OF HIS ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW: THIS SALE BILL WAS ISSUED BY THE APPELLANT IN FAV OUR OF M/S. ASIAN FOOD INDUSTRIES NADIACI. THIS BILL IS DULY INITIAL ED BY SHRI Y.S. MEENA ITO CIB-II AHMEDABAD WHO WAS THE AUTHORIZ ED OFFICER FOR THE APPELLANT'S PREMISES IN THE SEARCH CONDUCTE D ON 6.6.2002. THIS BILL IS DULY ENTERED IN THE SEIZED CASH BOOK - CUM - JOURNAL (ANNEXURE B5-35J WITH IT'S FULL NARRATION AND THE S ALES OF RS.8 10 8107- ARE ALSO CREDITED IN THE JEERA ACCOUN T REFLECTED IN THE SEIZED LEDGER (ANNEXURE BS-3JS). THE VERY FACT THAT THE SALE BILL WAS INITIALED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER ON THE DATE OF SEARCH ITSELF I.E. 6.6.2002 SUPPORTS THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION T HAT THE PURCHASE AND SALE BILLS WERE FOUND IN THE SEARCH BUT THE SAM E WERE NOT SEIZED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ENGAGED ONLY IN THE TRADING OF THESE ITEMS AND HE DID NOT ACT AS A COMMISSION AGENT AT A LL. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE APPELLANT HAD IN FACT PURCHASED THE GOODS REFLECT ED IN THE SEIZED I.T.(SS).NO. 243 246 /AHD/2005 5 DIARY IN HIS CAPACITY AS A TRADER ONLY AND NET AS A COMMISSION AGENT CANNOT BE UPHELD. AT THE SAME TIME THE APPELLANT H IMSELF FIRST BEFORE THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER ON 6.6.2002 AND LATER BEFORE THE ADIT(INV) ON 8.7.2002 AND FURTHER IN HIS EXPLANATIO N FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF BLOCK ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS ADMITTED THAT HE ALSO CARRIED ON TRADING IN AGRICUL TURAL PRODUCE BESIDES ACTING AS A COMMISSION AGENT. FROM THE IR.U TERK 1 ON RECORD IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE BU SINESS OF A COMMISSION AGENT AS ALSO IN THE TRADING OF AGRICULT URAL PRODUCE. THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT THAT IN HIS BUSINESS AS A COM MISSION AGENT HE DID NOT REQUIRE ANY CAPITA! AS THE PAYMENTS TO THE FARMERS WERE MADE ON THE SPOT BY THE PURCHASERS CAN NOT BE ACCEP TED KEEPING IN VIEW THE ACTUAL PRACTICE PREVALENT IN THE MARKET. T HERE IS A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR MAKING PAYMENT TO THE FARMERS WHO S ELL THEIR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ON THE SPOT. IT IS NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE THAT THERE ARE IMMEDIATE BUYERS OF SUCH AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE A ND THEREFORE MANY A TIME THE ADATIAS/COMMISSION AGENTS THEMSELV ES PURCHASE THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE BROUGHT BY THE FARMERS TO 1HE MARKETING YARD AND MAKE THE PAYMENTS THEREFORE TO THE FARMERS OUT OF THEIR OWN FUNDS. THEREFORE THE ADATIAS ALSO HAVE TO INVE ST SOME CAPITAL IN ORDER TO RUN THEIR BUSINESS SMOOTHLY. AS PER APPELL ANTS OWN ADMISSION HE IS ENGAGED IN THE TRADING OF AGRICULT URAL PRODUCE ALSO AND THEREFORE FOR THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE APPEL LANT FOR TRADING PURPOSES THE PAYMENTS WERE DEFINITELY MADE BY THE APPELLANT OUT OF HIS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. IT IS TRUE THA T THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE APPELL ANT MADE CERTAIN PAYMENTS OUT OF HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR SOME OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY HIM ON BEHALF OF HIS CUSTOMERS OR FOR THE P URCHASES MADE BY HIM FOR TRADING PURPOSES THE FACT HOWEVER REM AINS THAT HE DID MAKE PURCHASES ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENTS AND THERE I S ALSO NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT ALL HIS CLIENTS MADE PAYMENTS TO THE FARMERS OR OTHER COMMISSION AGENTS FROM WHOM THE GOODS WERE PURCHASED ON THE SPOT AND FURTHER AS PER APPELLANT'S OWN ADMI SSION CERTAIN PURCHASES WERE MADE BY HIM FOR TRADING PURPOSES AL SO. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IF CANNOT BE SAIL THAT THE APPELLANT CARRIED ON HIS BUSINESS OF COMMISSION AGENT WITH NO CAPITAL. NO BI FURCATION OF PURCHASES MADE ON COMMISSION BASIS AND THE PURCHASE S MADE FOR TRADING PURPOSES IS POSSIBLE FROM THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD AND THE APPELLANT ALSO HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY SUCH BIFURCATI ON AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PURCHASES OF RS.11 13 7897- I.T.(SS).NO. 243 246 /AHD/2005 6 RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS RELATED TO THE TRADIN G OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE CARRIED ON BY THE APPELLANT NOR THE PURCHAS ES OF RS.34 78 1167- WHICH WERE NOT FOUND RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS COULD BE TREATED AS PURCHASES MADE BY THE APPELLANT AS A COMMISSION AGENT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS MAINLY ENGAGED IN THE COMMISSION BUSINESS AS IS EVI DENT FROM THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS REFLECTED IN THE SEIZED BOOK S IT IS LOGICAL TO HOLD THAT ONE-THIRD OF THE PURCHASES MADE FOR TRADI NG PURPOSES AND REMAINING TWO-THIRD PURCHASES WERE MADE BY THE APPE LLANT IN THE COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS AS A COMMISSION AGENT. AS MENTIONED ABOVE THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE TRADING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ALSO IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN P OSSIBLE AT ALL FOR HIM TO CARRY ON HIS BUSINESS WITHOUT INVESTING ANY CAPITAL. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASES FOR TRADING PURPOSES WERE MADE. IT IS TRI TE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS MAKING PURCHASES AND SALES OF AGRICUL TURAL PRODUCE IN THE COURSE OF TRADING ALSO VERY QUICKLY AND THAT IS WHY NO STOCK WAS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AT THE APPELLANT'S PREM ISES MEANING THEREBY THE ROLLING OF FUNDS WAS QUICK AND IT IS AL SO NOT THAT THE ENTIRE PURCHASES REFLECTED IN THE SEIZED DIARY (ANN EXURE 55-18) AS IS CLEAR FROM THE ENTRIES MADE THEREIN WERE MADE I N ONE DAY. IT WILL NOT THEREFORE BE PROPER TO HOLD THAT THE ENTIRE A MOUNT OF PURCHASES WHETHER RECORDED OR UN-RECORDED WHETHER MADE FOR T RADING PURPOSES OR AS A COMMISSION URGENT REPRESENTED UNE XPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT FROM HIS INCOME FR OM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE PAYMENTS FOR CERTAIN PURCHASES WERE DE FINITELY MADE OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WH ICH WAS PURCHASED EARLIER. THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT THAT HE CARRIED ON HIS BUSINESS WITH CAPITAL WHICH HE RECEIVED ON H IS RETIREMENT AS A PARTNER IN THE FIRM M/S. SHAILESH NATHALAL IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT NO DETAILS OF RECEIPT OF SUC H FUNDS BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE SAID FIRM HAVE BEEN FILED. THE P LEA OF THE APPELLANT THAT IN THE TRADING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODU CE HE INCURRED A LOSS AS WILL BE EVIDENT FROM THE TRADING AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT DRAWN FROM THE ENTRIES TRADE IN THE REGULAR BOOKS S EIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE AS OBSERVED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE APPELLANT HAS NOT RECORDED HIS FULL TRANSACTIONS IN HIS REGULAR BOOKS. AS THE APPE LLANT IS ALSO ENGAGED IN THE TRADING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IT IS REASONABLE TO INFER THAT SOME INITIAL CAPITAL WAS INVESTED BY HIM FOR MAKING THE I.T.(SS).NO. 243 246 /AHD/2005 7 PURCHASES MEANT FOR TRADING PURPOSES AND FURTHER AS MENTIONED ABOVE EVEN THE COMMISSION BUSINESS REQUIRES SOME I NITIAL CAPITAL FOR IT'S SMOOTH RUNNING. THE EXPLANATION OF THE APP ELLANT IN THIS REGARD THAT HE MADE INVESTMENT IN HIS BUSINESS OR I N THE PURCHASE OF OTHER ASSETS OUT OF THE CAPITAL RECEIVED BY HIM IN THE JOINT BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT WITH M/S. SHAILESH NAT HALAL HAS ALSO NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE QUICK R OLLING AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO HOLD TH AT AT LEAST THE INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF THE PURCHASES MA DE FOR TRADING PURPOSES AND 5% OF THE PURCHASES MADE ON COMMISSION BASIS WAS MODE BY THE APPELLANT OUT OF HIS INCOME FROM UNDISC LOSED SOURCES. AS THE TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS.45 91 905/- WERE FOUND RECORDED IN THE SEIZED DIARY TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH IT WOULD BE F AIR AND REASONABLE TO HOLD THAT AT LEAST THE FUNDS OF RS.3.10 LAKHS (10% OF ONE-THIRD OF TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS.45 91 905/- + 5% OF REMAINING TWO-THIRD OF TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS.45 91 905/-) WERE REQUIRED BY THE APPELLANT FOR MAKING SUCH PURCHASES. AS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT EXP LAINED THE SOURCES OF FUNDS INVESTED IN HIS BUSINESS IT IS HE LD THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF INITIAL CAPITAL OF RS.3.10 LAKHS WAS MET BY THE APPELLANT OUT OF HIS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE S. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCLOSED ANY PROFIT FROM TRADING OF AGRICU LTURAL PRODUCE. IT CANNOT BE BELIEVED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS CARRYING ON TRADING IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE FOR INCURRING LOSSES ONLY. NOR MALLY IN THE TRADING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE NET PROFIT OF 5% I S EARNED. ASSUMING THAT ONE-THIRD OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES OF R S.45 91 9057- REFLECTED IN THE SEIZED DIARY WERE MADE BY THE APPE LLANT FOR TRADING PURPOSES HE MUST HAVE EARNED AT LEAST PROFIT OF RS .81 0007- [5% OF (173 RD OF TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS.45 91 9057- X 105/100)] F ROM THE TRADING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TILL THE DATE OF SE ARCH. NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION ON UNRECORDED PURCHASES IS CA LLED FOR BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY OFFERED SUCH COMM ISSION FOR ASSESSMENT AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE BLOCK R ETURN FILED ON 23.07.2003 IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITION TO T HE EXTENT OF RS. 3 91 0007- (RS.3 10 0007-FOR UNEXPLAINED INITIAL CA PITAL + RS. 81 0007- FOR PROFIT FROM TRADING OF AGRICULTURAL PR ODUCE) TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS CALLED FOR O N ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE BUSINESS AND PROFIT F ROM THE TRADING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AS AGAINST THE ADDITION MAD E IN THE ASSESSMENT AT RS.34 78 1167-. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDI TION TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3 91 0007- I S CONFIRMED AND THE APPELLANT WOULD GET RELIEF OF RS.30 87 1167- ON THIS ACCOUNT. I.T.(SS).NO. 243 246 /AHD/2005 8 5. FROM THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF LD. CIT(A) IT IS SEEN THAT HE HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN GREAT DETAIL AND HE HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED ONLY IN THE TRADING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND HE DID NOT ACT AS COMMISSION AGENT AT ALL. SIMILARLY THIS FINDING I S ALSO GIVEN BY HIM THAT IT IS ALSO NOT TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING ONL Y COMMISSION BUSINESS AND WAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. HE ALSO DECIDED THE ISSUE AFTER EXAMININ G ALL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER AND THE FINDING GIVEN BY HIM IS REASONABLE F INDING IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND HENCE W DO NOT FIND ANY REASO N TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 TH SEP. 2011. SD./- SD./- (D. K. TYAGI) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED : 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.(SS).NO. 243 246 /AHD/2005 9 1. DATE OF DICTATION 05/09 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 06/09 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 06/09 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 09.09.2011 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 09.09.2011 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 09.09.2011 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. ..