Sekhar Kundu, Jalpaiguri v. DCIT, Circle - 3, Siliguri

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BE NCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI D. K. TYAGI JM AND HONBLE SH RI C. D. RAO AM] IT(SS)A NO. 04 (KOL) OF 2007 : BLOCK PERIOD : 91-9 2 TO 01-02 SEKHAR KUNDU -VS.- DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SILIGURI. CIRCLE-3 SILIGUR I. [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] APPELLANT BY : S/SHRI M.P. THARD & J.M. THARD RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D. R. SI NDHAL PER C. D. RAO A.M. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR BL OCK PERIOD 1991-92 TO 2001-02 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-SILIGURI DATED 20.11.2006. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT WHILE DOING BLO CK PERIOD ASSESSMENT U/S. 158BC(C) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.26 23 168/- BY OBSERVING THAT THE SEIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT/DOCUMENTS BEARING IDENTIFIC ATION MARKS SK-1 TO SK-4 WERE EXAMINED ALONGWITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT INVENTORISED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S. 133A BEARING IDENTIFICATION MARKS QHS-1 TO QHS-14 AND EE-1 TO EE -12. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED COMPUTERIZED BOOK S FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS AS BACK AS FINANCIAL YEAR 1995-96. IT IS WORTH MENTIONING HERE THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH OR SURVEY. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE BOOKS PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING WERE NOT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH OPERATION. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE BOO KS WERE LYING WITH THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE. ON BEING ASKED TO GIVE THE NAME AND ADDRE SS OF THE ACCOUNTANT THE ASSESSEE SHOWED HIS INABILITY. THE ASSESSEE WAS FURTHER ASKED TO EX PLAIN THE REASON WHY THE BOOKS WERE LYING WITH THE ACCOUNTANT TO WHICH THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IT WAS THE PRACTICE OF THE ASSESSEE TO KEEP THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ACCOUNTANT. THIS IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY COM PUTER NOR DID HE EVER PAY ANY REMUNERATION FOR MAKING ENTRIES IN THE COMPUTERS. THE ASSESSEE F AILED TO PRODUCE SALE BILLS/CASH MEMOS OF PURCHASE BILLS STATING THAT HE NEVER ISSUED ANY SAL E BILL OR CASH MEMOS. THEREFORE THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE COMPUTERIZED CASH BOOK WERE DEFINITELY MADE AFTER THE SEARCH OPERATIONS. SINCE THE ITA NO. 04/KOL/20 07 2 BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY BILLS/VOUCHERS/MEMOS THEY CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AND THEREFORE BOOKS WERE REJECTED U/S. 145 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. FURTHER AFTER ANALYSING SK-1 TO SK-4 QHS-1 TO QHS-14 EE-1 TO EE-12 ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO CONCLUSION THAT AS SESSEE HAS UNDISCLOSED SALES OF RS.1 74 91 988/- AND BY APPLYING G.P. OF 4% I.E. TH E AVERAGE GROSS PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE HE ESTIMATED UNACCOUNTED PROFIT OF RS.6 99 680/- AN D IN ADDITION TO THIS HE MADE FURTHER ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF - (1) UNDISCLOSED EXPENSES :- PAGE NO. 25 OF SK4 SHOWS PAYMENT OF DONATION OF RS . 10 001/- TO UJJANU SANGHA NEW DAIJEELING MORE SILIGURI. NO SUCH ENTR Y WAS FOUND IN ANY OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE ASSEESSEES A/R STATED THAT IT WAS SOME CHANDA SLIP AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.10 000/- W AS NEVER PAID. ASSESSEES ARGUMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED SINCE THE RECEIPT CLEARLY MENTIO N RECEIVED WITH THANKS FROM SEKHAR KUNDU A SUM OF RUPEES 10 000/- AS DONATION FOR UJJA NU SANGHA. THIS MEANS THAT THE PAYMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE AND THE ASEESSEE IS M ERELY TRYING TO EVADE TAX BY GIVING A FALSE STATEMENT. THEREFORE RS. 10 001/- IS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED TO HIS TOTAL INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02. (2) INVESTMENT IN LAND :- PAGE NO. 39 OF SK-4 SHOWS PURCHASE OF 16.3 KATTHAS OF LAND VALUED AT RS.7 66 100/- AND ALSO EXPENSE OF RS.15 980/- FOR T HE PURCHASE OF BRICK AND RS.620/- FOR LABOUR PAYMENT. OUT OF THE TOTAL OF RS.7 82 700/- P AYMENT OF RS.7 02 2.50/- HAS BEEN SHOWN AND THE BALANCE TO PAY IS RS.80 450/-. THE AS SESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BUT THE A/R STATED THAT THE ASSESS EE DID NOT HAVE ANY SALE DEED OR MONEY RECEIPT. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE PAYMENT FOR THI S LAND WAS MADE DURING THE F.Y. 1999- 2000 FOR WHICH THE RETURN WAS NOT TILED. IT IS NOT OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN FOR THE A.Y. 2000-01 ON 11.12.2002 ALTHOUGH THE DUE DATE FOR THE FILING OF THE RETURN WAS 3LST OCTOBER 2000 . THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY DISCLOSED SOURCE OF INCOME FOR THIS INVESTMENT. IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THIS AMOUNT IS DULY SHOWN IN THE CASH B OOK. HOWEVER FOR THE REASONS RECORDED IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS THE ASSESSEES EXPLANAT ION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED SINCE THE CASH BOOK ITSELF IS NOT TO BE BELIEVED UPON. HENCE RS.7 82 700/- IS ADDED TO HIS TOTAL INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2000-01. (3) INVESTMENT IN BUILDING :- IN THE ABOVE LAND THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED S SH OPPING COMPLEX CONSISTING OF TEN SHOPS. ON ENQUIRIES MADE BY AN INCOME-TAX INSPE CTOR IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ONE SHOP TO M/S. RATHI TYRE SERVICES ON 12 .01.2000 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.71 000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY AN ADDITION OF RS.7 10 000/- (71 000- X 10) SHOULD NOT BE MADE TO HIS TOTAL INCOME. IN HI S WRITTEN SUBMISSION THE ASSESSEE STATED AS UNDER :- ITA NO. 04/KOL/20 07 3 IT IS NOT THE FACT THAT I HAVE SOLD OUR ALL THE 10 SHOPS @ 71 000/- PER SHOP. I HAVE SOLD ONE SHOP TO BASANT KUMAR KARW A FOR RS.71 000/- ON 13.01.2000 SAME HAS BEEN SHOWN IN MY PERSONAL STAT EMENT OF AFFAIRS FOR 2000-01 ASSESSMENT YEAR AS CREDIT IN HIS NAME FILED ALONGWITH MY I.T. RETURN FOR 2001-02 ASSESSMENT YEAR. I HAVE SOLD ONE MORE SHOP TO RANJEET ICE (DUTTA) FO R RS.50 000/- ON 13.10.2000 WHICH ALSO HAS BEEN SHOWN AS CREDIT I N THE NAME OF RANJEET DUTTA IN MY PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET FOR 2001-02 ASSE SSMENT YEAR. THE THIRD SHOP HAS BEEN LET ON RENTAL BASIS TO SANJ IV RAM @ 500/- P.M. W.E.F. JULY 2002. THE LAND BEHIND THE SAID SHO P IS VACANT AND THAT VACANT LAND ALONG WITH A TEMPORARY SHED IS LET OUT TO ONE SHYAM SARDA @ 2 000/- P.M. W.E.F. AUGUST 2002. THE OTHER REMAINING 7 SHOPS ARE LYING STILL VACANT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND ON THE FACTS IT MOST (SIC} RESPEC TFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NOT UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.7 10 000/- A ND PROPOSED ADDITION OF RS.7 10 000/- THEREFORE SHOULD NOT KINDLY BE MAD E IN MY HANDS. FIRSTLY IT IS TO BE MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FILED ANY RETURN FOR THIS YEAR (THE RETURN HE FILED ON 11.12.2002 IS INVALID). SEC ONDLY IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE SHOPS ARE SOLD OR LYING VACANT SINCE THE ASSESSEE C ANNOT DENY THE INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. AND FINALLY THE ASSES SEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY DISCLOSED SOURCE OF INCOME FOR THIS INVESTMENT. THERE IS NO DENYING THE FACT THAT RS.71 000/- INCLUDES THE PROFIT MADE OUT OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHOP. ES TIMATING THIS PROFIT AT RS.10 000/- PER SHOP THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS ARRIVED AT RS.6 10 000/- PER SHOP. HENCE RS.6 10 000/- IS ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE BUILDING FOR THE A.Y. 2000-01. (4) BANK ACCOUNT WITH CENTURION BANK A BANK PAY-IN SLIP IN RESPECT OF CENTURY BANK BEARI NG ACCOUNT NO. 0031580763001 IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND IN PAGE NO.30 OF SK-3. ON VERIFICATION OF THE RETURN FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1 998-99 OF THE ASSESSEE THIS ACCOUNT IS NOT REFLECTED IN HIS BALANCE SHEET. AS PER THE BANK STA TEMENT PEAK CREDIT FOUND AS ON 1.01.2000 OF RS.75 430/-. THEREFORE RS.75 430/- IS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN A.Y. 2000-01 AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.3 92 047/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PROFIT INSTEAD OF RS.6 99 680/- RS.3 00 000/- ON A CCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OUT OF RS.6 10 000/- AND HE CONFIRMED THE OTHER ADDITIONS OF RS.7 82 700/- ON PURCHASE OF LAND RS.75 430/- ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK CREDIT IN CENTURIAN BANK AND CONFIRMED OF RS.10 001/- ON THE BASIS OF PAGE-5 OF SK-4 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- (1) ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED PROFIT I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A.R. S O FAR AS THE UNACCOUNTED SALES FOR THE PERIOD FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 T HE AO ON VERIFICATION OF FRESH ITA NO. 04/KOL/20 07 4 SUBMISSION DURING ENQUIRY U/S. 250(4) FOUND THAT T HERE WAS NO BASIS ON THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A.R. THAT THE ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED SALES WER E RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS WELL AS SHOWN IN THE RETURNS DULY FILED FOR THIS P ERIOD. IN VIEW OF THIS FRESH FINDING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IS CONFIRMED. SO FAR AS THE ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED SALES FOR A.YR. 2000-01 & 2001-02 (PART) IN VIEW OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AO REVISING THE SALES FOR THIS PERIOD TOTAL SALES IS TAKEN AS RS.75 93 981/- INSTEAD OF RS.1 52 82 347/- AS ESTIMATED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. ASSESSMENT YEAR ORIGINAL REVISED SALES G. P. SALES G. P. 2000-01 36 08 651 1 44 346 33 35 667 1 33 427 2001-02 1 16 73 696 4 66 947 42 58 314 1 70 333 TOTAL 1 52 82 347 6 11 393 75 93 981 3 03 760 IN HIS REPORT THE LD. AO HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE G.P . RATE AND N.P. RATE AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS U PTO A.Y. 1999-2000 ARE AS UNDER :- A.Y. SALE G. P. G.P. RATE NET PROFIT N.P. RATE 1995-96 35 71 192/- 1 47 191/- 4.12% 40 970/- 1.15% 1996-97 34 98 616/- 1 87 077/- 5.35% 49 549/- 1.41% 1997-98 24 70 380/- 1 24 694/- 5.05% 14 279/- 0.57% 1998-99 24 63 728/- 1 05 267/- 4.27% 33 790/- 1.37% 1999-2000 28 90 672 1 06 188/- 3.67% 64 469/- 2.23% NOW SO FAR AS THE APPLICABILITY OF THE GP RATE IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE CHART THAT THE RATE VARIED FROM 3.67% TO 5.35% DURING THE PERI OD 1995-96 TO 1999-2000. THEREFORE THE LD. AO HAS APPLIED THE GP RATE 4% ON THE SALES WHICH WAS VERY REASONABLE AND THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE INTO HIS DECISIONS. IN THE RESULT THESE GROUNDS ARE DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO REVISE THE INCOM E IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE FINDINGS. (2) INVESTMENT IN BUILDING I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A.R. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE SHOPS WERE SOLD THE ASSESSEE H AD TO INVEST SOME MONEY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHOPPING COMPLEX . IN COURSE OF SURVEY STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED ON OATH COP Y OF WHICH HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. IN QUESTION REPLY NO.9 THE ASSES SEE WAS ASKED TO GIVE THE PARTICULARS OF THIS CONSTRUCTION. THE ASSESSEE REPL IED THAT (I) APPROXIMATE LAND PROPERTY AT DARJEELING MORE SHIV NAGAR OF 16 KATHA S PURCHASED FOR ITA NO. 04/KOL/20 07 5 CONSIDERATIONS OF APPROXIMATELY 7 LACS. THE LAND WA S PURCHASED IN 1997 OR 1998. A BUSINESS-CUM-RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION ON COVERED AREA OF 267.70 SQ.M. IS ALMOST COMPLETE. THE CONSTRUCTION WAS STARTED IN 1999 AND STILL IT IS GOING ON. APPROXIMATELY RS.3 LACS (THREE LACS) HAS ALREADY S PENT ON THIS ACCOUNT. (SIC) THE AO HAS NOT UTILIZED THIS INFORMATION IN HIS ASS ESSMENT ORDER. IN THIS ORDER I ALREADY HELD THAT THE MATERIAL GA THERED IN COURSE OF A SURVEY CONDUCTED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE CON STITUTE MATERIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR TH E BLOCK PERIOD U/S. 158BB. THIS INFORMATION CAN UTILIZE FOR THE PURPOSE OR COM PUTATION OF INCOME. HOWEVER I ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. A.R. THA T INCOME CANNOT BE ESTIMATED BY THE AO WHILE COMPUTING UNDISCLOSED INC OME IN A BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER. SO I DIRECT THE AO TO ACCEPT THE COST OF CO NSTRUCTION AT RS.3.00 LAKH ONLY IN PLACE OF RS.6.10 LAKH. SINCE THE CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS GOING ON AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IT IS OPENED TO THE AO TO MAKE FURTHE R VERIFICATION IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT MADE OVER AND ABOVE RS.3.00 LAKH AS ADMI TTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COURSE OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT COVERING THOSE YEARS. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AO A ND ALSO EXAMINED THE XEROX COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT FILED. THE AO HAS RIGHTLY ADDED THIS AMOUNT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE COULD HAVE A DDED THE OTHER DEPOSITS SHOWN IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AFTER PROPER VERIFICATIO N. UNFORTUNATELY THE SAME WAS NOT DONE. HOWEVER THE ADDITION WHATEVER WAS MADE I S CONFIRMED. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. REGARDING THE RELIABILITY OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS I HAD ALREADY HELD THAT BOOKS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE NOT RELIABLE AND CAN NOT BE TAKEN AS GENUINE. SIMILARLY IN CASE OF THE ACQUISITION OF LAND I DO NOT FOUND ANY REASONS TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY ADMITTED THE COST OF AC QUISITION OF THE LAND WAS APPROXIMATELY 7.0 LAKHS. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AUTHOR ISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT IN HIS APPROA CH. AS PER THE BANK STATEMENT THIS WERE THE DEPOSIT STARTED FROM 1986 AND LAST CASH DEPOSIT WAS MADE IN THE MONTH OF APRIL 1995. THEREAFTER CERTAIN INTEREST WAS CREDITED TO HER AC COUNT. INVESTMENT WHICH WAS BEYOND THE BLOCK PERIOD CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME AS ON 01.01.2001 . ON THE OTHER HAND NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT TO RECORD TO PROVE THAT SMT. KUNDU HAD NO SOURCE OF INCOME BEFORE HER DEATH. THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE THE DEPOSI T SHOWN IN THE BANK ACCOUNT FROM THE INCOME ITA NO. 04/KOL/20 07 6 OF THE ASSESSEE I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND ALSO EXAMINED THE XEROX COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT FILED. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY ADDED THIS AMOUNT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE COULD HAVE A DDED OTHER DEPOSITS SHOWN IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AFTER PROPER VERIFICATION. UNFORTUNATELY THE SAME WAS NOT DONE. HOWEVER THE ADDITION WHATEVER WAS MADE IS CONFIRMED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT WHICH ARE A S UNDER :- (I) THE SALES DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 OF QUALITY HARDWARE STORES AND ESSKEY ENTERPRISES WAS MUCH MOR E BEING RS.65.73 468/- (RS.13 96 243/- PLUS RS.5L 77.225/ VIDE P. B. FGS- 76 & 77 WHICH FULLY COVERED THE SALES OF RS.33 35 667/- FOR THAT YEAR FOR WHICH THE PAPER S WERE IMPOUNDED. THIS WAS VERIFIED ALSO BY THE A.O. BUT HE DID NOT GIVE ANY COGNIZANCE TO IT AS HE WAS PROCEEDING ON THE GROUND THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAD BEEN REJECTED AND THEREFORE THE SALES RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT TO BE TAKEN IN CONSID ERATION. THE NET INCOME FOR THE SAID ASST. YR. 2000-2001 AFTER DEDUCTING EXPENSES WAS SH OWN IN THE BLOCK RETURN AT RS.L 30 399/- VIDE P. B. PAGE-69 THE BREAKUP OF WHI CH IS ENCLOSED AND IS AVAILABLE AT P.B. PAGE 78 ALSO AND THAT ALONE COULD HAVE BEEN ADDED A S INCOME FOR THE YEAR AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION IN TREATING THE G. P. A S THE NET INCOME LIABLE TO TAX PARTICULARLY WHEN NO RETURN HAD BEEN FILED FOR THE SAID YEAR. (II) IN RESPECT OF THE ASST. YR.2001-2002 THE RETU RN HAD NOT FALLEN DUE ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH AND SURVEY AND THEREFORE IN ANY CASE THE QUESTION OF ANY INCOME FOR THE SAID YEAR BEING TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S.158BB DOES NOT ARISE. THE INCOME FOR THE ASST. YR.2001-2002 AS SHOWN IN THE RETURN FILED FOR THE SAID YEAR WAS RS.1 00 062/- ONLY (VIDE P. B. PAGE 70) WITH REFERENCE TO THE SALES FO R THE ENTIRE YEAR WHICH ALONE COULD BE ASSESSED AS THE REGULAR INCOME FOR THAT YEAR AND NOT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER CHAPTER XIVB. IN THE COURSE OF THE REMAND PROCEEDIN GS THE ITO HAD VERIFIED THE SALES FOUND IN THE INVENTORISED / IMPOUNDED PAPERS RELATA BLE TO THE SAID YEAR AS RECORDED IN THE REGULAR ACCOUNTS BUT STILL HE DID NOT TAKE ANY COG NIZANCE OF IT BY OPENING IN HIS REMAND REPORT THAT THE ASSESSEE AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE D ID NOT EXPLAIN / CLARIFY HIS POSITION REGARDING THE SALES ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED BOOKS D OCUMENTS AND SO THE THEN A.O. IN THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND TO PLUG THE POSSIBLE ESCAPE MENT OF SALES WORKED OUT THE SALES WHICH APPEARED AS SALES TO HIM IN THE SEIZED BOOKS / DOCUMENTS - THIS OBSERVATION IS BASICALLY WRONG BECAUSE THE SALES HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT FROM THE DOCUMENTS INVENTORISED DURING THE SURVEY AND NOT FROM ANY SEIZED DOCUMENTS . MOREOVER NON-PRODUCTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE SURVEY PARTY AT THE TI ME OF SURVEY WOULD NOT MAKE THE ACCOUNT BOOKS UNRELIABLE OR INGENUINE SO AS TO BE R EJECTED IN THIS MANNER. (III) IN REPLY TO THE QUESTION NO.8 AT THE TIME OF SURVEY REGARDING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE ASSESSEE HAD CATEGORICALLY STATED THA T THE HOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE LYING WITH THE ACCOUNTANT SRI BIKASH DUTTA AND HIS ADDRESS WAS ALSO FURNISHED VIDE P. B. PAGE-94. HE ALSO EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF THE HOOKS OF ACCOUN TS. THE ASSESSEE IS A RETAIL DEALER OF ITA NO. 04/KOL/20 07 7 HARDWARE GOODS AND MOST OF THE PURCHASES ARE LOCAL AND SALES ARE ALSO LOCAL. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF IS COMPLETELY IGNORANT ABOUT ACCOUNTS AND A LL HIS ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED BY THE PART TIME ACCOUNTANT MR. BIKASH DUTTA WHO USED TO COLLECT ALL RELEVANT PAPERS DAILY AND PREPARE THE ACCOUNTS IN HIS COMPUTER. THIS WAS THE GENERAL PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY HIM FOR LAST SEVERAL YEARS. SIMPLY BECAUSE THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE SURVEY PARTY AT THE SHOP WHEN THE SURVEY WAS CO NDUCTED THEY DO NOT BECOME INGENUINE OR UNACCEPTABLE. THE ADDITION OF ANY AMOU NT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WITH REFERENCE TO THE SALES RECORDED IN THE IMPOUNDED PA PERS WHICH ARE FULLY COVERED IN THE REGULAR ACCOUNTS AND HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY THE A.O. ALSO IS BASICALLY WRONG NOT JUSTIFIED. THE ADDITION OF RS.3 03.760/- SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(I) AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME ASSESSABLE WITH REFERENCE TO THE SALES OF R S.75 93 98L/- RELATING TO ASST. YRS. 2000-2001 AND 2001-02 RECORDED IN THE DOCUMENTS INV ENTORISED DURING SURVEY WHICH WERE IMPOUNDED LATER IS BASICALLY WRONG AS BEING OU TSIDE THE SCOPE OF SEC.158BB. WITHOUT PREJUDICE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIO N IF AT ALL COULD BE OF NET INCOME AND NOT OF THE GROSS PROFIT CALCULATED WITH REFERENCE T O THE SALES. THE LD. CIT(A) HIMSELF HAS NOTICED THAT NET PROFIT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASST. YRS.1995-96 TO 1999-2000 VARIED FROM 0.57% TO 2.23% (VIDE C.L.T.(A) ORDER PA GE-7) AND THEREFORE NET PROFIT WITH REFERENCE TO SUCH SALES EVEN IF TAKEN AT THE AVERA GE RATE OF 1.5% ON THE SALES OF RS.75 93.981/- FOR THE TWO YEARS WILL WORK OUT TO R S.L 13 910/- ONLY AND NOT RS.3 03 760/- AS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THIS SUBMISSION IS BEING MADE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CONTENTION THAT THE SALES WHICH WERE FOUND RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND WERE VERIFIED BY THE A.O. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS COULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED SALES MERELY BECAUSE THE REGULAR BOOKS WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE SURVEY PARTY AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.3 03 760/- IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 5. GR. NO.2 - ADDITION OF RS.3 00 000/- PURPORTEDLY SU STAINED BY THE CIT(A) OUT ADDITION OF RS.6 1O 000/- : AN ADDITION OF RS.6 10 000/- WAS MADE BY THE A.O . AS ESTIMATED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONSTRUCTIO N OF SHOPS ON THE VEST LAND AT DARJEELING MORE. IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH A NOTI NG WAS FOUND ON A LOOSE PAPERS MARKED SK-4 PAGE-39 (P. B. PAGE-79) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID A SUM OF RS.7 02 250/- IN RESPECT OF THE LAND AND BRICKS ETC. OF THE VALUE OF RS.7 82 700/- AND THE BALANCE OF RS.80 450/- WAS DUE TO BE PAID. SINCE THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT WAS FROM DISCLOSED FUNDS THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF VOLUNTARISED TO EXPLAIN AT THE TIME OF RECO RDING HIS STATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ON 19.12.2000 THAT HE HAD INVESTED APPROX. S UM OF RS.7.00 000/- FOR 16 KATHAS OF LAND AT DARJEELING MORE SHIV NAGAR PURCHASED BY HI M IN ABOUT 1997 OR 1998. HE HAD ALSO STATED THAT HE HAD STARTED CONSTRUCTION OF SHO PS IN DECEMBER 1999 WHICH WAS STILL GOING ON AND HE HAD SPENT APPROX. RS.3.00 000/- UP TILL NOW VIDE REPLY TO QUESTION NO.9 - P. B. PAGE-94. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS THE ASSESSEE SHOWED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN LAND AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING AT DARJEELING MORE WAS SHOWN IN THE ACCOUNTS OF ESSKEY ENTERPRISES. IT WAS SHOWN THAT THE INVESTMENT ON 31.03.2000 WAS OF RS.6 00 000/- WHICH HAD INCREASED TO RS.9.90 000/- DURING F. Y. 2000-2001 VIDE BALANCE SHEETS OF ESSKEY ENTERPRISES AT P. B. PAGES-77 & 74 . SUCH ADDITION IS APPARENTLY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS RELATABLE TO THE SEARCH RATHER THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF STATED THAT HE HAS INVESTED RS.3 00 000/- APPROX IN CONSTRUCTION OF SHOPS AND THAT TOO WAS DISCLOSED IN THE ACCOUNTS. THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD BUT LEFT THE MATTER AT THAT WITHOUT GIVING A NY FINAL DECISION BY OBSERVING AT PAGE-9 AS UNDER : HOWEVER I ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. A/R THAT INCOME ITA NO. 04/KOL/20 07 8 CANNOT BE ESTIMATED BY THE A.0. WHILE COMPUTING UND ISCLOSED INCOME IN A BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER. SO I DIRECT TH E A.0. TO ACCEPT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.3.00 LAKH ONL Y IN PLACE OF RS.6.10 LAKH. SINCE THE CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS GOING ON AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IT IS OPENED TO THE A.O. TO MAKE FURTHER VERIFICATION IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT MADE OVER AND ABOVE RS.3.00 LAKH AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COURSE OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT COVERING THOSE YEARS. THOUGH THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES EXPLANAT ION THAT HE ACTUALLY SPENT RS.3 00 000/- APPROX. ON CONSTRUCTION HE DID NOT G IVE ANY CLEAR DIRECTION TO DELETE THE ADDITION. WHILE OBSERVING AS ABOVE THE LD. CIT(A) S HOULD HAVE GIVEN A CLEAR DIRECTION THAT THE AMOUNT SPENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3 00 000/ - APPROX. (ACTUALLY RS.2 90 000/- AS PER ACCOUNTS) AS VERIFIED BY THE A.O. STANDS DELETED. A CLEAR DIRECTION IS THEREFORE REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN IN THIS RESPECT. GR. NO.3 - ADDITION OF RS.7 82 700/- FOR PURCHASE O F VEST LAND AT DARJEELING MORE SILIGURI - THIS ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE A.O. WITH REFERENCE TO THE SEIZED PAPER MARKED SK-4 PAGE-39 (P.B.PAGE79) WHICH SHOWS PURCHASE OF S OME LAND AND EXPENDITURE THEREON FOR RS.7 82.700/- OUT OF WHICH RS.7 02 250/- ONLY H AD BEEN PAID AS STATED ABOVE AND RS.80 450/- WAS DUE. THAT THIS PAPER NEITHER CONTAI NED ANY DATE OR PARTICULARS OF THE LAND AND WAS NOT WRITTEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND WAS IN THE NATURE OF A DUMB PAPER AND HAD NO EVIDENCY ANY VALUE AS SUCH BUT IN THE COURSE OF TH E STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING SURVEY HE VOLUNTARISED TO STATE THAT HE HAD INVESTED A SUM OF RS.700 000/- APPROX. FOR PURCHASING A LAND OF 16 KATHAS AT DARJE ELING MORE. THE SAID SUM OF RS.7 00 000/- TALLIES WITH THE SLIP OF PAPER ALSO. BUT IN SPITE OF THIS THE A.O. ADDED THE TOTAL SUM OF RS.7 82 700/- FOR NO OSTENSIBLE REASON . IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS AND HAD ALSO SHOWN THAT THE SAID SUM OF RS.7.00 000/- PAID FOR THE LAND AS ALSO THE SUM OF RS.2.90 000/- SPENT ON CONSTRUCTION OF SHOPS THEREON WAS SHOWN IN THE ACCO UNTS OF ESSKEY ENTERPRISES FOR F. YS. 1999-2000 AND 2000-2001. IN THE FIRST BALANCE SHEET THE AMOUNT WAS RS.6 00.000/- WHICH INCREASED TO RS.9 90.000/- IN THE NEXT YEAR. THE SAID PAYMENT WAS VERIFIED BY THE A.O. ALSO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS M ETICULOUSLY AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO REASON OR JUSTIFICATION FOR HIM TO MAKE THE ADDI TION IN THIS MANNER. IN THE LETTER DTD. 24.12.2002 ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE A.O. ( VIDE PB. PAGE-49) THIS ISSUE WAS EXPLAINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS A LSO. THE EXPLANATION ON THIS POINT AT THE SAID PAGE IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. SK-4 P-39 THE LAND MEASURING 16-3 KATHA WAS PURCHASED @ 47 0 00/- P. KATH. IT IS VEST LAND OF GOVT. OF W. BENGAL. NO; PUCCA REGISTERED CONVEYANCE WAS MADE. THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE PERSON WHO WAS IN POSSESSION OF THIS LA ND ON GIVING POSSESSION THEREOF TO ME. EXCEPT SUM OF RS.80 450/- FULL PAYMENT WAS MADE TO HIM BEFORE 19/12/2000 RECORDED IN CASH BOOK OF ESSKEY ENT. AT RS.6 00 000 /- FOR 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 F.Y. AND AT RS.3 90 000/- IN THE BOOKS FOR 2000-01. THE ONE FIGURE INCLUDING COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THESE PAYMENTS WERE VERIFIED BY THE A.O. ALSO FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS.7 82 700/- WAS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. IN THIS CONNECTION REFERENCE IS ALSO INVITED TO THE FIRST WRITTEN ITA NO. 04/KOL/20 07 9 SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE P.B. PAG E-7 IN WHICH THE POSITION WAS EXPLAINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE CASH BOOK. IN SPITE OF THE FACT BEING IS AFORESAID THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER - I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD A/R R EGARDING THE RELIABILITY OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. I HAD ALREADY HELD THAT BOOKS PRODUCED BEFORE THE A. 0. WERE NOT RELIABLE AND CAN NOT BE TAKEN AS GENUINE. SIMILARLY IN CASE OF THE ACQUISITION OF LAND I DO NOT FOUND IT REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD . A.0. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY ADMITTED THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND WAS AP PROXIMATELY 7.00 LAKHS. THE ABOVE OBSERVATION CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION WITHOUT GIVING ANY PLAUSIBLE REASON THEREFORE MERELY ON THI S BASIS THAT THE A.O. HAD REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS NOT GENUINE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THE ADDITION IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED BOTH ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW. WHILE GIVING THE DECISION QUOTED ABOVE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO N OT GIVEN ANY DIRECTION IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.60 000/- SEPARATELY MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF THE AMOUNT NOTED OVERLEAF OF PAGE-37 OF SK-4 WHICH HE HAS QUOTED AT PAGE-10 OF HIS ORDER. IN FACT THERE IS NO LOCUS-STANDI FOR THE SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS.60 000/- AS IT FORMED PART OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE LA ST PARA OF HIS LETT ER DTD. 24.12.2002 VIDE P.B. PAGE 49. IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY THAT C LEAR FINDING IS GIVEN IN RESPECT OF THE SAID ADDITION. ON FACTS THE CONSIDERATION OF THE S AID EXPENDITURE OF RS.60 000/- SEPARATELY FROM THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.2 90 000/- A LREADY RECORDED IN BOOKS DOES NOT ARISE. IF RS.2.90 000/- IS FOUND EXPLAINED - THE QU ESTION OF MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.60 000/- CANNOT ARISE. GR. NO.4 - ADDITION OF RS.75 4301- IN RESPECT OF PE AK CREDIT IN THE ACCOUNT WITH CENTURIAN BANK : - THE PEAK CREDIT OF. RS.75 430/- WAS EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT TO INCLUDE THE SUM OF RS.71 000/- RECEIVED ON SALE OF ONE SHOP WHICH IS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY THE A. O. FROM THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF THE APPELLANT VIDE P.B. PAGE-78. THE SOURCE OF THE SAID SUM OF RS.71 000/- IS ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. HIMSELF THEREFORE IN ANY CASE THE ADDITIO N OF RS.75 430/- WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. GR. NO.5 - ADDITION OF RS.10 001/- : - THIS IS ON THE BASIS OF A SEIZED PAPER MARKED S K-4 PAGE-25 A COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED. THIS IS A REC EIPT ISSUED BY ONE UJJANU SANGH FOR DONATION. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT IS A NORMA L PRACTICE THAT THIS CHANDA COLLECTORS THROUGH RECEIPT BY SAYING THAT THEY WILL COME LATER FOR COLLECTING THE DONATION. THE ASSESSEE SAID CHANDA WAS ACTUALLY NOT PAID; THEREFO RE THE ADDITION IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. GR. NO.6 : - THIS GROUND IS AGAINST NOT ACCEPTING THE CASH BOOK AND LEDGER PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. SIMPLY FOR THE REASON THAT THEY WER E NOT FOUND / PRODUCED BEFORE THE SURVEY PARTY. THE REASON FOR NOT PRODUCING WAS EXPL AINED ON THE SPOT ITSELF BY A STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BUT STILL THE SURVEY PARTY DID NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO LOOK INTO THOSE PAPERS. NON-PRODUCTION OF THE BOOKS AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY CANNOT BE A GROUND BY ITSELF FOR NOT ACCEPTING THEM AT GENUINE IF THE ENT RIES THEREIN ARE OTHERWISE VERIFIABLE AND EXPLAINED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT CASH BOOK AND OTHER VOUCHERS ARE PRE-PAID WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVID ENCE BASED ON THE SURVEY AND SEARCH ITA NO. 04/KOL/20 07 10 CONDUCTED IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THEREFORE HE REQUESTED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CAREF UL PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ORD ER SHEET COPIES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REMAND REPORT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSMENT O RDER AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER IT IS OBSERVED THAT SEARCH U/S. 132 AT ASSESSEES RESIDEN CE AT BIDHAN ROAD SILIGURI ON 19.12.2000 AND SURVEY U/S. 133A AT THE TWO SHOPS (I) QUALITY HARDW ARE STORES AND (II) ESSKEY ENTERPRISES ON THE SAME DAY. NO CASH OR ASSETS SEIZED. SOME LOOSE PAPERS WERE SEIZED AT RESIDENCE AND SOME ACCOUNT BOOKS AND LOOSE PAPERS WERE INVENTORISED AT THE SHOPS BUT NOT IMPOUNDED. THE DOCUMENTS INVENTORISED DURING SURVEY U/S. 133A AT T HE SHOPS WERE IMPOUNDED IN THE COURSE OF HEARING ON 20.09.2002. THE REGULAR CASH BOOK AND LE DGER OF QUALITY HARDWARE STORES & ESSKEY ENTERPRISES WERE ALSO IMPOUNDED ON 11.12.2002 IN TH E COURSE OF HEARING BUT WERE LATER RELEASED ON 20.12.2002. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSE E IS REGULARLY FILING RETURN OF INCOME UPTO 1999- 2000 I.E. FOR 1997-98 ON 15.03.99 1999-2000 ON 09. 03.2000 1999-2000 ON 30.03.2000 AND 2001-02 ON 11.12.2002. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED A NY RETURNS FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS. AFTER THE SEARCH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED BLOCK RETURNS FOR 199 1-1992 TO 2000-2002 ON 18.06.2002 AND THE RETURN FOR 2001-02 ON 11.12.2002 WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 NO RETURN HAS BEEN FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.1999 THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT SHOWN BY THE ASS ESSEE AS ON 3.03.1999 IS RS.99 890/- WHEREAS THE OPENING BALANCE IN THE CURRENT ACCOUNT AS ON 31 .03.2003 RS.1 01 224/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE INVESTMENT IN LAND AND BUILDING FOR THE Y EAR ENDING 31.03.2001. IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 11.12.2002 I.E. SUBSEQUENT TO THE BLOCK RETURN. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF COMPUTERIZED CASH BOOK FILED IT IS EVID ENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MANAGED TO INCORPORATE ALL THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE COMPUTERIZE D CASH BOOK WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE RIGHT IN REJECTING THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND OTHER LEDGER ACCOUNTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES. SINCE IN OUR VIEW THESE AR E PREPARED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE OR DERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE INFERRED WITH. HENCE WE CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON A CCOUNT OF GROSS PROFIT INVESTMENT IN LAND ITA NO. 04/KOL/20 07 11 INVESTMENT IN BUILDING TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3.00 LAK HS AND UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. REGARDING CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS ALREADY SHOW N RS.71 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF ONE SHOP TO CENTURIAN BANK. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.6 10 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN BUILDING WHEREAS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.3 00 000/- ONLY HENCE THERE IS NO DOUBLE ADDITION OF RS.70 000/-. THEREFORE ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK CREDIT O F THE CENTURIAN BANK ALSO WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 02. 02. 2011. SD/- SD/- [ D. K. TYAGI ] [ C. D. RAO ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER DATED : 2ND FEBRUARY 2011. COPY FORWARDED TO THE - 1. SEKHAR KUNDU KUNDU BHAWAN BIDHAN ROAD SILIG URI DARJEELING. 2. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3 SILI GURI. 3. CIT(A)- (4) CIT- 5. D.R. I.T.A.T. KOLKATA. [TRUE COPY] BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (KKC) I .T.A.T. KOLKATA.